User Profile

Growing up in the eighties, most of the images of Russia in my world were limited to submarines, hammers and sickles, and many, many spies. The word “comrade” was meant to make you perk up your ears, and the word “revolution” when it came to Russia was about the same as referring to Nazi Germany. In other words, we were mostly taught the USSR was over there, and was most often unfriendly. My family had a set of encyclopedias from the 1960’s which were not especially helpful concerning what the USSR was up to. New countries had come and gone, and basically I learned that if you heard a Russia accent in James Bond films, there was a good chance that person was “not a good guy”.

Russia Politics Back Then So, I picked up Autopsy on an Empire with some hesitation in the sense that Russian politics are about as clear as mud to me from that time period. I knew a whole lot of things went down in a very small amount of time. I remembered Gorbachev and Yeltsin, and a little bit of a shirtless Putin wrestling bears or something, but that was about it. Part of my ignorance on the subject matter was, I think, because Russia had such a foreign system compared to the US when I was growing up. The names sounded very different, and the institutions were radically different. It is hard for me, as an American, to truly understand the dialog after say Tsar Nicolas II. Why? Cause commies, that’s why! America(tm).

I Did Not Understand Squat Back Then Reading through Autopsy on an Empire gave me an appreciation for the tremendous pressure Gorbachev was under. He had to try to do something new and different while also attempting to make sure not to alienate a base that wanted neither. He was trying to hold the center such that the entire country could roll into a new kind of unity that it had not had previously. Some of the old would have to be carried over, and a lot of it would have to be chucked out the window. At any given moment, it was difficult to tell what should be retained and what should be chucked. It is to Gorbachev’s credit that the entire country did not erupt into a bloody massacre.

Political Pressures In essence, Russia had outgrown communism, but it wasn’t sure what it wanted to be when it grew up into what it was becoming. What was apparent was that the Revolutionary economy was not going to cut it anymore, and Empires were more of a liability than an asset. What caught my attention in this book was the tension between Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Gorbachev had to be the “let’s sorta hold the old together” which allowed Yeltsin to be the “Screw it, rip it all up” guy. Though they were often rivals, I am not sure things could have gone as they did without their two personalities being involved. Yeltsin could afford to be more radical BECAUSE of Gorbachev. Gorbachev needed some foil like Yeltsin to show the regular party members what would happen if they didn’t figure things out. Interestingly, and somewhat worryingly, Yeltsin was mostly trying to get Russia to unify as per a UN understanding of what unity among nation-states looked like under that model.

In The End… In the end of the book, Gorbachev isn’t being radical enough fast enough to keep up with Yeltsin, and so Yeltsin winds up taking the point and essentially ousts Gorbachev as a relic of communism when in reality Gorbachev certainly did not care for communism. Gorbachev becomes little more than a reminder of the past of Russia, although without him it is unlikely any other meaningful change could have occurred. Certainly, the Revolution would have been bloody yet again.

My Interpretation I found the book a little hard to follow, but that was more because my mind drifted across Russian words that I did not fully know. I had to remind myself what was being done and why. In about the middle of the book, it was like all that cleared up, and everything made sense in terms of the nation changes that started to happen. Toward the end, Matlock gives you a “the rest of the story” about what happened after everything unified. Matlock, the author of the narrative, was the US ambassador who wrote his impressions of the fall of the USSR.

Q Movement Links I think it is likely that the Q movement referenced this book because the United States as at a not dissimilar point to the USSR in the sense that we have to put up or shut up. Nations periodically change, and it is time for the United States to become more of what it should be and less of what it should not be. As can be seen, free speech has been hushed up with regard to the movement, and now there is nearly a terrorism label if you question certain narrative lines. None of those are inherently American values, regardless of whether in practice that has been the case in the past or not. Matlock keeps up the dialog with Reagan and Bush Sr. with what is an American adversary and the result is that the whole thing implodes and changes. While I think there is an advantage in speaking to an apparent adversary, like the USSR in the 80’s, I also think there are times and places where no discussion or diplomacy is applicable. I am not sure that the US is not in a place where we are past the point of discussion. I’d like to think there is still the ability to have freedom of choice, but it is beginning to feel more and more like the only freedom you can have is the freedom that is available at the tip of a sword.

Book Takeaway! My feeling is that this book ought to be read by anyone who lived during the time periods wherein the USSR was a super power. It will give you a different insight into what was happening during a time when the “Iron Curtain” was large and cold. It might also help you understand some of the stuff you lived through without knowing it, and it might as well show you what can happen to any super power that cannot roll with the punches.

This original review can be found here: www.jbschirtzinger.com/post/autopsy/

Also, if you would like to purchase this copy that inspired this review, you can do so here: books.jbschirtzingerstore.com/product/autopsy-on-an-empire/

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I tend to be a somewhat sporadic Neal Stephenson reader in the sense that our magisteria--to borrow a term from Stephan Jay Gould--tends to continue to overlap.

It is somewhat surprising I had not hitherto stumbled on this work previous to now. Certainly, I had heard many references to this particular novel, but had never stumbled across it in my path. It was with some surprise then when I finally did in a used bookstore.

The novel starts out somewhat slowly and since the work is over a 1,000 pages you can expect that the plot will move more slowly than a book of smaller length. Stephenson's writing style is markedly different here than from his other works, but there are certain themes present here that are echoed in his future works. One could posit, in a sense, that each work is a continuation in a universe that Stephenson has concocted viewed at different angles. Indeed, certain characters, such as Enoch Root, appear--and certain themes like the desire to be immortal and Greek myth permeate the work throughout in patterned ways.

As is expected with any novel, certain characters die off, and Stephenson does the job of telling the story well enough that you, as the reader, sort of hate to see it happen. He likewise does a good job of allowing chapter endings to dangle in a suspenseful sort of way only to reintroduce them later at a slightly different point in time. In a sense, the reader has to be brought up to speed so that one can understand where one is in the unfolding plot. This is good in the sense that it keeps the mind agile, but is a little confusing at times as a final statement about a previous suspenseful matter may reach resolution in a future chapter in about the middle of completion. One must be a little on the alert to be sure one has not missed the transition.

On the other hand, the work bends "Back on itself" in the sense that themes introduced are bent and turned back around later although not always explicitly stated. It is left to the reader to notice these small bends and permutations. A familiarity with Greek myth, as is true in most of Stephenson's other work, is helpful.

The book decries in the beginning that it is not attempting to reveal any secrets. However, the story Stephenson puts together offers a plausible alternative history to events that did actually occur. The characters are the same as ones that appear in history and have dialogs that are similar to the ones they truly had. One wonders if there is not a Roman a Clef that Stephenson is somewhere secreting, but of course, he assures us that his work is not trying to reveal any secrets. Of course, in the world of the Cryptonomicon, we, the reader, especially by the end of the book know that this is exactly what he wants us to believe and that, above all else, we should be very, very suspicious of.

Having read the Black Swan, as one will discover in my other reviews, I wanted to see if Taleb's more recent work was different than the now more dated aforementioned title. I will summarize this book by saying it is probably the best worst book I have read. Why?

The worst aspect concerns the fact that Taleb is either pagan, or clearly has some idolizing of pagans up to and including Roman Emperors. He states at one point that he believes pagans are intellectually superior to those of believers--or actually his exact words are that is "his heuristic." I will grant him believers have not provided a portrait of stunning intellectual prowess as time has progressed but he should know why. As the belief has persisted and grown, it has been subject to the very phenomena he describes as YHSVH was the foremost Black Swan of the last 2,000 years. As time has progressed, the belief has undergone permutation and has produced some thinkers that are not entirely of the "best stock"--but previous to that, church thinkers were some of the leading intellectuals in art and civilization. The belief then might be best described by both of his proposed models at varying points--both extremeistan and mediocristian.

The best aspect is that this work essentially concludes what the last 2,000 years was basically proving--that love without sacrifice is a form of thievery. If you are not directly "in the game" in such a way as to have something to lose, you are most likely ignorant or a parasite or both. He extends these criticisms to academia and elsewhere in those who work in finance. And again, his conclusions are right--but it is rather like he is operating in the shadow of the realization of the entire Age of Pisces while insinuating he is the Prophet of Truth. Indeed, he IS the Prophet of Truth, but his blindness is selective. I expect he has and is being shaped by the Black Swans of his own life in ways he does not see.

Regardless, in an academic sense, this book has much to offer from a practical view of ethics with a mathematical underpinning. Most of the conclusions here are common sense but one finds the mechanisms of common sense to be at times, counter intuitive to what one might suppose them to be. Taleb assesses these situations from his grasp of risk modeling and taking. Others might model the situations simply through living life.

Many people hate this book because they see Taleb as arrogant. Fine. It is evident that one could make that case. Of course, this same arrogance they quickly attack one can find in spades in the institutions and professions he attacks. Why is it then that people are quick to point out the flaws of Taleb but not these quasi-venerable institutions? It can only be because that something Taleb is saying is correct and it threatens the edifice upon which these institutions rest, arrogant or no. Put simply, none of us like to know the bullshit that fools us because then we must admit that we are fools. Taleb, I suspect, does sense the foolishness in many things, but I wonder if he will ever be able to fully see the foolishness in the endeavor to try to avoid foolishness? To play the game is on some level to sit down at the table across from the fool. Explaining to the fool why the game is foolish will not work for he is, after all, a fool.

My four stars again does not reflect the quality of the writing so much as it concerns my inherent disagreement with some of the thesis advanced. The best analogy I can give is that the rating reflects the story of a hypothetical person who builds houses. This person finds another contractor who also builds houses. His conception and ideas of what a good house looks like are mostly in agreement with the other contractor and in fact are inspirational in some ways. Yet, the discovered contractor has a few conceptions about building houses and the weather that result in the roof of the built house being torn off within a year in all cases. In such a situation, the former contractor cannot flatly endorse the new fellow because some of what he has to say is corrosive to the entire art of building a house. It does not matter how pretty the structure is--if the roof is missing the entire purpose of the house quickly becomes moot.

Yet, sometimes one reads works with which one does not entirely agree. This is often the case in life. The experience in those works and conceptions are valuable given a certain backdrop and given a certain perspective. Mr. Taleb's book is, indeed, in this category.

Once in about the year 2001 previous to the events of 9-11, I was in college and not enjoying the experience. I set foot into a store called On Cue which had an assortment of items such as cds and books and lava lamps. In a section, somewhat to my then irritation, marked metaphysics, was the book The Demon Haunted World I was a psychology major at that juncture, and the emphasis was on science and metaphysics was a naughty word. Surely, Sagan, preeminent among scientists would not have written a metaphysical book?

The book, when I read it then, had a huge impact upon me. It was not so much what it said, but rather that I believed much in an opposite way to what it was saying. The same was true of my psychology major which was part of my misery. What Sagan had to say about science became, to me, the exact sort of arguments as to why science could not work. I appreciated much of what Sagan was saying about the method, we simply disagreed on how and why and when it could be used and what the limitations of such a method were.

What I did not remember having read it again was all the alien abduction time and energy Sagan put into this book, along with fairly frequent allusions to Satan or Satanism or all the above. Nearly half the book is about this content. When someone spends that much time on trying to refute something, the old quote "Thou doth protest too much" comes to mind. Sagan, being a major part of the space community, was in a position to know some things others did not. Whether or not he neglects to mention those things or looked the other way is a matter of opinion on the basis of this book. At the very least, some large mechanisms of denial are present.

The book then, was metaphysical after all mostly because it is not resting on science to prove or disprove any of these claims, but it talks about how science ought to work or does work. A discussion of that sort is epistemological, which is necessarily metaphysical.

Likewise, Sagan finds himself in domains he does not fully understand. When he goes after astrology, it appears that he is going after a simple sun sign. A sun sign is no where near the operational definition of astrology just like the term mathematics does not fully describe quantum mechanics. One must learn quite a lot of very specific mathematics before one begins to be conversant on a quantum matter. Why then does Sagan not invest the time in properly defining astrology? Probably because he is using a straw man version to kick around. He's guilty of this several times over in this work.

What I noticed now, with the wisdom of twenty years added to my tenure on the planet in this work is that Sagan is struggling between his natural childhood inclination to believe in magical things, and the world of adults and what is real and pragmatic. The child Sagan grows up into an adult who though they might wish magical things were real, cannot find a platform on which to stand in order to substantiate their existence and so concludes no such things are real. Instead, the magic is transferred to the laws of nature and what one can do with them. These laws in Sagan's mind are codified within the body of Science.

Alas, the candle of science is not going to keep the demons away. For that, one is more likely to have success with a Bible. The reason science cannot keep the demons away is because it does not believe in them in the first place, which suits the demons just fine. Though Sagan takes careful pains to bash the Bible as being blood-thirsty, it occurs to me that nowhere did God suggest to Moses or Joshuah to build a hydrogen and/or an atomic bomb. No, it would seem those whispers were only heard by the God of Science, whoever or whatever that may be. When this bastard child that possibly destroys the whole globe was born, the scientists were lauded as heroes and geniuses. For every person science saves from death with penicillin, surely the potential to destroy the entire world of all living things negates the advance?

No one ought to go about life believing everything he or she is told. This includes works by scientists. If Sagan's book can withstand a scientific sort of scrutiny applied to it, would it not be the case that the work would pass his own test? And, on the other hand, if it does not, would that not mean it has failed in the endeavor it outlines? Herein lies the key. In the desperation to dismiss authority and find the limits of knowledge, one often finds themselves as an authority imparting knowledge. We become the shadow of the thing we were struggling to come to terms with. Unfortunately, Sagan does this.

Despite all this, however, I still found some gems in this book and again it has informed my thinking in a way it could not have done before and does not intend to do. Perhaps Sagan's book is close enough to some truths even if it is denying them that they sprout despite the wishes of the author. In that, I suppose Sagan would find himself in the company of Peter, and hopefully not in the company of Judas.

While Trump is attempting to drain the swamp, I thought it would be a good time to revisit one of the security contracting agencies that was founded in a swamp--that is to say Blackwater.

There is an old statement that comes to mind in regard to this book that one should not get in the way of people doing a job unless one can do the job better. When it comes to security and the assessment on the ground, I believe nearly everything Mr. Prince has to say here. I furthermore believe that Blackwater was used as a pawn politically mostly by Democrats who did not like the fact that Mr. Prince was more conservative. I further believe that Blackwater was making a colossal amount of money through wars that were likely manipulated into existence. Indeed, Blackwater was born after the shooting at Columbine. Likewise, Blackwater appears to have had a heavy hand in the CIA and the fact that Mr. Prince moved to the United Arab Emirates after everything was "over" suggests to me that his love of America might not be as strong as he states. Certainly, as a moral agent, there is much to dislike about Mr. Prince. On the other hand, he at least admits where his weaknesses were and seems to be trying, in perhaps a limited way, to atone for those character traits that have caused he and his spouses trouble.

What Mr. Prince had at his disposal that most people do not have was a pile of money to begin his security business. This allowed him to bypass many pieces of bureaucracy and assisted him in making a larger pile of money. On the other hand, this also seems to have created an envy among those in other branches that were governmental and distantly not private sector.

I suppose then my feeling is that if one has a pile of cash that trying to serve the country in some of its less than glamorous work is perhaps the best worst use of such money. If there had been no Mr. Prince, there still would have been an Iraq. Of course, I suspect the casualty rate would have been considerably higher in such an alternative universe. How can I come to that conclusion? Because it is evident that the training Mr. Prince was able to conduct saved lives in part because the issue of time that bureaucracy often causes to be lengthened was shortened by the assuming of personal responsibility for items such as armored vehicles.

Conversely, involvement in the CIA likely did not do Blackwater or the world at large any favors. That is not to say the CIA was inherently wrong in all of its goals. Rather, it is to say the CIA was OFTEN wrong in how it went about achieving its goals. It shares this in common with the FBI. Trying to avoid either of those agencies in the 90's on to do what Mr. Prince was doing however would have been next to impossible. They were and are forces that existed in the narrative of the world and how politics unfolded.

Mr. Prince is right in the sense that "Mercenary Forces" or PCM's or whatever label we want to attach to such an organization have always existed in one sense or another. The only issue in the game of politics is who gets defined what a thing is. In the case of Blackwater, it appears that the idea of the organization being reckless cowboys had taken hold. Do I think Blackwater holds this title? Not so much. The CIA however, certainly moreso. I suspect then it was more of a "Birds of a feather" attack on Mr. Prince. Blackwater, though, on some level appears to have held an idealism that those it had served would later "have its back". That, ultimately, is how I know that Blackwater though it might have been involved with the CIA and other shadowy sorts of organizations really did not understand the landscape of intelligence and politics. Ironically, the best witness to that fact MAY have been Saddam Hussein.

The book is well written and contains some interesting information. I tried to keep in mind that the entire purpose of the book is to allow Mr. Prince to defend his company. However, for the things that he says in this book that his company was ultimately dismantled for, I would say that though any one of those things are probably provable offenses given a certain perspective, the real offense was Mr. Prince not being a Democrat and not being part of the approved "good ole boys club".

Mr. Taleb has a problem. He is not fond of randomness. Specifically, he is not fond of catastrophic, unexpected randomness. Likely, this has much to do with the destruction of his own home in Lebanon. These events that are unecpected he calls a Black Swan.

This read is a little dated in the sense that it was written in 2006. Much of the science present reflects the thinking of the period. However, Mr. Taleb succeeds in his quest to be a kind of modern day Socrates basically resisting the Gaussian tyranny and insisting on some level we know nothing. He does exceedingly well at this.

On the other hand, he seems to completely overlook those who can generate a black swan almost single-handedly. The Ultra-Rich banking people who have fueled much of Mr. Taleb's career are likely not affected by the black swans of the world the way the rest of humanity is. Why? Because a conspiracy among a few is not a black swan except to those who are not "in on it". By his own admission, Mr. Taleb's father preferred the company of highly educated Jesuit Priests. In a later chapter, he mentions the Da Vinci code as a book example. He also uses Nero as the name of an example character, as well as mobsters. These things make one wonder what or who Mr. Taleb is ultimately serving.

One thing is for sure, by his own admission he "Hates black swans" and yet, his entire career has been defined by them.

My rating reflects less a judgment on the quality of the writing, and more of a judgment on the content. Simply put, there is much in this book I do not agree with. Yet, where I do agree, I am in strong agreement. If I agreed with the whole thing, would I have given the review five stars? Perhaps. Somehow, in this case, it feels like my disagreements where they exist are strong enough to warrant the docking of one star. The contents is well worth reading simply to make one "think through" what they think they know, especially if they have ever had statistics. Just know beforehand that I think at the very least Mr. Taleb has some blindness. At the worst, he is providing a framework to protect his own interests.

I am typically not enthusiastic about reading any particular political work for the simple reason that most often such works concern a moment in time with political assumptions that are later proven to be ephemeral.

For instance, once the discussion of "trickle down economics" has passed, one does not find it except in reference to the era in which it existed as a current issue. Therefore, most often, such works, are to me, not worth the time it takes to read them as the political climate has drastically shifted by the time one finishes them.

Perhaps it is because Trump is something of a singular moment in history, or perhaps we as a civilization have produced the moment that encapsulates Trump. Either way, if you were to have told 20 something-year-old me that I would be supportive of Trump in any capacity I would have laughed in your face. I was not a Democrat, but Trump represented a type of person who was so materialistic and Type A business that I was not a fan. I hated The Apprentice and I hated the way that particular type of capitalism proceeds although it certainly exists.

This is probably why I wound up founding a church instead of a business (I have actually done both). Churches are charity-based. I sometimes worry in reading the descriptions of capitalism in this book and in other places that people are misunderstanding concepts like "work" and "capitalism" and "charity".

The church I and my wife wound up founding, however, was attacked precisely as DTJ describes--by a liberal base of people who smeared us. The effort was made to silence us and to eradicate our church on the basis of some misrepresentation of our beliefs. I likewise recognize that the attacks on conservatives is also as he describes.

The problem I have, however, is that folks like Trump and DTJ are in a position where they have in the eyes of the system unlimited power and money to fight battles like these. Churches and charities like the one I have do not have these kinds of resources. Indeed, the Constitution is supposed to enforce our rights such that a "small mob of liberal attack dogs" cannot do such a thing. Why we are here shows that something about the way the Constitution was supposed to be carried out and enforced has failed. That, as far as I know, is called treachery. Also, as far as I know, the punishment for treachery involves nooses or extended stays in concrete rooms with bars.

Hence, it seems Trump, despite not being someone I would have suspected would be the man for the job has become the tool or instrument for this fight. DTJ is an extension of that fight.

You can, indeed, as the book points out, start a business. But you cannot "make money" if you have to constantly worry about the political agendas your customers hold and whether or not they are going to, at some point, unite in some liberal orgy of destruction on your reputation that does not receive any specific enforceable punishment for so doing.

Therefore, I see a lot of this book as being about the first amendment and a type of flat-out conspiracy to shut people with certain political views down and have first hand evidence and experience of how it works. I also have experience with law enforcement and layers of government being useless when it concerns dealing with these issues. If we were in 1776, and we had the passion of Patrick Henry, we would likely already have grabbed our rifles and gone "hunting" since something has "failed" where our rights are concerned and what our forefathers fought for seems either unenforceable or farcical.

I also see regular talking points that are Republican standard boilerplate. Some of it I agree with, and some of it I don't especially agree with. I agree with more of it, however, than I disagree with it, and that therefore makes us united.

As a final aside, however, I often feel concerned about the egos of those like Trump and DTJ. When Trump says he has done more than any president in the white house in a given term, is that inclusive or exclusive of Lincoln? We are not, as far as I know, yet fighting a battle of brother against brother on American soil concerning the unity of the country of the USA. Nor has Trump had to suffer the loss of any of his children during such a battle, as far as I know. With no Lincoln, there is no USA. Without Trump, there would still likely be a USA, although one could question whether in fact it would still be anything of the sort if Hillary had prevailed.

Let me be clear, I understand the need for the bullshit of hyperbole when it comes to America and politics. The danger in this season, is that people no longer can tell the difference between their bullshit and the truth. How much of that is true for Trump and DTJ I cannot yet say, but the book seems to be composed of tales of a family that likes to fight and win. It is one thing when that fight is political, quite another when it is military and personal--and certain something else entirely when one's own children die in the ensuing altercation. As Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand". Clearly our house has been divided and clearly, there are enemies of the constitution parading about as our representatives. It is now time to deliver the goods on those who have opposed the spirit of our country and its founding documents. Either execute the traitors, or jail them for life. Otherwise, given enough time, the Constitution guarantees worse results if the people are long abused with no relief.

If you are someone who has had your voice suppressed in this mess, this book is worth a read, regardless of what side politically you occupy. Yes, there are some obvious Republican platform plugs. The man is running in 2020, what do you expect? And of course, there are some pieces and policy that could be implemented in other ways than they are. However, ask the following question to yourself--what would you do if you became president of the United States and discovered the basic Constitutional Rights are being ignored and that even YOU as president, are being targeted in a specific kind of way to try to shut your right to free speech down? Think you might pull a Trump or two? I am betting you would.

Incidentally, as far as hate speech and all the buzzwords of the liberal left, if you want to understand what hate speech is and what violence looks like, take a trip somewhere where militant Islam is practiced and write a book about your subsequent experiences. Of course, there is a good chance you won't get to do that, because in a militant Islamic setting, liberals are usually the first ones shot.

Mr. Ankrom is definitely in a niche no one else is occupying. Stephen Douglas is now historically viewed as a necessary sideshow to the mythos of Abraham Lincoln. Indeed, one cannot fully understand Lincoln without understanding Douglas and his interaction with Lincoln, and this book does a good job elucidating facts about that often adversarial relationship.

The scholarship is thorough, and there are tidbits of information in here that I had not seen elsewhere. Different astronomical and physical phenomena are mentioned in the telling of Douglas's story. Likewise, there is some not well-known or discussed matters where Douglas and Mary Todd are concerned.

What I found made this book harder to read for me, however, was a lack of a strong narrative voice from Mr. Ankrom. It is not that there is no narration. Indeed, one might suggest that the majority of the book is narration. The missing piece to which I refer is a strong position or thesis concerning Douglas. I understand well from reading the book what Mr. Douglas did and who he was, but I did not develop much of a sense of how that related to Mr. Ankrom. There is little by way of analysis from the author concerning Douglas in the sense of developing a full opinion one way or another concerning his character.

Rather, there is a feeling that Douglas is being kept "at a distance" as something to be studied, but from which conclusions may not be firmly drawn. We known that Douglas historically kept the position that slavery should be decided by the people as a relative moral value. Lincoln, on the other hand, we know suggested that slavery was a morally non-relative matter and therefore not decidable by the people. Likewise, we learn Douglas does much by way of political maneuvers for self-promotion. Many of these tricks work. What we do not learn from Mr. Ankrom is how that influences his analysis of Douglas's character.

Because the author is missing this critical piece, it makes the book harder to read because though the facts are many, it is though we are being told them by a figure shrouded in fog in a back alley somewhere. We can appreciate the information, it is just difficult to understand the bias of the source since the source does not actually take a position. This, is perhaps, the most telling when it comes to bias.It is impossible to remain completely neutral especially when one's subject matter is as polarizing as Douglas.

Thus, I would say this book is a very good read on a figure who does not have many biographies written.However, I would also say that it may be that those lack of biographies exist because nobody wanted to have to develop the thesis in relation to the subject matter. Douglas was racist beyond any doubt. He was highly self-promotional and extremely cunning. He re-arranged things to benefit his version of Jacksonian Democracy, which for him, was highly self-promotional. He was from the northeast, where slavery had been mostly a non-issue for quite some time. He came west, and tried to pretend he came from Kentucky. In short, he was very good at managing his image and creating impressions to his own benefit. While Mr. Ankrom covers these facts, the final words of "The Voice of the People and the Voice of God" in latin is Douglas's quote summarizing everything in the book. Of course, the entire book argues against this fact by example. The civil war was fought and Lincoln was sacrificed because sometimes the voice of the people can be wrong. Mr. Ankrom, however, does not delve into these waters. Why?

The biographer does a good job on trying to sort out the legendary Lincoln from the mythical Lincoln, mostly. There are times within this book that one begins to feel that the author is projecting his understanding of Lincoln onto the events that happened--such as suggesting that some of his retorts were quips when in fact they probably were not. Everyone, it seems, misunderstands Lincoln at some point or another which was true of his life.

When I began reading this book, I was familiar with the perspective of slavery being a state's rights issue. What this book does uniquely well is that it outlines that this is not so. Since Lincoln was not an outright abolitionist, the position was often confusing in history. What he was, was perhaps, a pragmatist in the sense that he did not politically think slavery could be outright abolished but rather that it could be contained and not spread like a virus. The fact that it was permitted and was within the law of the country at least in some places I think, to him, meant that the institutions of the country had decided it would be so. What the national conscience had not decided, however, was whether or not as a nation it SHOULD be so. Lincoln clearly and categorically personally hated slavery. It was a moral question to him that was easily answerable.

In reading this book, I found several quotes attributed to Lincoln I had not discovered before. His desire to take an oath in 1860 somewhat of his own making was most enlightening. The fact he suggested that war was now in the hands of the people as opposed to his own self was also interesting since after he had sworn to protect the constitution he knew that his job was to defend the institutions it represented. Since the people had no such oath, they were free to come and go as they pleased, as he pointed out. War would be up to them.

The other interesting thing this book does not do is focus much on his assassination. Indeed, as a character study, it has little need to explore that topic. Rather, the book ends just as the civil war starts. The author wisely has allowed the reader to fill in all the blanks that happen in the next five years from that marker in time by understanding the character of the person under study previous to that point. Since the research that was done was thorough, you know what is going to happen next even if you had never read any civil war history prior.

Another interesting item the author elucidates are grammatical changes Lincoln made. Since Lincoln asked for the advice of people around him, he often listened to their suggestions so that the wording he presented was partly his own and partly modified by others who were sensitive to the climate in ways that he might not have been. Many of these original works do not suggest a personality of compromise in the sense that we are often led to believe Lincoln held amongst opposite personalities and contrary positions. Rather, many of his positions are very pointed and not at all compromising when it comes to the consequences of certain behavior and how the law would understand that behavior at a constitutional level. One wonders whether he would have been better served with his original verbiage in some areas we understand with historical hindsight.

All in all, a very thorough character study of Lincoln, and an enjoyable read that any Lincoln scholar should have familiarity with--notwithstanding the occasional authorly attribution of something as a joke or jab that was probably neither. The period of politics leading up to the civil war was, I suspect, sometimes just that loony.

George Seldes, in this book, finally gets to say exactly what he wants. After many years of being muzzled by the media as a reporter for various agencies, Seldes arrives(d) at a point where he can express the truth of many of the events in history for which he was immediately present. Seldes was lucky enough, or unfortunate enough, depending on how you see the matters he describes, to be present during many pivotal points in the 2oth century.

Since he was quite literally there, he reports the actual truth as he recollects it as opposed to the oft repeated stories we are told on everything from people who actually met Abraham Lincoln to the political contemporaries of JFK and beyond. Many of these facts are in stark contrast to narratives we hold to be true such that they may be shocking to students of history.

I enjoyed this book because it is rare to see someone remember and then say what they recollect throughout their life particularly about historical events where a sort of amnesia washes over people. I'd highly recommend it for students of history in specific as the original source material here is priceless.