Amos Tversky and David Kahneman are psychologists who met in Israel in the 1960’s. Though very different in personality, they became very close friendAmos Tversky and David Kahneman are psychologists who met in Israel in the 1960’s. Though very different in personality, they became very close friends and went on to collaborate in producing a number of papers concerning what came to be known as behavioural economics – or in layman’s terms, the psychology of judgement and decision making. In essence, they argued that departures in human rational thought can be predicted and its impacts calculated. To demonstrate this, they concocted numerous scenarios and asked students and others to choose between various courses of action. In so doing, they demonstrated that some favoured choices were just not logical. They went on to share their thoughts on why these illogical choices were dominant and how such responses could be anticipated.
The theories they propounded have been largely accepted and have had significant positive impacts in many fields – economics, science, law and public policy, to name just a few. This book explains their theories to some degree but it’s main focus is on them as individuals – their lives, personalities and backgrounds – and on how they worked together. They effectively set themselves up in a room, away from others, and verbalised and their thoughts and built on and challenged the ideas that surfaced. In so doing they effectively became one voice, it was very much a working ‘marriage’.
Like any marriage it eventually suffered ups and downs and the human side of this account is both fascinating and, at times, sad. I can’t claim that I became an expert in behavioural economics as a result of this book, but a basic understanding of the rudiments was enough to give me insight into the significance of their work. Ok, it’s a bit dry in places but I did enjoy dipping my toe into the water of an area in which I had no previous knowledge....more
Maajid Nawaz was brought up in a middle class British Pakistani household in Southend. As a teenager he experienced Paki-bashing at the hands of the nMaajid Nawaz was brought up in a middle class British Pakistani household in Southend. As a teenager he experienced Paki-bashing at the hands of the notorious far-right group Combat 18. It became routine for him and his friends to carry knives – the threat of violence being ever present. It wasn't long before he was being being shown propaganda films showing the atrocious treatment and murder of Muslims in Bosnia and being recruited into the militant Hizb it-Tahir group (HT), an organisation with an aim to overthrow infidel regimes to establish a new Muslim Caliphate. As he puts it, he was looking for an identity: he didn't feel affiliated to either the UK or Pakistan, but this group offered another option – that of ignoring state boundaries and simply being part of a group comprising the worldwide population of Muslims.
At Newham College, London – where he became an HT recruiter - he witnessed the murder of a student in possibly the first Jihadist street killing. In fact, he came very close to being implicated in the event himself. After college, he moved on to undertake recruiting duties in Denmark and Pakistan before being arrested in Egypt in 2001, soon after 911. Here he was held as a political prisoner until 2006, at times witnessing the torture of fellow inmates.
During his time in prison, Maajid – realising he actually knew precious little about the religion he worshipped – spent much of time researching Islam. He also talked to fellow prisoners, some of whom had vastly different backgrounds and beliefs to his own. He eventually formed the view that Islamism (the desire to impose a version of Islam over society) was not a true to the teachings of the Quran. Moreover, Jihadism (the use of force to spread Islamism) was simply wrong. He decided that a secular Islam, where politics is separated from religion, was the model he wished to support. Consequently, upon his eventual real ease and return to the UK, he helped set up Quilliam, a counter-extremism think tank and engaged in a variety of counter extremist activities. He met with various heads of state, including George W. Bush and Tony Blair, and appeared on television shows advocating his stance and proposing new strategies. After the book was published, the author was selected as a parliamentary candidate for a London constituency, but he failed to win the seat.
It's a compelling tale and I can certainly buy the fact that someone with his background and life experiences could be swayed by the promise of a new identity and a cause to support. In truth, I find it somewhat harder to understand how this translates into a belief that radical action is required to the extent that the murder of innocent people becomes justified. Nonetheless, despite a slight whiff of self-aggrandisement rising from the pages, I did find this a compelling story. The fact that Maajid eventually became an active voice for counter-extremism offers some hope, and though his proffered ‘solutions’ seem to lack some depth it is clearly a complex problem that defies a simple answer....more
In 1898 the French newspaper L’Aurore printed an open letter from writer Emile Zola. Under the banner headline ’J’accuse…!’, Zola accused the governmeIn 1898 the French newspaper L’Aurore printed an open letter from writer Emile Zola. Under the banner headline ’J’accuse…!’, Zola accused the government of anti-Semitism and the unlawful jailing of French Army officer Alfred Dreyfus. The letter caused a huge a uproar, as Zola pointed out the serious errors in the case against Dreyfus – who had been packed off to the notorious Devil’s Island in French Guyana - and a lack of serious evidence to back up the charges.
The Dreyfus Affair, as it became known, was a part of European history that had passed me by up to this point. But in this dramatisation – viewed through the eyes of Georges Picquart, the head of a French clandestine intelligence unit – Harris brings events surrounding this famous miscarriage of justice to life. Dreyfus had been found guilty of passing secrets to the Germans, but Picquart starts to believe there’s something seriously wrong when he stumbles across another army officer who he believes is the real spy in the camp. The dialogue is, of course, simply the authors way of bringing the story to the page, but the events and the identity of the historical players are, we are led to believe, historically correct. In fact, the whole thing is broken down into what constitutes a forensic examination of all the key components. It's comprehensive and it’s compelling.
Harris really does this sort of thing so well. I do like a bit of history and when it's served up in this style it really does make the consumption of a protracted and complicated event so much more fun. Excellent stuff - I'm off to seek out more of his work....more
The second instalment in Simon Schama’s erudite commentary on the history of Britain does, as the title suggests, cover an awful lot of wars. Most oftThe second instalment in Simon Schama’s erudite commentary on the history of Britain does, as the title suggests, cover an awful lot of wars. Most often the Britons are fighting amongst themselves, but there’s also room for significant conflicts in India and America. And in Ireland, Oliver Cromwell and his troops commit one of the most infamous slaughters in the long and violent history of this nation.
There’s a long section on Cromwell and I found him to be a particularly interesting character. A master military strategist and fearless fighter, he was also a political leader who rose to become Lord Protector following the execution of Charles I and the temporary abolishment of the monarchy. Actually, the self indulgent Charles had had a pretty chequered life, his rule having coincided with not only the Great Plague but also the Great Fire of London. But history seems to record that he was, in fact, a fairly inept fellow who brought about his own downfall.
There are great stories here but the author’s account is peppered with terminology (mainly religious and political) that ensured I was regularly searching the internet for explanations or for further insight. It’s a book that, I think, presumes some knowledge of events and the background issues at play. However, if (like me) you’re ignorant of such things then it does prompt some wider research. In fact, I found this rewarding, in and of itself.
This account takes the reader up to and through the adventures of the British East India Company in the subcontinent and covers the early years of the British colonisation of the Americas. There is a lot of information here and it is heavy going at times, but I for one cant wait to get my hands on the third and final instalment....more
What really struck me as I started this book was how lucky I am to live in the age I do. It tracks the history of the Britain from its earliest settleWhat really struck me as I started this book was how lucky I am to live in the age I do. It tracks the history of the Britain from its earliest settlers through to the death of Elizabeth I, though it should be noted that this timeline falls short of the actual unification into a sovereign state by about a hundred years. It skips through the first three thousand years in a blink of an eye but then came the Romans, where it lingers to talk at length of their three hundred years of occupation. Actually, this conquest seems to have been a relatively friendly one, which is more than can be said for the arrival of the Vikings, the Anglo-Saxon and the Normans that followed. There was slaughter aplenty and no sign of satellite television, smartphones or easyJet flights to the hotspots of the Mediterranean to ease the strain. Life was tough… and short.
But the meat of this book focuses on the era of the Plantagenet rulers (1145 – 1485) and the Tudor period (1485 – 1603). In this time, you only needed to look a someone a little ‘sideways’ to find out that your next stop was to be kneeling before a block, facing a bloke with a huge axe. There seemed to be an and endless list of executions of notable figures. The Kings and Queens, to a large extent, were a motley bunch and there was always someone looking to undermine them or overthrow them – so I suppose a degree of trigger finger (axe finger?) is excusable.
Such were the excesses of some rulers that eventually the Magna Carta (1215) was signed by King John of England as a practical solution to a political crisis he was facing - and thus launching a document that was to become a cornerstone of the British constitution. There were many more challenges to come, though. In the 1300’s the Black Death arrived in Europe and killed approaching half the population of this island. This must surely have been the most appalling time in history!
A good deal of the high profile history herein wasn’t a surprise to me, though it did flesh out some detail. But there were a number of things I’d just not come across before. For instance, I was totally unaware of the fact that anti-Semitism was rife in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. There were massacres in York in 1190 and an Edict of Expulsion was issued by Edward I in 1290, ordering all Jews to leave the country immediately!
It’s not a bundle of laughs, this book, but then again it’s not meant to be. It’s informative, if a little dry in parts. But if, like me, you want to gain some insight into what made pre-Britain great then this one might just do the job....more
I wasn’t familiar with P.J. O’Rourke, but his Wiki page painted an interesting picture of this political satirist and journalist and the book’s blurb I wasn’t familiar with P.J. O’Rourke, but his Wiki page painted an interesting picture of this political satirist and journalist and the book’s blurb teased that within its covers the author eviscerates every presidential candidate. Well that sounds like fun! I’d been a long distance observer of the election and, like a number of people in post-Brexit vote UK, I was wondering throughout how America had managed to come up with two candidates who most people seemed to intensely dislike. Could this election be as divisive and possibly as destructive as the UK vote?
The author, it turns out, is a ranting mouthpiece who hardly has a good word to say about anybody or anything. He’s a political shock jock who throws gratuitous insults around amidst a bunch of facts and figures that may or may not be in any way meaningful. He’s overly opinionated and rude, but he did manage to throw up some genuine light bulb moments for me. He also made some really interesting and insightful observations that I found to be truly thought provoking. And best of all, there are moments of true hilarity. I really haven’t laughed so much whilst reading a book in years!
I don’t think this is a book that could or should be read in a single sitting – that would be way too much rich food on the plate. But picked at over a few days it does offer a diet of tasty morsels, even if some of it is a little heavy for my personal taste.
My thanks to Grove Atlantic and NetGalley for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review....more
I’ve come across numerous references to the American Civil War in literature over the years but I’ve never before delved into the broader history of iI’ve come across numerous references to the American Civil War in literature over the years but I’ve never before delved into the broader history of it. Ok, I had a very high level understanding that it was a north versus south conflict based on differing views and approaches to slavery, I could name a few of the places where key battles took place and a few of the key figures of the time, but that’s about it. Oh, and I also knew which side had ultimately claimed victory.
This book promised to provide an hour’s worth of information that would fill the gaps in my knowledge – and broadly speaking it achieved that. Its structure is a bit strange in that it starts with a rush of information on how and where the conflicts played out before settling into categories which flesh out the background. This means there’s some repetition along the way, but on reflection it does help if you wish to go back and zero in on certain elements.
I listened to this on audio, which probably exaggerates the slightly off-key approach to laying down the story, and I’ll probably need to play it through a second time to fully process the volume of information I consumed. But overall I’d say it does what it sets out to do. Listening to such a compressed view of such a huge event in American history does feel a bit like cramming for a school exam, but it has certainly whet my appetite for a more thorough examination of this bloody but fascinating conflict....more
The Brexit wounds are still fresh, so what better time to get the views of David Cameron’s communications chief on how the whole thing played out. TheThe Brexit wounds are still fresh, so what better time to get the views of David Cameron’s communications chief on how the whole thing played out. The book takes the form of daily diary updates. After opening with the cataclysmic climax to the UK’s vote, we are taken back to the beginning of the referendum campaign. Most of the events covered here seem familiar (and why not, they were covered comprehensively on the wall to wall television and radio news updates I avidly watched) but it was interesting to get the inside track as the campaign momentum ebbed and flowed.
The key elements for me boiled down to:
- The vote quickly boiled down to the economy (the remain team) versus immigration (the leave team). In the end the latter was deemed to be the issue that carried the vote. - The leave team lied, consistently and comprehensively. They made up facts and got away with it. - The remain team failed to garner proper support from Labour and from the SNP. - The remain team failed to gain the support of any effective media champions. The popular press came out mainly in support of leave. - The polls were all over the place and failed to provide the information that might have caused the remain team to adjust their campaign strategy.
Craig Oliver is clearly an intelligent man and a highly articulate communicator, but he comes across as a bit holier-than-thou here. He may well have known more than just about all the MP’s he sought to coach on how they should get their points across, but he does go on and on about how poor the politicians seem to have been at grasping the key messages. David Cameron and George Osborne escape this criticism, but just about every other MP on the remain side comes in for some stick.
Oliver also criticises the BBC (the biggest communication engine in the UK) for letting the leave team get away with lies and for failing to give equal airtime to truthful facts (remain) and made-up facts (leave). But I can't help thinking that as director of communications part of his role must have been to manage this relationship. In this he patently failed.
Predictably, both Michael Gove and Boris Johnson come out badly (as does Theresa May), but more than that most politicians come across as being more concerned with their own career aims than they were about the ultimate outcome of the vote. Again, Cameron and Osborne escape this criticism.
Overall an interesting account of a key event in British political history. Rather depressing, but insightful nonetheless....more
Well, here's another fine mess you've gotten us into.
Ok, it not quite be the actual quote often used by Oliver Hardy, but it’s close enough. And it Well, here's another fine mess you've gotten us into.
Ok, it not quite be the actual quote often used by Oliver Hardy, but it’s close enough. And it does seem to capture the mood of many people I talk to about the state of Britain at the moment, post the Brexit vote. We’ve made the decision to take a courageous or foolhardy (you choose) leap but have no visible plan as to how were going to execute our extraction from the European Union. More importantly, politicians seem incapable of iterating a single paragraph that makes sense in terms of the logical next steps.
Here, author David Kauders (an economist and investment manager) espouses his views on the options available and the pitfalls and potential benefits of each. It’s a quick read, but quite dense and I plan to re-read it to ensure I’ve extracted full value. In broad terms his view on the vote seems to be that as a minimum it will prove to be disadvantageous to Britain’s economy and worst case it’ll be disastrous – depending on the choices government make from this point.
He states that there are broadly four options:
Hard Brexit Loose arrangement Soft Brexit outside the EU customs union Soft Brexit inside the EU customs union
He proposes that to ensure a prosperous future outside the EU we must continue to be part of the single market and, in fact, if Article 50 (the formal declaration which kicks-off the two-year countdown to exit) is invoked soon, then the last of the options listed above is the only one that will prevent immediate economic disadvantage.
There is also some very good insight into the immigration issue here. Kauders provides some data which, he claims, demonstrates that the problems created by open borders has been exaggerated and misunderstood. It’s an interesting slant on this issue and one which, I believe, failed to gain sufficient attention (let alone any traction) during the voting campaign.
There are some thoughts here too on how badly the overall voting exercise was executed and blame is liberally apportioned. In essence (he opines), we’ve allowed ourselves to be driven down a path based on on people’s views on one badly phrased question, the outcome of which is that we are in danger of taking a course of action that is likely to be supported by only a minority of the population.
For those (like me) who aren’t fully versed in the minutiae of these issues, this book does provide a pretty good grounding. It also lays out the author’s views in a clear and succinct way. Whether you choose to agree with his conclusions or not, there are a good deal of supporting facts provided and I, for one, found his arguments to be compelling.
I can’t help but think that many people have been hoodwinked into thinking the big issue is one thing (immigration/control of our borders) when the real issue is/was something else – the economy and the future wealth and prosperity of our nation and of those who live here. Going forward, I fear that few people will invest the time and effort to grasp the nuances of the ongoing debate sufficiently to draw well informed, logical conclusions. This could drive a clamour for the wrong kind of actions. I hope I’m wrong; we are where we are, but let’s hope government aren’t driven to make matters worse by making poor decisions now, in terms of next steps, that we’ll all live to regret.
My thanks to Sparkling Books Limited and NetGalley for providing a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. ...more
When I was at school (a long time ago!) history was one of my favourite subjects - well what teenage boy isn't fascinated by tales of epic journeys anWhen I was at school (a long time ago!) history was one of my favourite subjects - well what teenage boy isn't fascinated by tales of epic journeys and heroic battles? But I was frustrated by the fact that our studies always focused on a very narrow band of history. Consequently we learned a good deal about a few things and nothing at all about the majority of events that have shaped the world we know. So this book, written by a journalist and television presenter I much admire, really appealed to me.
The book focuses on the history of mankind and tracks the stages of development through hunter gatherer to the acquisition of farming techniques and then the convergence of people into towns and then cities. The building of empires follows and here I started to learn more about how the two major causes of war (religion and conquest) started a re-shaping of the world that has continued to this day. Most of major players in world history seem to have been hugely driven bad guys; not the sort of people you’d invite out for a pint down your local. The text then explores how the growth of international trade and the introduction of industrial and scientific engineering were significant contributors to the evolution of the world as we know it. Here I was at last introduced to a few good guys (and girls) – about time too!
The final section reflects on the challenges we face going forward: population growth (it's quadrupled in the past 100 years), global warming, over-fishing and soil degradation to name but a few. It posts a warning that if we don't do something different then this could be the last century for Homo sapiens. Scary stuff! But this is off-set by a brief discourse on how our ability to continually make scientific leaps (artificial intelligence is used as an example) will hopefully mean that we are able to come up with solutions that aren't available to us at this point.
I was left to reflect on how events of yesteryear seem, in so many ways, to parallel what’s going on in the world today. Do we keep making the same mistakes? Are we destined to be the generator of our own downfall? There are no answers here, but it’s certainly a thought provoking tome. I’d recommend this book to anyone who feels they want to fill in a few gaps in their historical knowledge or just wants to be prompted as to why a knowledge of historical events (why they happened and what the ramifications were) is so important to our civilisation....more
In the time I worked in banking I experienced two mergers (well, one merger and a takeover). The first involving Lloyds and TSB was, in retrospect, faIn the time I worked in banking I experienced two mergers (well, one merger and a takeover). The first involving Lloyds and TSB was, in retrospect, fairly easy: ok, the IT systems didn’t speak to each other for an age, but on the staff side it always felt like we were all pulling in the same direction. The second one was different. When Lloyds ‘rescued’ HBOS in 2008 the banking world was in turmoil and after the deal was done, and particularly after it became clear how swallowing this toxic beast had impacted the healthy bank, it felt… well, difficult to swallow.
For most staff I knew in the new Lloyds Banking Group there were three questions we wanted (but never got) answers to:
1. Were Victor Blank (Chairman of Lloyds) and Eric Daniels (CEO) pushed into the takeover of HBOS by the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown?
2. Did Daniels, as he later suggested, fail to complete satisfactory due diligence before the takeover was signed and sealed – and if so why didn’t he extract guarantees from the government to protect Lloyds against unforeseen problems in the HBOS business?
3. Why was the deal done without a guarantee that the government would look after competition issues (including Brussels) to prevent the need to sell off branches later?
The answers to all these questions are here, and a good deal more too. I found it to be a comprehensive walkthrough of the recent history of Lloyds Bank, the strategic challenges it faced leading up to the 2008 banking crisis and a pretty detailed meeting by meeting account of how events played out. It also provides an interesting view on what the longer term impacts of the takeover are.
The scope of this book is actually wider than just the Lloyds/HBOS issue, taking in the impacts on all the UK banks and also exploring the global picture. It’s familiar stuff to anyone who followed the news at that time, but I learnt a good deal more about how events played out.
It’s not possible to tell just how accurate this portrayal is, but the author is a well respected journalist and he seems to have gained access to many key sources in writing this account. Through it all, Blank and Daniels actually come out of it quite well – better than I thought they would. It’s pretty damning of the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority, though. Brown, too, doesn’t come come out of it well at all.
By the way, the answers to the questions are:
1. No. Daniels had been talking to Andy Hornby (CEO, HBOS) for a couple of years about a possible merger. They hadn’t progressed due to the competition issues. The financial crisis provided a window of opportunity to slip this deal through.
2. No. Due diligence was completed to the standard you’d expect in a takeover of this kind. The problem was twofold: Lloyds couldn’t see the detailed lending book until the deal was completed and the economic downturn ran much deeper than anyone predicted, thus throwing out all the calculations anyway. But, the guarantee was never sought – and given the pace of events it should have been.
3. A verbal confirmation was obtained, but this was never confirmed in writing. Interestingly, in his conclusion the author suggests that this might turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Lloyds probably ended up with too many branches and in batching up and selling off TSB it actually disposed of something that was cost heavy and revenue light.
A compelling read for anyone interested in learning more about how the banks and the government worked their way through the crisis and also anyone who has a hankering to learn a bit more about how top executives in big businesses earn their crust. ----------------------------------
pre-read thoughts...
Having spent just about 40 years with TSB, then Lloyds TSB, then Lloyds Banking Group, I know how it felt to go through the HBOS merger from the inside: the bad feeling and suspicion from the staff of both banks and further down the line the growing certainty that the whole deal had been botched. It'll be interesting to see what some of the people who were involved in framing and executing the deal have to say about it. I don't expect the whole truth - this will, no doubt, come out in time - but I'm looking forward to hearing their story, all the same....more
There’s a point near the end of the book when talking to a grandson of the great man that the author summarises Churchill’s achievements.
More publishThere’s a point near the end of the book when talking to a grandson of the great man that the author summarises Churchill’s achievements.
More published words than Shakespeare and Dickens combined, wins the Nobel Prize for Literature, kills umpteen people in armed combat on four continents, serves in every great office of state including Prime Minister (twice), is indispensable to victory in two world wars and then posthumously sells his paintings for a million dollars.
Not bad!
There’s quite a bit of hero worship in this book – Boris is clearly awe struck by the man – but it’s very hard not to come away thinking how much Churchill packed into his lifetime. Was he the greatest Britain of all time? Well, maybe, certainly a poll taken in 2002 concluded he was. But anyway you look at it he was definitely the right man for the right time. I hadn’t realised just how much Churchill was swimming against the tide in opposing Hitler. It seems that there were an awful lot of appeasers about at the time and its absolutely conceivable that, had it not been for the Homburg wearing statesman, we could well have entered into some sort of agreement with Hitler. Who knows what the world would look like now, had that been the case!
This is a very personal portrait, painted by Boris. He has a quirky style that worked for me. For instance, in one section he talks about Churchill’s cock-ups and introduces a scoring system to explain how much of a disaster each of the actions truly were (or weren’t) and to what degree Winston was actually responsible. As I found in the rest of the book, he tends to err on the side of his hero, but it was a great way of providing a fresh perspective on these events. For information, the list includes:
- The disastrous Gallipoli campaign - His opposition to increased home rule in India - Returning Sterling to the Gold Standard - His resistance to the abdication of Edward VIII
There were lots of personal facts about Churchill, of which I was hitherto unaware. For instance, by all accounts, he had an enormous vocabulary, he showed tremendous personal bravery as both a war correspondent and a soldier and was the standing Prime Minister at the age of 80. The list goes on.
There’s also an interesting comparison between author and subject in that Churchill achieved all he did without a ‘classic’ education; he never attended university. Contrast this with Boris, who lists Eton and Oxford University amongst the outstanding centres of education he’s attended. But the similarities between the two are, perhaps, more striking. Like his hero, Boris served time as a journalist before entering politics, where he is also seen as something of a one-off, a maverick. Both were born into money, and it’s perfectly conceivable that Boris could emulate ‘the man’ by becoming leader of the Conservative Party (and thereby quite probably Prime Minister) in the not too distant future.
Overall, I found this to be a fascinating – if rather one-sided – account of the life and achievements of one of the great figures of recent history. If you feel you want to know more about Churchill and want to be entertained at the same time, look no further....more
This is the third account of the Cuban Missile Crisis I’ve read; following versions published in JFK & RFK biographies I’ve ploughed through in the paThis is the third account of the Cuban Missile Crisis I’ve read; following versions published in JFK & RFK biographies I’ve ploughed through in the past year or so. It’s very, very detailed and provides a view of events from both the Cuban and Russian camps, as well as from the team managing the crisis in Washington. There is quite a bit of additional information here and though it’s historically fascinating I’d have to say it’s a pretty dry read.
Three things I learnt:
1. RFK & JFK were not quite the shrewd, perceptive leaders depicted in their respective biographies. True, JFK did avoid the decisions that would have probably (maybe inevitably) driven the crisis to nuclear war, and he did this despite the continuous prompting of the military leaders and other hawkish members of his team. The key decision was to invoke a blockade (or quarantine) rather than attack the Cuban missile sites. But events were much more chaotic than I’d previously been led to believe and less directly driven by the Kennedys.
2. The lack of controls over deployment of nuclear devices was probably the scariest element. This meant that, on both sides, individual military personnel – sometimes relatively low ranking – had the direct capability (even if not the authority) to fire a nuclear missile. Any single trigger-happy finger could therefore have set of a catastrophic and probably irreversible set of events.
3. A number of random episodes came close to creating a scenario where a conflict could have kicked off. The most interesting one was the plight of the pilot of an American U2 Spy plane who was confused by the Northern Lights on a routine mission to collect air particles. During a flight from Alaska to the North Pole he strayed way off of his scheduled flight path, deep into Russian airspace. Thinking the plane was on a mission to collect information as a precursor to a first nuclear strike, Russian MiG jets were dispatched to shoot him down but failed to make contact. If they had succeeded in tracking it down and destroying it who knows how it would have played out.
Overall it’s a very well researched piece, but really one for dedicated historians....more
Having previously read An Unfinished Life John F. Kennedy: 1917-1963 I have to say it was excellent preparation for this book. If you’re starting froHaving previously read An Unfinished Life John F. Kennedy: 1917-1963 I have to say it was excellent preparation for this book. If you’re starting from scratch on the Kennedy clan I'd go as far as to say it's essential pre-reading. The JFK bio provides much of the family background missing from this book and also provides the big picture on events impacting Robert Kennedy (RFK) during the period JFK was president. This knowledge helps flesh out the detail provided in this book - it's very much a complimentary piece.
RFK’s life is covered in great detail in this book and it does feel like the author played a straight bat (or 'tread a neutral path' for non-cricket followers). There are many positive statements about the man and his achievements, but there are just as many challenges and counter-views.
Regarding the man – his personality and how he differed from and yet complimented JFK - some of the key points I picked up were:
- RFK was often an ‘in your face’ individual in his professional life, challenging to colleagues and frequently rude. Yet he was a family man, tactile and loving to his children. He was attentive and caring when visiting injured soldiers in hospital and rushed to Jackie Kennedy’s side to support her when her first child was still born. He was described at one point as being a ‘kind boy within a rude man’.
- His style was urgent and probing versus the steady and reasonable approach adopted by JFK. These styles complimented each other when they worked closely pre and post JFK’s election. RFK would hector and JFK would tease. They made a great partnership.
In examining Robert Kennedy’s career it is evident that he was more adept at running political campaigns and inspiring loyal staff than in shaping long-term policies. Serving as Attorney General in JFK’s government he was also, effectively, JFK’s unofficial number two. He juggled a huge workload. And when the president was assassinated he never really recovered from the personal loss.
RFK had two career feuds – with Hoover (at the FBI), whilst Attorney General supporting his brother, and later with Lyndon B Johnson, when he succeeded his brother as President. It was amazing to read how much time and energy managing these two relationships devoured!
Always a physically fearless man, Kennedy took huge personal risks despite known threats to his life resulting from actions against Castro and Organised Crime. In the end it was a mentally unstable drifter who brought his life to a premature end.
This is a very well written and exhaustively researched and documented account of an important figure in modern American history. I highly recommend it....more
I’m too young (though not by much) to remember, real time, JFK’s assassination, but I’ve been all too aware of the whodunit debate that’s raged ever sI’m too young (though not by much) to remember, real time, JFK’s assassination, but I’ve been all too aware of the whodunit debate that’s raged ever since his tragic and untimely death. That said, I really didn’t know very much about the man until I read this book. It’s a thoughtful and thoroughly researched piece of work that draws on the input of many people who served with Kennedy and tapes of White House conversations, by virtue of a recording system instigated by JFK himself.
The son of a pushy father, born to a rich, political family, JFK’s elder brother was always meant to be the one who made president. But, as everyone knows, the family has been cursed by early deaths and JFK became the eldest surviving son following the wartime death of Joe junior. The book tracks his early life and shows how Jack Kennedy progressed through Congress and Senate positions to become President. Observations and accounts seem well balanced with reflections on the man’s failures and weaknesses as well as his strengths and successes. It amazed me to realise that during his scant 1000 days in power he was called upon to address some of the weightiest problems of the 20th century, notably Cuba (particularly the missile crisis that took us closer to planetary extinction than any other single event), the rise of Communism which led to the conflict in Vietnam and the resulting Cold War and the emerging unrest concerning civil rights. He also kick started the space race which ultimately brought about the historic 1969 moon landing.
Most surprising facts:
-The extent to which he struggled with poor health throughout pretty much his entire life, to the extent that records were hidden, to prevent his ability to serve at the highest level being challenged, and later destroyed. -If he hadn’t worn a back brace (due to chronic back problems) that kept him erect in his seat, the fatal shot, which followed the hit to his neck, would have missed him.
Most significant achievements:
-Finding a resolution to the Cuban missile crisis – albeit a crisis he arguably spawned by benefit of his policies and actions as he attempted to remove Castro from power. -Negotiating a nuclear test ban treaty with Khrushchev at a time many of his political enemies and the military leaders (and even some of his advisers!) were arguing against such an agreement.
Failings:
-He was a serial womaniser – to an extent it seems unthinkable he’d have survived in modern political life. This might have left him open to claims that he was distracted from his job and inattentive to both local and international issues, but the author goes to some lengths to dispel this accusation. -Despite his vocal support for the campaigners for civil rights, he failed to pass any significant legislation to address the core issues. In fact, his overall record in passing weighty legislation was poor.
There’s no doubt his family money and connections provided him with the opportunity to achieve such high office, but it’s also very clear that JFK was a very smart man, a war hero (if a somewhat lucky one) and above all a leader who was willing to be considered indecisive rather than make a mistake he’d later regret. This latter trait seemed to be born from his observations of decisions made by military leaders during his naval service (he always mistrusted this group thereafter) and his early misjudgements as President concerning Cuba and Vietnam. Nevertheless, it served him well in his later dealings vis-à-vis Castro and Khrushchev.
Despite his short service in the ‘hot seat’, in polls he’s regularly voted one of the most important Presidents ever to serve. This may be attributed to his achievements or his premature death or maybe it was his good looks, his (apparent) health and youthful vitality and his ability to connect with his audience in the new television age. Whatever the reason JFK’s star continues to shine....more
Update 20/1/24 - I read this book more than 10 years ago and I’ve learned a good deal about Giuliani since, none of it good. But I stand by what I wroUpdate 20/1/24 - I read this book more than 10 years ago and I’ve learned a good deal about Giuliani since, none of it good. But I stand by what I wrote after I’d read it, back in the day (below) ———————————————————-
The first section of the book - the part that deals with 9/11 and it's aftermath - is compelling and inspiring. the sections that follow...well, less so. this book starts off with a fantastic story but then becomes a preening 'how good am I' list of activities you can pick up from just about any book on leadership. My advice: stop after the 9/11 section - but do read this....more
I've always quite like Campbell. He's obviously clever, focused and very hard working - all traits to admire. But he's also a bit full of himself - leI've always quite like Campbell. He's obviously clever, focused and very hard working - all traits to admire. But he's also a bit full of himself - less so. Overall, a really interesting read and full of background information and opinions on political events I can remember from the fairly recent past....more
Loading...
