Joshua Jackson Books

This is an EXCELLENT book about the inner workings and decision makeing process of the Bush Administration during Panama and Desert Shield/Storm.

It is easy to become jaded today about what our government is doing and why, but The Commanders, is one of the most engaging looks at your government coming together. For better or for worse, it is even more engaging since so many of the "players" in this book are in the forefront of our news today. One of Woodwards' best.

I bought this book on a Friday night and compulsively read the book until Sunday morning. The read is quick, and the parts about Panama are very fascinating. It's nice to read about something that doesn't involve the Middle East....oh wait a minute, the middle east is covered as is the military history of this period. Colin Powell is a hero and a great pragmatic man, which mkes me long for the pre-Clinton days. History would be much different if Goerge the 1st stayed in power just 4 more years. The bravery and pragmatism of the 1st Bush administration makes you wonder about this Bush administration.

Bob Woodword seems to have become the reporter of authority when it comes to writing what I have heard called "instant histories", that is, histories that will surely be expanded as perspective is gained on a given event, but ones that accurately record how people saw things at the time. In "The Commanders" Woodword gives blow by blow accounts of two major foreign policy crisis' which ultimately led to military action: the removal of Manuel Noriega from Panama and Operation Desert Storm. The book is a quick and absorbing read, focusing almost entirely on the relationhip between the military (Pentagon) and civilian (White House) leaderships, and how that relationship operates during a crisis.

I assume that many who read this book now look to widen their view of some of the key players in the current administration, namely Cheney, Powell, and Wolfowitz (though in much lesser role here) and now is as good a time as any to do so. My impression of Powell, while widened, remains consistent. He comes off as more hesitant to use force than others, very conscious of organization, very thorough, and very aware that words have power. Cheney, however, doesn't at all resemble his sinister caricature. He, too, is careful and analytical, often concerned with Bush "ratcheting up the rhetoric way too much," and, at one point, even recomending that Bush slow down and "wait for the UN." Whereas these two figures are painted as rivals within the "W" administration, they pictured as allies in the first Bush Administration.

Our problems with diplomacy are also present, though they are not the focus of the book. The presumed reaction from Latin America contrained our ability to craft a war plan in Panama, even though it was "anticipated that privately most of these governments would send back-channel word that they were nuetral or even pleased" that Noriega was removed, and it was certain that the Panamanian people hated their leadership (92% were ultimately in favor of Noriega's removal, according to Woodword). Also, many instances show Arab regimes begging for protection, though not wanting their populations to know about the American presence. At one point, the exiled Emir of Kuwait even refuses to meet with members of the US Senate. And of course, "The French were a problem and required a major effort". We will continue to have problems if governments, particualrly democratic ones, refuse to reveal to their publics what they see as in their own national interest. Ahh, the trials of a superpower!

If you are looking for an account of the diplomatic manuevering, the assembling of the coalition, or the national political debate preceeding either conflict; or you want an account of Gulf I itself, this is not your book. Taken for what it is, however, "The Commanders" is an excellent. There are a number of times where statements from this book could fit perfectly into the latest foray in Iraq, but I'll let you hunt for those.

Lastly, funniest line in the book: "the secure internal electronic-mail system, called E-mail, provided a means of quick nearly instantaneous communications by computer with the boss." Who knew only a decade ago that you needed someone to explain what an E-mail is?

This book starts at the beginning of the GHW Bush Administration and goes through to the very beginning of the Gulf War.
It's always a little difficult to know how accurate Woodward's recountings are of conversations and inner-thoughts of the most important people, but there are rarely serious complaints about the accuracy of his books - at least as far as I am aware. For the most part, the book comes from the perspective of Powell and Cheney, with important additions from other key folks at the Pentagon and White House.
The beauty of reading about the GHW Bush Administration is that one also learns about the GW Bush Administration, for many of the key players came back for an encore.

Woodward did a top notch job of discussing important issues in a way that appeals to the general reader. I hope he continues to do so with the GW Bush Administration; both "Bush at War" and "Plan of Attack" are fine books, but "The Commanders" is much better.

sry for anyone who thinks otherwise...but i am joshua jacksons bigest fan...and obsessor...i honestly cannot speak for everyone but almost everyone i know finds out how much i love joshua jackson in the forst 5 minutes of knowing me...so for all those heartbroken girls who dotn quite grasp it..i am joshuas biggest and most adoring fan
xoxo

This book was way cool. I don't just give it five stars, i give it 10,000! Scince I am Joshua Jackson's BIGGEST fan (sorry all those other girls out there, but i know I beat you!) I want to know as much about Joshua Jackson as I can. I thought this book did a lot of that. I could have done with more pictures though. (but of course I already don't think there are enough Joshua Jackson pictures in the world as it is) This book is great, but even if it wasn't i would buy it anyways because it's about Joshua Jackson! What more do you need in a book!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think this book was great because it brought out a lot in his home life as well as his personal life. I kno we all love gossip gals! ! I also think Josh Is the HOTTEST guy on the planet and that also makes this book great ! ! !

I think Joshua Jackson Is Brilliant. He has done a lot for himself. He always looks great and all the films hes been in are exellent! I have seen all of them so far. This book tells you what hes really like. Not pacey in Dawsons creek, not damon in Urban Ledgend but Joshua Jackon,the greatest star in the world. I love him! Email me if you think so too

I really liked this book. It told me a lot about Josh. He's a really great guy, and funny as well as cute. I always loved Pacey, but now I think I prefer Josh.

Gods and Generals: The Paintings of Mort Kunstler rivals its previous companion book to Gettysburg. Kunstler tells the story leading up to the battle of Gettysburg using his masterful brush to translate history into color paintings. The text and the paintings weave the tale of how America eventually tore itself asunder in the Civil War. Its an excellent collector's piece and great introduction into the Civil War.
I also found Kunstler did not paint as many movie scenes in this book, instead capturing the actual historical looks of these "Gods and Generals" of the Civil War. Any lover of history or military art will appreciate his attention to detail and riviting scenes. Enjoy!

Never have I seen half as much life breathed into the Civil War as in the paintings in this book. It is a visual feast, and I savor every page every time I look at it. The appearances of the soldiers and civilians alike portrayed in this book are accurate, and the colors and poses and emotional expressions are captivating and hauntingly beautiful. This would make a great coffee-table book or a guide for an artist, Civil War buff, or student.

This book is worth 5 stars!! My 8 year old son is just beginning to discover what it means to be born in the south. I want him to have an accurate picture of what the civil war was all about. It is hard to find civil war books with enough pictures to keep him interested. This book has plenty of high quality art for him to see and includes text that we can read together! I highly reccomend it based on those gorgeous paintings.

Mr. Kunstler has provided us with another book of his arrestingly beautiful paintings. Art, of course, is largely a matter of taste and proverbially in the eye of the beholder. Mr. Kunstler, however, even from as objective a standpoint as possible, has no peer as a chronicler of the Civil War. I have been interested in that period of history for about half a century, but it has been Mr. Kunstler's paintings over the past dozen or more years that have brought that war to life for me, and, I am sure, for many others. Although he is a prolific artist, he never compromises with quality, and the quality of his work is unsurpassed.

The subjects of Mr. Kunstler's paintings are invariably interesting, and he does not like to paint scenes or events that have been done previously by other artists. This book is the companion to, and illustrative of, the events and people of the novel "Gods and Generals" by Jeff Shaara, soon to be made into a motion picture of the same name. It follows four exceptional soldiers through the first two years of the war: Robert E. Lee, Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, Winfield S. Hancock, and Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.

In this book, there are many new paintings not yet published elsewhere, but whether you are an old Kunstler aficionado or newly introduced to his work, you will find this book unequaled. The reproductions of the paintings are eye-catching, displaying each painting in vibrant, striking colors, true to Mr. Kunstler's originals. I say above that his paintings are educational, and so they are. I urge you to look closely at every work of art. If you do, you will not only see an astonishing amount of detail, but also learn much about the people, the times, the objects people used, and the war. Again, we have Mr. Kunstler's constant striving for perfection to thank for paintings which are correct in every detail. He is the quintessential perfectionist, who painstakingly researches every detail, no matter how small, to provide his audience with true, as well as beautiful, depictions of people, places, and things. He consults with knowledgeable historians, such as Professor Robertson, who wrote the text for this book, on even such matters as the weather on the particular day that he wants to depict in a painting. All of the accouterments are true, as well as the animals, the uniforms, the weapons, the landscapes, the battlefield situations, the lighting -- everything. Rarely does one find, in one individual such as Mr. Kunstler, artistry to the point of genius coupled with an unceasing demand for perfection in all of the details of his art.

I admit that I am no connoisseur of art and that I can claim no expertise or experience in art. Even someone such as I, however, can at least partially appreciate the artistic techniques used by Mr. Kunstler. His positioning of people, animals, buildings, and other objects to lead the observer's eye to the main subject of the painting, his extraordinary use of light to play on this or that subject in the picture in greater or lesser brilliance in order to accentuate or subordinate that subject, and his use of color, always precise, to delineate bright sunshine or dark shadow, or to emphasize or minimize, are all techniques that even such as I can note and admire. His paintings are so life-like as to defy the observer to differentiate them from photographs. But no photographs could depict such wonderful color and the precise instants in time which Mr. Kunstler so deftly chooses to picture.

Mr. Kunstler has, with every book he has introduced, been able to obtain the very best in historians/commentators to draft the texts. He has obtained the services of, for example, Henry Steele Commager (for the book "The American Spirit: The Paintings of Mort Kunstler"), James I. Robertson, Jr. (for "Jackson and Lee: Legends in Gray," "The Confederate Spirit: Valor, Sacrifice and Honor," and the current work), James M. McPherson (for "Gettysburg"), and Dee Brown (for "Images of the Old West"). Dr. Robertson's text in "Gods and Generals: The Paintings of Mort Kunstler" is, as always, the perfect complement to the paintings. As with Mr. Kunstler's art, so also with Dr. Robertson's narrative, one can learn much, whether one is a novice or an experienced hand.

Thus, whether you are a "Civil War buff" or simply interested in exceptional art and edifying prose, you will enjoy this book (and you would do well to consider obtaining Mr. Kunstler's previous books, named parenthetically above). You cannot go wrong with the team of Kunstler and Robertson.

The co-authors of Joshua Glover give a thorough explanation of the dangers of being a conductor on the underground railroad and the terror of a re-claimed slave. The unique situation of Joshua's rescue and his final escape to Canada made a good story, but the authors explored Joshua's life near Toronto, giving new details of a life in post Civil War Canada. The story read like an exciting novel, but better as it was a real life story. The scholarship was extensive but not obtrusive. I recommend it to all who like nineteenth century history.

Not particularly knowledgable about economics, this book proved to be less than an easy read for me. The subject matter, however, was fascinating. It is thanks to the simple style in which Mr. Temin tries to write, that I was able to finish the book and enjoy it for all that it taught me. While he doesn' talk about simple issues, he does talk about important ones.

This book was very informative, and I would reccomend it to anyone younger and who wanted to know more about Joshua Jackson

This book is not a biography of President Andrew Jackson. It is instead a discussion of the developing soul of the United States and the meaning of freedom, and the ongoing unfolding of democracy as we know it.

At the inception of the United States, as the "Founding Fathers" developed the ideas expresed in the Constitution, an unresolved issue was what "equality" would mean. Would it mean equality based on personal status, property, and wealth, resulting in some having greater influence than others? Or would it mean equality based on a leveling between each individual, resulting in all having (at least theoretical) equal influence?

An additional element was the existence of a central US bank and the system of money. Would only silver and gold be recognized as "money" for legal tender, or would banks be allowed to print paper money that would be subject to vagaries of inflation? Those favoring "hard money" were seen as proponents of the concept of unequal status (those who have the gold make the rules), while others favored the concept of a bank issuing paper money and "liquid" credit in order to facilitate individuals who may not have access to gold and silver, so they could buy and do business.

Andrew Jackson saw the existence of the bank as a destabilizing influence that was exceeding its charter from the government, and claiming that once created it was beyond and not subject to the government, thus setting up a "rival power" with the US government. It was for this reason that Jackson de-chartered the bank, much to the consternation of the business interests who relied on the fluid funds and the "common man" who needed access to easily-transportable paper money.

The conflict over the concept of equality of property vs. equality of individuals (common laborers) continued to unfold through the 1800's, as trade unions and groups of laborers attempted to unite to improve their working conditions. Was a trade union to be seen as a group of individuals exercising their individual right to require a certain wage for their work, or was a trade union an illegal "association" that prevented transactions between individuals? This conflict energized much of the early 1800's, as sides on the bank issue reflected one's orientation with "capital" or "labor."

Later, the conflict took on new forms, in disputes over tariffs (benefitting the merchants and/or the laborer, depending on whether you were a buyer or a seller), and also the issue of slavery, which was the surface of a bigger conflict between northern industry and southern plantation labor. (Again, capital and property vs. labor).

These complicated elements thread through the politics and presidencies of the first half of the 19th century, leading up to the Civil War, with continuing meaning for the Rooseveltian "New Deal" period in which the author wrote, to the present day. Throughout, as ideas evolve and parties develop on these issues, the political parties themselves slowly transform their ideologies and platforms, as parties that champion new ideas slowly gain influence, then become in their turn the stagnant "establishment" that is supplanted by the other. The ongoing conflict between "capital" (business interests) and "labor" (the common person) unfolds to the present day, with continuing implications for what it means to be "free" and to be "equal" in America.

The author's thesis is that these struggles underwent a significant period of transformation and development in the "Age of Jackson" and beyond, leading up to the currents causing the Civil War, and that they continue to the present day.

Initially I found this book hard reading due to its cumbersome style of writing (thus four stars instead of five). It is a bit of "work" to read it through with understanding. But once I got further along, it become quite fascinating, with much fruitful content for reflection. Anyone interested in politics, American civic affairs, the labor movement, economy, slavery, Civil War, social rights, etc. would do well to make this a part of their foundation of understanding in such topics.

I found this excerpt (p. 335-336) to be a thought-provoking passage, with implications for today's neo-conservatives:
"As long as individual responsibility existed in the economic system, as long as a single code more or less governed business and personal life, the Jeffersonians were right, and that government was best which governed least. But these were the moral characteristics of a society of small freeholds, as Jefferson well understood. When the economy became too complex to admit of much personal responsibility, when ownership became attenuated and liability limited and diffused, when impersonality began to dominate the system and produce irresponsibility, when, in short, economic life began to throw off the control of personal scruple, then government had to extend its function in order to preserve the ties which hold society together. The history of government intervention is thus a history of the growing ineffectiveness of private conscience as a means of social control. With private conscience powerless, the only alternative to tyranny or anarchy was the growth of the public conscience, and the natural expression of the public conscience was the democratic government."

It amazes me that this work continues to garner high praise after all this time, when the work of other scholars (Remini in particular comes to mind) has only undermined nearly every argument that Schlesinger makes. I don't see how anyone can regard his thesis as being the least bit credible these days.

Schlesinger commits the cardinal sin of a historian: he enters into his research with a thesis etched in stone (in this case, the belief that the Democratic Party from Jackson to JFK & beyond has had a consistent political philosophy) and then tries to prove it using the historical record, come hell or high water.

What we are left with is the absurdity of Andrew Jackson (self-proclaimed enemy of centralized government) being put forth as some sort of proto-New Dealer, while the evil nasty Whigs (how Schlesinger failed to see the similarities of Henry Clay's "American System" with any number of FDR's programs, I'll never know) are cast in the role of Bob Taft & the gang. I suppose that it makes sense to Schlesinger, since elements of the shattered Whig party went on to form the antebellum Republican Party. However, I imagine that more than a few States' Rights advocates might tend to see an awful lot of similarity between Abe Lincoln & FDR.

It doesn't help that Schlesinger frequently slips into the role of advocate rather than being a scholar. The good guys seem to be squaring off against the bad guys far too often. The Whig party is grossly oversimplified and characterized as a solid, coherent bloc. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the lack of cohesion was largely responsible for the Whig party splintering hopelessly beyond repair in the 1850's. One would never get this impression from reading Schlesinger.

Reluctantly, I would have to recommend this as being essential reading, only because it has been part of the canon of Antebellum studies for so long. However, I can only hope that it loses influence with every passing year. Read it, but for more accurate studies of the era, also read Remini's works, Michael Holt's "Rise & Fall of the American Whig Party," and Freehling's (finally completed, thank fortune) "Road to Disunion" series.

The AGE OF JACKSON is one of the greatest of the histories by this talented and scholarly historian. It is a book that enlarges our understanding of the environment of the age when our Union was seriously threatened and saved by this slave-holder president. It is both sympathetic and realistic in its evaluation of Andrew Jackson. Should be read by every American and I guarantee pleasure.

The recently deceased bourgeois historian Arthur Schlesinger first won prominent for his landmark studies later collected and published under the title The Age of Jackson. Along the way he was also a top `braintruster' for the Kennedy New Frontier and stalwart intellectual defender of the traditions of Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" long after that had lost its cache in Democratic Party circles. Thus, Schlesinger was a long time political opponent of mine and of all militants who have called for a break from the twin bourgeois parties of capitalism, Democratic or Republican. Nonetheless, his Age of Jackson is an important book to study as an overall guide to understanding the formation of American capitalism, particularly finance capitalism, as it emerged in the 1820's and the rudiments of creation of a politically conscious working class movement. The Age of Jackson may not be the last place to stop, given the immense increase in scholarship concerning this period since Schlesinger's book was written in the 1950's, but it is certainly the place to start. His copious footnotes and source references will aid one in studying the available sources from fifty year ago.

The central story line of the Jacksonian period economically, socially and politically was the fight over the establishment, continuation and rechartering of the Bank of the United States which despite its name was a privately owned corporation headed by the notorious Nicholas Biddle. In short the story was, as almost always under capitalism, about the money. Hard money, paper money, metallic money, federal money, state money, no money. It is all there. As confusing and, frankly, somewhat trivial as the issues may seem to the 21st century mind the various fights determined the path of capitalist formation for the rest of the 19th century. One does not have to be a partisan of any particular monetary policy to know that if the Biddle-led forces had won then capital formation in the United States would have taken a very different turn. Thus, the essential Jacksonian victory on the bank question is one that militants today can give a retroactive endorsement.

While this book does not go into the slavery question in any great detail or into the cultural and social milieu of the times except tangentially this is why, in a previous review on William Jennings Bryan, I noted that the last time militant leftists could seriously consider supporting a Democratic Party presidential candidate was in the time of Andrew Jackson. Just to list later presidential names and their political programs should make every progressive shutter. I also, however, noted in that review - But damn, that was long ago. The continued dependence political support of the Democrats
By the likes of Schlesinger and his progeny has politics in this country spinning in circles. It is time, more than time, to move on.

Although control of the money was the underlying premise for the political fights of the day they also represented some very different appreciations of what American society should look like. Schlesinger goes to great pains to highlight the various factions within each of the coalescing parties that would come to form the Democratic and Republican two-party system that we are familiar with today. Moreover, these fights had different implications for differing sections of the country. In that regard the names Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay and their various congressional devotees can generally stand to represent the various sectional interests. One might also note that names that became familiar in the immediate pre-Civil War period, like Abraham Lincoln, James Buchanan, John Bell, Gideon Welles, William Seward, etc. started to receive political notice as secondary figures during this period. One should also note that this was a period of political realignment and that the political situation was fluid enough that with changing political winds the various leading personalities were as likely to change sides as not. Readers should pick up the trail that Schlesinger only alludes to on the importance on the third party Liberty and Free Soil Parties Despite that lapse dealing with the various political manifestations of the period is the strongest part of the professor's book.


Of particular importance to those who want to learn about working class history in this country and are baffled by the lack of political class consciousness of today's working class as represented by an independent class party is the story of the rise and fall of the first trade unions and working class parties. Although this is a period of the rise of industrial capitalism in America it is nevertheless still fairly rudimentary and agrarian concerns still dominate the political landscape. This is reflected in the programs, concerns and the organizations that various parts of the working class formed at this time mainly, it appears, among the more skilled workers. One should note that on a political level, although not uniformly, the American working class of the 1830's was more politically class conscious than today's working class. Which pretty well defines our problem today. One should also note the tendency of working class organization to block with other forces, mainly urban Democratic Party Jacksonians. Today such a policy is called the `popular front' and is the sole strategy of the American labor bureaucracy (the only question seemingly being which bourgeois faction to block with). Militants today, as a matter of principle, are opposed to that strategy. However, back in the 1830's there were issues on which working class organizations could have, and should have, blocked with bourgeois parties. That, unfortunately, would not have saved them from oblivion as it was just too early, the forces were too small and unorganized and too politically immature to break out of the general Jacksonian democratic aura.

I quit reading this book halfway through. Having said that, I'll offer the following observations. First, the research is incredible- he made good use of primary source material, and cited it very thoroughly. That's why I gave him two stars. However, he is terribly tedious, unfocused, and slants leftward at a ninety-degree angle. I would only use this book if I had something that slanted rightward to the same degree to balance it. He is certainly not as objective as a historian should be.