4 comments about George Washington: A Biography.

1. This edition of Washington Irving's biography of George Washington has been substantially reduced in size via editing from the original editions, published in the 1850's. Irving was one of, if not the first American author to receive literary acclaim in the salons of Europe. This book was Irving's life's dream. The book details Washington's life, military career, and political thoughts in a very deferential way, as the author appears to have remained in awe of the "Great Man" who had patted him on the head when he was but a child. Irving seems incapable of finding any fault with Washington, and his conclusions on that score probably do not fully reflect later historical thinking. The book does suffer from a lack of maps, as the stories of the military campaigns of the Revolutionary War are recounted in great detail. In addition, having been written almost 150 years ago, there is a substantial amount of archaic word usage that could give your dictionary a workout, if you are so inclined. In addition, the book treats the latter stages of Washington's life thinly, due largely, I believe, to Irving's declining health as the last editions of his multi-edition biography was being written. Thus, if your focus is on Washington's Presidential years, look elsewhere. Otherwise, one could hardly choose a better biography of Washington; it is probably the oldest biography of Washington that is easily accessible to the average reader today. Overall, the book was very enjoyable to read.



2. The life of Washington should be required reading for everyone. The amount of difficulty he faced throughout his life is unimaginable to modern man. Washington had a life of privilege which is the main reason he was placed in a position of responsibility so early in life. However, in all of his campaigns he was dealing with shortages, sicknesses and other difficulties that make our own seem not so difficult.
   Reading this work will provide the reader with an understanding how lucky America was to have a man of such temperament at her founding. Washington was a man of great intellect. He proved that by defeating the British on a number of occasions. He was a man of high honor which he proved when the various cabals tried to remove him from his office and he answered them with excellent performance and an absence of the acrimony so many would have used. He was a man of incomprehendable determination. The crossing of the Deleware, the winter at Valley forge and hundreds of other examples prove this. He was a man of tremendous resourcefulness as is shown by his ability to field an army when provisions were always in want for many years and at the same time attend to so many other details.

   Washington Irving's work will provide the reader with an excellent understanding of all of these qualities. I recommend this book to anyone interested in Washington's life. The vast majority of this work deals with the revolution so if you are interested in the early years or the later years you will not find a great deal of detail in this particular work.




3. The life of Washington should be required reading for everyone. The amount of difficulty he faced throughout his life is unimaginable to modern man. Washington had a life of privilege which is the main reason he was placed in a position of responsibility so early in life. However, in all of his campaigns he was dealing with shortages, sicknesses and other difficulties that make our own seem not so difficult.

   Reading this work will provide the reader with an understanding how lucky America was to have a man of such temperament at her founding. Washington was a man of great intellect. He proved that by defeating the British on a number of occasions. He was a man of high honor which he proved when the various cabals tried to remove him from his office and he answered them with excellent performance and an absence of the acrimony so many would have used. He was a man of incomprehendable determination. The crossing of the Deleware, the winter at Valley forge and hundreds of other examples prove this. He was a man of tremendous resourcefulness as is shown by his ability to field an army when provisions were always in want for many years and at the same time attend to so many other details.

   Washington Irving's work will provide the reader with an excellent understanding of all of these qualities. I recommend this book to anyone interested in Washington's life. The vast majority of this work deals with the revolution so if you are interested in the early years or the later years you will not find a great deal of detail in this particular work.




4. Washington Irving's biography on Washington is by far the most detailed review on our first President from youth through his post Presidential years. Given that Mr. Irving personally met George Washington at the young age of 7, Irving's book has all the more relavence than today's revisionist historians can ever provide. However, the "old english" that Washington used in his correspondence makes for difficult comprehension. It is interesting to note that by 1850 the change to a more modern writing style by Irving presents a clearer picture of Washington's time, but it still requires an occasional re-read to fully understand Irving's point. A person with a limited interest in the Revolutionary War may be better suited to purchasing a more contemporary biography for ease of reading.

   However, this book does provide such insite into the minds of Washington and those around him and it allows the reader to finally start to understand why our Founding Fathers risked all for the sake of freedom and liberty from the English. Today we take for granted rights that never existed anywhere in the 1770's and such historical works penned in the mid 1850's provides an insite that should be required reading for both liberals and conservatives. Overall, the book is long and difficult to read, but well worth the time, effort and cost.

5 comments about The Way of the Explorer: An Apollo Astronaut's Journey Through the Material and Mystical Worlds.

1. Apollo 14 was one of the few missions that I know litle about; simply because not enough time and attention has been dedicated to it! Dr. Ed Mitchell,Apollo 14 lunar module pilot, tells us in a very open way his inner-most feelings about the mission to The Moon, and how it altered his life,and inner ways of thinking; regarding life and the universe! Telling the reader that what he felt and saw: during, and mainly after his return to Earth; how our universe couldn't have just happened,but rather, has a special purpose and significance and a meaning to its existence! i believe in God, and have heard many pros and cons said about this book! Well let me say that as a true believer in CHRIST and GOD, I feel that Dr. Mitchell has a very open and well-educated mind as a scientist/explorer; and merely tells us that there is in fact a creator, and a purpose for the creation of the universe, and a reason for its being; relating science/religion together,which, to me, makes a whole lot of good sense.and purpose, to those of us that are real thinkers and have a real open mind to the things around us in the whole universe; not just planet Earth! Dr. Mitchell should know, hes been there (MOON) AND DONE THAT! i'M VERY RELIGIOUS INWARDLY, AND STILL THINK YOUR BOOK IS WELL DONE! Good job Dr. Mitchell! Your one of the few very open-minded/rational good thinkers of the century! If only more would have your intellect, mayby we wouldnt have the world problems we have today, and would have already had a base on Moon, and missions to Mars, already underway!



2. Dr. Mitchell asks the same questions as all seekers, and rightly connects the search for knowledge about self with the search for an understanding of the universe. He begins his book with a short personal history, bringing the reader up to a description of his incredible journey to the moon. As a US Apollo astronaut, he walked on the lumar surface. During the journey back to earth, he experienced a sudden insight about the nature of reality, an understanding that came from an unknown source. The experience most resembled the reports of mystics, who generally ascribe a religious meaning to it. Mitchell has spent the years since that journey searching for a way to understand the experience, a way to bring together the disparate ways of knowing, the way of science and the way of religion.

   While it is fascinating to read his descriptions of the view of earth from space and to know that seeing our beautiful mother earth from that vantage point could trigger such insights, what Mitchell describes is an experience many, many people have, as he later came to realize. It is the experience of "knowing without knowing how you know." Sometimes the knowing concerns the nature of reality, as when you get the sense of the unity of all things, and sometimes it is a psychic insight, as in knowing someone has just died. Sometimes it is the amazing synchronicities that happen when you cease to believe they cannot happen.

   This source of knowledge is real, so how does it work? There is no accepted scientific answer. At least there wasn't until Mitchell took on the task and gave us his dyadic theory of reality. It is an interesting explanation. The universe, in this view, evolved not just from energy but always incorporated intention. Consciousness is inherent in the universe and that is why, in the mystical experience, everything seems alive. There is no difference between the consciousness of my aloe plant on the windowsill, my cat who purrs beside me, and me. We use consciousness differently perhaps, but my plant grows better when I love it and want it to grow, I somehow know when my cat is outside the front door and wants to come in, and I use my consciousness to read books and learn more about my world. But the me that is sitting here looking out at everything else is victim of an illusion. It is only through working at techniques to shut out externals that it is possible to gain some realization of the unity, or to put it another way, to access the web that connects everything and that is the actual source of the knowledge that comes to us in these "mystical" experiences.

   Dr. Mitchell's book takes us into heavy material, not always easy to grasp, and sometimes possessing its own assumptions. He seems intent on eliminating religious metaphors completely, as if providing an explanation that "works" means there is no longer a use for the concept of God. I have to agree with him that the long-standing practice of representatives of religious organizations of dismissing anything without a scientific explanation as "a miracle of God" (or sometimes as "the work of the devil") has retarded our ability to scrutinize any actual process at work. Likewise, it isn't helpful when scientists simply dismiss anything that doesn't fit their current understanding of reality -- Uri Geller must be a fraud because science can't explain how he bends those spoons. And since Uri is not a saintly person, it must not be "a miracle."

   Because "God" is used to cover everything for which there is no scientific explanation does not invalidate the concept of a supreme presence, just as science is not useless even though it is intolerant of alternate explanations. It seems to me Mitchell neglects the idea of "purpose" just as he does not accept reincarnation, suggesting the past lives remembered are the result of accessing the universal web, the holographic record of everything (much like Edgar Cayce's "Akashic Record"). Could this be just a semantic difference, if we are all part of the same consciousness? While Mitchell's concepts "fit" the essentially religious experiences of those who believe in the immortality of the soul, it does not encompass the soul's purpose of perfecting itself through lifetimes of spiritual growth.

   As I read this book, I found Mitchell has read the same authors I've read, and he mentions the same cast of characters with whom seekers are familiar, whether they write from a research, mystical or physics point of view. His desire to reconcile science and religion is the same desire many of us share. The journey inward is as worthwhile as the journey to other planets. Our yearning to know who we are can only be satisfied when we truly achieve the synthesis Dr. Mitchell seeks. You'll have to read and decide if Mitchell, as an explorer extraordinaire, has found the answer.




3. What I admire most about Ed Mitchell isn't his voyage to the moon. While that extraordinary feat places him in one of history's most exclusive brotherhoods, it was only the beginning of an ongoing journey of questions and greater questions. Someone else in his position might have spent the remainder of his life resting on his laurels. Mitchell tackles huge questions with a scientist's rigor and a seeker's open heart.



4. I would tell anyone up front that this is a very in depth book. It covers a lot of truly amazing subject matter, from placing healers in scientific laboratory environments to understanding our place in the universe. I was impressed with not only the personal experiences told throughout but also with the differing aspects of how our cultures view the same experiences. It was fairly technical in parts, so be prepared to be challenged while reading it. I wasn't very familiar with many of the concepts discussed but the author did a good job of managing the information.



5. In February 1971 Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell sensed the deliberate plan in the creation of the cosmos and space: for over thirty years he would explore the mystery of human consciousness, leaving NASA to form the Institute of Noetic Sciences and researching a theory that could explain consciousness and science alike. His memoir comes to life in THE WAY OF THE EXPLORER: AN APOLLO ASTRONAUT'S JOURNEY THROUGH THE MATERIAL AND MYSTICAL WORLDS, which appears in a revised edition to appeal to new audiences.

2 comments about The Private Mary Chesnut: The Unpublished Civil War Diaries (A Galaxy Book).

1. This is the one indispensible book for anyone interested in what went on in the South behind the battle lines. As Pepys gives us a living picture of the London and court of Charles II, so does M. Chesnut give us a bird's eye view of the Confederate government and the society she lived in.

   A wise and witty woman, Mary Chesnut spent most of the war years close to ground zero in Richmond, VA. She knew Jefferson and Varina Davis intimately. She rubbed elbows with congressmen and cabinet members. Mrs. Chesnut was a sharp tongued woman who pulled no punches and she tells us much that, but for her, would remain unknown about the leaders of the "Lost Cause".

   Anyone who enjoyed the Woodward/Muhlenfeld editon of Mary Chesnut's memoirs can't afford to miss this publication of the materials from which she created her masterpiece.




2. I've recently developed an interest in Civil War history, an era that had not heretofore intrigued me. In doing some reading on the subject, I kept coming across references to "the diaries of Mary Chesnut," and decided to read them. Most historians look upon these diaries as a major source of information on what took place in the South during the Civil War, because the lady was present at some of the important events and was certainly herself effected by them. As the editors write, she was often reduced to moving "eventually from one place of refuge to another as a fugitive from military invaders (p. x)" and "Living out of her trunk in hotels or rented rooms (p. x)." The quotations or information gleaned from this resource do indeed illuminate the narration in the historical works in which one comes across them. They are not, however, easy to read.

   I gather from the introduction to this book that the diaries had been edited for publication as a continuous narrative--minus the more embarrassing self-revelations--entitled by a hand other than the lady's a "Diary from Dixie." The author herself had died long before the book was ever printed, leaving the details of publication to a relative. The editors of the current text despair the latter work as "heavily cut and carelessly edited (p. ix)," because it prevents the reader from knowing well the lady as a character herself.

   The Private Mary Chesnut is just what the Diary from Dixie is not, a real diary. As such, it contains entries that are for the most part endless mentions of people with whom the reader probably will not be knowledgeable unless he or she is very "into" the South and Civil War history. One is frequently reduced to checking the footnotes for information on the individuals named. Unfortunately the editors of the diary give only the barest of facts about them, usually social or military rank or relationship to Mrs. Chesnut or another individual mentioned in the diary. The writer's comments often leave one trying to read between her lines for some inkling of "what's really going on!" because there is the merest glimpse of some probably very interesting underlying story. The editors of the text, however, either will not or cannot give these details. Because of this dearth of underlying social information, the book comes across as either confusing or a little boring, a simple catalogue of parties and people met at parties, of polite social visits paid back and forth. This is definitely not an Edith Warton!

   Spaced throughout the document are nuggets of truly golden information about the Civil War and antebellum period. [THOSE WRITING PAPERS IN AMERICAN LITERATURE OR HISTORY TAKE NOTE] Because the lady was well connected by virtue of her own social status and oft sought company, she is privileged to the opinions of and gossip about significant individuals. She knew people who had met or knew the Lincoln family and was herself intimately acquainted with the Jefferson Davis family. One of the more interesting quotes was gossip associated with Mary Todd Lincoln's notorious household economy in the White House (pp. 30 and 31-32). This gives a much truer picture of what the social elite thought of the Lincolns, particularly in the South, and makes clear, that Washington D. C. was--and probably still is--more part of the southern social milieu than that of northern or national.

   Certainly the lady herself comes across quite real in these diaries. In short she is often vain, opinionated, over-indulged, and wasteful by modern standards--at least by middle class standards--but she is also a well educated, astute and outspoken judge of political events and of the social ills of the institution of slavery. [THOSE WRITING PAPERS IN AMERICAN LITERATURE OR HISTORY TAKE NOTE] Her discourse on its ills, particularly of misogynation, are eminently quotabl--and often are. My favorite is that beginning with "I wonder if it be a sin to think slavery a curse on any land (p. 42-43)," etc.

   While the book is difficult to get through, for those with a desire to know more than just the bare facts about the Civil War period and its society, this book is probably a good source for that information. [THOSE WRITING PAPERS IN AMERICAN LITERATURE OR HISTORY TAKE NOTE] This would definitely be considered a primary rather than a secondary source for the topic.

No comments about Now the Drum of War: Walt Whitman and His Brothers in the Civil War.

1 comments about The Many Faces of Alexander Hamilton: The Life and Legacy of America's Most Elusive Founding Father.

1. This crisply written volume of eleven essays by leading Alexander Hamilton scholars provides an excellent reading experience for any person interested in the founding years of the United States. The essays are well documented and present new scholarship and a clearer understanding about the centrality of Hamilton throughout the founding period of the U.S. The beauty of the book comes from the clarity of writing and information conveyed, while not glossing over the debates still surrounding Hamilton and his many legacies.

1 comments about Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (Lives and Legacies Series).

1. Who better to write a short biography of Justice Holmes than the author of the virtually definitive major biography of the Justice, "Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: Law and the Inner Self." This short biography is part of Oxford's "Lives and Legacies" series. I had some concern that the book would either be so short as to not really discuss much detail about Holmes, or that it would be so simplified for a more general audience as to lose the incisive vigor of White's previous books on Holmes. Happily, neither fear was confirmed: there is plenty of meat on the skeleton and, while White takes time to explain some key legal concepts for the non-specialist, his analysis still sparkles.
   
   The book stands as a superb brief introduction to the Justice and some of his key contributions. There are eleven pages of helpful notes; some interesting photographs; a chronology; and a bibliography for further reading. Also quite helpful is the use of what White terms "sidebars," which are extended quotes from Holmes' letters and opinions, so that the reader gets a sense of Holmes writing styles. Wisely, White does not try to cram too much into this short book--he well covers OWH prior to his appointment, and limits his discussion of the Justice's Supreme Court opinions to a few areas such as free speech. He also takes aim at the Holmes as "the great dissenter" image, and explains how Frankfurther and other disciples used "The New Republic" and other publicity devices to create the "Yankee from Olympus" image we associate with OWH.
   
   There is just a tremendous amount of useful information contained within 137 pages of text. The writing flows well and is quite interesting even to those of us who have gone many rounds with the Justice. A small jewel to be sure.

3 comments about Finding Jefferson: A Lost Letter, a Remarkable Discovery, and the First Amendment in an Age of Terrorism.

1. Saturday Night:
   I received Finding Jefferson as a gift today from my sister-in-law Linda. Thank you Linda, I loved it. I read the book today, I thought about it today, and I wrote these comments today.
   I have always thought of myself as a Free-Speech Absolutist. I still want to call myself that but here are my thoughts - inspired by Jefferson and Dershowitz.
   1) An anonymous man on a soapbox in the middle of a public park is the perfect symbol of what "free speech" seems to suggest. Why? Because, no matter what he says, people who choose to listen to him are under no obligation to believe him or to be swayed by him. They are as free to listen as he is to speak. In any event, he will most likely be thought a crackpot for speaking in public to a crowd that may or may not form.
   On the other hand, the speech of your military superior, your gang leader, or your boss at work is not JUST speech. The relationship between unequals in a formal hierarchy is not just speech. Coercion is a necessary part of this kind of speech, the result of discourse among unequals. If your CO or your boss tells you what to do, your refusal to obey may have serious consequences. For example, a neo-Nazi speaking in front of a crowd of onlookers who are totally free to listen or not is exercising his right to free-speech, even if he advocates mayhem. On the other hand, the same speaker speaking to his lieutenants and his subordinates and advocating mayhem is conspiring to commit crimes and ought (perhaps) to be accountable even before the commission of any crimes. In sum, speech between unrelated equals is always free and ought always to be protected; speech between members of a group with a pecking order may be coercive and ought not to be entitled to protection as free speech. (vs. Jefferson & Dershowitz)
   2) Not all speech consists of IDEAS. a) Some speech is opinion or taste, which of right ought always to be free. b) Some speech is factual, or not. PERHAPS the propagation of some kinds of untruths among a closed group ought to be actionable: should society allow the teaching of blatant falsehoods? Should the teaching of 2+2=5 be allowed to be taught in a religious school? Should the denial of the Holocaust be permitted under the law? I don't have an answer to this, but it is worth examination. Teaching falsehoods as the truth is not the same as propagating an idea or an opinion or a political preference. c) Some speech is directive: do this! Is the command of your leader merely a case of "self-expression"? I think not. d) And some speech, masquerading as IDEA, is just emotional vomit. Again, the fellow on the soapbox in a park ought to be free to tell lies and to urge insurrection; the leader of a gang or a religious group perhaps ought to be constrained not to tell utter falsehoods or urge insurrection to his ignorant followers. In other words, directive speech from a superior to a subordinate ought not to be protected, because it is not really speech at all.
   3) Religious speech ought always to be free (PERHAPS excepting outright falsehoods); but speech turned into action is no longer speech. The fact that much religious speech is ridiculous is no reason to deny it protection.
   4) Imams directing their obedient flock to kill the infidels are conspiring to incite to murder or treason. When your spiritual leader tells you what to do, you exercise your freedom to refuse to do it on pain of eternal damnation. This is the same as being told what to do by your CO or your boss, but more so. It is not free speech because the speaker's listeners are not free to ignore it; it ought not to be protected, as it is NOT JUST speech. When a speaker thinks his words are law, his speech is not just speech. Many Catholics are pro-choice, despite the Pope and their own priest. When listeners are truly free to disobey, speakers ought to be free to say what they will. (vs. Dershowitz & Jefferson)
   5) The free marketplace of ideas is just as free as the economic marketplace is free. Neither is free! There are areas in this country where all the news is filtered by one corporate owner with a significant political agenda to push. Or many big owners with similar agendas. Not to mention the fact that many Americans are so closed-minded that alternative ideas will not be listened to and cannot be heard. The speech of such monopolistic speakers must be seen not as free as in a market of multiple viewpoints. In other words, some kind of regulation is called for in this case. (vs. Jefferson)
   6) It seems to me that Islam has real cause to be angry with the West. Just as black and red men have real cause to be upset with white European Americans. We should sit down and air our grievances openly. Well, no, we should sit down and listen to them air their grievances with us; WE should just shut up and listen for a change. However, insulting Muhammad is within our most narrow definition of protected speech; the freedom to insult the Prophet is protected, and that freedom is not negotiable. Neither is a new Muslim Empire spread by force negotiable. But we would do well to listen. For a change.



2. Alan Dershowitz and Thomas Jefferson were collectors. Dershowitz, inter alia, collects antiquities. He loves objects with aesthetic and historical significance. Dershowitz travels to flea markets and book stores seeking treasure. Much of the focus of his legal activities has centered on the line between speech and act.
   
   The greatest acquisition of the author's career as a collector came from the Argosy Bookstore. It is a Jefferson letter about freedom of religion, (and of speech and ideas). The letter had been passed down through generations of the Boardman family who reside in New Milford, Connecticut. The historian Charles Beard learned of the letter's existence in 1926 and quoted from it. In turn, the sentence appeared in several important legal decisions.
   
   The letter was sold to the Argosy in 2006. Alan Dershowitz's daughter believes he has become obsessed with Jefferson. (He has now bought a number of books and souvenirs pertaining to Jefferson.) Through his letters a person is able to get into Jefferson's head the author asserts. John Adams hoped that Jefferson's letters would be published. Jefferson pardoned persons convicted of violations of the Alien and Sedition Acts when he became President.
   
   This book is of great interest to lawyers and to historians of ideas.



3. ....and that's a hell of a thing for a conservative Republican to say. I've always liked his style, even when I disagree. This short, but profoundly great, book gives his views of the First Amendment, filtered thru the metaphorical lens of a short letter written by Mr. Jefferson in 1801. Despite profound differences, Mr. Dershowitz and I share some things in common: [1] We are both pack-rats [2] We both revere Thomas Jefferson [3] We both love America. But then, he's a Red Sox fan, and I'm a Yankee fan......and, while we agree about the First Amendment, I suspect that we might part company over the Second...
   
   Alan Dershowitz found the letter in question in a rare book store a couple of years ago...it deals with Mr. Jefferson's disagreement with the views of Reverend Stanley Griswold, who advocated limitation on the freedom of speech. Jefferson decried limits, prefering to await "the first overt act". Well and good, but Jefferson did not face weapons of mass destruction [though he did have to deal with Islamic criminals]. The book deals point by point with Mr. Jefferson's arguments, with Dershowitz playing "Devil's Advocate". Dershowitz then branches into specific examples of how Jefferson dealt with problems in his own day. [I may add one slight point of disagreement; Dershowitz states that the Aaron Burr treason case of 1807 brings no credit to Jefferson...well, neither was it John Marshall's shining moment...Burr should probably have been acquitted on the merits, but Marshall still ran it as a rigged trial for political purposes]. He ends with his own views of the First Amendment...no limitation of free speech by the government. Period. I am fairly sure he would support me in the arguments I had with school authorities over my son's right to wear a Confederate flag T-shirt {I won}. But, nobody questions my Confederate flag tie at work...strange.
   
   This is one of the greatest books I have ever read. EVER. It reveals a human side of both Jefferson and Dershowitz that is engaging. Brilliant people are still people. And, this is a good place to give my own theory of what made Jefferson tick, though it's probably way off base...he was a man not bothered by contradictions. Mr. Dershowitz defended the idiots in Skokie; it bothered him [still does], but he made himself do the right thing; [I think] Jefferson would have done the same, and never worried about it a bit. If you want to spend an afternoon really understanding the First Amendment, this book is for you. I can't recommend it highly enough!!!!

5 comments about A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy.

1. Oshinsky lays out the McCarthy record in straight-forward, unbiased terms.
   
   Joe McCarthy was a deeply disturbed individual, who, having stumbled into a Senate Seat, went asking his friends for a good campaign "hook" to get reelected. They suggested communism.
   
   Over the next five years, McCarthy accused, literally, thousands of Americans of being Soviet agents. Not once did he produce evidence that any of those accused were, in fact, working on behalf of communism. He accused the leadership of the U.S. Army of communism because it insisted on drafting G. David Schine, "friend" of McCarthy's associate Roy Cohn. Anyone who publicly criticized what McCarthy was doing was accused as well. Anyone who so much as supported progressive causes was labled as unpatriotic. In 2005, does that sound familiar?
   
   It was inevitable that the Republican noise machine would eventually try to rehabilitate the record of one of the most disgraceful persons in American history. For the real facts on this living nightmare of a man, read this book.



2. A book of politics, and the craving for power that drives some people to do almost anything to get that power. The broad outlines of the story are well known. Joe McCarthy grandstanding in front of the microphones accusing all kinds of people of being communists. Never presenting any evidence he was able to ruin the lives of many Americans just to gain his own satisfaction.
   
   Now reviled, these times really need to be viewed in the light of the times, and again now that we have learned more about those times. His accusations appear to have been unfounded. But this was the time of the Rosenberg executions. This was the time of the House UnAmerican Activities Commission (HUAC).
   
   As we have learned since with the release of the Venona documents, the Rosenbergs were guilty (well there's some question about Ethel). The activities of HUAC harmed a lot of people, especially in Hollywood, but did it really make us safer? It also appears that there were a lot of communists in our Government. But there is no indication that McCarthy really knew that.
   
   This is an accurate story of McCarthy's rapid rise, and his rapid fall.



3. Oshinsky gives the most complete review of McCarthy's life of any historian. He tries to appraise McCarthy's controveries and does not take part in the vicious name calling of a Ricahrd Rovere. However he comes from a liberal perspective and to get a fair appraisal from a conservative historian - read Hermann's McCarthy.
   
   Since Venona has been released Oshinshy should have rewritten this book and not reissued the book he wrote in 1982.The events of 9/11 can give us an analogy.
   
   Imagine if a professor advised the state department that the Taliban was the best hope for Afghanistan and that bin Ladin was just an agrarian reformer. Imagine if military secrets as the H bomb was given to Iran and that key government officials belonged to Islamist groups. Imagine if a senator would look at the aspects of that ? Would he be called intolerate of other religions ?
   
   Owen lattimore urged that Mao was an Agrarian reformer. Mao killed millions. Larrimore made millions of bucks on his 'brilliant" observations. Oshinsky shouldn't defend this man. Klaus Fuchs, Rosenbergs, Hall etc gave the bomb to Russia. Hiss helped shape our foreign policy and even gave Russia three votes in the General Assembly.
   
   So balance is really needed. McCarthy was a patriotic man who used bad means to an end. But his enemies sometimes used worse methods as Oshinsky demonstrates in the Joseph Rauh case and Eisenhower's minions forging letters.
   
   McCarthy was brought down by Roy Cohn wanting favorable treatment for a possible lover- David Schine but curiously Oshinsky does not update the book with Cohn's sexuality and this would be an important insight.
   
   In short this was a brilliant book for 1982 but the newer revelations as Venona , Cohn etc demands an update for this book



4. I think the evidence is pretty clear at this point that McCarthy was right on target with his accusations. Its amazing to me that liberals still cling to this "McCarthyism" myth. It just didn't exist. There was no repression of ordinary Americans in the 50s. Didn't happen. Sure, some people in government lost their jobs. But they were communists who then got other jobs selling insureance or whatever. Its not like they were sent to the gulag or anything.



5. One thing needs to be cleared up right away: Joe McCarthy "never uncovered a Communist."
   
   Because McCarthyism was so devastating to rightwing anticommunism, giving a sour taste among decent people for half a century, there has been a deliberate (and often successful) attempt to rewrite history. In this version, McCarthy may have been crude and abrasive but he accomplished good work for the cause of freedom.
   
   As David Oshinsky lays out in endless detail in "A Conspiracy So Immense," there was nothing good about McCarthyism and little good about McCarthy except perhaps his charm. This was lost on many but reported powerfully by some who were strong political enemies.
   
   Oshinsky asserts, I think correctly, that his is not an ax-grinding history, and he certainly finds fault often enough with McCarthy's enemies, both political, journalistic and academic. He gives McCarthy credit where he can, which is not often.
   
   He portrays McCarthy as a man outside society, a natural: "He was so primitive, so cynical, so devoid of commitment to any goal but personal success, that few opponents had the will or stomach to fight him on his own terms." Or perhaps few Americans were as indecent as Joe McCarthy.
   
   That quotation comes from the introduction. Later, much later Oshinsky decides that McCarthy's anticommunism was genuine and not just, as so many charged, a cynical manipulation of an issue to get power, attention and money.
   
   This judgment must be heavily qualified. It's doubtful McCarthy knew anything about communism, and he definitely knew nothing about Americanism. That he was convinced that communism was evil means little; plenty, maybe almost all, of his opponents got that, too.
   
   Catholicism is key to McCarthy. Oshinsky says he was a ritual, not a moralistic Catholic. As long as he attended Mass and made his Easter duty, he had fulfilled the requirements of faith. Even priests who supported him are quoted as saying that McCarthy paid no attention to doctrine.
   
   This is an extremely important point and one where Oshinsky, in my opinion, errs. It has long been asserted that McCarthy was led to anticommunism by the Catholic clergy, and a dinner meeting is even said to have been the occasion that he was informed how he could use the issue to shore up his sagging political base after almost four years of undistinguished residence in the Senate.
   
   Oshinsky is skeptical about this meeting, for which there is no reliable testimony. However, a host of circumstantial evidence supports the idea that the American Catholic church recruited McCarthy.
   
   First, as anybody who attended Mass in the early `50s (as I did) knows, the church was desperate to launch a counterattack in eastern Europe and for that it needed some standard bearer in the U.S. government. McCarthy was it.
   
   Second, McCarthy's preferred companions of an evening were floozies and grifters. He did not regularly, or even irregularly, socialize with priests. To imagine that a singular long meeting with two priests and a fanatical Catholic layman was devoted to chatting about Notre Dame football is beyond belief.
   
   Third, Catholics stuck to McCarthy long past the time that he was becoming a political liability in most other sectors of American life. (That his loudest and longest cheerleaders -- still cheering in 2008, in fact -- were the bigoted Catholic William F. Buckley Jr. and his brother-in-law Brent Bozell tells us much.)
   
   Oshinsky does a good job of recreating how crazy the McCarthy era was, even though he hardly mentions the concurrent Red scares that went along with it -- Robert Oppenheimer's security investigations get a single footnote, for example. I well remember how fearful people became when McCarthy's name came up.
   
   Oshinsky gives Dwight Eisenhower a lot of credit for bringing McCarthy down, second only to McCarthy's own flaws. But the fact that a president as popular as Ike had to do so sneakily, and that it took almost the first half of his first term to get it done, shows just how powerful the fear was.
   
   Oshinsky's admiration for Ike's skill in maneuvering McCarthy out of power is tempered by his disdain for Ike's refusal to confront him early and in the open.
   
   McCarthy lived at a burnout pace, and "A Conspiracy So Immense" overwhelms with detail. There were so many scandals. Nevertheless, the last 200 pages rush past as all the threads are spun together into a rope that finally hangs the evildoer.
   
   Only an opera librettist would have countenanced the coincidences that really happened around McCarthy. He had so many attacks going on simultaneously, and they all blew up on a single day, March 9, 1954. The Washington Post required no fewer than 12 stories, plus editorials and cartoons to keep up with Joe that day.
   
   He was elemental, a force of nature. But, Oshinsky says, he was never a threat to subvert the government. Unlike a Hitler (whom he resembled), he had no larger goal. He did not even have an antisubversive plan to throttle the commies with. He seemed to care only to expose them, presumably thus causing righteousness to prevail.
   
   This silly idea he probably came to instinctively, but it is also another hint that Catholic puppeteers were pulling his strings. It was firmly believed by the church that Russian communism was barely sustaining itself and even a slight push would knock it down. That is why the prospect of war in eastern Europe did not appall the Sheens and Spellmans (or, at a humbler level, my parish priest, Father Shea).
   
   Three incidents, out of hundreds, stand out in this life.
   
   One is McCarthy's bewilderment after the famous dressing down he got from Joe Welch on national television, when Welch stared him down and asked whether he had "at last no decency." After it was over, McCarthy is pictured asking in bewilderment, "What did I do? What did I do?"
   
   Even worse, but less famous because there is no film of it, was his treatment of a poor (and by the time McCarthy was through with her, jobless) black woman named Annie Lee Moss. Oshinsky reports that the steely Sen. John McClellan "seemed almost in tears" as he watched McCarthy's humiliation of this innocent woman. It made me cry.
   
   The last image is of McCarthy, out of power, weeping on the sidewalk after being thrown out of a Republican dinner. McCarthy, Oshinsky believes, wanted to be liked, but would rather have been hated than ignored. During the last three years of his short life, he was ignored and, with any other subject, the picture of him sobbing in loneliness might raise a sympathetic tremor.
   
   Not this man. His was no Greek tragedy. McCarthy's story was black and then blacker.
   
   In the end, Oshinsky says, McCarthy's strength and weakness was his "outrageous independence." If so many people had not been injured so badly, it would almost be funny: A man claiming to be fighting for all he was worth (nothing, as it turned out) to save society who was never part of that society himself.
   
   

5 comments about Home Before Dark (Contemporary Classics (Washington Square Press)).

1. As a memoir of a daughter's relationship with her father, this is very touching, but there is little here that sheds much light on John Cheever, the writer. Given the various levels of family dysfunction and unhappiness in Cheever's stories and novels, it is gratifying that his daughter found so much to love in her father. For a more abrasive, but still admiring view of the man, you might also enjoy reading Benjamin Cheever's novel, The Plagiarist.



2. Home Before Dark is a beautifully written, moving book that stays with you long after you have finished reading it. It helps that Susan Cheever's subject, her father, was (and remains long after his death) one of the finest fiction writers in the history of American literature. What distinguishes John Cheever's stories, outside of his magical touch with words, is the passion and love he brings to illuminating his small corner of the world -- life in the New York suburbs of the 1950s and 1960s. Most writers who explore the suburbs do so with an arm's length superiority -- taking pains to distance themselves politically, emotionally, and intellectually from their characters. What makes Cheever's stories such a joy it that he loves the world he writes about -- even as he recognizes its banalities and limitations. In Cheever's hand, the commuter life becomes a sad, beautiful symphony of lost hopes and desires. The 5:45 train, the clinking of cocktail glasses, the smell of meat cooking on an outdoor grill are not just dull routines of modern life, but thrilling and exotic elements of that peculiarly American optimism and quest for success that flowered after World War II -- all the more alluring because the quest is so often doomed.
   In the same way, Susan Cheever brings passion and honesty to the telling of her father's life. In her hands, John Cheever's own outwardly unremarkable search for the suburban dream life of wife, kids, dog and station wagon in Ossining, New York becomes a dark romantic quest of longing, passion, success and disappointment. She is thoroughly honest (sometimes brutally so) in detailing Cheever's alcoholism, philandering, phobias and parental shortcomings -- so it is all the more remarkable that the final portrait of Cheever that emerges is so rich and full of love.
   This book is the perfect companion piece for Cheever's indispensible Collected Stories (with that famous red cover). Think of Home Before Dark as a sort of lexicon to John Cheever's world. I keep both books on a special bookshelf -- easily accessible -- containing the books I come back to again and again, like old friends.



3. This is a very interesting look at the demons of the father, from alcoholism to a confused sexuality that wreaked havoc on his family. John Cheever forged a career writing about his own issues, tales of disillusion and disintegration in suburbia, all to alcoholic excess and in search of meaning. Susan, his daughter, is an absolutely excellent writer and explains what he was like as she grew up, so it is not a straight biography but mixed with memoire. Some of it is shocking, such as the way John periodically left to be with men, only to come back to a wife he clearly loved enduringly. But there is also a lot of redemption, of striving to be better though the pain is ever present. Oddly, I have never liked his writing much, finding his personal problems more of a spectacle and indeed more absorbing to learn about. Susan, I think, is the true writing talent in the family - her style is clear and unflinchingly honest, almost exhibitionistic. Few expose themselves so evenhandedly. Indeed, her moments are unforgettably vivid: such as her sitting in the lap of a drunken guest writer, in a tweed jacket reeking of cigarette smoke, saying to herself that she would marry that kind of man; or watching her father, after a few hours of writing and overcoming a hangover, pruning his lawn with ritual energy.
   
   Truly a beautiful, often tormented, book. Warmly recommended.



4. This memoir tells a great deal about the extended family of John Cheever. His is the less reputable wing of of a family which goes back to the early foundations of America. Susan Cheever writes with understanding and consideration of her father's troubled life. The shocking bankruptcy and abandonment of his father remained a basis for his great insecurity throughout his life. Susan Cheever reveals her father to be a man of great charm, and excellent ability to befriend and be helped by wealthy patrons, including those at Yaddo the Saratoga writing colony which for him was a second home. Susan Cheever also describes somewhat fitfully the mixed- up - marriage Cheever never let go of, one in which there seemed to have been infidelity on both sides- and which seemed to go downhill in the later years.
   Susan Cheever writes with descriptive elegance about her father 's life. She does not however explain or even hint at the great mystery of how he managed to create his best work. And she does not really tell us what the work consists in, or how it best expressed what her father was.
   I also felt the work lacking in another way. It does not really get inside Cheever and reveal to us the world the way he might have seen it. Nor does it trace the effect of his celebrity and alcoholism , of his wit and capacity for friendship on his children. Susan Cheever is silent about her father's effect upon her.
   I found that is with all the basic admiration and sympathy that she expresses for her father, a certain coldness in the work- a coldness which was perhaps her father's also.
   But again perhaps I found Cheever's story much less 'moving 'than I might have because I too am not a great fan of his stories.



5. I bought this after reading The Journals of John Cheever (which is an incredible book.) What I was most struck by after reading Ms. Cheever's book, was that her father was a true writer, and she is not. Her book was boring, predictable, and shed no real new light on her father's personality. His journals are raw, real, and intimate. Her recollections are alienated and just plain boring. Sorry, but I was hoping for an interesting read, and this wasn't it.

5 comments about Women at Ground Zero: Stories of Courage and Compassion.

1. Very good book! Amazing stories from very brave and courageous women! You Go Girls!



2. When I wrote my review of this incredible book, I accidentally gave it 2 stars instead of my intended 5 stars. I apologize for my mistake and give this book the highest points possible. It will move you deeply.



3. Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba did an excellent job of bringing to the readers of "Women At Ground Zero" the fact that women also served, were injured, or killed at the World Trade Center complex in New York City. They knew women had to be there but yet the media didn't cover them. So they went in search of them. People forget that women are also members of the fire, police and medical departments around the country. They didn't "want the women...to fade into the background of American History" nor "future generations of children...believing that only men are strong, brave and heroic."

   They interviewed women from the NYPD, FDNY, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department (PAPD), and other women who were there that fateful day and many days thereafter. Each chapter tells another woman's story so be prepared to read 30 gut-wrenching stories. They also interviewed women who were at the scene in other capacities. AND something very few people know about-three women died that day while in the service of saving others: Captain Kathy Mazza (PAPD), Moira Smith (NYPD), and Yamel Merino (EMT). There are chapters about those women as well.

   These women and so many others saw crushed vehicles, dead bodies and body parts, along with airplane parts. They witnessed more in a short period of time then most people do in a lifetime. Some of their stories are very graphic while others brushed over that part. They talked about what they experienced and saw, their injuries, feelings and more. Its no wonder they continue to have problems BUT more importantly-most of them have all returned to the jobs they held on 11 September 2001. They continue to serve their community. They are all heroines and definitely role models for young girls to follow in years to come.

   This is a book well worth reading though if you are like me it may take you awhile to get through it. I admit I had a hard time reading each chapter. With my background I felt everything these women went through without actually having been there. Be prepared for your own emotions to run the gamut. Be prepared to relive that day and the days that followed over again through these women's eyes. But take the time to read "Women At Ground Zero".




4. Harrowing, engrossing, and well-written firsthand accounts put you right beside police officers, firefighters, and paramedics on that terrible day 9/11/01 (and afterward, too). I could not put it down.



5. I loved this book! It brought out stories that I never heard in all the media blitz after this unforgettable and horrific event. It truly shows another side of the story, and yet they made it very clear that the book was "not to diminish the contributions of the men who lost or put their lives at risk at Ground Zero". I had hesitated and worried that this might be a "feminist - male bashing" viewpoint. Not at all!

   It rounds out the story. Something that needed to happen. I feel more of a connection with what happened now than ever before.

   I highly recommend this to all - men and women alike. I hope it becomes a standard for reading about women in history and should be in every home for pre-teens on up to learn more about what happened and to offer inspiration.

   Buy it! It's a keeper!!