Another book that apparently wasn't carried over from my now-defunct Amazon account.
Why three stars? Bad thesis.
Lincoln didn't set out to pick a teamAnother book that apparently wasn't carried over from my now-defunct Amazon account.
Why three stars? Bad thesis.
Lincoln didn't set out to pick a team of rivals because they were rivals. He did this because he had no choice.
He was the first president of a new political party, and needed both moderate-conservative voices and quasi-radical ones from both previous Democrats and previous Whigs.
As for political rivals? Caleb Smith at Interior, Simon Cameron, the original Secretary of War, Monty Blair as Postmaster General, and Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles weren't rivals of his anyway. Smith hadn't come close to seeking the presidency and his home state of Indiana was the first in the GOP besides Illinois to embrace Lincoln. Cameron had stood as a favorite son candidate from Pennsylvania but knew he had no shot at the nomination; he was just looking for favors. Blair also hadn't sought the presidency, but the Blair family was one to keep stroked....more
I first read this nearly 20 years ago, not too long after it came out. I might have written a review on my now-defunct Amazon account that I never traI first read this nearly 20 years ago, not too long after it came out. I might have written a review on my now-defunct Amazon account that I never transferred over here.
Anyway, had I rated it back then, it would have been 5 stars.
Today? 3.5, rounded downward.
Per others rating it 3 stars or less, obviously, and more noted by me on second read? The one-upmanship. The nearly getting two friends drowned in the Colorado below Havasu Falls. The nearly getting two friends killed in an avalanche just months before this happened, and having them both become ex-friends, and per Ralston, as of the time of the book, having never contacted him again.
The accident itself? An accident. (I've gotten lost way backcountry in the Needles District of Canyonlands and had to spend an overnight on a canyon floor.) The not telling people details of his trip? Understand. But, there still seems to be a bit of arrogance behind it.
The one-upmanship is also reflected by a few other "issues" in the book.
Per places like 14ers.com, and Wiki, using USGS standards, there are 53 not 59 14ers in Colorado. (I've climbed five myself.) Tree line in much of Colorado is 11,500, not 11,000; it can push 12K in spots. Air at 14,000 feet is more like 62 percent of sea level than 50 percent. It doesn't drop to 50 percent until you get above 18,000 feet.
Then, the motivational speaker part? His newest video on his speaker for hire website, his "hire me," is four-plus years old. The newest news, from when Obama made Browns Hole a national monument, is nine years old. Off YouTube, his Sh**tter page is almost 3 years old since last post; ditto on Facebook.
Per his Wiki page? That unborn son he thought was calling? Does he have much visitation right, having divorced his ex-wife 12 years ago after 2.5 years of marriage? Eighteen months later, he and his then-girlfriend filed mutual assault charges against each other. That might have dried up the motivational speaking.
In other words, the post-accident part of this book hasn't aged well. Also, I don't believe the hyperbole at the end that, because of everything he gained, he wouldn't trade getting his hand back. (I was in a car wreck eight years ago; fortunately, my shattered left arm healed to near 100 percent of normal. But, had I lost it, yes, today, I'd still want it back.)
Per Neil Young, maybe he has faded away more than burning out.
Finally, I note what one other lower-star reviewer noted: Aron hiking with the Discman and headphones. Would he have heard the chockstone shifting more quickly without that? We don't know. We do know that he wasn't experiencing all of nature because he couldn't hear it....more
Just as I need to stop reading allegedly serious nonfiction books by people with MFAs in creative writing, so, too, do I need to stop reading thin andJust as I need to stop reading allegedly serious nonfiction books by people with MFAs in creative writing, so, too, do I need to stop reading thin and underwritten memoirs by under-40 people who aren't actually famous, especially if I'm reading them for internalized liberal sociological / identitarian reasons.
Some parts are good, but she lost me early on.
Claiming her family, with tenure-track professor dad and whatever her creative writing mom was doing, was “lower middle class”? Yes, a Howard-level private university might not pay as much as a University of Virginia, but this comes just after mentioning they had a bigger house than in California.
Then, the animal filming, of the hibernating bear? I got to wondering, how much of what we see on such shows is wildlife porn? And, how much of what’s done to get these shots is animal cruelty? Wynn-Grant marvels at being able to resuscitate the suffocating sow bear, but doesn’t offer up any such reflectiveness herself about the things above.
I had skipped to the end while reading in bed, so, there’s further things in the middle.
First, as others have noted, there's not a lot of actual wildlife / safari events.
Second, no index. Yes, this is a brief book, but still.
Third? Per the under-40 angle, the "tell-all" style of these modern memoirs reflect the social media world, I guess. (I don't use my real name anywhere that I can. Even with Hucksterman, I signed up long enough ago that I have been able to semi-camouflage my actual name. And I almost never post to "public" there.) If you're really famous, someone else will do a tell-all, like Kitty Kelley 3.0 or whatever. If you're not, you won't get that. Maybe that, in turn, is part of trying to make oneself more famous than one actually is.
Fourth? Would she really stand out that much in Madagascar vis a vis the Malagasy natives, which I knew already was settled by Austronesians, likely from Indonesia, and within the past 1,500 years.)Or is this more a conceit? After all, for years, the "Blackest" golfer on the PGA Tour was Vijay Singh, not Tiger Woods. Besides, within 500 years after the initial peopling, Bantus from continental Africa came to Madagascar, too, which she doesn’t mention but which took me 10 seconds on Wiki to find. My guess is her concern is partially true, but also partially conceit. Besides that, since her hair is usually "relaxed," it's a conceit for that way, too. This was the final straw to be two-star, not three.
As for "uplifting," per John Legend and two others on the back? For its own issues (somewhat lesser overall), "Pack Light" strikes me as more uplifting or inspiring....more
Besides being Black and queer, as she self-identifies (I don't know what the distinction she makes between that and lesbian might be), Shilletha CurtiBesides being Black and queer, as she self-identifies (I don't know what the distinction she makes between that and lesbian might be), Shilletha Curtis has a childhood of at least one instance of sexual abuse, physical abuse, and the fact that, in general, LGBT issues get buried more, in general, in the Black world than the White world.
In other words, compared to Cheryl Strayed, she brought a fair amount more of herself to the trail. That said, Strayed was also a child sexual abuse victim. That makes this book more interesting in that way.
OTOH, there's much less about the hike than Strayed offered about her escapades on the PCT.
Also, it's even more New Agey or spiritual but yes religiously metaphysical than I recall "Wild" being. And, it's a crappier book as far as overall depth, in my opinion.
Also, until I got done, I didn't realize how much advance support she had received — even though she does mention getting sponsored for the hike by the Appalachian Trail Conservancy in the intro, she does NOT mention in this book — which IS in this Outside magazine interview getting a gig writing for the Conservancy as part of that and getting outside sponsorships as part of that. More detailed disclosure might be nice.
It's good that people of color are encouraged to be outdoors. Gays and lesbians, too. But, that leaves this with a sense of dishonesty. Not as much as why Matthew Shepard actually died, versus the corrective of "The Book of Matt," but a degree of it, still.
Also, like Strayed's "Wild," there's no big reveal on how much she "found herself" or "released herself, to use the language on the last page. (On treatment-resistant depression, there's non-pharmacological medical options, like transcranial magnetic stimulation, or even the old electroshock under new name. And, in many cases, they do work, and on electroshock, the side effects aren't nearly as bad as they once were.)
So, I couldn't bump to four stars. And, it's really 2.5.
Were I 20 or more years younger, I'd love to get sponsorship as a non-New Agey secularist hiking one of America's three main through trails, too. I don't have to have that much. Buy me some hiking poles, a new mirrorless camera to replace my DSLR, and let me stage-hike rather than through-hike.)
IF she writes a book about the CDT, it had better be a helluva lot better.
(Side note: Though I don't partake, I certainly get having a blunt or a bong on the trail. But, dropping acid WHILE ALONE? Find some better sense while finding yourself. Arguably almost as stupid is, given the degree of racism you said you faced in online hiking groups before the ATC "adopted" you? Solo hiking as much of southern parts of the trail as you did might fit the bill.
Side note two: Per one two-star reviewer, I find it "interesting" that many of the five-star reviewers have this as their first review. Maybe Curtis DID recruit "cohorts" to fight one or two low-star early reviews. Seven of the 15 as of the time of typing this, had this as their first review. Four of the other eight had reviewed no more than five books.
Side note three: Let us add that possibly the first Black woman, albeit presumably straight not lesbian/queer, and I don't know their other personal history did this back in 2016 She adds that a Black woman did the PCT a year earlier. Both, presumably, without author-contract advance support.)...more
Very good, maybe 4.5 stars, but couldn't quite go 5. Scratch that. This is social media, and this is another review where I'm tweaking mine because I Very good, maybe 4.5 stars, but couldn't quite go 5. Scratch that. This is social media, and this is another review where I'm tweaking mine because I don't like someone else's overreaction.
Would Robert Louis Stevenson, who normally went by Louis, have lived to write all the great works he did without marrying Fanny Osbourne, who interested him enough he waited for her to divorce her first husband, when in late Victorian times, divorce was becoming less and less acceptable? Would Louis have had the stick-to-it-ness to see through his earlier novels?
Camille Peri's new dual biography says the answer is likely no to both issues, as well as strongly asserting how much of a collaborator, muse and editorial critic she was at times as well.
Peri also notes how, in his time, the later Stevenson, of his years of South Seas wanderings, was evolving in new literary directions, for which he was little appreciated in Britain and not necessarily a lot more in America. It makes me want to pick up something from his later works, if I can find something or ILL it, to give it a shot.
Especially on the Stevensons' later South Seas years, she notes how both of them were relatively, but not totally, enlightened on the Samoans and other islanders versus the racism of the time, and throughout the book, how Louis was relatively enlightened on the sexism, but how neither was perfect.
And, the real love story and Peri's main thesis is spelled out well vs the background of both of their families and that late-Victorian milieu.
On the reasons I couldn't quite go 5, they're related to a 3-star reviewer (though I think their review doth protest too much, perhaps a lot too much; see first paragraph).
Peri always assumes the best about Fanny as writer and person, and tries to modernize both Fanny and Louis too much. (The 3-starrer ONLY mentioned Fanny in regard to this.) Also, the person says that if don't know who Stevenson is, your childhood was robbed, and thus THEY commit the crime of seemingly straitjacketing him to being a children's author.
The other reason, which that reviewer doesn't even mention, that this book is not "really" a full 5 stars is that, not having read any of Fanny Stevenson myself, I can't assess Peri's claims about her authorial chops....more
A meh treatment of both men individually, and of their backgrounds, with a so-so treatment of their interaction that halfway busts some myths that theA meh treatment of both men individually, and of their backgrounds, with a so-so treatment of their interaction that halfway busts some myths that the unfamiliar may hold about Muir, Pinchot, or both, while leaving others in place.
And, per other reviewers, this is all compounded by a back-and-forth, overall not fully chronological style, that a better author with a better playoff between the two subjects could have done more with.
In reality?
First, Muir was, in the terms of the day, sometimes a "conservationist" not a "preservationist" himself. That includes at Yosemite.
Second, bits of Muir's racial attitudes toward American Indians were, I believe, starting to come back into more public notice by the time of this book. (Much more so afterward.) They're not mentioned. I don't know what Pinchot's stance was; I suspect it wasn't more enlightened. Clayton does once, re Yellowstone and its establishment as a national park, mentioned it was indeed inhabited at the time — just not by White folk. Yosemite never gets even that bit of backgrounding.
Third, the TR to Taft handoff? Clayton, like most people I've read on this subject not named Doris Kearns Goodwin, gives Taft short shrift....more
First, Sachs fails to some degree on his "thesis," of tying Beethoven's Ninth to the year of its compLike a light lunch that soon passes, so to speak.
First, Sachs fails to some degree on his "thesis," of tying Beethoven's Ninth to the year of its completion.
Second, he fails to some degree on his analysis of the Ninth.
Third, he fails to some degree on his take on Beethoven's connection to later musicians. As another reviewer notes, there's almost no tie of him to Brahms. There's no discussion of why, other than Berlioz in the extended symphonic tone poem Romeo and Juliet, or Mendelssohn in the meh 2nd Symphony, attempted a chorale symphony for decades.
In the broader world of 1824, where's Jeremy Bentham and utilitarianism, which could certainly be seen as a "humanistic" philosophy? (Bentham started a quarterly magazine that year.) Where's the founding of the Mechanics Institute in Manchester, England? Where's Lafayette's visit to the US, certainly worthy of mention more than the Erie Canal nearing completion?
In the critique of the Ninth, as others have noted, there's not one single image of a manuscript. OK.
The opening part's mini-biography of Beethoven was, all things considered, relatively good. But, that's about it....more
Barely 3 stars. It's nice. And, it's "nice." It doesn't quite fall to my "meh" bookshelf level, but it's not hugely above that.
It's a surface-level meBarely 3 stars. It's nice. And, it's "nice." It doesn't quite fall to my "meh" bookshelf level, but it's not hugely above that.
It's a surface-level memoir that, in his adulthood, is about Cranston the actor more than Cranston the person.
Per another reviewer, why don't we hear more about his salad days interest in EST and Scientology? And, per Wiki, why don't we hear about his meeting Charlie Manson when he was a kid? Why doesn't he talk about his adult political activism?
I suspect a lot of the pretended reveal, but not an actual below the surface reveal, is conscious. Maybe some of it is unconscious.
Maybe he had taken that whole idea of working as an actor as retreat from the public that much to heart. Maybe too much to heart....more
I'm old enough to remember both, but because, even in the previous century, I only did a couple of movies a year, I wasn'Somewhere around 2.5-3 stars?
I'm old enough to remember both, but because, even in the previous century, I only did a couple of movies a year, I wasn't "into" them as critics.
Riffing on one other 2-star reviewer, I can't remember if their appearances with David Letterman were brilliant, as the author claims, or an A-list example of awkwardness, as the reviewer claims. Maybe it's about halfway in between.
The author makes clear, contra one or two other low-star reviewers, that they didn't "hate" each other, not in the early days, and certainly not later.
But it is hagiographic. It is a bio of the pair as a team, even though Ebert insisted they weren't a team. It is not an in-depth bio of either as an individual, nor a critical bio of either one as a film critic.
It's a semi-saccharine indulgence of a key element in late 20th century American pop culture....more
Per other reviews of three stars or less, I got tired of the degree of discursiveness into Argentinian hisLots of grokking, so much to label this DNF.
Per other reviews of three stars or less, I got tired of the degree of discursiveness into Argentinian history in general, and Peronism and related in particular. I already know the basics of Francis' relationship to the pre-1982 military dictatorship.
Second, yes, he may be radical compared to Benedict XVI, and John Paul II, in some ways. I mean, almost anybody would look radical compared to Ratzi the Nazi. But, it's moderate and hedged "radicalness," except as il papa speaking on foreign affairs, maybe.
Third, Ivereigh is in the tank for Francis, per his later book about him.
So, skipping over the middle 2/3, I went to the conclave and epilogue chapters. The chapter on the 2015 conclave was the one thing saving this from two stars....more
5-ish/5-ish/2.5-ish for 3.25 overall, rounded down, after initially considering 3.5 rounded up.
The first 5-ish is for content. Kevin Phillips has the 5-ish/5-ish/2.5-ish for 3.25 overall, rounded down, after initially considering 3.5 rounded up.
The first 5-ish is for content. Kevin Phillips has the goods on multiple generations of the Bush and Walker families, including their ties not only to the Saudis et al, but past ties to the Nazis, including after the start of WWII, and ties to Imperial Germany up to or after the start of WWI.
The second 5-ish is for style. Phillips' often slyly acerbic observations are always good reading.
The 2.5-ish? The book's thesis is not only dated today but was not justifiable at the time.
Let's look at American history.
Adamses? Father and son presidents. Charles Francis a Representative and diplomat. After that, the Adamses peter out of elected politics.
Harrisons? William Henry's grandfather signed the Declaration of Independence, and Benjamin like him was president. Any Harrisons running around in Congress or gubernatorial mansions in Ohio, Indiana or Virginia after that?
Alphonso Taft? AG. William Howard president and his son twice sought the GOP nomination. Any Tafts today risen above Ohio state-level politics?
Kennedys? Brainworm Bobby just officially became Wasted Space. And, like the "dynasties" above, not a single Kennedy in Congress or a governor's mansion other than the totally unrelated nutter in Louisiana.
And, while one Kennedy was in the House, and Ted in the Senate, at the time this book was written, the other "dynasty" families were already off the stage. Phillips should have known better.
But, if there's one big failing Phillips has as a historian, it's to overpush a thesis. His recent "1775" book is a good example....more
A solid first run at a Powell bio, but somewhat hagiographic at times, which in turn may be revealing about Stegner. Donald Worster's "A River RunningA solid first run at a Powell bio, but somewhat hagiographic at times, which in turn may be revealing about Stegner. Donald Worster's "A River Running West" will give a more well-rounded picture....more
Realistically, probably 4 1/2, to go just a smidge above 4 1/4, but bumped because of two bad two-star reviews, which I'll name off the bat.
First, conRealistically, probably 4 1/2, to go just a smidge above 4 1/4, but bumped because of two bad two-star reviews, which I'll name off the bat.
First, contra this review by Catharine, Dolin, with double-digit books, almost all of them about matters maritime, did NOT model himself on The Wager. The rest of your review is nothing.
And this review by an apparent British reader, is WAY off the beam. Dolin says at the start he is NOT "endorsing" seal hunting, but merely describing history. Second, when did the Falklands become "northern"? Third, and above all, the issue isn't whiny Americans, it's treacherous Brits, starting with, but by no means limited to, Lt. D'Aranda. Intertwine the War of 1812, the other treacherous ones violating oral oaths, and refusing to say boo to D'Aranda, and you have a story.
Now, what this book IS about, as hinted in my castigations? It's about far more than a shipwreck. It's about trust vs treachery, and, tied to that, shipwreck followed by table-turning marooning, double-dealing within the marooned that may have left protagonist Charles Barnard at times wishing he were a party of one as marooned, like Alexander Selkirk, the real-life model for Robinson Crusoe, and more.
This is an easy, good read, with its twists and turns, and Dolin wisely condensing the post-rescue narrative of Barnard and his four compadres to "just the facts, ma'am" level.
As set-up, besides sealing in general, Dolin discusses the early history of the Falklands. I didn't know that the Dutch and French had landed there as well as English and Spanish. The Frenchman? The irrepressible Comte de Bougainville. Having just read about Cook's last voyage, I'd love to come across an English-language bio, or maritime bio, of Bougainville.
No more, no spoilers. Obviously, everybody was rescued, to give Dolin a story....more
A Player is trying to play you. Period, bottom line and end of story.
Per a theme of Loury’s off and on throughout the book, I think that’s the best taA Player is trying to play you. Period, bottom line and end of story.
Per a theme of Loury’s off and on throughout the book, I think that’s the best take on this. Yes, that's highly skeptical. It may even be a bit cynical, but it's skeptical far ahead of cynical. To Loury's fanbois and fangirrls who either loved or hated this book, I don't care if you think it's all cynicism, no skepticism.
Let's dive in, starting with stuff that presented itself right away.
First, per Loury’s hints in his intro that he thinks radical honesty will make him more likeable as well as more believable? Tosh. Ditto on implied claims that if he’s more believable on his personal story, then he’ll be more believable on his economic and political stances. Tosh again.
Second, per the front half of the inner dust cover flap, any swing to the left was relatively short and narrowly focused.
Third, no index.
Fourth, Hillsdale College early 1980s may not have been as big as today as far as conservative world imprint, but it wasn’t small. Writing for them? Loury had to know what he was doing. As far as his musings about a John Conyers and police brutality, he implies that Conyers was thinking about this to the exclusion of thinking about black family problems. With both this and Hillsdale, Loury had to know that white conservatives would use this as ammunition for “let’s move beyond affirmative action.” He either DID know this and decided to, early on, be a “Player,” or else he didn’t think about it and became a Sucker.
At this point, I am pretty sure the book won’t go above 3 stars. So, where within that will it land?
Well, next, we hit his cheap, caricatured and dishonest — to shove that word in his face — strawmanning of liberals on the 170s-180s pages. And, by the time I’m at 200, I am pretty sure this is no more than 2 stars. And, I'm thinking this is another part of being a Player.
And then, shortly after page 300, comes Charles Murray and The Bell Curve. Now, I know that Loury is no more a cognitive scientist or an evolutionary biologist than is, say, Andrew Sullivan, to cite another prominent personage who has both loathsome and stupid views on the book and the ideas behind it. And, contra Loury, it doesn’t matter that Herrnstein had died by the time the book came out. He was wrong, too. BOTH authors got money from the racist Pioneer Fund, like Frank Miele. Add in that Murray then moved from racism to sexism. Interestingly (perhaps in part because, reading between the lines in this book, Loury isn't very enlightened on feminism, either), he doesn't even mention this to try to explain it away. Surely, he knows this, too.
Contra Sully, though, Loury is an academic in a not totally distant field, and even less distant as far as some of his lectures and such. He’s surely read some of the material before, during and after The Bell Curve about the sociological influences on IQ even when not motivated by racism, the problems with “g” and more, problems detailed here. In addition, the fact that AEI, the American Enterprise Institute, simply threw aside his concerns, and basically just went on without him after he left, apparently opened no eyes in his soul.
There’s also the fact that this connects to broader stupidity in Evolutionary Psychology, with some of its biggest stupidity detailed here.
There’s other lies by omission. Like overlooking that already by the late 1960s, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was ignoring LBJ’s dictum that you don’t ask someone to run, but just walk, after removing the chains. Or, talking about equity once or twice, then ignoring the multigenerational transfer effects of racial differences in equity.
As for the radical honesty, one more time? Tying his conclusion to his introduction, it seems like he’s selling the idea of being an intellectual Player. I think his puffed up move from the right to the left was part of being a Player. And, other than mass incarceration, was it really much of a move? Nowhere in the book does Loury dive into the intersection of race and class, other than his personal anecdotes revealing how part of his being a Player in various ways involved forms of intersectional class-shifting. In light of that, I note that he doesn’t mention Isabel Wilkerson or her book Caste.
That said, he’s not 100 percent wrong on everything. Nor is new bosom buddy McWhorter. I don’t have a lot of use for Ta-Nehisi Coates nor for the 1619 Project’s Nikole Hannah-Jones. I have about none for Ibrahim Kendi and even less for Robin DiAngelo as a white race hustler.
Oherwise, as for his alleged move to the “left”? There’s NO Black leftists he mentions. Yes, Black liberals. No Black leftists, like, say, an Adolph Reed.
There’s zero engagement with Critical Race Theory, like Derrick Bell and his "Silent Covenants." Loury mentions some other Bell in the book, but since no index, I can’t remember who.
So, why? Is Loury trafficking in the idea of being a Player due to laws of supply and demand on black conservatives? Was his shift allegedly to the “left” to build up Black cred when he moved back right?...more
First was thinking 3.5, then thought 3.25. Maybe just 3.0 is right after all. Or, maybe even 2.75.
There's not much really new here, especially people First was thinking 3.5, then thought 3.25. Maybe just 3.0 is right after all. Or, maybe even 2.75.
There's not much really new here, especially people with a solid knowledge of the US Civil War. The incompetence of German-American generals has been documented all over the place. That said, someone possibly German-American with the last name of Holzer looks "problematic" when making fun of a German surname like Schimmelpfennig. Details of the 1864 immigration promotion act were new to me, as were attempts, eventually successful, to tweak it a year later. Less known to me, and arguably of more importance, were details of 1864 strikebusting by Lincoln. Holzer doesn't dive into detail on that one.
Holzer appears to halfway give Lincoln a pass on some other issues, too. Had Lincoln lived a second term, would he have been proactive on supporting Chinese immigration, and beyond the need for railroad workers? I doubt it. Re the "first immigrants," would Lincoln have become more enlightened in his second term on American Indian issues? I doubt it.
Finally, anybody who knows the truth of Lincoln's April 1865 meeting with Spoons Butler knows he had not at all abandoned efforts to colonize African Americans. I have thoroughly refuted David S. Reynolds and James Oakes on this issue. Holzer pushes this less but is also wrong.
The pre-Civil War era? I knew the basics of Lincoln's nuancing of his stance, that is, nuancing of his public comments, on the issue of immigration in general and, politically, the Native American party and broader "Know Nothing" movement in general, in the first two-thirds of the 1850s, and, bits of it before then. This, including some of Lincoln's boundless files of ethnic humor, was the better half of the book. But, pre-1858 stuff only makes up 90 pages, and stuff from then through his inauguration only another 60.
Side note re another 3-star reviewer and a 2-star? It comes close to "gotcha" to focus on the subtitle and say the book was mainly about immigrants, not immigration....more
Solid 4-star as a personal angle and first-draft-of-history take on Watergate by the man who was, more than anybody other than Nixon himself, at the cSolid 4-star as a personal angle and first-draft-of-history take on Watergate by the man who was, more than anybody other than Nixon himself, at the center of the storm.
It has normal first-draft limitations. We know so much more about the backstory today.
And, the real reason no fifth star? Page 212:
But it seemed fairly clear that the Constitution prescribed that Congress, through the impeachment process, should have the primary jurisdiction over a president who committed criminal acts.
NO. And I don't care if you're John Sirica. It neither says nor implies that. And, this is also the bad thinking behind the Nixon-era opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel within the Department of Justice that sitting presidents can't be indicted, an opinion only, advisory only, that Robert Mueller stupidly bought into.
Rather, with the Constitution making clear that the penalty for conviction upon impeachment is limited to loss of office, I see it as implying that impeachment is an adjunct to criminal charges for an officeholder who won't remove themselves. (Congress can expel its own members; it must impeach judges and executive officials.)
And, that said, while Ron Jaworski getting the grand jury to name Nixon an unindicted co-conspirator was good? IMO, better would have been indicting Nixon under seal....more
First, this is NOT above all and beneath the sheets, an outdoors adventure book, contra the subhed.
It's a selProbably 2.5 stars, but I bumped it down.
First, this is NOT above all and beneath the sheets, an outdoors adventure book, contra the subhed.
It's a self-help book trying to disguise itself as that.
And, while it's not as New Agey as some, it is that to a degree, and I realized that, too.
My antennae went up further just before halfway, when I looked on the back and noticed the blurbers included James Nestor, author of the loathsome "Breath" book.
It's got the "n=1" anecdotal problems of most such books, combined with the fact that most the people in this particular book are moneyed enough and White enough to be able to afford these outdoor adventures and have the sociocultural mindset to embrace them.
Beyond money and situational matters, books like this also never have room to discuss pure dumb luck. And not "luck" in a backdoor New Age metaphysical sense. Simply random chance.
And, yes, it also involves bits of podcast-dropping and other things, tho not so bad as to expect this was paid placement. There was bits of name-dropping, too, and speaking of, on Cheryl Strayed and "Wild," contra Stanger I wasn't totally enamored.
And, beyond "meh," I guess I had not created a shelf for "New Agey" before because I usually don't pick them up. "Congrats" for being the first, Stanger....more
I , like millions of others, have seen the April 4, 1968 Lorraine Motel photo plenty of times. But, I didn't Probably around 3.25 stars, rounded down.
I , like millions of others, have seen the April 4, 1968 Lorraine Motel photo plenty of times. But, I didn't know who the kneeling man, Marrell McCullough was.
The story his daughter tells is interesting — but could have been told better.
"Mac" was a Memphis cop who had been assigned by Memphis PD to infiltrate The Invaders, a Memphis-based group of young Blacks who didn't totally agree with Martin Luther King's nonviolence ethos. To the degree they had any political philosophy at all, think of them as junior Stokely Carmichaels, but without the wherewithal to do much. That's how Mac got to the Lorraine.
Mac, per Leta, then leverages his desire to go to college with Memphis PD's desire to infiltrate activist student groups, and goes to Memphis State. Graduates.
Hits the Black glass ceiling at the Memphis PD. Applies to the FBI. Application, after looking favorable, gets slow-walked. So, on a suggestion, applies to the CIA. Is NOT slow-walked. And, eventually hits GS-15. Whether it was more Black glass ceiling or more a superior's personal animus, he doesn't get higher than that, but he is the first Black to get that high.
Add in that many older Black civil rights leaders, and most of the King family, didn't (and still don't) accept that James Earl Ray shot King, and Mac is a suspect of being part of the plot. After diffidence by Mac, years later, via his daughter, he meets with Andrew Young, who talks about his suspicions. This is decades after Mac was hauled before the late 1970s House Select Committee on Assassinations, where several members express the same skepticism that Young continued to do so decades later. (The questioning Congressmen were all Democrats.)
So, why this rating?
First, while it's a fairly short book and some of it is authorial personal reminiscing, it has no index. Due to the qualifiers, I'll just deduct 0.75 stars not a full star. I knew all the "big players" mentioned, but no index made it impossible to reference back to Invaders and fellow travelers.
Second, when her dad is visiting with Young, and despite having read already Hampton Sides' "Hellhound on His Trail" (my review, documenting its several shortcomings) and despite hearing her dad reject conspiracy theories of the assassination, she seems more ready to believe Young than him.
Third, the personal reminiscing adds nothing to the book. But, at the same time, it throws into relief that Seletzky doesn't talk that much about her adult relationship with her dad. And, has he talked more about his years with the CIA? Has their been any modern day reconciliation or whatever with the MPD?
Fourth and related? WHERE ARE THE PHOTOS? The cover photo and authorial blurb photo are IT! There's more on her Oprah interview as far as both photos and adult relationship, than in this book. Ditto on the relationship factor on an NPR interview. That cost a quarter-star at least right there.
I mean, the man has no Wikipedia page, even. This book is the first draft of history and it could have been better....more
Fascinating book, or more like 4-5 mini-books crammed together.
It's 1. A mini-bio of John Randolph, mainly Randolph's personal life, not his politicalFascinating book, or more like 4-5 mini-books crammed together.
It's 1. A mini-bio of John Randolph, mainly Randolph's personal life, not his political life. 2. Related to that, a look at the number of different wills and codicils he had. 3. Related to both, his take on slavery and on states rights and how they were, to some degree, like Randolph the politico, a "tertium quid." 4. An overview of manumission in Virginia, especially with changes in state law there after the Nat Turner revolt. After the 1831 slave revolt, manumitting masters had to provide for their slaves’ short-term upkeep and they had to leave Virginia after a year. 5. The history of actually probating such a will, with such messiness, the issue of manumission, and Randolph's hatred for his Tucker half-siblings, some of which may have been irrational in a non-insanity sense, but none of which appears to be truly insane. 6. The difficulty of settling a few hundred slaves at one time in Ohio, and racism in the North at this time, especially with Ohio and other states of the "old Northwest" actually getting worse about this in the late 1830s and beyond.
OK, a bit more.
A true to life potboiler! I had heard of Randolph’s sister-in-law Nancy and the scandal over the abortion, miscarriage or whatever.
I did not realize that after his brother’s death, she became the housekeeper for, then wife of, Gouverneur Morris! And, yes, that would have pissed Randolph off.
Nor had I ever heard of this relationship with this Maria Ward. Nor the rumors that his affectionate regard for two of his older male house slaves was reportedly cover for relationships with them. This relates to Randolph's likely sterility, which was surely childhood related, unlike Washington and his young adulthood smallpox. (We don't know for sure what caused the likely sterility and other male developmental issues with Randolph.)
A big part of the book vis-a-vis the Tuckers is Randolph’s debt, the general debt of the Virginia planter class, and the issue of “entailed” slaves. (Think George Washington only owning abut half the slaves at Mount Vernon, because Martha brought the rest from her previous marriage and by law, George couldn’t touch them. Martha kept them enslaved, and unlike George, freed none at her death.)
Randolph eventually got himself out of debt, but slaves related to his mother’s remarriage, to St. George Tucker, along with the issue that slaves could be mortgaged (no, really, and discussed in detail by Edward Baptist) complicated his effort on this and added to his animus to his Tucker half-siblings. (Randolph had seen a lot of scions of the "First Families of Virginia" get into debt, wanted out of that trap, and lived frugally, eventually in an upscale log cabin, to do that. He saw specific instances of getting into debt from overspending, like distant kinsman Thomas Jefferson, and failure to adjust plantation ag practices. Randolph himself grew at least some wheat and corn, not just tobacco.)
So, when he died, some of them had incentive to contest his will and even try to have him found insane.
Playing a cameo role in that part, but for Randolph’s slave-freeing will? Francis Scott Key. The assistant bishop of the Episcopal Church of Virginia has a bigger role.
This book is somewhere between 4 and 5 stars. It is a bit convoluted. But, it doesn't deserve its low-star ratings.
It's convoluted because of Randolph's convoluted mind, the convolutions of Virginia and Ohio law and other things. And, per what I said about his sister-in-law's abortion, miscarriage or whatever? Re the full story behind that, John Randolph wasn't the biggest nutter in his own family.
Side note: We're also "there." No idea why this got a 1-star rating without review. Gotta love the 2-star reviewer who says she has "family in Virginia," but had never heard of Randolph, yet grabbed the book, and yet didn't like it.
Otherwise, the 4-star reviews are actually better than the 5-stars other than mine.
A good buck for real history buffs. If you're not one, then just don't pick it up in the first place....more
I checked this book out at the library as "filler" in case I got through other books so quickly that I needed that filler. I don't.
The introduction waI checked this book out at the library as "filler" in case I got through other books so quickly that I needed that filler. I don't.
The introduction was enough for me that I don't need to renew it.
Breyer talks about clerking for Justice Arthur Goldberg. Goldberg was the most liberal on the Court until LBJ booted him into the UN ambassadorship to free up a position for crony Abe Fortas. Yes, more liberal, even shading toward leftism, than Bill Douglas. Breyer apparently didn't learn a lot from him, especially since Goldberg's reference to the Ninth Amendment supporting a right of privacy, in Griswold, has never been followed up on. (Goldberg was actually closer to Jerome Frank, looked down upon in the intro, than to Breyer.)
Before that, in the intro, he mentions the Van Orton case, though not by name, the case of the Ten Commandments on the Texas Capitol grounds. He was dead wrong on that, just as he was dead wrong on the Bladensburg Cross case (American Legion v American Humanist Association0, which had him using Van Orton as precedent. (And, he wanted to make Van Orton stand as precedent and polish his legal turd.)
Breyer thinking these were genius decisions actually show what's wrong with most (neo)liberal justices. Ginsburg was often no better in hating on parts of the First Amendment. Kagan isn't a lot better, Sotomayor even has problems at times. And, don't be for calling Ketanji Brown Jackson KBJ as a riff on Ginsburg. All that and more, focused on Breyer, is here, which also includes how Breyer has more than once voted to gut the Fourth Amendment as well as the First.
To summarize his judicial style, per the intro? It's NOT "pragmatism" as much as "compromisism." On Bladensburg Cross, he made clear he was looking for a compromise before the Court issued its ruling. In that way, he's like Dear Leader Obama, compromising away the compromise in advance, in public....more
Socraticgadfly
>
Books:
biography
(271)
Loading...
