5 comments about General Washington's Christmas Farewell: A Mount Vernon Homecoming, 1783.

1. The author does a good job of detailing why George Washington was a great man. Rather than become a King or dictator after the War of Independence, he returned his commission to the Congress and returned to Mount Vernon. This was after eight years of separation from his home. His only desire was to depart from the public stage and resume his private life. This was unlike most people who would have clung to power. Washington wanted to become a private citizen again. This book details his change from a military general to a private citizen.
   Washington takes control of New York from the departing British,
   says farewell to his soldiers and other officers, returns the commission to the Congress in Annapolis, and gets home in time for a Mount Vernon Christmas Eve. This brief period says alot what Washington was and why people wanted him to be their leader.
   Weintraub does a good summary job of describing this two week episode in the life of the first American President. By his example, the military would always be controlled by the civilian government. The importance of Washington is shown in this short story and good read.



2. This is a wonderful retelling of George Washington's return to Mount Vernon at the end of the Revolution. It humanizes Washington like few books ever have. Mr. Wintraub even manages to build up suspense as you wonder whether ex-General Washington makes it home in time for Christmas.
   
   This is the second Christmas-themed history by Mr. Weintraub, the other being SILENT NIGHT, about the informal truce in 1914. Each time, Mr. Weintraub brings out the significance of seemingly minor events. It is truly masterful.



3. The author makes a few sidetrips to explore a little background and history that bring the times alive. He explores how Washington was the heart and soul of the American cause as his farewell tour home from the war - from West Point in New York to Mt. Vernon - provided a foundation for unity, dignity and sense of common purpose for a new nation to be.
   
   It's a slice of history that tells much more than the title implies, and it shows a very human side of a man who continues to surprise us with how worthy a model he is to follow. It's poignant without being maudlin, and is a history that appeals to both mind and heart. Highly recommended.



4. The year 1776 tends to be lodged in the minds of those who have studied American history. But does anyone remember what happened in 1783? With relation to the revolutionary war, GENERAL WASHINGTON'S CHRISTMAS FAREWELL chronicles George Washington's concluding tenure as one of the most distinguishable military leader, which covers the last few months of 1783. Historian Stanley Weintraub paints a picture of America's first president as a compassionate and unselfish man who wholeheartedly was concerned about preserving life and liberty for his country and the people he led; he bridges the gap between Washington as the larger than life founding father to the Virginia farmer who longed to return home.
   
   The book begins with Weintraub's story about his visit to his grandsons' first grade class at Thomas Jefferson School where he was surprised to hear how much these young and inquisitive minds knew about the American Revolution and its key figures. But the most fascinating aspect about this story is that the Washington family's Christmas was not documented, but with the culmination of sources that derived from Washington's letters and addresses and a series of publications, Weintraub weaves a unique narrative that reflects upon the hardships of 1776, but the success thereafter with the ratification of the Peace Treaty of Paris. The last two chapters are quite moving because Washington's farewell address, which was written by Thomas Jefferson, is included within the passages, and provides accounts from Thomas Mifflin and James McHenry who had attended the ceremony; the scene was emotional, and depicted a man approaching the twilight of his life.
   
   GENERAL WASHINGTON'S CHRISTMAS FAREWELL does not revel with new material about George Washington. However, Weintraub acknowledges a moment in history that commemorates the end of a monumental career of one of history's unforgettable leaders, and shows how he was influential and instrumental with regard to the founding and birth of the United States of America. Indeed, this is another piece of history worth reading.



5. George Washington's public career was long and one of the most important in history. However, his decision to resign his commission and return to private live in 1783 (although it proved to be a temporary return) is one of the most important events in both the founder's life and in that of America. Comparisons with the Roman Cincinnatus in this matter are appropriate. But must a reader be reminded endlessly of the similarities?
   
   Weintraub documents in this work Washington's last journey home as the leader of the American army and what he hoped would be the last in his public life. It was a hard and grinding trip for as most of us know, roads and weather were not easy to get through in December in the northeast. In voluntarily giving up his commission, Washington guaranteed his premiere place in our history. But by making such a public display of his resignation, he also proved how conscious he was of that place and how later generations would view his career and character.
   
   Weintraub gives the reader none of those contradictions. He takes one of the greatest events and turns it into one of the dullest stories ever told. And in the end, he gives us none of what went on once Washington reached home. What was that Christmas like? What happened at Mount Vernon in the days following his return? In this telling, there is only a timeline of events, quotes from speeches, and a very dull listing of dates, facts, and names. (In keeping with the major complaints of how American history is taught in schools.)
   
   One can only wish that this book was interesting and search for other accounts that document feelings, struggles, and sacrifices that make this story human and important.

5 comments about The Women In Lincoln's Life.

1. The author shows a limited understanding of Lincoln. He failed to research his subject. The author is misguided and misinformed. This book is an insult to Lincoln scholars.



2. I was quite thrilled when I saw this book in the bookstore. I have read numerous books on Abraham Lincoln, however, this was a perspective about his life I had not read much about. Words cannot describe how much I enjoyed reading this book. It was very well-written and engaging; enough so that it only took me two days to read it. I was captivated. Yes, at times the book seemed prejudicial against Lincoln's wife and biased in favour of Ann Rutledge, however his point of view was very interesting to note. I highly recommend this book to anyone willing to get a firm grasp on all aspects of Lincoln's life. It was just incredible!!!



3. It seems to me that a few reviews of this book have been extremely unfair, especially those by Mr. Emerson and someone who calls himself "kdpsyd." Mr. Winkler is an accomplished scholar and award-winning author who has written the first full-length book on this intriguing subject. I purchased the book after reading reviews from authoritative sources, and have found it to be extremely informative and fascinating. As "Civil War Times" noted, this book is "important and highly provocative and readable." "Civil War News" called it intriguing and engrossing and "quite thought-provoking. . . with careful notes and an impressive bibliography." "Today's Books," an independent report to the news media on the book-publishing industry rated this book "a best read." Such recognition is given only to "the top ten percent of new books published and distributed in America each year."

   Building upon the latest published Lincoln scholarship, Mr. Winkler has developed startling new insights and added fresh information about Lincoln's New Salem years, including the most complete story in existence of Ann Rutledge's life and the
   Lincoln-Rutledge romance.

   The book is obviously based on solid research and should be read by anyone interested in what previously has been a puzzling aspect of Lincoln's life.




4. I was very disappointed in this book. I had hoped to learn more about the women in Lincoln's life, but as it turns out, the author is related to Ann Rutledge (supposedly the love of Lincoln's life), and the author spends way too much time telling us how wonderful she was. He keeps bringing her name up in other contexts ("If Ann had been alive..." and so forth), and you'd almost expect that he would suggest that she be cannonized as a saint. It gets rather tedious, to say the least.
   
   Consequently, many other women that he met (such as Sojourner Truth) get mere mention or a few paragraphs, and of course, Mary Todd Lincoln is portrayed as an absolute nutcase.
   
   It's a shame--this could have been a great book.



5. This was absolutely the most ridiculous book I've read regarding Lincoln. Jason Emerson's review listed below says it all. Winkler should have written a book about his ancestor, and not bothered those of us who are not interested in reading about her.

5 comments about Twilight in the Forbidden City.

1. Mr. Johnson's work romanticizes the truth behind the opulence that existed within the Forbidden City. The vislual feast presented in the book differed much from what was provided in the film, but, both touched upon the essence of what the author suggested; there was granduer, there was, glitter, and, there was truth in what the author saw. The traumatic changes in the social order of the day happened over years, not minutes. The book did little to present what was happening outside of the palace walls, and the film did even less. The film did focus on the attrocities being committed upon the Chinese people by the invading Japanese during the war, but, it did not touch upon those committed by the foreign influences, and, the ruling class itself. Maybe it was a good thing that this truth was not presented in the film, because,the film would then have to be called, "The Saga of the Twilight in the Forbidden City." Sometimes its better if you just read and understand the book in, and, of itself, then attempt to understand the historical truth being presented by any ONE the book. Go figure!



2. Johnston's book is a fascinating study of the end of imperialism in China, but also, as an object of study itself, of the agencies of colonialism. I recommend the book on that basis as much as on the value of Johnston's firsthand account of the last days of the Manchu emperors. "Enjoy with..." as the foodies say, James Morris' lively "Pax Brittanica" trilogy, for example, or letters/memoirs of Gertrude Bell and TE Lawrence. To my mind all of these give a fascinating insight into the good-hearted, brilliant-minded but often disastrously wrong-headed players in colonialism. It's clear in Johnston's book that he went into his job as imperial tutor with an agenda: within days of starting he's outlined a plan to radically disrupt the status quo. All with best intentions, true integrity, and a thorough knowledge of the country and culture. There's a lot for us to learn here.

   FWIW, I consider myself a history "dabbler" and these books keep my limited attention,intellect and curiosity fully engaged, so don't be put off by worrying that they're too like the classes we all slept through...




3. Tis is a book written by the tutor of Pu Yi, last emperor of the Manchu dynasty in China. It contains a wealth of information concerning life in the forbidden city in the last years of the dynasty. The movie, 'the Last Emperor,"shows Johnston as Pu Yi's tutor and is also excellent in its portrayal of events in the early years of the 20th century as seen from the forbidden city.The child emperor's first question of Johnston illustrates the cultural gap between them: "Where are your ancestors buried?" and the response -- "In Scotland, your majesty."



4. I was very happy to have this book as this edition has all the original photograph's and a previously unpublished bonus chapter (written by Johnston under a pen name) about his meeting with the 13th Dalai Lama.
   
   The Dalai Lama and the Empress Dowager both held the title of Living Buddha and were to be in Peking on the same day... a difficult issue for the court to resolve... this extra chapter explains how the situation resolved itself!.
   
   Johnston provides a good deal of anecdotal material for the last days of the Ch'ing (Qing Dynasty) court before the 1911 Revolution. He knew many of the active players in those events, and of historical significance are his observations on the Ch'ing court's political structure, and in particular the Nei Wu Fu or Imperial Household Department. Johnston had little use for the Empress T'zu-hsi (Empress Dowager Cixi) and many other principal players in these events.
   
   Twilight in the Forbidden City is very much a history of an entire period and not an exclusive portrait of the last Emperor of China. The latter impression is perhaps a result of the film The Last Emperor having been based on the book.
   
   In the fourth impression, published in December 1934 by Victor Gollancz Ltd., additional information such as the fully spread fan was developed and some important parts of the history, such as confinement of Ts'ao K'un (Cao Kun) and K'ang You-wei's (Kang Youwei) refuge country, were reviewed for modification with "preface to the fourth impression"
   
   In the 4th edition, Johnston also reveals the name of a key character in the story.
   
   A must read for understanding the goings in in the last days of the Manchu empire and for anyone planning to visit China.



5. Love this book, since being young I have borrowed this book from interlibrary loans, now I have my own copy. Pictures and diagrams are not bad from the copied original. Maybe one day I can own a 1st printing, but for now I am glad to have a copy on my own book shelve.

No comments about Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Biography (Greenwood Biographies).

5 comments about Jack and Lem: John F. Kennedy and Lem Billings: The Untold Story of an Extraordinary Friendship.

1. David Pitts offers a view of John F. Kennedy which is seldom found in the multitude of other books on JFK. The author had access to new material especially from the Billings material at the JFK library. However, considering all the assistance he acknowledges I can only wonder how a reference to the King of England in the late 1930s would be to "George V". Still, a book worthy of being read for its insight into aspects of JFK often overlooked.



2. David Pitts gives readers a big hint about what to expect in his introduction to this story of JFK and his lifelong best friend Lemoyne Billings: Pitts wanted to write a book about JFK but realized that it would be hard to stand out in that overcrowded field. Then he learned about Lem Billings and thought that the "untold story" of America's randiest president and his gay best friend would be the ticket.
   
   Yes, I'm a little cynical after reading this book. It is remarkable that from the 1930s on someone like JFK (Catholic, image-conscious, arguably a bit too interested in sleeping with every attractive woman he met) could sustain and value a friendship with a gay man. I didn't assume that JFK would have thrown over anyone who could potentially be a liability or who just wouldn't help him get what he wanted, but the depth of the friendship does present JFK in an interesting light.
   
   It's not an exactly untold story. I've read one other book about the Kennedys and Lemoyne Billings was a major source and character in that book. He wasn't exactly outed in it but it didn't take much reading between the lines to understand that he was gay. Pitts does offer new details about the start of the friendship but his focus is on JFK all the way.
   
   Which was quite frustrating for me. Sure, JFK was a congressman, a senator and then president and that's interesting stuff but could Pitts have spared more than a single paragraph about Billings' job? He had one. He was in advertising for decades but he might as well spent the entire time delivering newspapers for all the attention Pitts gives his job. Nor do we get a sense of Billings' romantic life. Was he in a relationship at any time? Or was he required to be the house eunuch to keep his room at the White House?
   
   Worst, when JFK is assassinated we don't get the story from Lem's perspective we get it pretty much as any American alive at the time would have found out, from television reports. His best friend is murdered and Pitts gives us nothing to understand what it meant to Lem. We just read that the next few years were tough for him. Maybe he lost himself in his work and Pitts didn't want to bore us with the details.
   
   Suddenly it's 1970 and don'tcha know, things have changed for gay men. Will wonders never cease! A whole chapter on how things have changed. Except Lem wasn't exactly throwing the first rock at Stone Wall so ... what did it mean for him? Did he come out to his colleagues at work? Did he move in with the love of his life? Did he wear louder ties? You won't find out here.
   
   Nor will you find out the details of Lem's descent into drug and alcohol addiction. Was Lem already an alcoholic before he started spending significant amounts of time with the younger generation of Kennedys? Did he lead tragic David Kennedy astray in a misguided attempt to recreate his lost friendship with JFK? Did they lead him astray? Was it more complicated than that? Pitts just mentions the "problem" in one line and that's it.
   
   In short, you won't find out much about Lem Billings. This is not a joint biography and that's a shame, in my opinion. There was a real opportunity here to contrast the lives of these two different yet similar men but Pitts gives Billings short shrift every time. If you want to learn a bit more about Lem Billings, read The Kennedys by Peter Collier. It's the book that inspired me to read this one. It's not exactly a sympathetic portrait of Billings but it's far more indepth.



3. This might have been an interesting magazine article. There was certainly not enough material to fill 250 pages. The author repeats himself constantly and pads sentences with redundancies and facts that he has already established in previous pages.
   
   As for Lem Billings, it's too bad he didn't have a life of his own.
   
   An interesting if not a compelling read.



4. I enjoyed reading Jack and Lem.
   
   Due to my age, I don't have first hand remembrances of Jack Kennedy - his life or presidency. I was a good student so I do have a learned historical perspective. Also, I am politically aware and involved so Teddy is a presence and Jackie was too.
   
   While I was familiar with many of the events of Jack's life through other reading, David Pitts made these seem new (I guess seeing them through different eyes - Lem's) and helped keep my interest. I thought Lem was presented as a compelling character. His devotion to Jack was very moving and important to reveal. I don't think the friendship could have continued for 30 years if Jack hadn't had a similar regard for Lem. I think the theory was proved that Jack had great character in keeping Lem as a friend. And Lem had every right to make that claim too.
   
   I know there have been questions about a biography of a behind the scenes individual. Since we cannot all be the great one, the one on whom the spotlight shines, I find it helpful to know who is (was) in the background. David Pitts performed a valuable service researching this book - the letters between Jack and Lem reflect on Jack as much as Lem.
   
   Obviously, not every fact or event can be included in any one work. While there seems to be a long-standing rapport between Lem and Rose Kennedy, the limited references to her (absent during Jack's illness while he was a Choate and not attending Kathleen's (Kick's) funeral) make me wonder whether Lem liked her.
   
   There appears to be an error on page 116. The photo credit is 1945, but the pages that precede the photo indicate that Lem went to the South Pacific in 1944 and while the war ended in 1945, it wouldn't be until 1946 that Lem was able to return home. He could not have been in Palm Beach in 1945.
   
   There are a few instances of David Pitts using his authorship to editorialize. These appear in parenthesis. As a resident of D.C., I agree with one of these (the District of Columbia is without full representation). Another is a reference to Tony Blair, (as the current prime minister). These parenthetical statements are temporal so if we - when we - get representation and a different person holds elected office they will date the book. Instead of editorializing, it would have been reasonable to stick to the facts only.
   
   Jack and Lem included some very touching recollections of these two men's lives, separate and together, and made me think about and better understand life in another time. I found "The Sea Change (1933 vs 1973)," the penultimate chapter, very interesting. I have sometimes wondered how much earlier I would needed to have been born to not feel comfortable today as a gay man. Most of my adult life I have been out to my family, co-workers, and neighbors. I'm also not confusing comfort with safety. I'm not naïve. Far too frequently there are press reports of hate and violence against not just gay people (the nooses of late are appalling). But not from the people I am fortunate to be surrounded in my world. I owe much to people in the generations before my own who "fought" for acceptance that I now enjoy. Again, my age limits my first-hand knowledge of events of 1969 and before. I'm grateful for the placement of this concise chapter that provides context to Lem's life and times.



5. I have read literally dozens of Kennedy biographies and Lem Billings is always a shadowy character. Whether it's a book about JFK, or RFK, or Jackie or even Christopher Lawford, Lem is mentioned often but never in depth. After a while, one begins to wonder, "who was that guy?" This book answers the question. It's an affectionate and detailed portrait. His relationship with President Kennedy was a close one, emotionally intimate, and it lasted 30 years. His relationship with the Kennedy Clan spanned generations and lasted until his death. Pitts, an author who puts a gay perspective on this story, maintains that JFK was the unrequited love of Lem's life. Just because Lem was gay, I can't make that assumption. I wonder if he could have virtually lived with JFK and Jackie if he was romantically in love with Kennedy. I think another spin is just as moving and just as powerful, they were each other's best friends and loved one another that way. It was hard on the Billings family because over the years, Lem became more Kennedy than Billings. It was daring and brave of Kennedy to remain loyal and unapologetic of his gay friend in the less tolerate 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s. And it was extraordinary for the very Catholic Kennedy women to accept Lem as completely as they did, knowing he was homosexual. The book ends with Eunice Shriver's eulogy of Lem, "Heaven is Jesus and Lem and Jack and Bobby loving one another." What a moving, and inclusive, tribute that was.

5 comments about Ask Not: The Inauguration of John F. Kennedy and the Speech That Changed America.

1. This is a short, interesting, and satisfying read. It follows closely, and as factually as is possible, the development of this historic speech. I think it does a good job of finding and exploring the influences and authorship of the speech as well as the editing and construction of the speech - its amazing to see how much each word and phrase is considered, changed and laboured over.
   
   Something which adds weight to the book, is the authors ability to depict the feeling and temper of the time. Kennedy obviously brought some new hope to America and was also just a very popular, charismatic figure. There are some good, revealing anecdotes which i have not come across in reading other kennedy books. The book goes into quite a bit of detail about a very short period of time which gives also a closer insight into their day to day lives and habits.
   
   For mine, Kennedy comes across as an intelligent and sincere man. His ideals are admirable and i think he was the real author of this important speech. I'm not so interested in the complete and utter originality of Kennedy's ideas, what is more important is that he selected, developed and articulated them in a way that spoke directly to the world and will leave an indefinite mark.
   
   Overall, a beaut little book, i really enjoyed it.



2. If you are looking for a book which will use primary documents to discover if JFK did a large amount of the writing of his inauguration speech, then Clarke has written your wish. Well researched with excellent use of primary documents, Clarke asserts that JFK was indeed the author of his own speech.
   
   
   However, Clarke's arguement is hurt on two fronts.
   
   The first is that he is an obvious Kennedy worshiper. Though I agree that no historian is able to completely remove bias, Clarke's praise and defense of Kennedy in all aspects of life begin to wear thin on the reader. By the end of the book, one wonders if Clarke wrote the book not so much to discover who wrote the famous line "ask not." but rather to praise his role model.
   
   The second is Clarke spends way too much time on other issues. From the writing of FDR's inauguration to JFK's relationship with Jackie, Clarke covers subjects that are not dealt with in depth due their importance or with any real link to the writing of ingaugural.
   
   For those wanting to see excellent research on the speech, they do get a good book. However, they have to muddle through alot of unexplained Camalot praise.



3. and if this is how he writes for Vanity FAir, whoa, who's their copyeditor?
   
   We do not do well to speak ill of the dead.
   
   I bought this in greeat hopes it would be a scholarly historico-literal textual analysis. Instead I soon got stuck in a thick swamp of unsupported, unchecked tabloid gossip and sniping, laden with cliche catch phrases like "white noise (both the ocean and jets)" and how JFK's fear of solitude and horror of boredom later combines to be a supposed horror of solitude . . .
   
   THe writing is very poor, the research is worse, and unverified from at least wto independent sources, and the hypothesis he alleges to hold, that Ted Sorenson did not write the Inaugural Address, he goes on to disprove.
   
   Yet TEd in actuality served no more function than a Harvard Grad research assitant, taking notes from JFK for themes and structure and format, receiving from JFK catchphrases and syntax and semantics, checking sources, forming rough outlines that were later rejected or at best adapted, etc. JFK wrote and spoke, and IMPROVISED his Inaugural Address, listed as one of the all-time greaets American speeches. And Yet the GREATEST SPEECH never given in all of American HIstory is JFK's Second Inaugural, which would have saved our nation from the disaster we all now live.
   
   Unfortunately the author of this work wallows in miserable petty interpersonal details and allegations of personal habits of the president which cannot be verified. He faintly dismisses some allegations in such as way as to present them as fact, in fact.
   
   THe most valuable part of this book is presented in italicized Roman Numerals, the actual address, which takes all of three pages, and then the ending where Boy GEorge Bush plagiarizes and destroys the JFK Inaugural Address. But the edition of the Address presented here varies greatly from that which I closely studied a quarter century ago. This one reads like the REader's Digest version. If it does sound "bellicose" remember it was written in a time in which Senator Joe MacARthy still cast a chilling pall over our nation, in which commie and pinko baiting was rampant, in which one had to act all out anti-commie in order to do anything. In fact in the context of the times, thius speech is a real and orignal and a unique call for negotiation and understanding and common ground and to peace.
   
   THe middle is just puff and airy filling you can get from Kitty Kelly (who is actually better substantiated and researched) or any tabloid or late night talk show host any day of the week as the character assassination of this greatest American family continues under our present imposed unelected regime.
   
   Once we were Kings, the once and future Kings, of a free and a just and a peaceful, contented world.
   
   And where did they get that absolutely bad cover photo, the worst they could have gotten, that gives no true image of the man?
   
   
   For a more scholarly approach to this address get Sounding the Trumpet instead. A great DVD is included.



4. This was one of the best books i have read about J.F.K. and was taken back in to the 60's and as if i was there.So uplifting.



5. An enjoyable book on one of the most famous political speeches ever. It provides good insight into the development of "Ask Not," but there is an over-arching bias running through the book.
   
   The reader gets the distinct impression that Clarke has decided that Kennedy is THE author of this famous speech and then crafts the evidence to support that theory. Given JFK's symbiotic relationship with special counselor Ted Sorensen, it is just not credible to believe that the tall man from Nebraska did not make the same type of contribution to this speech as he did to the rest of the Kennedy material.
   
   Clarke has an annoying habit of assuming what people may have been thinking about some topic, e.g. Historian Michael Beschloss "presumably relied on Schlesinger" as a source for an anecdote or "White House aide Arthur Schlesinger may have been thinking of (James) Meridith when he concluded ... A Thousand Days, by saying that "the energies Kennedy released, the purpose he inspired, the goals he established would guide the land he loved for years to come." That, like much of his suppositions is quite a jump.
   
   To be fair to Clarke, he does make an excellent effort to present the chronology of the speech development as he sees it. However, in presenting his thesis that Kennedy created the speech almost on his own, he suggests that people like Sorensen, private secretary Evelyn Lincoln and others misremember many of the relevant events. He gets totally hung up on "proving" that it was Kennedy who came up with the "Ask Not" phrase writing "We can assume ..... that Kennedy would have come across" similar historical references or "He must also have been familiar with" a similar exhortation from his prep school headmaster, a suggestion which Sorensen debunks in his 2008 book Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History
   
   
   
   Give Clarke credit. A significant amount of research went into this book, but to this reviewer at least he fails to prove his key thesis. He also is not afraid to mention - shall we say, Kennedy's foibles and human weaknesses. I actually reference somewhat humorously (I hope) the brand image that JKF had back in my homeland Ireland when I was growing up in Why Ireland Never Invaded America At the end of the day, it hardly matters who contributed what. The thoughts and philosophy WERE Kennedy. It was a speech that lifted a nation that needed lifting and kudos to everyone involved in its development.

No comments about An Anthology of Seventeenth-Century Fiction (Oxford World's Classics).

5 comments about A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush.

1. Who would Jesus bomb? Who shall we bomb next in the name of Jesus?



2. in the right of the rich to get richer, while the poor get poorer and the middle class treads water. Re his targeted tax cuts: 53 per cent to the wealthiest 2 percent.
   
   in the importance of corporate welfare. Heavy tax subsidies for the energy industry and no bulk purchasing of meds for the elderly. Bulk purchasing would decrease the cost for the elderly, but drive down profits for big pharma.
   
   in the exemption of himself from the commandment not to bear false witness. Every time Bush calls the war in Iraq part of the war against terror he lies. Even he has admitted there were no connections between Saddam and 9/11.
   
   Bush's stance on conservation (relaxed controls of air and water pollution) is also at odds with the biblical teaching that God has made us stewards of the earth.
   
   Measured against the teachings of Jesus, Bush's faith amounts to empty words for photo ops. One can cry, "Lord, lord" and not please the Lord. Jesus had a word for those whose deeds are empty of the faith they profess: hypocrites.
   
   Useful corrections to the errors in this book are to be found in Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy and Bruce Bartlett, Impostor. Even better correctives are to found in the gospels: Bush approves of torture, capital punishment, and the amassing of wealth. All things that Jesus despised.



3. A man of faith with the faith unspecified.
   
   Back in the 1800's when his folks were in politics, they firmly believed the wrong side won the AMerican REvolution.
   
   This book, written by a subject of the British throne reveals why Bush once again places us as peons and mercenaries for the british imperial crown.
   
   Back in the 1800's the bush family joined Cotton MAther of Yale in burning landowners as witches in order to steal their profitable farms.
   
   
   Now he demonizes the IRaqi nation and kills an estimated million of them to steal their oil fields
   
   Nothing new under the sun. Only do not call it faith
   
   FAith in the gun, maybe.
   
   Saint JAmes writes even the devil believes in God and shudders in fear.
   Faith without good works is nothing.
   By their fruits will you know them.
   Bush's fruits stink to high heaven.
   
   For a faith with good works read a theologian like the REverend Father John Dear's Jesus the rebel, and learn why every Christian faithful and true must firmly oppose George W Bush.
   
   
   By the way, this piece of partisan politicizing which helped steal our 2004 elections by deceiving countless well-intended but eagerly gullible people is now going for fourteen cents.



4. I guess I am the only one that has actually read this book and the Bible. An unnecessary war? Maybe these people have been hiding under a rock. Or maybe they are just liberals that love to act like they have faith until they open their mouths and it becomes obvious they have no idea what they are talking about. Anyway, if you are a "true" Christian that actually reads and understands your Bible, you will enjoy this book. Thank God for President Bush. A great man of convictions, values, and morals. The rest of you - well you are cowardly traitors.



5. How many people are now dead because of the stubbern recklessness of this pompous man?
   It makes me sick to the stomach to see him refered to as "spiritual". In this particular case his ACTIONS have spoken, loudly, to the kind of person he truly is. Just because we've been fed lies over and over again does not mean that they've become truth.

5 comments about Jack and Jackie: Portrait of an American Marriage.

1. As someone who was born in 1977, all that I know of the "Camelot" era has come to me second and thirdhand. This book was great at setting to rest some of the myths surrounding this famous couple and also presented some information I hadn't seen anywhere else about their private lives in the White House. I discovered many things about Jackie's life growing up that I did not know previously, and how those events factored into her decision to marry JFK.

   Sometimes the author's narrative style can be jarring ("'And what would be wrong with,' she asked coyly, 'that?'") but I do not find the dialogues related to be unrealistic. It was rather like reading a transcript of an extra-long episode of A & E's "Biography" television show. The book is an engaging account of a typical high-society marriage with a tragic "what might have been in this marriage" twist resulting from Mr. Kennedy's assasination so soon after the death of their baby brought the two much closer together.




2. A fabulous account of the childhoods and marriage of Jack and Jackie Kennedy. Fantastic pictures of the famous couple. A Wonderful read!!!! FOR QUESTIONS OR DICUSSIONS ON JACKIE ONASSIS, PLEASE E-MAIL ME AT MellissaLD@aol.com. HPOE TO HEAR FROM YOU!!!!!!!!!!



3. This book brought to light so many things that I never really knew. Concerning, love, drugs, children and affairs. It was a great book, but I found the last 20 pages or so to be the most captivating. This book left me with a sad feeling, because the Kennedy's were finally beginning to truly love each other when JFK was shot. This just goes to show that life isn't always fair. This was a great book that I would recommend for anyone to read.



4. A fast read. Many details and secrets that probably would not have been published if either of them were alive.



5. This is a little light and PEOPLE magazine-y in parts. But every now and then the author slips the needle in and lets you know he knows more than he's letting on. The catty remarks by Gore Vidal spice things up. I particularly liked the account of Kennedy's personal physician, Dr. Max Jacobson -- the legendary "Dr. Feelgood." Four times a week, right up until the assassination, the Doc was shooting Kennedy up with a special concoction; 25% vitamins and 75% pure dexedrine. Isn't it nice to know we had a speed-freak tweaker in the White House with his twitching fingers on The Button? (Funny how they didn't teach me these stuff in 6th grade History class.) Beneath Jack Kennedy's "vigorous, youthful" facade was a sickly man. And the same can be said for the whole shiney, air-brushed "Kennedy myth" and the rot just underneath the surface. They don't call it "the Kennedy curse" for nothing. Truly, the Kennedys are one of the sickest families to ever inflict themselves on the American body.

No comments about Bismarck: The Iron Chancellor (Life&Times).