Biography Books

I bought the book for my wife, who was complaining about how unfair the world is to women--and quite rightly so. Speaking for myself, I agree with Dee Dee Myers thesis, but it is hidden behind a lot of wonky poli-sci verbiage.

dee dee myers is brilliant in everyway.the thing that bothers me is women know this.really women knew this for over 100 years or more.im having my daughter and my girlfriends read this cause even though we know everything dee dee is saying.nothing is done and why oh why?i if we women voted to our potentiel wede be running this country rite now.maybee the more women that read this and other books like this they would understand that its not fantasy but fact.women should and will rule the country.its just a matter of us taking back what was once ours and if we do and it shouldnt be to hard im laughing .then it will be the same as now only women will set the laws and that would(have)to be better then what man is doing now.i read somewere on the net oh i wish i could remember her name .women are gaining fast while men are becoming the women of the 1950 s.that is soooo true.read it.see it.hear it.man kind is shrinking at a rate so fast it seems womankind has really already surpassed the still shrinking male role.i remember a long time ago my aunt telling me dont blame the men.we made them.lol yup.now its up to us women to take control.thank you dee dee

I have followed Dee Dee's career since she worked for Bill Clinton, and i find her book funny, and informative. I'm certain that if women ruled the world, we would be in better shape then we are. Thanks Dee Dee for putting my beliefs on paper.

I find it interesting that those who have cried for 'equality' for so long and finally found that they have had equal rights to run for office, start a business, vote as they choose, develop field programmable logic arrays, clean sewers, scrape hogs, build OC-12 data networks, become prison guards, etc etc ... now find that the best solution for the world going forward is for they, themselves, to advocate the very solution of discrimination that they suffered from only in reverse?

Why do you 'hate' men so badly? This concept is as repugnant as saying people of color should be ruled by white folks. There are good and bad irrespective of color.

Why can't we concentrate on helping 'everyone' do better, rather than such broadly blatant discrimination base upon the shape of genetailia?

Bruce

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2SW8VFXLFH3QQ Here's my video review. I should warn readers though that Myer's book is more a memoir than an analytical work. Thanks for clicking in, Bernard

The depth of Benjamin's pessimism has, I think, been underestimated.

"The story is told of an automation constructed in such a way that it could play a winning game of chess, answering each move of an opponent with a countermove. A puppet in Turkish attire and with a hookah in its mouth sat before a chessboard placed on a large table. A system of mirrors created the illusion that this table was transparent from all sides. Actually, a little hunchback who was an expert chess player sat inside and guided the puppet's hand by means of strings. One can imagine a philosophical counterpart to this device. The puppet called "historical materialism" is to win all the time. It can easily be a match for anyone if it enlists the services of theology, which today, as we know, is wizened and has to keep out of sight." Walter Benjamin, First "These on the Philosophy of History", p 253.

One can measure how far the contemporary Marxist (better said, the post or semi-Marxist) left has fallen by how many books have appeared, since the fall of the USSR, enthusing over the radically Universal and allegedly 'Progressive' nature of early Christianity. Walter Benjamin, who was first to place the wise but ugly dwarf (Theology) in the beautiful puppet (Historical Materialism) would be amazed (or perhaps not, see the letters between Benjamin and Scholem) to learn that puppet and dwarf are on the verge of switching places! That is, now the ugly dwarf (historical materialism) wants to hide in (and of course direct) the beautiful puppet of Christian theology. ...Crazy, you say? But even Habermas, the Keeper of the Flame of Critical Theory, has on occasion made somewhat similar noises. The best place, btw, to start reading about this new 'political-theology' probably remains Jacob Taubes.

But perhaps this emergent trend is really not so crazy after all. The only reason the Church became so cozy with Capitalism was its fear of Atheism. The collapse of the Soviet Union ended that fear. Now Christianity faces Capitalism alone. Or not, if the detente being proposed between the left and the Church is actually consummated. But every detente is a conspiracy of enemies to destroy an even greater enemy. The Church was with Capitalism because it had to defeat atheism. Now it is likely that the Church will join (a moderate) Socialism in trying to contain the 'soul-destroying' ravages of capitalism. This is only another move on the chessboard of History. ...But what did Benjamin think of History?

"A Klee painting named "Angelus Novus" shows an angel looking as though he is about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. This storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress." BENJAMIN, Ninth Thesis on History, p 257.

Picture this Angel, wings pinned back by the wind, shoulders forced back because of that - the Angel of History is almost in the position of the Crucified Christ; except that this crucification does not end. It is this tone of almost ontological despair that was new to the left. This Crucified Angel is the perfect image of the left-wing theoretical pessimism pioneered by not only Benjamin but also Adorno and Horkheimer that split the intellectual left into two camps: the revolutionary and the cultural. And though no one is likely to admit it, the cultural left has quietly come to think of revolution itself as but another 'progressive' force piling up bodies.

It is one of the little ironies of history that this despairing fantasy described contemporary reality exactly. The Angel of History is the image of dialectical knowledge. Rather than seeing disconnected events this Dialectical Knowledge grasps History as One (single catastrophe). Always facing the past ('the owl of Minerva takes flight at night', Hegel said; meaning that dialectical knowledge is retrospective) the 'contemplating' Angel is overwhelmed by historical action - the storm that has been blowing since the expulsion of humanity from paradise - and can never Himself achieve effective action. His knowledge grows in lockstep with the accumulating horror, but each new historical event only results (i,e., gets 'caught in the wings' of our Angel) in more contemplation. So we see how theory (our Angel) is 'irresistibly' propelled into the future. And we also see that the Knowledge dialectical theory gains is precisely equal to the debris the storm hurls at our Angel's feet. With an irony that strives to be equal to the wind blowing from Paradise Benjamin ends this meditation by calling this storm progress.

This is perhaps why Benjamin insisted over 50 years ago that the dwarf Theology must guide the puppet Historical Materialism. Theory can never be equal to action; circumstance piles upon circumstance so rapidly that theory cannot effectively act, and if it does act (presumably) it only adds to the debris. Thus theology (myth) must guide materialism's hand because theoretical knowledge is powerless to help. Benjamin quotes the following remarks of Willy Haas, with approval, in his large Kafka essay;

"'The object of the trial', he writes, 'indeed, the real hero of this incredible book is forgetting, whose main characteristic is the forgetting of itself [...] The most sacred ... act of the ... ritual is the erasing of sins from the book of memory.'
What has been forgotten - and this insight affords us yet another avenue of access to Kafka's work - is never something purely individual." (Benjamin, Franz Kafka, p 131.)

(The last sentence was Benjamin's own.) Theology is a non-individual forgetfulness. Thus myth (theology) is the only forgetfulness worthy of the name. What needs to be forgotten by all of us is the unsurpassable fact of the futility of theory...

It is difficult for most to look such despair in the face.

I have nothing to add to the reviews below except to note for scholarly interest that the essay 'The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction' included in this collection is not Benjamin's final version. (Neither is this title a good translation of the German: 'Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit'. Zohn's translation in the selected writings is better: 'The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility'.) The text in this collection is the 1935 manuscript, as originally published in 1936; the text collected in the Selected Writings, Vol. 4 is the final 1939 version that, as far as I can tell, was not published in Benjamin's lifetime. The difference between the two texts is slight, consisting mainly of some additional sentences here and there and some changed words. At least one of these revisions is, I hypothesize, the result of Adorno's criticisms of his letter to Benjamin of 18 Mar 1936.

Otherwise, for most purposes, this is the best collection of Benjamin's essays available for an introduction to his thought. This volume collects some of the best of his essays that are otherwise spread throughout the selected writings published by the Harvard U.P.

Benjamin is arguably the twentieth century's most important thinker--if there is anything left to say about our lives, it is surely in this book.

In 1940 Walter Benjamin committed suicide at the Franco-Spanish border fearing that he would be unable to escape the grasp of Hitler's regime. He left behind perhaps one of the finest collections of literary theory of his era, complete with lucidly brilliant essays on Kafka, Proust, Baudelaire, and general Marxist theory.

In this wholly excellent collection of essays, a remarkable introduction to Benjamin's life and work is provided by the late philosopher Hannah Arendt, who overviews his political formations and literary output. It's a model form of critical essay writing.

Perhaps the most famous essay in this collection is Benjamin's `The Task of the Translator,' widely regarded as one of the most important and thoughtful contributions to the field.

"No poem is intended for the reader, no picture for the beholder, no sympathy for the listener."

He argues that translation is a mode, and that the translatability of the work is the primary concern in the process.

Also included is an analysis of the philosophy of history.

I picked up this book primarily for the purpose of reading Benjamin's critically acclaimed essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", as well as for his darkly poetic - and even apocalyptic - "Theses on the Philosophy of History". These essays are among Benjamin's most highly esteemed and are the last two selections in the book; regardless of whether you start with them or with the first essay, "Unpacking My Library: A Talk about Book Collecting", you are likely to be drawn into Benjamin's literary world quite quickly.

In many ways, Benjamin's writing style is quite unassuming; reading even his most profound insights is like reading a letter from an old friend. His writing comes in layers; one must make time to savor his presence. This book covers a range of subjects, from critical literary essays (the aforementioned "Unpacking My Library", as well as essays on Kafka, Baudelaire and Proust), to more hermeneutical reflections ("The Task of the Translator"), to straight up philosophy/theory ("The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" and "Theses on the Philosophy of History").

The 51 page introduction by Hannah Arendt is absolutely fantastic. It does not simply provide an overview of Benjamin's life, but sets that life within the culture of early 20th century Germany, focusing especially on the time between the two World Wars. She notes the influences of Zionism and Communism (and Marxism) on Benjamin's thought, as well as the broader cultural influence of a quasi-secularized Judaism in a culture where non-baptized Jews were still kept out of university teaching posts. Her introduction, like Benjamin's own writing, contains deep touches of the intimately personal (she selected the various essays that make up this volume).

In many ways, Benjamin was a deeply religious thinker. A friend of Gershom Scholem's (the founder of the modern-day study of Jewish mysticism), Benjamin and Scholem corresponded for a number of years. Although this particular volume pays little attention to his religious thought, "Theses on the Philosophy of History" (the final selection in the book which, in light of Benjamin's suicide, gives Illuminations a bit of a haunting finale), witnesses to Benjamin's poetic-religious insights:

"The soothsayers who found out from time what it had in store certainly did not experience time as either homogenous or empty. Anyone who keeps this in mind will perhaps get an idea of how past times were experienced in remembrance - namely, in just the same way. We know how the Jews were prohibited from investigating the future. This stripped the future of its magic, to which all those succumb who turn to the soothsayers for enlightenment. This does not imply, however, that for the Jews the future turned into homogenous, empty time. For every second of time was the strait gate through which the Messiah might enter."

Highly recommended.

This book was read to our class when I was in the 6th grade. I loved it! When our kids were growing up, I read all of the series to our kids as we traveled. Because I am a speed reader, sometimes I would "read" a funny part and start laughing, before my out loud reading would be there. Who would think that modern-day kids would be entranced with stories about early 1900 kids, but they were. Ralph Moody caught the imagination as we could see this kid getting into situations before he was there. These are marvelous. Every child in America should read them. This is the stuff of the sturdiness, resiliency, & character we come from. Adversity happens, it is happening right now...the question is can we face it with strength and imagination. Laugh until you cry. Love greatly. This is a splendid series.

I just finished this book tonight. I laughed and cried and couldn't put it down. Every family in todays society needs to read and reread this book as it is all about character and goodness. I am a better person because I read this book. I will read it to my kids immediately!

This book was read out loud to me when I was a 4th grader and it stayed in my mind from then on. It is a true story about a boy whose father dies and how mostly he, but also his mother, and siblings get along after the father's death. The boy is nick named "Little Britches" and earns money to survive in many ways, mostly being a cowboy on Colorado ranches. I have purchased this book for my son as a 5th grader and given it to his friend in 6th grade. The whole series is very interesting, this book in particular.

Oh I am speechless. This is a book full of grace, character, This is the writers real life boyhood and apparently thought he could make a good book out of it. Boy was he right! I could read this book about three hundred times and then maybe think about putting it down! This man had such a life as a kid! man you would think it was fictional but when you know its not it makes you well... Speechless!

This is a wonderful look into how life was... I found myself thinking about the work load on children back then and thinking "and I worry that unloading the dishwasher and keeping their bath clean is too much to ask?!?" Well not any more. A great "classic"

This book is pretty much an advertisement for one of the subject's seminars. So many things in this are clearly fabricated. If a casino sees you make hugely varying bets and coming out ahead, they will ask you to leave, ban you from the casino, then share your picture with the other casinos. It's actually fairly easy to beat blackjack, but it's hard to do it without the casino.

For the longest time, I thought Busting Vegas and Bringing Down the House were the same book with different titles. After not being thrilled with Mezrich's RIGGED, I ran into Busting Vegas at a nearby bookstore and realized that indeed it was a completely different book than BDTH.

I thoroughly enjoyed this very entertaining account of a completely different formula to "Beat the House" than card counting. If you have read Mezrich's other works and enjoyed them, as well as enjoy the game of blackjack, I think you cannot go wrong with this one. The characters are vivid and the story telling is rich and vivid with detail.

if this book were simply an exciting fast-paced story (albeit poorly written), i would rate it 2 stars

unfortunately, about halfway through it goes moralistic with dripping hypocrisy - a completely unnecessary element that i found highly annoying. an example from page 151:

"'okay,' victor said as he surveyed the group, lined up on the balcony, blue water behind them, the glass casino glowing on the horizon. 'let's show this little island what a bit of math, in the right hands, can do to balance out a few hundred years of economic oppression, shall we?'

semyon grinned, and barely felt the pinch of his still bruised lower lip. robin hood had nothing on them"

just like robin hood - except they keep the money for themselves (MIT/harvard students)

the 'afterword' takes the ridiculous moral justification a few steps further. an example from page 283/4:

"for me and my teammates, beating the casinos has never been entirely about the money. of course the money was important, and on the surface, the whole enterprise may have even resembled a kind of crazy financial start-up on steroids, but anyone looking deeper would have seen that for us, the blackjack team was not a business, but a passionate, desperate struggle against the mighty evil empire that was and continues to be the casino industry... inspired by the success of open source, i've come to believe that to really make a substantial impact against a powerful adversary like the casino industry, you have to sacrifice the short term profits of a select few in order to enable the masses to cooperate and innovate... once this book is published, millions of people will get exposure to some of our key methods"

uhhh.. what?!!!! the book is glammed to the max with regard to gambling (the cover is no anomaly) and somehow it's still a "desperate struggle against the mighty evil empire"? comparing casino cheating to a productive venture - like a startup or successful open source teams - is ridiculous

with a world of other books to read, i do not recommend this one

A great tale compellingly told. Would have been nice to have had some of the math exposed in an appendix for those who care, but a grand story

Technically, this is not a sequel to Bringing Down the House. The characters are different, and they are not card counters. Yet this story of MIT kids who used a new system to gain an advantage (and millions) playing blackjack feels very much like Bringing Down the House II. There's the genius leader, the beautiful girl, and the brilliant kid who's the main character in the story and writes the afterword. There's blackjack, Vegas, Atlantic City, and even a trip to the Caribbean gone awry.

Obviously, Mezrich found a winner with his previous bestselling book and here he simply tried to duplicate his successful formula. Unfortunately, the result feels a little like painting by the numbers -- unoriginal and uninspired.

I fell under Ms. de Blasi's spell with the trilogy (1000 Days In Venice, 1000 Days in Tuscany and The Lady In The Palazzo) and here is another book of delicate prose woven with insight and beauty. This type of writing probably isn't for everyone. One reviewer of a book she wrote was shocked that she could write about food without having step-by-step photos of preparations. How sad for that person that the whole purpose of her writing isn't about how to cook but how to enjoy cooking, how to enjoy the friends that will eat your food and how to enjoy life. This is a book by a writer who will transport you into another world - if you give her your time and hand.

I have read and re-read A Thousand Days in Venice, A Thousand Days in Tuscany and The Lady in the Palazzo, so was delighted when That Summer in Sicily was released. It is another exquisitely-written, tender story of love and food in Italy. Di Blasi replaces the on-going love story of herself and Fernando with the stories of Tosca and the Last Prince and Tosca and The Widows. It is not only di Blasi's ability to create visual images with her words but more to evoke an atmosphere of timeless, genuine romance that draws one in. This is a woman totally seduced by food who can fall completely in love with an Italian man, whose idea of cuisine before they met was under-cooked pasta paired with over-cooked chicken breast and jarred sauce. This is a book in which to appreciate, understand and share the true joy of love. I can't wait for her next book.

This author can write! Her descriptions of people, environments, food and relationship are first class.

Unlike the first three books that were memoirs of her travels and life with her husband, A Thousand Days in Venice, A Thousand Days in Tuscany, and The Lady in the Palazzo, this book is really Tosca Brazzi's story as told to Marlena.

De Blasi descriptions of simple, everyday things are strong, such as: Unskilled, unshy hands pounded scales on the piano." I could hear the music and see that person working the keys.

What an interesting story de Blasi tells because of her chance meeting with a woman, now in her mid 60s, while traveling with her husband, Italian born Fernando. Tosca, the nine-year-old daughter of a peasant under the last prince in Sicily, was given to the prince by her father in trade for a stallion. She was educated along with the prince's young children and as she grew, became their teacher. A priest who knew her in the beginning described her as having "splendid arrogance."

At 18, Tosca became the mistress of Leo, the prince, now 36. When Leo disappeared mysteriously because his work for the people went against the local mafia, Tosco became an heiress. She carries on his work of modernizing some of culture. Sicily is like a major character in the book and we learn about many aspects of life there.

The story today is of Tosca's role in helping women who are alone--many who come to the beautiful Villa Donnafugata (house of fleeing women) to live, and maybe to die.

If you love good writing that is descriptive to the finest detail, read this book. In the first chapter she describes the ceiling of the dining room in the Villa: "Fragment of frescoed gods and goddesses--plump flanked and rolling eyes--hurtle across the high crumbling walls, giving chase up onto the great vault of the ceiling."

The author has been a journalist, restaurant critic, and cookbook author. She took a trip to Italy, and there experienced a whirlwind love affair with a man and with Venice, inspiring her to write _A Thousand Days in Venice.

Armchair Interviews says: Not a memoir of de Blasi's life, but of Tosca's, however this is a good read you'll enjoy.

That Summer in Sicily is the fourth Marlena de Blasi book I have read. When I picked up the first one, A Thousand Days in Venice, I didn't take to it right away. I am a Texan who writes exactly the way I speak, and I am irritated by flowery prose. However, I am also a sensualist, in love with taste, aroma, color, texture and sound. These elements--these things that define a particular place--come alive for me in these books.

Unlike her previous three memoirs, this story is not really about American Marlena and her Venetian husband. It is an almost unbelievable love story, a story about what it means to be Sicilian. As with most other adventures in her life, this one began with a writing assignment. Marlena was asked by a scholarly magazine to write a seminal piece on the interior regions of Sicily. Several people had already turned the job down, and soon she discovered why. Despite a meticulously drawn route and prearranged interview appointments, she was met at every turn with "misanthropic silences, closed doors and epic heat." Eventually she gave up.

Marlena's husband had come along for the ride, and before wending their way down from the mountains, they decided to take a day or two to recover. Finally, a policeman responded to their numerous inquiries for a place to stay. "There is a woman called Tosca. Her place is Villa Donnafugata (house of fleeing woman), although there's no sign to tell you so."

When they entered the gates they found what looked like a castle with sweeping gardens. In fact, it was nothing more than a hunting lodge, once belonging to the last Anjou prince in Sicily. Everywhere, they passed groups of women in long black dresses, laughing and singing as they went about their daily chores. A beautiful woman dressed in jodphurs and boots approached them. "I'm Tosca Brozzi. We'll be sitting down at one. I'll let you know later if there's room for you to stay."

From one of the other women there, Marlena learned that Tosca had inherited the villa from the prince, whose ward she once was. Bit by bit, she had restored the place. For more than thirty years she had lived there with an assortment of villagers who had found themselves alone, and in need of other people. This sort of communal life helped them to stay well, to stay young. Babies were born there, some people died there. "We are all related by affection," they said. "We are part of one another's history. We are Sicilian." They grew and prepared their own food, cared for the animals and for each other. Though there was much work to be done, it seemed to be merely a diversion to fill the hours between meals. "We eat often and well here, signora," Marlena was told. It was a society she never would have believed could exist.

"We never decide to stay but simply get caught up in the imperishable rituals and rhythms of the villa," wrote Marlena. One day Don Cosimo, a seventy-six year old priest, approached Marlena. He told her that he'd been the household's resident cleric and the prince's chauffeur when, fifty-six years previously, the prince had taken Tosca to live with him in the palace, a few hours drive from the lodge. "She was, even then, of that splendid arrogance. Leo claimed her when, I think, she was nine. Her beauty was already fearsome," he recalled. It was a common enough feudal custom, this sanctioned purloining of the children of one's peasants. Most people believed that the prince had requested Tosca. However, it was Tosca's father who'd offered her to the prince, in exchange for a stallion he coveted. And so Tosca was schooled by a French governess with the prince's daughters, tamed, formed, refined.

Later, it was Tosca who approached Marlena. "I'd like to tell you a story, Chou," she said. "Oh, I don't mean right now, of course. But soon. It's a long story, you see... It might take a few days. A week... I want to try out my story on someone from another place. I want to tell it to you, leave it with you, I guess, knowing that you'll go away." And so it began, the unfolding of a saga that spanned decades. It is a story that explores the ravages of war, poverty, the origins of the Cosa Nostra, the responsibilities of wealth and privilege, the cost of defying rigid traditions, the meaning of love, and finding one's true place in the world. It is also a story of miracles.

by Becky Lane
for Story Circle Book Reviews
reviewing books by, for, and about women

This book is not an attempt to revise history, but rather to set the record straight. It was written by an author who was in a unique position to observe the Pentagon decision making process leading to the war in Iraq. Feith's attention to a detailed timeline and the facts as then known at the time in question, and his extensive documentation references are most impressive. I predict this will become recognized as a historically important work. Those who believe in "Cowboy Bush" and "Bush Lied" will not like this book. Many strategic and tactical mistakes are documented, and should be lessons learned. The war on terrorism seems destined to go on for a long time, and knowledge about it's beginnings is important.

Although General Tommy Franks famously referred to Feith as "the f****ng stupidest guy on the face of the earth.", this book demonstrates that he is in fact one of the most brilliant statesmen who ever walked the face of the earth. Feith has openly admitted that he had no desire to serve in Viet Nam because he was afraid of getting killed or having his beloved hair mussed up. But as undersecratary of something-or-other at the State Department, Feith was one of the fiercest proponents of going to war with Iraq for no good reason. In this great great book, Feith chronicles the monumental efforts he undertook to fabricate evidence of WMD in Iraq and of Saddam's connection to 9/11. Feith's detailed recounting of how the White House and the State Department were determined to go to war with Iraq for no other reason that to demonstrate U.S. military might to the world, is simultaneously chilling and comforting.

Although Doug Feith and John Bolton and George Bush and Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz and the many others who took this country to war have never had any desire to fight for their country when they had the opportunity, nobody can deny the patriotism and courage that these brave men have demonstrated in taking this great nation to war for no good reason against a country with a weak military but lots and lots of those Arab looking people who hate our freedoms.

Feith may be the f*****g stupidest guy on the face of the earth, but he's our f*****g stupidest guy on the face of the earth and thank god for that.

This is an essential fact book for every person curious about the U.S. government's decision making that led to the Afghan and Iraq wars and their pursuit in the early years.

Douglas Feith's memoir includes the period in which he served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. He covers discussions in which he was personally involved and clearly identifies information that he did not personally observe. As such, important pieces of the puzzle are left to the observations of the actual participants. One hopes that more books will provide additional first-hand information about the Iraq war and avoid the imaginative judgments of the uninformed. Michael Yon does well on the ground in Iraq, but all too many have built a big scaffold on which to hang President Bush and ignored their own limited perspective.

Feith provides appendices in which he outlines the Washington decision apparatus, shows the memos that provided outlines of decision options, a series of charts used to brief the President on the Iraq transition, the implementation outline for the President's March 2003 policy for an Iraq Interim Authority, and a policy briefing on training the Iraqi opposition. All told good evidence for the decision process used.

Feith explains that the chain of command goes from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the regional commander (Centcom's Tommy Franks handled the invasion of Iraq). The Centcom commander can (and regularly did) react negatively to any suggestions for change that did not come directly from the President or the Secretary of Defense.

The Pentagon staff and the Joint Chiefs provide support and advice only, and are not in the chain of command. Thus Wolfowitz (the Deputy Secretary of Defense), Feith and General Myers (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) in the Pentagon made suggestions to Rumsfeld and the President. These advisors supported the President's vision of the terrorist threat as a world-wide phenomena. They noted many separate organizations, but recognized their common goal of injuring America and their deadly danger to Americans. They shared the President's view and designed policies to reduce that threat, deter terrorism around the world, and did not narrow their vision to only Afghanistan, as many recommended.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld appears as a very demanding boss who was trying to refocus this largest of American bureaucracies into a leaner more flexible force. When the secretary's vision collided with officials who disagreed with him, he met a great deal of foot dragging. Never-the-less, he did move the army's divisional structure farther along the path toward brigade organization.

Mixed into the debate were multiple opinions about the force levels necessary in Iraq. In retrospect it is very clear that the force levels in Iraq were too small to permit a traditional occupation. Feith suggests the President's selected occupation policy might have made a large force less necessary, but it never had a chance. Head of the Coalition Provisional Authority Paul Bremer III caused shock across the administration when, without consultation, he published an article in the 08 September 2003 Washington Post headlined "Iraq's Path to Sovereignty." The seven steps Bremer outlined effectively aborted the President's plan for early and piecewise transfer of sovereignty to Iraq. The planned Iraq Interim Authority was not to be.

In retrospect it is easy to fault the President and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld for not immediately replacing Bremer. They must have felt "the man on the ground" had better information and in any event the shockwave from replacement would have been too high.

Bremer's dismantling of the Iraq Interim Authority had serious repercussions. Feith quotes Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari in his chapter title "from liberation to occupation;" a very brief summation. Our support in Iraq dwindled. Our casualty figures soared to new records in November 2003, April 2004, and November 2004 before easing back and then running up again to May 2007.

On the other hand Rumsfeld's continual insistence on careful written arguments for and against many policies should help produce a wonderful historic record of his thinking as Secretary of Defense. Would that the Secretary of State would create such a record. Many government departments try to impose their policies with leaks and innuendo. Right or wrong Rumsfeld was clearly working very hard to produce a policy that was in the country's best interest and not necessarily just his turf. He regularly suggested that State be given more budget to handle some to the work that had fallen to Defense by default.

It appears that both the President and the Secretary of Defense over-reacted to the disastrous experience of a President and Secretary of Defense micromanaging the Vietnam War. Possibly because of this unfortunate history they were extremely reluctant to reverse decisions made at the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and Regional Command (Centcom) level. They can be faulted for failing to push the Army to adopt a counterinsurgency strategy at an earlier date.

Early mistakes in a war are a foregone conclusion since your enemy has studied your previous tactics and made adjustments to counter them. We usually bumble along, adjust and eventually get tactics that work inside the enemy's decision-response envelope.

Adjusting strategy must be done more slowly, with much greater care, and requires careful communication to all levels. This takes time and can be seriously impeded by unclear or unrealistic goals. Rumsfeld did his best to generate clarity but some subordinates in Iraq were not able to operate at his level.

Feith is to be commended for producing a very readable book that contains a great deal of important history of the Washington decision making for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was indeed refreshing to read an account of the Washington decision making by an actual participant that is not clouded by wild suppositions or accusations.

Our present success in Iraq has built on the best efforts of a large number of men including the main characters of Feith's book. This success may not have been possible several years ago even if the troop surge had occurred then and General Petraeus had been the boss.

This reviewer considers it unfortunate that the President's many critics do not share his vision of the war's scope, but it is a point on which reasonable men can fail to agree. To me the debate closely parallels the European debate in the mid 1930's, but this time Churchill was in power.

Feith's book is largely an attempt to justify his actions and policies as #3 in the Pentagon under Rumsfeld, more specifically with regards to the Iraq war.

Well, if your boss calls you in to grill on some mistakes you've made you can:

- admit failure and throw yourself at her mercy
- justify every single issue by saying that it wasn't your fault
- tactically admit some failures and defend your record on the rest.

Most people, but not Feith apparently, would recognize that rejecting any notion of having made a mistake is counterproductive. That is my main complaint with the book. It is very very defensive in nature. If mistakes were made, it's because Feith wasn't listened to. All the mistakes were made by Colin Powell, at State, or by the CIA. Later on, Paul Bremer, the 2nd US envoy to Iraq, becomes the book's scapegoat. Rumsfeld is brilliant throughout, except for _slight_ misgivings about his management style.

Feith states that Rumsfeld, correctly in Feith's view, decided to achieve unity of command by having DoD in sole and exclusive charge of post-war Iraq. Given that DoD was now running the show, why is everybody, except for DoD to blame for what went wrong? Note that I am not really criticizing the military here, more the Pentagon. Bremer was reporting directly to Rumsfeld, except that well, he wasn't - according to Feith.

Another interesting aspect is the focus on Iraq. The book starts at 9/11 and then takes about 150 pages (out of 520) to cover the invasion of Afghanistan and events up to mid 2002 at most. Past that? Nothing, no coverage of the decidedly mixed results in stabilizing the country. Just occasional pats on his own back to show how much better Afghanistan worked out than Iraq.

Feith bemoans the lack of outreach to the Muslim communities but then dismisses Powell's insistence on finding an Arab-Israeli solution as a bunch of wishy-washy irrelevant thinking. I really don't think you can have it both ways. Feith neglects to mention his contributions to the 'Clean Break' paper in 1996, advocating war with Iraq and halting the Oslo peace talks. Odd that he forgot.

Bremer's actions as head of the CPA are presented as mostly his. Well, who authorized things like the laws liberalizing Iraq's economy? I am pro free-market myself, but there is no justification for imposing capitalist laws on a country you occupy.

Feith's regrets the insistence on WMD as the cause for war. I think that is hypocritical. WMD was the easiest way to convince the electorate to go to war. No more, no less. The intelligence was faulty but I give Feith the benefit of the doubt when he says that that only became clear after the fact. Regardless, if Colin Powell chose to emphasize WMD rather than other factors, I can't really believe it was over Bush's objections.


Enough bad mouthing. This was a hard read - I don't like Feith and I don't like this administration. But there are some good reasons why this book is interesting:

- Feith occasionally makes good points. For example, lack of nation-building capability in the US institutions. Lack of funding for the Department of State.

- Difficulty of funding important initiatives by friendly foreign governments, as opposed to very loose purse strings to fund the Pentagon. I dunno about that one - what are the Cold War precedents?

- Where the information is coming from. When Feith states that the President was already thinking about Iraq on 9/12/2001, it is coming from him. Not from some foaming-at-the-mouth 9/11 conspiracy theorist. It presents the administration's side.

- Colin Powell looks a whole lot better coming out of Iraq than Bush's inner court. Rightly or wrongly, this book presents an alternative view of him as not having had the courage of his convictions.

Finally, I find it sadly amusing that, coming as #37, mine is going to be the first 3 star review. Apparently, as is customary in debate about the Iraq war nowadays, Americans still can't get over the Democrats/Republican split. Everyone loves, or hates, this book. "A Drink In the Desert" vs. "Don't reward this war criminal by buying his book". This lack of common ground doesn't look good for future US foreign policy maturity.

This is an excellent background and first draft of history for the last seven years.

Feith was a policy/ analyst guy. He is not a foaming at the mouth, neo-con ideologue. He is a DC area lawyer, that worked in the NSC under Reagan/ Bush the elder and then more law work during Clinton, while keeping an amateur hand in the defense/ policy world.

As far as managing an office goes, I understood, that he was leading up an office of about a hundred civilian and uniform policy wonk type of guys, who reported directly to Sec Rumsfeld. In that sense, he offers a lot of interesting observations about how Defense Department of 2001 - 2005 worked, especially how it got along with the State Department and Rice's office, as Feith would often attend meetings with those folks for Rumsfeld, etc.

Rumsfeld himself comes across as a hard guy to work for. Feith tells the story of, in late 2001, the SecDef coming into his office on a Friday morning, telling Feith to grab five trusted guys and that they will follow him on a five nation trip to Asia over the weekend, and be expected to be back at their desks by Monday afternoon. So they group travels to Russia, a few Central Asia 'stans, Pakistan, India, all while meeting top officials like Putin and Musharef. Feith's crew works virtually non stop, cranking out reports and speeches and memos. On the way home, Feith asks Rumsfeld to come to the back of the plane and give a morale boosting speech to the staff and thank them for dropping everything on a moment's notice to do some hard work. Rumsfeld refuses, and upbraids Feith about what a stupid idea that would be.

But Feith is very clear that Rumsfeld is not particularly idealogical in his decision making. The SecDef did go to extreme efforts to search out every possibly solution to problems. In fact, he argues Rumsfeld wanted much of the opposite of what he has been portrayed as: a go it alone, shoot first, ask questions later guy.

In regards to Iraq, Feith makes probably the best arguments I have yet seen on the real necessity of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. It essentially makes the argument made by Clinton in 1998, Blair about the same time, sums up the 2002 Congressional Resolution for Iraq, albeit far more cogently.

I think he reads quite fairly. I got a lot out of Feith detailing a lot of the breakdowns in the decision making process in the NSC, especially Sec. Rice's lack of leadership and ability to move issues along. Essentially, he paints Rumsfeld as wanting to change and move the Federal Government to address the terrorist threats, and Colin Powell going along with the career government employee lines of operation. In a sense, Powell and Rice come off badly. The President is seen as someone who set policy, then trusted advisor's to figure out how to do it. Only in this case, the advisers had no real desire to work with each other and were often working in opposite directions.

Feith is extremely critical of the lost opportunities of the Garner/ Bremer administration in post Saddam 2003/2004 Iraq. I think he accurately describes why decisions or the lack of them, made after the invasion, contributed to the full scale insurgency that is only now calming.

Feith wrote a critical book of his work and the administration. He is highly critical of the US State Department, doesn't believe that much of value was added by the Committees on foreign relations and defense in Congress, and never doubts President Bush's good intentions for a moment, he really struggles with why the President or Rice, never stepped in and set clear policy and allowed things to drift as they did.

Twenty five years from now, when college students are writing papers, or military officers are studying the events of the past seven years, they will be citing Feith. I don't agree with everything he says, especially the bit about disbanding the Iraqi Army, with a small Coalition invasion force. Yet, Feith has written a fair, critical, first draft of history. It is a must read.

John Feinstein is a very good sports author. I love most of his books. I thought this was an interesting concept for a book. I enjoy both pitchers, Mike Mussina and Tom Glavine, that he chose to follow. Mr. Feinstein showed a different side of both pitchers. He had a great season to follow with the New York Mets collapse and the New York Yankees fighting to make the playoffs. I really enjoyed Mike Mussina's breaking down of what a pitcher truly is and what they do.

Now the bad, I hated that Mr. Feinstein went through game by game giving the highlights that someone could have gotten from the boxscores. He left me asking questions as I read about what the two pitchers thought or how it effected them that I wish he would have answered. The first part of the book where Mr. Feinstein goes through each of their careers to date was fascinating. However he couldn't sustain that pace and the critical analysis after he started with the 2007 season. I really did enjoy this book but wish he would have had a better editor that would have made the book flow a little tighter.

John Feinstein's latest tome considers two veteran major leaguers plying their craft during the 2007 season search of major milestones in the magnifying glass of the media frenzy that is New York. Tom Glavine won his 300th game with the Mets last year, while Mike Mussina, a member of the cross-town Yankees, won his 250th.

Feinstein painstakingly chronicles these athletes as they inch towards their lofty accomplishments. Glavine has since returned to the Atlanta Braves, for whom he won more than 240 of 305 regular season games (as of this writing) and two Cy Young Awards, indicative of the best pitcher in the league.

After brief recaps of their journeys through the school and amateur ranks, minor league apprenticeships, and careers prior to 2007, Feinstein settles in for the long, detailed process for which he has become famous in such books as TALES FROM Q SCHOOL, LET ME TELL YOU A STORY and A SEASON ON THE BRINK, among many others. No detail is too small, no scrap of information unimportant. The breadth of the book --- more than 500 pages --- can seem daunting, but for baseball fans, it's never boring. Feinstein's access earned him heretofore unknown insights into each man's habits and the social structure of a professional sports team, with all the disparate personalities and quirks.

Glavine won his landmark game on August 5th in a nationally televised affair against the Chicago Cubs, with the added emotion of his family on hand to share in the event as he became just the 23rd major league pitcher to do so. On the other end of the celebratory spectrum, Mussina notched win number 250 in his last victory of the season on September 23rd (just over 50 have accomplished that). He didn't even return to the dugout to watch the final out, having been relieved some innings earlier. "Two hundred isn't three hundred," Feinstein quotes him as saying, giving a nod to Glavine. "I understand that."

On the periphery of the individual milestones are the disparate fortunes of the Mets and Yankees, eternally at odds as they struggle for the hearts and minds of fans from within and without New York's borders. The Mets, odds-on-favorite to win at least the National League pennant, blew a comfortable lead for the Eastern division with a late-season collapse of historic proportion. That Glavine had one of the worst games of his life when the Mets needed him most dampens the love that the team's fans will hold for him for years to come.

The Yankees, on the other hand, struggled mightily before rallying to capture the American League wild card slot (they subsequently lost to the Cleveland Indians in the first round of the playoffs).

Despite a few glitches --- major or minor, depending on the reader's demand for accuracy --- Feinstein's thoughtful treatise of two thoughtful craftsmen at the tail end of their careers rank high on the list of such books. Acolytes of the teams will relive sorrow and elation, respectively.

--- Reviewed by Ron Kaplan

This book is a great read for those who happen to be fans of the cerebral aspects of baseball, and in particular pitching, as Feinstein picks the brains of two of the most successful major league pitchers of the past two decades while chronicling their 2007 seasons. The biographies of the two guys, Mike Mussina of the Yankees and Tom Glavine of the Mets (now again with the Braves in 2008) offers insights not only to how to get batters out, but on the relationships in the clubhouse between players, coaches, and the press, as well as the 1994 baseball strike and the role of the baseball players' union (of which Mussina and Glavine are player representatives for their respective teams).

The drama of the season is followed in two strands: In plot A: Glavine chases baseball immortality by capping a Hall of Fame career with 300 wins as the Mets appear to be cruising to a division title. In plot B, Mussina faces a career crisis as he battles injuries and ineffectiveness, hitting a nadir when he is removed from the starting rotation for the first time in his life while the Yankees pursue the wildcard. At the season's end, however, the tables have turned, and it's Glavine who faces a hostile press when he pitches one of the worst games of his career to end the Mets season as they suffer a historic collapse and miss the playoffs, while Mussina recovers sufficiently to reinvent his style and earn his 250th win, although not enough to regain the trust of Yankee management to start in the postseason, and he can only watch as his team loses in the first round of the playoffs again.

Overall, the book is enjoyable, with nuggets of pitching wisdom and funny anecdotes sprinkled throughout. The chapters do get a little tedious once the narrative begins detailing the 2007 season game by game (and there are some typos), but you will definitely learn a lot about pitching and baseball.

Living on the Black is an interesting and insightful look at Tom Glavine and Mike Mussina, two of the game's greatest pitchers, during the 2007 season. Both pitchers experience frustrating seasons.

Glavine posts a 13-8 record for the Mets while registering his 300th career win. The Mets choke down the stretch, blowing a 7-game lead with 16 to play. Mussina goes 11-6 for the Yankees, who capture the wild card and lose to the Cleveland Indians in the first round of the playoffs.

Although I'm sure author John Feinstein would have preferred for the Mets and Yankees to have met in the World Series, or at least advanced farther in the playoffs, the book still delivers.

Feinstein devotes the first 125 pages to the careers of Glavine and Mussina prior to the 2007 season. I found that part of the book more interesting than I would have thought, particularly since I was fairly familiar with the careers of both players.

Feinstein's discussion of spring training pitching philosophy and workout routines is the best I've read.

Glavine and Mussina share a number of traits: They're intellectual, physically talented, reliable, push themselves to keep improving and constantly make adjustments.

Living on the Black gives readers a better appreciation of pitching and its challenges. You will better understand a pitcher's psyche, frustrations and ups and downs. The value each pitcher puts on his family also comes through strongly.

As Glavine pursues his 300th career win, Mussina attempts to deal with being dropped from the Yankees rotation after not missing a start in 498 turns.

Feinstein is as smooth a writer as Glavine and Mussina are pitchers. Despite its 500-plus pages, the book never lags. And, you don't have to be a Mets or Yankees fan to enjoy this book.

Reading the sports section of the newspaper will give you the results of yesterday's games. There will be some in-depth articles on how the home team fared, and there may even occasionally be a human-interest story on a particular athlete. But to truly understand how a professional athlete thinks or feels, to comprehend the psychology of the game, and to know what separates them from the talented high school or college star - you have to read a sports book.

John Feinstein has made a career following teams and athletes in various sports through a typical season, so that the reader can experience vicariously the life of a professional athlete. In Living on the Black, he follows two great pitchers in the twilight of their careers as they both play in the media-crazy hothouse of New York, albeit for different teams.

In this insightful book, Feinstein follows Tom Glavine of the New York Mets as he struggles to reach 300 wins, which all but ensures his eventual election to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Simultaneously, the author traces the key events in the 2007 season of Mike Mussina of the New York Yankees as he approaches 250 career wins, a stellar accomplishment for any pitcher. These men struggle with injuries-physical and psychological, as they deal with both personal and team expectations.

The book is appropriately titled Living on the Black. The black refers to the inside and outside edges of the plate where control or finesse pitchers must throw to be successful in this most demanding game. Glavine had always been a control, rather than a power pitcher, and Messina having been forced to become one due to age and the decreasing speed of his once dominant fastball.

Although these two share many common experiences of having had a highly successful and lengthy career in baseball, they come from decidedly different backgrounds and exhibit very different personalities. What they do share in common is a strong belief in themselves and their ability to constantly fine-tune their mechanics, as well as their thought processes, which allows them to stay at the top of their game.

John Feinstein is an American sportswriter and commentator. He is a columnist for the Washington Post, an author, is a guest commentator on NPR.

Armchair Interviews says: You can learn how players stay at the top of their game with this up-close-and-personal story.

This is a wonderful book about an unbelievable champion - the kind we need today in America. A champion that reaches into the hearts of the people, unifies us and inspires us to prevail. The men who believed in Seabiscuit were not perfect, nor was Seabiscuit but they all managed to be imperfect winners. The writing itself might be a bit flourished but it is certainly well-researched and the story is entertaining told. Hillebrand has captured the ironies, truths, the agony and ecstasy of horse-racing and life itself as well. This one will make you cheer.

I'm usually concerned about purchasing items on line, especially books. I can honestly say that this experience was worth it. I would recommend this seller to anyone interested in purchasing good quality books at extremely reasonable prices.

Buy with confidence, I did!

I can't recall the number of non-fiction books that I've read. Little matter, this is the most incredible true story that I've read!!
Laura Hillenbrand has captured a time in American History. She is a true storyteller who has done impeccable research. It must have been the time she spent in Gambier, Ohio at Kenyon College that inspired her to such great in depth writing.
For those of you who have not read this book or have not seen the excellent movie, you're in for an incredible treat. Trust Me!!
If I were writing fiction, this true story would not have been told. Charles Howard, Red Pollard and Tom Smith are indeed the Holy Trinity. Remember these names, after reading this book, you will never forget them.
One little horse, so much history!!! Incredible!!!!

I have recently read Seabiscuit and watched the film and found both to be very compelling. We dont think much anymore about the dark days of the Depression but Laura Hillenbrand puts us right back in the middle of it. The important lesson was to look to the future as Charles Howard implored, the sun will come up tomorrow.

Three incredible characters intersect with this horse of unknown promise. Howard is the wealthy owner, despondent over the death of his son and unsure how to live the life of leisure; Red Pollard is a jockey not able to break into the big-time, due to his attitude, blindness, and injuries; Tom Smith is a taciturn man who belongs in the 19th century of his youth, not the modern world. Together they develop and promote Seabiscuit, a horse of incredible bloodlines, yet given up on by better trainers due to his work habits, attitude, injuries, and size.

Eventually the Biscuit wins all the stakes in the state of California and gets a shot at a match race with the great Eastern horse and Triple Crown winner, War Admiral. Both horses are descendants of the great Man'o'war, but the eastern elites dont want to give the western upstart his chance. After a few cancellations due to injuries and prickly owners, the match race goes off in Baltimore and the smaller horse brings it home.

The book is more enlighting with respect to the fuller stories of the characters, especially the relationship between the jockeys and Pollard's romance and marriage to a Boston nurse. The movie brings the times to life. Howard and Pollard were the raconteurs who made Seabiscuit the hero of the little guys during those lean years. Dont forget, tough times dont last but tough guys do.

Ms. Hillenbrand is an equally interesting story. She suffers from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and is only able to work at a fraction of the typical writer. Here she focused her energy on this story and these times. Seabiscuit has been the story many times in film and books but Ms. Hillenbrand brings it to life for us.

Seabiscuit is a great story, book, and movie. If you have not read it, buy it today and start reading. You will not be disappointed.

I Highly recommend the The Game of Life UNABRIDGED MP3 AUDIO Game of life and how to play it Game of life and how to play it

The book offers clear and high spirited answers to life problems.Despite dealing with fundamental issues,it is written in a no nonsence,easily undestood manner,leaving the reader inspired to reach for his/her highest potential.An absolute MUST read material!

I first read Florence's book "The Game of Life" many years ago and fell in love with her timeless philosophy and outlook on life. Since that time I have purchased numerous copies as gifts for friends & family.

I was first informed of the works of 19th Century writer/teacher,Florence Scovel Shinn in 2007 and had planned to read The Florence Scovel Shinn Reader immediately. However,overwhelmed with the incidentals of writing, I again put off study time needed to devote to another metaphysical text. What a mistake! What a rewarding book!!

As an author, I am aware of the arduous task of demystifying New Age Thought. What an artist. Ms.Shinn is indeed a skilled and creative instructor of universal laws. This book is a valuable guide for raising the consciousness of all who wish to learn how to change their life and affairs in a positive life affirming manner.

Ms. Shinn makes it easy for the novice to move toward empowerment by recounting numerous life altering manifestations experienced by both her clients and students. The Shinn reader is an excellent transformational key. Doors are truly unlocked and many spiritual truths are revealed. The Florence Scovel Shinn Reader is a informal treasury of metaphysical teachings that has stood the test of time. As a student and teacher of positive thought, I highly recommend The Florence Scovel Shinn Reader.

C. A. Lofton, author
African-American Guide to Prosperity

I first read this book (The Game of Life and How To Play It) over 20 years ago. I have purchased more than a dozen copies of the book and given them to friends. I have returned to the simplicity of her writings on so many occasions. Mrs Shinn was a metaphysical teacher in the 20's. Her metaphysical Christian approach (my words, not hers) opened my eyes to greater metaphors within the Bible; teachings that I never learned in Sunday School.

Don't let her simple approach to spiritual living or her 'easy to read' writing style fool you. She speaks to 'truths' that are at work in our lives, and 'how to' align yourself with those principles.

In all, she wrote 4 books on spiritual living. The Florence Scovel Shinn Reader contains all her works in one place for easy reference.

This is an easily read book which you will enjoy over and over again.