A Force of Nature: The Frontier Genius of Ernest Rutherford
Richard Reeves, best known for his acclaimed trilogy on the presidencies of John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, moved in a different direction on November 5, 2007 with the publication of "A Force of Nature: The Frontier Genius of Ernest Rutherford," a short biography of the physicist born on the frontier of New Zealand, in 1871, who became, along with Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, one of the most famous scientists of the "heroic age of physics."
A big bluff country boy, Rutherford, director of the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University, was teacher, guide and mentor to 11 Nobel Prizewinners, including Bohr. Using simple tabletop experiments with old copper and glass tubing, string, and sealing wax, he became the father of nuclear physics — "the second Isaac Newton", in Einstein's words — using simple experiments to upset thousand of years of science by showing the atom was not the indivisible building block of nature but was in fact mostly vacuum surrounding an extraordinarily dense nucleus held together by the most powerful force of nature.
Reeves returned to the laboratory where he learned science and energy as a young man to re-create the Rutherford 1911 "scattering" experiments that revealed the atom as we understand it today. Then 20 years later, with young assistants, he became the first man to split the atom, releasing the energy that would create nuclear power — and the atomic bomb. ...All this from a kid on the frontier who built his first bicycle of wood.
The book is published by W.W. Norton as part of the "Great Discoveries" series created by Atlas Books.
Reviews
"Reeves is notable for writing first-rate presidential biographies, so writing about a physicist rivaling Michael Faraday as the greatest experimentalists seems beyond the ken. But it turns out Reeves trained as a mechanical engineer. He opens this book with his participation in a reenactment of Rutherford's celebrated experiment on the atom. That Reeves could do this in an age of city-sized particle accelerators returns readers to the hands-on,heroic era of nuclear physics a century ago...Reeves deploys his considerable writing skill in portraying Rutherford's personality. With apt detail or quotation, Reeves places Rutherford in the laboratory, at tea, and at home, capturing the full aspect of the man. Readers will feel as if the actually met Rutherford, even as they learn how his achievements founded out picture of the atom." Booklist
"Hardly a household name today, New Zealand-born scientist Ernest Rutherford was a celebrity in the early 1900s rivaling Einstein. Whereas Einstein conducted most of his experiments in his head, Rutherford (1871-1937) was an avid tabletop experimenter who won the Nobel Prize when he was only in his late 30s for his research into radioactive decay. Reeves (President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination) explores how this loud, rough-around-the-edges antipodean, who often carried chunks of radioactive material in his pocket, cracked Cambridge's snobbish elitism and became head of the university's prestigious Cavendish Laboratory. Using sealing wax and string to hitch together contraptions that would be laughed out of high school science fairs today, Rutherford discovered the structure of the atom. He also went far beyond most of his colleagues to help scientists fleeing Nazi Germany. Late in his career, Rutherford's team, using hand-me-down equipment in their cramped Cavendish quarters, beat out international competition to be the first to split the atom. Fans of scientific biographies will enjoy this detailed little portrait of one of the great figures in 20th-century physics. ... This biography does an outstanding job of capturing the excitement and almost breathless pace of physics research in the 20th century's first four decades; for those who want to read more, Reeves provides ample endnotes for each chapter." Publishers Weekly
"Reeves takes us on a tour of Rutherford's life and work that extends from New Zealand to England to Canada and back to England. Where Einstein gave us mathematical insight into the atomic world, Rutherford gave us the experiments and experimental methods that exposed it. And Reeves, for his part, sheds light on academia's rivalries and prejudices and the scientific vortices in which Rutherford often found himself. We also glimpse that amazing, almost mythological period of scientific research during the first half of the 20th century. Physics 101 not required to enjoy this introduction to another giant of the time; recommended for popular science collections." Margaret F. Dominy, Library Journal
"Unlike the theorist Einstein, Rutherford was a 'tabletop' researcher who brought into the laboratory the mechanical skills he had acquired growing up on a hardscrabble farm in New Zealand. A pioneer in a more primitive yet more romantic, even heroic, scientific era, Rutherford, says Richard Reeves, would casually 'toss bits of radioactive material in his pocket' and carry them around. Miraculously he survived this suicidal behavior - and considerable English snobbery - to become head of the prestigious Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University, to win the 1908 Nobel Prize for chemistry...Reeves, best known for writing about politics, is an engineer by training, and he begins with flair by reenacting on replica apparatus Rutherford's seminal 'scattering' experiment...Reeves makes the science accessible, and his portrait of Rutherford the eccentric country cousin is rather charming." Amanda Heller, Boston Globe
"Reeves' compact biography is rich in human stories and discovery. It introduces readers to a down-to-earth man whose brilliant insights and boisterous personality made him a force of nature ...a great scientific leader, a rescuer of many important physicists fleeing the Nazis, and an active researcher until six days before his death at age 66 in 1937. To physicists reflecting on the transformation of their science in the 20th century, Rutherford ranks on a par with Einstein." Fred Bortz, Dallas Morning News
"Reeves, who trained as an engineer, jumps into the work the way Rutherford would have wanted him to. ('Get on with it!' was his frequent refrain.) Reeves begins by contacting his alma mater and convincing them to recreate the 'scattering experiment' that Rutherford used to 'see' the atom and then map out or imagine the structure we know: a tiny universe, a vacuum, with electrons orbiting a highly charged, incredibly dense nucleus so small that it was said by Rutherford to be the equivalent to a pinhead in the vastness of St. Paul's Cathedral...
"Nuclear physics can be a daunting read, especially when it is about the science of the man who said, 'In science there is only physics, the rest is stamp collecting.' But Reeves goes beyond the details of an extraordinary scientific career. Pulling excerpts from Rutherford's letters to his mother and his fiancée, and from his diaries, he shows what it was like to be a scientist in the early 20th century, working alongside Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Hans Geiger and Pierre and Marie Curie.
"He captures Rutherford the man, a great humanitarian, who campaigned for women at Cambridge to have the same rights as men. Later in life, Rutherford headed up the Academic Assistance Council, a group that found positions and housing for 1,300 'wandering scholars': the 'non-Aryan' scientists who had been dismissed from German universities and laboratories, a man who believed 'science should be international in its outlook and should have no regard to political opinion, creed or race.'" Hannah Hoag, Globe and Mail, Toronto
President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination
The paperback edition of President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination, the national bestseller published last year by Simon & Schuster, was published in a paperback edition by Touchstone Books on December 5, 2006. The new edition will cost $15.
Twenty-five years after Ronald Reagan became president, Richard Reeves has written a surprising and revealing portrait of one of the most important leaders of the twentieth century. As he did in his bestselling books President Kennedy: Profile of Power and President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Reeves has used newly declassified documents and hundreds of interviews to show a president at work day by day, sometimes minute by minute.
President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination is the story of an accomplished politician, a bold, even reckless leader, a gambler, a man who imagined an American past and an American future—and made them real. He is a man of ideas who changed the world for better or worse, a man who understands that words are often more important than deeds. Reeves shows a man who understands how to be President, who knows that the job is not to manage the government but to lead the nation. In many ways, a quarter of a century later, he is still leading. As his vice president, George H. W. Bush, said after Reagan was shot and hospitalized in 1981: “We will act as if he were here.”
He is a heroic figure if not always a hero. He did not destroy communism, as his champions claim, but he knew it would self-destruct and hastened the collapse. No small thing. He believed the Soviet Union was evil and he had contempt for the established American policies of containment and détente. Asked about his own Cold War strategy, he answered: “We win. They lose!”
Like one of his heroes, Franklin D. Roosevelt, he has become larger than life. As Roosevelt became an icon central to American liberalism, Reagan became the nucleus holding together American conservatism. He is the only president whose name became a political creed, a noun not an adjective: “Reaganism.”
Reagan’s ideas were so old they seemed new. He preached an individualism, inspiring and cruel, that isolated and shamed the halt and the lame. He dumbed-down America, brilliantly blending fact and fiction, transforming political debate into emotion-driven entertainment. He recklessly mortgaged America with uncontrolled military spending, less taxation, and more debt.
In focusing on the key moments of the Reagan presidency, Reeves recounts the amazing resiliency of Ronald Reagan, the real “comeback kid.” Here is a seventy-year-old man coming back from a near-fatal gunshot wound, from cancer, from the worst recession in American history. Then, in personal despair as his administration was shredded by the lying and secrets of hidden wars and double-dealing, he was able to forge one of history’s amazing relationships with the leader of “the Evil Empire.” That story is told for the first time using the transcripts of the Reagan-Gorbachev meetings, the climax of an epic story—as if he were here.
Reviews
"Memorable set pieces. The meetings with Gorbachev read like a political thriller. But the one that stands out is the event that forged the Reagan legend: his brush with assassination in 1981...As doctors fought to save the president, blood bubbling out of his mouth, a Secret Service man prayed: 'Oh my God, we've lost him.' Meanwhile back at the White House, his staff haggled over who should run the American government —little realizing of course that the one who did was the genial old man hanging on to life in George Washington University Hospital." The Economist
"President Reagan is a compelling read, fast-paced and scrupulously fair. The account of the Iran-contra affair is particularly gripping. Anbody who is interested in the extraordinary Reagan Presidency needs to reckon with Reeves... There are plenty of other gems... If Reeves were in the thriller business, he would be accused of stretching the bounds of credibility; as things are, readers will have to keep pinching themselves, checking Reeves's footnotes and realizing that, yes, all this really happened." Adrian Wooldridge, The New York Times Book Review
"It is refreshing to read a presidential biography in which the man's public actions — not his private psyche — are the primary focus... Reeves captures Reagan's undeniable charm, presidential aura and ability to inspire Americans with his own vision of an earlier America when things seemed simpler and better. That those times, in reality, were not better for large numbers of Americans did not faze Reagan... He had an old man's strengths: He knew what he believed, and he really didn't care what his opponents thought of him." Deirdre Donahue, USA Today
"Celebrated journalist Richard Reeves takes the same vivid, fly-on-the-wall approach he's previously applied with such success to Nixon and Kennedy, and uses it just as skillfully to take us inside the administration, mind and character of Ronald Reagan... Reeves is particularly strong at portraying Reagan's almost organically intuitive approach to management. Here we have the Gipper's artful delegation of details along the road to fulfilling his short list of grand goals..." Publishers Weekly (Starred review)
"What separates this book from so many others is that Mr. Reeves very subtly has written a post-9/11 assessment of the Reagan Presidency... Putting together a narrative of a much-chronicled Presidency is not for the faint of heart. Richard Reeves, one of the finest journalists of his generation, is made of sterner stuff, and our understanding of Ronald Reagan is the better for it." Terry Golway, New York Observer
"Long one of America's finest political reproters, Richard Reeves has also become one of of the best political biographers. His books, about John Kennedy, Richard Nixon and now Ronald Reagan are indispensable reading for anyone interested in the modern U.S. presidency..." Philip Seib, Dallas Morning News
"In President Reagan:The triumph of Imagination, master political journalist Richard Reeves provides a marvelous behind-the-scenes look at how that performance came together. Using a net work of contacts and sources built up over five decades, Reeves, who previously wrote much-praised chronicles of of the administrations of John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon, spins a fly-on-the-wall, at times day-by-day tale of the power of one man's imagination...." Mark Schogol, Philadelphia Inquirer
Upcoming Events
- Fargo, ND — September 25, 2008 — University of North Dakota School of Law,
- Moraga, CA — October 8, 2008 — St. Mary's University
- New York, NY— October 25, 2008 — New York Historical Society — Kennedy and Nixon "If I'm Elected"
Videos of Recent Appearances
The attached video is of a Richard Reeves lecture at Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, Kentucky on the night of October 30, 2007.
Click this link to launch this movie in an external player.
Recent Articles
Richard Reeves has the lead article in the Fall 2007 edition of Berlin Journal, the magazine of the American Academy in Berlin.
I spent the better part of the last twenty years researching and writing a trilogy on the American presidency, doing books on John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. I knew I had said what I had to say on all that. I had to find some new subjects. At the same time, I continued writing a syndicated column for newspapers around the country, an exercise that kept me up on the politics and people of the day and of the twenty-first century. I was not happy many of those days. My country was becoming, or being — seen as, arrogant, self-righteous, and brutal — a monster using its very substantial power to try to enforce a new order, a kind of neo-imperialism. Of course, we meant well; Americans usually do. After all, didn't these people want to be like us?
Reader Emails
MAY 28, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
Thank you. Thank you. This needed saying and you did. This should be on billboards on every highway in the U.S.A. It should be proclaimed from every forum. —A.L.
MAY 27, 2008 — RE: Today's Column
I read today's column and was appalled by how a man of your age could be so naïve. Also, your bashing of President Bush is not really relevant to your point, and belies your true motives.
As to the subject of your column, you are clearly wrong about a draft. You should not even use the draft to make a point. Using the under-trained National Guard was bad enough. Modern wars require highly trained and skilled professionals who want to be there. Whether the war is "just" or not, we want our professionals doing the fighting. The fact is, retaining our trained veterans is a balancing act with supplying post-service benefits. The GI bill was not effective until AFTER the war. I would let the Generals tell us what is needed, not the politicians and certainly not the press.
Your column does not mention the substantial re-enlistment bonuses being offered and accepted by our soldiers.
I don't know how much time you have actually spent with our military. I assume, not a lot. I firmly believe that anyone that has spent any time at all with our officers and soldiers would write such words.
Prior to a year ago, I had never set foot on a military base or even talked to anyone serving in the military. I was 4F for the Vietnam draft. Even so, I have always respected the sacrifices of made in past wars and battles.
In the last year, while volunteering to fly wounded soldiers and their families, I have had the honor of spending many days on Army bases, with active duty officers and enlisted men, meeting wives and families and helping the severely wounded. Last Thursday I watched President Bush spend virtually all day reviewing the troops and individually consoling the families of fallen heroes for well over an hour. There is no finer group of dedicated Americans than our Military. Everyone I have met is dedicated, highly-trained, well-mannered and wants to be there.
I was most impressed with the management of the battle units. Only the politicians and the press can keep us from winning. I had no idea what any of this was like until now.
I encourage you to find time and a way to investigate this for yourself. If you want, I will contact you when I am again working with the wounded and the officers and solders that I greatly respect. I will come and get you and take you with us. —C.T.
MAY 27, 2008 — RE: Your Column: True Shame
Whether one opposes this War or not, only a damn fool or a leftist provocateur would casually dismiss the impact that an offer of a 4 year college "ticket",
upon completion of a 3 year military enlistment, would have on both overall force strength, and on the retention of skilled non-coms.
And I'll begin to take your particular concerns for the troops and their mission seriously, as soon as most of them start agreeing with you, and as soon as the media "5th Column" begins honestly reporting on the undeniable progress that is being made in Iraq.
Right now most Americans and the vast majority of these valiant men and women are convinced that the Left media is once again, where it is usually to be found; that is on the wrong side of this conflict. This includes the thoroughly scurrilous NY Times, which in its latest, utterly duplicitous editorial attack on Bush [over the same GI Bill], failed to even mention that both the President and John McCain were pushing alternative, more-flexible legislation, which incidentally was endorsed by the top military echelon. The Propaganda Times and the noxious Keith Olberman now pass for "honest" opinionating within the confines of the Left.
Goebbels would be so proud. —J.M.
MAY 27, 2008 — RE: Latest Column - Military Treatment
Very good column.
You left out the most sickening of all. You dealt with the young people who come home healthy.
1. Our culture is not preparing young people for the reality of violence - they have been fed twenty years of movies and computer games, and most of them are from the suburbs and have never been in a real fight. So, they come home with PTSD.
2. Our culture is not preparing young people for the depravity of the economic hit men mentality, and for the way others see America. So, they come home with PTSD and missing limbs and brain damage.
3. Our government is refusing to diagnose PTSD, let alone treat it. Medical care for other problems is disgraceful and often withheld, or offered if the young soldiers can pay for them.
It is a measure of the sheer stupidity of this administration that it follows a militaristic policy and then sh-ts on the veterans. It parallels their energy policy.
MAY 26, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
I am generally a supporter of George Bush, however, I must say you are so Right On in terms of what our men and women in the service deserve from our country and all of us.
If what they deserve requires a little SACRIFICE (and I mean little) from us all as a whole and even trickling down to a little financial pain individually, Right On.
Guess what; I bet the overwhelming majority of Americans would consider it a privilege to do their part in seeing to it that veterans have first class uncompromising medical attention and GENEROUS educational opportunities for the veterans individually and even extending, as appropriate, to their families.
If this will interfere with retention then so be it. The retention problem should be a separate unrelated matter. In fact it should be obvious the answer to retention beyond the short term is treating our military with respect, with pride and gratitude and giving them their practical due!
Of course we must be conscious of economic necessities and constraints designing a program for our military but that's where our sacrifice comes in.
Well said, thank you. —M.S.
MAY 24, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
The fear that by giving the veterans a much fairer GI Bill will adversely affect retention in our forces is true. A similar fear was heard when the Czar released the serfs in Russia. Another was when Lincoln created legislation that made the settlement of our west would be detrimental to the owners of the mills in New England fearing they would lose labor which would result in higher wages for those remaining. Of course Bush's War is not one in which there is full citizenship participation. Our forces consist of the nation's economic under-class, our blacks, Hispanics and what I read one commenter call them "White trailer park trash." I served as an enlisted person and experienced the disdain and contempt directed at me every time I chose to wear a uniform when away from my base. I also served for about eighteen months as a recruiter in Brooklyn. We who did this work knew where to find potential enlistees and what areas to avoid- the affluent areas.
I was once asked by a civilian if I was serving because I was wanted by the police? (At the time the services did not accept felons.) It was because of this experience that I was upset reading the services desperate for new blood are accepting enlistees having a criminal record knowing all those serving would be tarred with the same brush despite never having had a criminal record. Military conscription was fairly well used during World War 2 in putting all economic groups in our forces. Shortly thereafter there became successful efforts by some who chose to avoid serving or serving in combat. The Air Force and the Coast Guard were such hiding places. The latter had previously served such a role though it was put in the Department of the Navy and thus many of those who had hoped to avoid combat actually ended up as coxswains on invading boats such as actors Cesar Romero and Victor Mature. No service amassed the casualty rate during WW2 as did those who flew over Europe with the Army Air Corps- one in eight died. But those stationed in bases far from the combat zone had an easy war as seen in England where the only combat experienced was the race riots in town by soldiers fighting over local girls. This lesson was not lost by the time of the Korean War when draftees chose options other than the Army. The other services took advantage of this by signing these recruits to a four year enlistment compared to the two years required by the Army. And all this soon descended downhill by the time LBJ started the Vietnam War and a potential draftee could hide in college or the non-deployed National Guard.
Ironically many of those who played a major role in starting the latest fiasco in Iraq had such a resume by loving the war provided others do the fighting. I need not give names here as they are well known. But the most ironic of all positions is this group leads in opposition to the reinstitution of the draft knowing if this did indeed happen we would soon see a revisitation of the demonstrations of the 60s. Nixon knew there was very little opposition to conscription until LBJ attempted to tap into the large pool of those hiding in college which resulted in the colleges erupting into violent opposition. He ended the draft but by then it was too late as anti-war sentiment had taken hold in the nation's mind. In summing up my life as an enlisted man I can truthfully say 'there are few other jobs or professions which suffers the contempt and disdain as does those serving in our enlisted ranks." And all the gung ho, exuberant, bellicose, patriotic statements by Reagan's admirers or the Boeing TV ads changes my opinion. —S.B.
MAY 3, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
Presidential Judgment: It is critical! We have seen what the lack of it can do to our country these past years. Hillary, though far superior to Bush, is weak on judgment. You know the examples of that better than I do. After years in Viet Nam, I went to law school in Florida and took the bar exam here about the same time Hillary took it in DC. She failed! How could this smart Yale graduate fail a bar exam? She no doubt knew what topics would be tested. But there is one key difference between law school exams and bar exams. In law school you only spot and discuss "issues", where the bar exam requires you to state and explain probable resolution of the situation presented. In other words it's a test of both knowledge and judgment.
I was assigned to Clark Air Base, Philippines in 1962. It soon became apparent to me that my mobile unit would be deployed to Viet Nam on ostensibly "temporary duty". JFK tried to pretend we were not fully engaged in the Viet Nam struggle--that we were somehow just "advisors". Apparently, this fiction is still widely believed today, with LBJ given "credit" for that misbegotten war. It's true, he dropped all pretenses and escalated our role, but we were already fully committed. —R.C.
APRIL 30, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
Obama teaches constitutional law at a top law school. Hillary took the DC bar around the time I took the Florida bar and assume they are similar. I'm sure she knew all the legal principles that would be tested. We all memorized them. But the bar exam differs from a law school exam in that it requires judgement. The applicant has to state the principles of law involved in the situation presented then do something not previously required: explain which party would be likely to prevail and why. About 80% of applicants pass. She, a Yale graduate yet, failed. She has shown poor judgment with an asinine health care plan in the Clinton administration, again in voting to give Bush the power to decide on invasion of Iraq (a legal no-no as Congress by constitutional law cannot delegate its power to declare war) and recently by threatening to wipe our Iran. I pray to God our Beloved Country does not get this incompetent as its president. —R.C.
APRIL 28, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
Regarding "It's Race, Stupid!"
Kudos for calling out the "electability" code-word.
If anything, I'd be more blunt--you said it's about race, but didn't use the word racist. What those casting doubt about Obama's electability are really saying is "I'm not a racist, but there are enough racists out there that we should override the primary results to accommodate them." You have to be suspicious of any statement that starts with "I'm not a racist but..." —F.B.
Really excellent column. Most concise explanation of the Democrat nominating process I have seen.
Something to think about:
Economic scholars have a strong consensus on what caused the great depression and why it lasted much longer in the US than in other developed countries.
- A large increase in the marginal tax rates (Hoover signed the repeal of the Coolidge tax cuts) at the start of a serious recession.
- A trade war (Smoot-Hartley tarriff signed in 1930 by Hoover).
- US money supply contracted during a serious recession.
- Increased business regulation & changing the rules of the business game again and again (Roosevelt) helped prolong the great depression.
We have the start of a recession coupled with serious inflation. The Federal Reserve is literally shoving money out the door. But the democrats are all promising (and have voted in their budget plans and floor votes to):
- Have a massive increase in marginal tax rates at the start of a serious recession
- Have started a trade war by ignoring US law in "fast track" consideration of trade deals submitted by the President. The 2 democrat candidates have also pledged to "renegotiate" existing trade deals.
- Congress & the 2 Democrats have pledged to bring about massive new regulation
- All three of the presidential candidates have pledged to impose a massive new tax on economic activity (carbon taxes).
If you talk to economists or read the business press carefully these topics are being discussed. But almost nothing is covered in the general press and certainly not in the headlines & TV news.
This witches brew of economic news has not been seen in the US at least since the late 1970s and probably not since the 1930s. —A.A.
APRIL 3, 2008 — RE: Certain Articles
Honest and accurate reporting / writing with a touch of Hollywood as a comedian?
"from the world's richest superpower to a poor laughing stock?"
You did learn better then this? Let it go let it go ... the hate will end up killing you ... not the USA sir. —D.B.
APRIL 2, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
Wow, Richard; you sound like you may just become a superdelegate for the Republican party!
I agree with most of your accessment, Mc Cain is a sane alternative to what us Republicans have been subjected to for the last 7 years. I do not agree that America is a poor weak power with no international stature. Just not true. And by my soul and those I associate with, it never will be. —C.R.
MARCH 29, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
McCain is either lying about Al Qaeda & Iran, or very mixed up, possibly because of listening to the people around him. He's getting scarier, not better. The presence of Norman Podhoretz is especially troubling. He also used some sanded-off Jonah Goldberg rhetoric Let's hope he meant what he said about war. Almost everyone around him hasn't learned any lessons from Iraq, and are gung-ho for war with Iran. I'll keep reading your columns, even though the McCain, and "The media are doing a good job" columns make me cringe. —M.W.
MARCH 28, 2008 — RE: Observations about McCain
Your recent paean to McCain was impressive in terms of style and conviction, but misguided. The things that you say about him are, for most part, factually true. But the overriding, and by far the most important fact is stated near the end of of your article, namely: "McCain's votes in the Senate are often appalling". It stands to reason that anyone whose votes in the Senate are often appalling would make an appalling president. Moreover, even in the unlikely event that his position on issues will be transformed to become less appalling, he will still be beholden to the party that created our present appalling mess, with all its machinery still in place. The only way to undo this appalling record is in disbanding that machinery. The Democratic candidates may not be ideal - nobody is. But that's no excuse to settle for the truly appalling. —A.Z.
MARCH 27, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
One of the reasons Barak Obama understands the racial issue so well is that he was raised here in Hawaii, where everyone belongs to a minority group. That does wonders for your perspective. —J.L.
MARCH 20, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
Well written-from your heart and your head. And that is something we need integrated so that we have thinking hearts and feeling minds about the issues that really count. —B.C.
P.S. I still reread an essay you wrote in 1978 for my inspiration--"The Last Angry Men". And I received a response from one of the men you wrote about then, the Washington Post reporter who lost his job because of his beliefs-for unions.
MARCH 20, 2008 — RE: Your article on Senator Obama's speech
I appreciated your views on Senator Obama's speech and it's relationship to
our nation's historical racial situation.
It was a hopeful, open speech. I had some thoughts I wanted to share with you as I read your final sentences:
"This is not a sectional issue ... nor is it a partisan issue. This is not even a legal or legislative issue alone. ... We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public schools available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who represent him ... then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?"
I was proud to be a young American when I listened to that all those years ago. I am proud of the progress we have made since then. I was proud as an old American to hear a black man, a politician, match them last Tuesday.
Last month, I had the privilege, as a white man, to give the opening welcoming remarks at the Sunday service of Hoskins Chapel in Big Sandy, Texas, one of four black churches in this small East Texas town. Hoskins Chapel will celebrate it's 122nd year as a congregation this month. The context of the service was the church's observance of Black History Month. The keynote speaker, a leading member of a large, historic black church in nearby Winona, Texas, astounded me with his presentation. The members and visitors to Hoskins Chapel that morning were equally astounded and moved by his presentation as well. Their reaction added to my feeling as well. He first reminded us of the many contributions that black people have made to our society and our world, mentioning many of the names that have now become familiar. But then, he launched into a series of statistics that showed how disappointed he was in current black society in America. Crime, unemployment, dropout rates, childbirth out of wedlock, etc., he went on and on! The congregation responded to these hard statements with fervor and agreement, with the typical lively interaction you see between speakers and their congregations in black churches. He did not blame white America or bemoan the lack of programs and funding, but rather, challenged his audience to take the responsibility to lead their families to turn these around and not wait for government to rescue them. He hammered on the breakdown of black families, pointing out that 5 out of 6 black families in the days after WW2 had both parents present, and that now, with government checks substituting for fathers, that that figure now stood at 2 out of 6. He pointed out that very few black children were in church anymore, even pointing out their dearth in our midst that day. He challenged the men to lead their families and show them the way. He was well aware of the advance in political and societal progress, and he was proud of that progress, as you related in your own statements above, but he also saw an increased poverty of spirit that cried out for change. And he didn't appeal to a party or a politician, but to a people. All in all, quite an astounding message and an astounding response by the congregation.
I share this all as a reminder that acceptance, toleration, integration, equality, political opportunity and representation are not the only benchmarks that need barometers. At least that was the message I got that day at Hoskins Chapel. —
MARCH 16, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
Your column calls attention to the underlying reason for the
broadest problem in the miserable current status of our
governance and political discourse; namely, the lack of
honest, principled leadership. In surveying the recent writings
of Jim Hoagland, Albert Hunt, James Grant, Andrew Sullivan,
David Brooks and many others, a large theme emerges:
Despite enormous problems - Iraq, financial crisis, health care,
nuclear proliferation, and so many others - Bush is "goofily happy"
(per Maureen Dowd) and dreaming of the brown, brown grass of
Texas. At least Cheney is smart enough to stay out of sight.
The Democrats control both houses of Congress but are content
to let the clock run out on the Bush crowd. The candidates routinely
twist, distort and exaggerate every minute comment from any
of the opponent's "surrogates" (don't you have to love that word?)
while issuing the blandest and most meaningless statements on
the big issues. Are they willing to say and do almost anything to
further their election prospects? That goes without saying. Let's
not debate Iran, North Korea, gun control, deficits - might lose votes
there - instead let's joyously attack the rantings of "religious leaders"
who have little or no connection to the candidates. Hell, let's throw
the kitchen sink at them! We're entitled to win this thing because,
well, we're entitled, dammit. Just install us in office and we'll tell you
what's good for you then. I think it was LBJ who said some men want
to get elected to do something and some want to be somebody.
In the final scene in "The Candidate" Robert Redford, who has just won
a long, nasty campaign for Senator, says to his handler "What do we
do now?"
As James Grant says in the WaPo today, there's got to be a better way. —A.S.
MARCH 14, 2008 — RE: To Hell With Fallen Heroes
"Mihi ignosce," or excuse me in Latin. Allow me to wade in with my own female perspective in this matter. I have to agree with Mr. Reeves that Spitzer's crime is "not victimless" because there exists an aggrieved wife with three young daughters. The prostitute is the least 'victimized' person here. She did her job and got paid very well for it. Predictably, she will make appearances, record some songs, write a book, and with luck, marry Zsa Zsa Gabor's demented husband. Or someone of that ilk.
But Spitzer's wife now has to get checked for sexual disease, his quiet daughters now will be stalked ad infinitum (just thought I'd throw in another trite Latin phrase), the family finances now a bit dented from 'miscellaneous' expenses, his own future murky as the fund transfers he executed many a time. All this for a short, spectacular romp (one has to assume by that price!) with a stranger.
There is no excuse for his behavior. The proverbial 'call of the wild' is not a call married men should act upon. Men who use prostitutes may get the much-needed ego boost or power trip with a busty hireling, but they also seriously endanger their spouse's health, their marriage, their profession, their reputation and most of all, they stand to lose their children's love and respect. Is it worth it?
As the great Einstein once remarked, "Only two things are infinite: the great universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former." —M.T.
MARCH 14, 2008 — RE: Reeves, you have this whole thing wrong
The crime the governor committed is not "victimless," as many liberals would have it. Here we go again with this "liberal" crap as though everything conservatives do is okay-like a senator soliciting sex in a men's room? The obvious victims of his behavior are his family. Using a prostitute's service is not a crime and the most obvious victim here is the prostitute. Don't forget, Spitzer and his wife are multi-millionaires.
And if there are obvious lessons to this mess, they are these:
- Never stop wondering and asking why people want power and what they are likely to do with it. You may think the press is too tough on political figures. I would say we are not tough enough. Using this philosophy, eventually we would have no leaders and no one aspiring to be a leader.
- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.Isn't this old axiom convenient. Would YOU want your private sexual encounters made public? Every man, every woman has weaknesses and frustrations, some almost unbearable. But whatever the way of the world, there are real advantages to being decent, being nice to other people. What has this to do with the tale you're telling? This doesn't make any sense. Does being nice to other people preclude using a prostitute?
Perhaps it's a small thing in the larger scheme, but Eliot Spitzer was not a nice guy. Then, why did you all vote him Governor??? There were a lot of people waiting to be the second to kick him on the way down. Now they have their chance, and now he will learn how the other half lives. I thought you said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? I guess you didn't mean it. —C.W
MARCH 14, 2008 — RE: The Spitzer Affair
Why do men do it? It's the 'call of the wild.' It is part of our genetic makeup. It is an irresistible urge that has helped primitive man thrive and become the dominant mammal on earth. There was an absolute need to bond with any and all available attractive females even if it meant eliminating other competing males to do it. It resulted in the survival of only the fittest males to evolve and rule our world. As society and religion took hold, there was a need to control these urges. But they are still in our genes. In fact, the more effective and successful the man, the more powerful the drive.
Eliot Spitzer is a very strong and successful man. The urge was overwhelming. To his credit, he tried to be discreet; to protect his family and his career. So he chose a means of getting a periodic release by obtaining the services of an organization that promised secrecy and anonymity. I am sure he still loves his wife. Had he had an affair with another woman, that would have been more dangerous.
Why do girls do it? The 'Oldest Profession' evolved as a result of genes as well. Early women had to learn to 'love' and accept each succeeding man who agreed to protect her and her children whenever she lost her last man because of abandonment, combat or the hunt for food. She needed security in a world dominated by men.
Why do the wives stand by their man? Security and status. See above.
When exposed, what should these people do?
a) The Man: Don't be intimidated. No speeches about 'Mea Culpa.' Like the French premier said in response to his love life, "This is a personal matter and I will not discuss it." He should explain to his wife and family the genetic needs and let them know they are still loved.
b) The Girl: Make the most of the notoriety. Make public appearances. Write a book. Get your 15 minutes any way you can. Help explain the above.
c) The Wife: Stand by your man. He's a winner. Help him get rid of his guilt and attacks from the public and from his hypocritical political enemies who themselves harbor the same urges. Women make a serious mistake if they automatically assume that the occasional 'release' equates to a loss of love and a need to dissolve the union. Even if the husband loves steak every night, he occasionally wants a hamburger. Try to learn as much as you can about erotic behavior and 'loosen up.'
d) Our Society: We have lost the services of some of the most effective men in our world by failing to recognize and accept the above and make accommodations for primitive urges. Other countries laugh at our obsession with these matters. —B.L.
MARCH 6, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
You have put into words something I have felt about leadership and have not been able to express. What wonderful insight you have provided. —B.S.
FEBRUARY 28, 2008 — RE: Why Hillary Stumbled
You hit the nail on the head. I don't know how many times I hear how he or she is on the issues. We never know what the big issues will be.
Neither Bush nor Gore said a word about terrorism. No one expected Katrina (the worst national disaster in our history). We rearranged our government to combat terrorism and left us vulnerable to a hurricane by gutting the FEMA command structure.
I always pick a president by asking myself if I want to hear him in my living room for the next four years. That's why for the first time in my life I'm considering voting for a democrat; although I'm not sold yet. —M.S.
FEBRUARY 25, 2008 — RE: Why Hillary Stumbled
I just read your comparison of Hillary versus Barack. I don't typically
seek out a writer to give my opinion. On a long drive this weekend, I
was mulling in my head what you seemed to be able to put into words. I
think you hit this nail right on the head. Wish I would have read your
column on Friday, it would have saved me three hours of thinking about it
in the car. Good article. —C.N.
FEBRUARY 25, 2008 — RE: Why Hillary Stumbled
Perhaps I am overly concerned - but I just don't get how the guy selling us that all-meaning thing called "hope" is going to be good for the country. His plans are truly not workable, too expensive especially for a nation that is outspending itself tremendously, he offers "inspiration and hope" as if they were tangible things when in reality all he's offering is nothing - it means something different to each of us - to the guy losing his home it means help is on the way, the mom wanting her son home from Iraq it means Obama's going to get him home as soon as he's in office...
We are a country teetering on the edge of so many issues - fiscally, financially, security-wise, diplomatically, politically ... and all I get from Obama is that he's offering "HOPE (FILL IN WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU)".
Talking, acting and dressing "presidential" doesn't mean he or she is the right one for the job. To be perfectly honest, I don't like any of the remaining candidates from either party - but Obama is the one I trust the least -- I can't trust someone who's selling me "hope" as if it were snakeoil/cureall.
I think as a nation we deserve better — I know we need better even if we don't deserve better! —K.C.
FEBRUARY 25, 2008 — RE: Positive feedback on recent Hillary column
Excellent column on the eloquence of the candidates. Pure poetry! I'm a John McCain fan, have meet him twice, but I sure do like Obama just for the reasons you have described. —J.N.
FEBRUARY 16, 2008 — RE: Letter to the Editor
In what is playing out as one of the biggest scams in Democratic party politics, the Republican party is covertly supporting presidential candidate Barack Obama. They know that the American people are not ready for an African-American president so they are using a different tactic to guarantee eight more years of Republican greed. Take a look at the constituencies that are supporting Obama and ask yourself how he could seriously be considered as representing the Democratic party. Political manipulations and machinations allowed Nader to let Bush steal the election in 2000 and now here we go again!!! —J.B.
Latest Column
Welcome to Britain's Brave New World
LONDON — A prominent, aggressive and ambitious Conservative politician here, David Davis, recently resigned his seat in Parliament to protest a House of Commons vote extending the time a citizen can be held in jail without charges from 28 to 42 days. A national newspaper poll says 57 percent of respondents support his crusade, but they are almost certainly not telling the truth about that.
Column Archive
Which Side Are You On?
PARIS — Newspapers around the world have reprinted and focused on a story that appeared June 8 in The Observer in London about deep-seated racism in rural America. The headline:
"Democrats in Rural Strongholds Refuse to Give Backing to Obama."
They Love Obama, But They Can't Vote
PARIS — This was a nice place to be when Barack Obama finally nailed down the Democratic nomination for president. I happened to be speaking at the American Library in Paris last Wednesday evening, when someone asked whether I thought Obama's ascension would really change the world's view of the United States.
No Country for Old Governing
NEW YORK — I'm surprised that anyone is surprised that someone who was around President George W. Bush has finally said what has been obvious for years: The 43rd president is an ignorant, stubborn fellow isolated by a bodyguard of lies and liars.
The True Shame of The Iraq War
WASHINGTON — This is what I thought was the American social contract when I was growing up in the land of the free and the home of the brave: You could work your way through college, and if you got a decent job, you could buy a house within a few years.
Republicans Feel Heat of Burning Bush
WASHINGTON — "The Change You Deserve" may sound like scrambled Obama, but it was, in fact, considered as this election-year slogan of the National Republican Congressional Committee. It was rejected when someone noticed that it was also the slogan of a prescription drug called Effexor.
Whatever They Say, It's The Money!
WASHINGTON — When they say, "It's not the money ..." — it's the money!
After all is said and almost done, the numbers that are dragging Hillary Clinton to the end of her campaign are not delegate counts but dollar amounts. She is already more than $20 million in debt, and her campaign is costing something like $1 million a day.
Mc Cain, JFK, and the Health of Presidents
NEW YORK — A lot of smart people have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how and why President John F. Kennedy seemed to evolve from an indecisive fool in launching the Bay of Pigs invasion of April 1961 into the cool and calm commander defusing the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962.
It's Race, Stupid!
LOS ANGELES — Face it: "Electability" is just another way of saying Barack Obama is black. The overuse of the word right now is a way of assuring voters, Democrat and Republican, that if they do not want or could not abide a black president, they are not alone.
Enough Already With The Fake Debates
LOS ANGELES — This campaign is SO over. It is hard to imagine a debate worse than the Clinton-Obama stand-up on Wednesday night in Philadelphia. In case you missed them between what seemed like a hundred commercials, Sen. Hillary Clinton, the shorter white one, and Sen. Barack Obama, the taller black one, answered (or endured) a road-show production of "Dumb and Dumber," starring Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.
Hillary Clinton: The Big Mistake
LOS ANGELES — Last Thursday, about a year too late, I read the "2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention." Not a fun read, I must add, which may be the reason Sen. Hillary Clinton, or her people, and most of the press, did not read or understand its 25 dense pages.
On the Matter of Torture
LOS ANGELES — The order from the commander in chief regarding torture of prisoners was clear: "It has been recognized at all times that this manner of interrogating human beings, of putting them under torture, produces nothing good. The unfortunates say whatever comes into their heads, and everything they think we want to know."
Is Mc Cain the Real Mc Coy?
LOS ANGELES — I would guess that Sen. John McCain has about a 1-in-3 chance of being the next president of the United States. It's a tough slog when you're running under the crest of one of the worst presidencies we've ever had — in the middle of a recession, and a hateful war and hated occupation he says we will stick with even if it takes a hundred years.
Hearing The Obama Speech
LOS ANGELES — If Barack Obama is elected president, his speech on race in America will be remembered as one of the greatest in the country's history. If he loses, it will still be remembered as a terrific speech, an astonishing display of grace under pressure.
To Hell With The Fallen Hero
NEW YORK — How intellectual, how literate, how urbane is Manhattan? Well, where else can you find people at lunch speaking Latin?
The Way The Press Really Works
LOS ANGELES — "Media 101 With Professor Obama" was the headline the Los Angeles Times put over a short story about Barack Obama's walk to the back of his campaign plane to scold reporters for going "squishy" on Hillary Clinton.
Ah, To Be Young And In Politics!
LOS ANGELES — You couldn't ask for much better than this — at least if you're a reporter. Depending on their personal preferences, Republicans or Democrats might have their problems with Tuesday's results in Texas and Ohio, but for those of us looking for trouble — and that is our business — there is something to be said for a Democratic tie (of sorts), with the Clintons controlling the old guard and Barack Obama leading the new party.
Why Hillary Stumbled
LOS ANGELES — The "fellas" who worked for Ronald Reagan — he called them that because he couldn't remember their names — rarely saw the boss angry. But James Lake, a campaign press secretary, did, just once.
