timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

The McCarthy Era, Continued

Following McCarthy's big speech, which the newspapers considered disastrous, the Republican leadership (which today would be thought of as the GOP "Establishment" was aghast. Senator Robert A. Taft, who hardly knew McCarthy, told reporters afterward, "It was a perfectly reckless performance." Most Republicans kept their distance. The Democratic senate majority, heartened by this, called for an bipartisan investigation into McCarthy's charges. Consisting of two senators from each party, the committee included the highly respected Henry Cabot Lodge (Republican) and Theodore Hickenlooper (Democrat.) However, McCarthy stunned the press again by calling the whole thing a "kangaroo court designed to aid the Communists." It was the first of what would eventually be 5 senatorial attempts to investigate McCarthy's charges, none of which would find anyone at the bottom of it all except McCarthy himself.

Yet he had help. Certain prominent men came to his defense almost from the beginning. They hadn't chosen him, but he had chosen their issue. This was the pressure group known as the China Lobby. For the most part it consisted of right-wing news publishers and their employees: Colonel McCormick of the Chicago Tribune, Henry Luce of Life and Time, and of course the Hearst papers. These forces had been wandering around Washington looking for a leader. Now they found one in McCarthy, and for the most part they served him well. Meanwhile, McCarthy's enemies, at least initially, were formidable: the Democratic leadership on the Hill, President Truman (who privately called McCarthy a "son of a #####") and virtually every journalist to the left of McCormick and Hearst. Herbert Block, the Washington Post cartoonist, first coined the word "McCarthyism" on a barrel of mud; it was a slur. But McCarthy brilliantly responded that he was proud of the "slur". "McCarthyism", he said, "is Americanism with it's sleeves rolled."

None of this would have mattered much had it not been for one painful fact: McCarthy had kindled a fire in America's grass roots. Even as he was found to be a liar, even as his facade was torn asunder, even as his fellow senators from both parties took his accusations apart one by one and made him look ridiculous, his popularity and support grew and stiffened across the land. The evidence was unmistakable. Gallup consistently found that 50% of the public had a "favorable opinion" of the senator, and thought he was helping the country; only 29% disapproved. Reporters who accompanied McCarthy on post-Wheeling campaign trips were shocked by the tributes to him, the overwhelming crowds. and the money that poured in.

McCarthy's fellow Republicans began having second and third thoughts. Soon Senators and Congressmen alike asked to be photographed with him. Even Robert A. Taft changed his mind after reading the polls. That monument to integrity, one of our greatest senators in history, announced that "the pro-Communist policies of the State Department fully justify Joe McCarthy in his demand for an investigation." He then said to McCarthy, "If one case doesn't work, try another." As though Joe needed to be told.

 

[krista4]

None of this would have mattered much had it not been for one painful fact: McCarthy had kindled a fire in America's grass roots. Even as he was found to be a liar, even as his facade was torn asunder, even as his fellow senators from both parties took his accusations apart one by one and made him look ridiculous, his popularity and support grew and stiffened across the land.

This is starting to sound familiar...can't quite put my finger on it...

 

[timschochet]

81. The Odessa File

Frederick Forsythe

1972, 310 pages

Political Thriller

The late 1960s and early 70s produced a number of great British spy writers: John Le Carre, Alistair MacLean, Jack Higgins, Len Deighton, to name a few. Most of these guys are pretty similar; they were all products of World War II and either wrote about that conflict or about the Cold War. IMO, the best of these, especially in his early years, was Frederick Forsythe. His first book, The Day of the Jackal , about a British assassin who is paid to kill Charles De Gaulle, is one of the absolute classics of the genre and barely escaped making it onto my 100 favorites list. His second book was The Odessa File, and this one IS among my all time faves.

In the early 60s, a West German journalist named Peter Miller discovers that a Nazi war criminal, Eduard Roschmann (a real person) may still be alive and in West Germany. Miller attempts to hunt him down. Unbeknownst to Miller, the Israelis also seek to find Roschmann as he is the key to Egyptian rockets which could destroy Israel. In order to find his man, Miller will have to infiltrate the ex-Nazi organization known as the Odessa, and pretend to be a former SS man.

This novel isn't a character study. It's a suspenseful thrill ride, yet Forsyth conducted stellar research. He knows his stuff. In addition, perhaps because of when the book takes place, it lacks the technojargon which, I have to admit, has bored the #### out of me whenever I attempt to read most modern thrillers (particularly those of Tom Clancy.)

Next up: A true life libel case inspired this Leon Uris courtroom drama...

 

[timschochet]

None of this would have mattered much had it not been for one painful fact: McCarthy had kindled a fire in America's grass roots. Even as he was found to be a liar, even as his facade was torn asunder, even as his fellow senators from both parties took his accusations apart one by one and made him look ridiculous, his popularity and support grew and stiffened across the land.

This is starting to sound familiar...can't quite put my finger on it...

There are parallels. I actually didn't think there'd be this many, frankly. Of course the difference is McCarthy never ran for President. But in terms of moving on from one outrageous claim to the next outrageous claim, in terms of attracting a section of the public because he was "tough" and "not afraid to tell it like it is", in terms of taking advantage of very real fears that already existed in our society, there are remarkable similarities.

 

[krista4]

None of this would have mattered much had it not been for one painful fact: McCarthy had kindled a fire in America's grass roots. Even as he was found to be a liar, even as his facade was torn asunder, even as his fellow senators from both parties took his accusations apart one by one and made him look ridiculous, his popularity and support grew and stiffened across the land.

This is starting to sound familiar...can't quite put my finger on it...

There are parallels. I actually didn't think there'd be this many, frankly. Of course the difference is McCarthy never ran for President. But in terms of moving on from one outrageous claim to the next outrageous claim, in terms of attracting a section of the public because he was "tough" and "not afraid to tell it like it is", in terms of taking advantage of very real fears that already existed in our society, there are remarkable similarities.

Hopefully we don't get to this part in the current situation:

McCarthy's fellow Republicans began having second and third thoughts. Soon Senators and Congressmen alike asked to be photographed with him. Even Robert A. Taft changed his mind after reading the polls. That monument to integrity, one of our greatest senators in history, announced that "the pro-Communist policies of the State Department fully justify Joe McCarthy in his demand for an investigation." He then said to McCarthy, "If one case doesn't work, try another." As though Joe needed to be told.

 

[timschochet]

None of this would have mattered much had it not been for one painful fact: McCarthy had kindled a fire in America's grass roots. Even as he was found to be a liar, even as his facade was torn asunder, even as his fellow senators from both parties took his accusations apart one by one and made him look ridiculous, his popularity and support grew and stiffened across the land.

This is starting to sound familiar...can't quite put my finger on it...

There are parallels. I actually didn't think there'd be this many, frankly. Of course the difference is McCarthy never ran for President. But in terms of moving on from one outrageous claim to the next outrageous claim, in terms of attracting a section of the public because he was "tough" and "not afraid to tell it like it is", in terms of taking advantage of very real fears that already existed in our society, there are remarkable similarities.

Hopefully we don't get to this part in the current situation:

McCarthy's fellow Republicans began having second and third thoughts. Soon Senators and Congressmen alike asked to be photographed with him. Even Robert A. Taft changed his mind after reading the polls. That monument to integrity, one of our greatest senators in history, announced that "the pro-Communist policies of the State Department fully justify Joe McCarthy in his demand for an investigation." He then said to McCarthy, "If one case doesn't work, try another." As though Joe needed to be told.

Yeah I guess we'll find out soon enough.

 

[jon_mx]

Really, there is no evidence of Clinton corruption??????? OH puh_leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez. Let start with evidence which shows Hillary accepted money for uranium. From the New York Times....

:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well. And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock. At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

I suppose you can try to claim there is no tape recording or signed formal agreement implicating Hillary, but there are dozens and dozens of corrupt dealings where the Clintons get enriched while the American taxpayer gets screwed. This goes beyond just some appearance of corruption, and stinks like high hell.

 

[timschochet]

Really, there is no evidence of Clinton corruption??????? OH puh_leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez. Let start with evidence which shows Hillary accepted money for uranium. From the New York Times....

:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well. And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock. At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

I suppose you can try to claim there is no tape recording or signed formal agreement implicating Hillary, but there are dozens and dozens of corrupt dealings where the Clintons get enriched while the American taxpayer gets screwed. This goes beyond just some appearance of corruption, and stinks like high hell.

Saints posted that story a long time ago. The problem is that nobody can find a quid pro quo. The Obama administration's policies towards the Russian companies was no different than the Bush administration before them, for a very good reason: because most of the State Department people are the same, and the government acts on their recommendations. Nothing happens in the State Department that isn't fully vetted by long time diplomats who write lengthy position papers on this stuff. The idea that Hillary Clinton took over and started selling favors is ludicrous. It could only be thought by someone who had absolutely no idea how the State Department works.

As for the donations to the Clinton Foundation, I can't believe people keep bringing this up. Once again, let's repeat the vital facts: the Clinton Foundation is non-profit. It does good work all around the planet. Neither Bill or Hillary Clinton reap a single penny of personal profit from the activities of the Clinton Foundation. You can pretend this stuff doesn't exist, but it does.

 

[jon_mx]

Really, there is no evidence of Clinton corruption??????? OH puh_leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez. Let start with evidence which shows Hillary accepted money for uranium. From the New York Times....

:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well. And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock. At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

I suppose you can try to claim there is no tape recording or signed formal agreement implicating Hillary, but there are dozens and dozens of corrupt dealings where the Clintons get enriched while the American taxpayer gets screwed. This goes beyond just some appearance of corruption, and stinks like high hell.

Saints posted that story a long time ago. The problem is that nobody can find a quid pro quo. The Obama administration's policies towards the Russian companies was no different than the Bush administration before them, for a very good reason: because most of the State Department people are the same, and the government acts on their recommendations. Nothing happens in the State Department that isn't fully vetted by long time diplomats who write lengthy position papers on this stuff. The idea that Hillary Clinton took over and started selling favors is ludicrous. It could only be thought by someone who had absolutely no idea how the State Department works.

As for the donations to the Clinton Foundation, I can't believe people keep bringing this up. Once again, let's repeat the vital facts: the Clinton Foundation is non-profit. It does good work all around the planet. Neither Bill or Hillary Clinton reap a single penny of personal profit from the activities of the Clinton Foundation. You can pretend this stuff doesn't exist, but it does.

There is never definitive evidence of a quid pro quo unless there is a sting where there is video recording. But that does not mean there is no evidence, just not enough to put the corrupt lying sleeze in prision.

 

[timschochet]

80. QB VII

Leon Uris

1970, 435 pages

Legal drama

In Leon Uris' most famous novel, Exodus (to be reviewed later), he briefly mentioned a number of very real doctors who performed terrible, savage operations at Auschwitz. One of these was a Pole named Dering. It turned out that Dering was, at the time of Exodus' publishing in the early 1960s, a knighted doctor in London. Dering had been one of the "London Poles" who had escaped Communism. He angrily denied Uris' claim in the press, and sued for libel under British law. The case received much coverage at the time, especially because, like the Eichmann trial, there was shocking testimony about the Holocaust. Dering was revealed as a Nazi collaborator; in the British tradition, he received one halfpenny.

A decade later Uris decided to write a novel about the trial. It is not one of his greatest works, but it is a very compelling story. Abe Cady, the protagonist, is heavily based on Uris himself, as is Adam Kelno on Dering. Fair warning: there are plenty of books in this list that deal with the Holocaust and can be hard for some people to read. This one is particularly grueling because of the medical nature of the crimes involved: sterilization without anesthetics, etc. Not for the weak. But it is a great story, and the final confrontation much more dramatic than what actually occurred.

Up next: a thriller by Joseph Hayes that's been out of print for nearly 50 years...

 

[timschochet]

The McCarthy Era, Continued

On March 21, 1950, McCarthy concocted the greatest prank of all. He told the Tydings committee that he was about to name the "top Russian espionage agent" in the United States. The committee assembled for an emergency session. There McCarthy blandly admitted that he had nothing new. "There's nothing mysterious about this one," he said. "This has all been put on the record already."

And so it had. Owen Lattimore, a professor at John Hopkins and specialist in Asian studies was neither a Communist nor an employee of the State Department. He had advised the government in Far Eastern matters, and the cold realism of his reports on Chiang Kai-Shek had aroused the wrath of the China Lobbyists. Everything there was to know about the man was known on the Hill. All the same, McCarthy informed the incredulous Tydings that Lattimore was "definitely an espionage agent", that his file was "explosive." He added, "if you crack this case, it will be the biggest espionage case in the history of this country." The following morning he laid all this before the press, withholding only Lattimore's name. He said, "I am willing to stand or fall on this one. If I am wrong on this, I think the subcommittee would be justified in not taking my other cases too seriously." The man whose name was in his pocket, he said, was that of the superspy who had been "Alger Hiss's boss in the espionage ring in the State Department."

That was on a Tuesday. By the end of the week, Lattimore was being mentioned with increasing frequency in the Senate press gallery, and on Sunday March 26, Drew Pearson broke the story. McCarthy, meantime, was going into one of his disappearing acts, vanishing only to return with an entirely different charge. Lattimore, abroad in Afghanistan, sent word that he really wasn't a spy and was flying back to clear his name. McCarthy then claimed he had been misunderstood, "I fear in the case of Lattimore I have perhaps placed too much stress on the question of whether or not he has been an espionage agent. What I meant to say was that he was the chief architect of our Far Eastern policy, and therefore a policy risk.' McCarthy blamed liberal journalists like Pearson for misrepresenting him. This began a pattern: McCarthy would make an outrageous charge, and when caught in a lie, he would blame the liberal media. His fans, and there were millions of them, urged him on.

Latecomer would face two Congressional hearings. Neither of them found anything at all. Nonetheless, he lost his job at the University and was shunned. McCarthy called the hearings a "whitewash" and said that they only proved that Congress itself wasn't "free of Communist sympathizers." 50 years later, long after Owen Lattimore had been universally regarded as an innocent victim of the era, his name was once again thrown into the mud by Ann Coulter. In a "historical" book defending McCarthy, Coulter wrote an entire chapter on Lattimore, suggesting without any evidence whatsoever that he was indeed a spy and that McCarthy was a lone hero and had been right all along, but that liberals had hidden the truth.

 

[timschochet]

79. The Desperate Hours

Joseph Hayes

1954, 247 pages

Suspense

I first saw the film version of The Desperate Hours, starring Humphrey Bogart and Fredrick March, as a teenager on late night TV. It was an old black and white (1955) but I was captivated by the story. A few years later I discovered a copy of the short novel in the library. It's long since out of print; I have purchased used copies in old bookstores, usually for a quarter, and last year I bought one on Amazon for a penny plus shipping cost. A cheap price for what is truly IMO one of the finest suspense novels ever written.

Unlike many novels that are generally considered to be classic works of suspense, there's not much mystery to The Desperate Hours. Three convicts escape from prison. They decide to hide out in the house of a suburban family, taking them hostage. From then on the clock ticks away. How can Dan Hilliard (the father) keep his family safe, knowing that when the thugs leave they'll want to take the kids or wife with them as insurance? What happens when the police learn of the convicts? How can he avoid a shootout that will get one of his loved ones killed? And so forth. The book is written at red hot speed and the suspense never falters. The conclusion, too, has a neat twist that I won't give away here in case somebody is lucky enough to find a copy of this.

(ETA- In 1990 there was a remake of the film, this time with Anthony Hopkins and Mickey Rourke. It was terrible, without any of the charm of the original.)

Next up: The great Ira Levin's finest novel...

 

[timschochet]

78. A Kiss Before Dying

Ira Levin

1953, 244 pages

Suspense

Like The Desperate Hours, Ira Levin's A Kiss Before Dying is a classic novel of suspense. The two works were written only a year apart, and are roughly the same length. And that's about all they have in common. As I wrote above, The Desperate Hours is a straightforward suspense work without mystery. A Kiss Before Dying is filled with mystery, so much so that I can't really reveal the plot here without giving it away. Except that involves MURDER!

The novel is divided into 3 parts. In the first part, we don't know who the narrator is, only that he intends to murder his pregnant girlfriend. In the second part, the girlfriend's sister is on the hunt for the murderer, and it's one of 3 guys, but we don't know who. By the beginning of the 3rd part, all is made clear, and the murderer is now trying to achieve his goal- will he succeed?

Ira Leven became famous over the years for Rosemary's Baby, The Stepford Wives, and The Boys From Brazil. But while those are fine novels, none of them match the brilliance of his first work, written when he was only in his early 20s. This novel reads like the best Hitchcock film is to watch- it's that's good.

Up next- John Grisham's sequel to his first (and best) novel...

 

[krista4]

78. A Kiss Before Dying

Ira Levin

1953, 244 pages

Suspense

Like The Desperate Hours, Ira Levin's A Kiss Before Dying is a classic novel of suspense. The two works were written only a year apart, and are roughly the same length. And that's about all they have in common. As I wrote above, The Desperate Hours is a straightforward suspense work without mystery. A Kiss Before Dying is filled with mystery, so much so that I can't really reveal the plot here without giving it away. Except that involves MURDER!

The novel is divided into 3 parts. In the first part, we don't know who the narrator is, only that he intends to murder his pregnant girlfriend. In the second part, the girlfriend's sister is on the hunt for the murderer, and it's one of 3 guys, but we don't know who. By the beginning of the 3rd part, all is made clear, and the murderer is now trying to achieve his goal- will he succeed?

Ira Leven became famous over the years for Rosemary's Baby, The Stepford Wives, and The Boys From Brazil. But while those are fine novels, none of them match the brilliance of his first work, written when he was only in his early 20s. This novel reads like the best Hitchcock film is to watch- it's that's good.

Up next- John Grisham's sequel to his first (and best) novel...

Hmmm, think I'd like to read this one.

I originally read the title as "A Lesson Before Dying" and couldn't figure out where the hell you were getting that plot from (very different type of book).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim, the McCarthy piece - I can never get to it.

How long was he actually a Senator? One term? Two?

It continues to bother me about the comparison with Trump. I really don't see that as appropriate. I do see Cruz as being a possible comp though.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

McCarthy era, Continued

Before traveling to West Virginia, McCarthy had done a little- a very little- homework. It would be too much to call it research. For the most part his "rough draft", as he later described it to reporters, was a scissors-and-paste job made up of passages from other Republican addresses, only slightly altered. According to the Wheeling Intelligencer, he had hacked out a paragraph from a speech Nixon had delivered in the House of Representatives on January 26:

NIXON IN CONGRESS: The great lesson which should be learned from the Hiss case is that we are not just dealing with espionage agents who get 30 pieces of silver to obtain the blueprint of a new weapon..but this is a far more sinister type of activity, because it permits the enemy to guide and shape our policy.

McCARTHY IN WEST VIRGINIA: One thing to remember in discussing the Communists is that we are not dealing with spies who get 30 pieces of silver to steal the blueprint of a new weapon. We are dealing with a far more sinister type of activity because it permits the enemy to guide and shape our policy.

So far as is known, his own investigation of subversion was limited to a single phone call. He phoned Willard Edwards of the Chicago Tribune Washington staff and told him he needed help for his speech. From Edwards he learned of two inquiries, both brief and largely forgotten, into the loyalty of State Department workers. During a preliminary screening of some 3,000 employees who had been transferred to the State Department from wartime agencies, the screeners had recommended against the permanent employment of 284. Of these, 79 had been discharged. By subtracting 79 from 284, McCarthy acquired the magical figure of 205.

To grasp the dimensions of Senator McCarthy's fraud, one must remember that he had no dossiers, no raw data, and no specifications, however vague. If pressed, he was incapable of producing a single name. Yet when he spoke on the radio from Wheeling, he said:

I have here in my hand a list of 205 members of the Communist Party who are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.

He might have been holding a laundry list, a shopping list, or a Christmas card list. Whatever it was, it cannot have been important, because afterwards he threw it away. But now the Associated Press had the story and soon it was on the front pages of every newspaper in the country. Suddenly, with this one startling claim, McCarthy was famous. Reporters demanded to know who the 205 people were. McCarthy said he had been misquoted; he had spoken not of 205 Communists but of 205 "bad security risks. (The fact that it was a radio recording didn't seem to bother McCarthy's claim that he had been "misquoted"). McCarthy assured the press that he would name names before the entire Senate, and that if he could not do so, he would resign. This was the first of many boasts by McCarthy that he would either be proven absolutely right or he would resign immediately.

January 1950, 4 years into his term, right?

See this is the part that interests me, when the light switch gets flipped on.

Before that speech he's a bland nobody (as far as Senators are/were concerned) and then he gets this bit of info and he's off, he's a star.

This part just fascinates me. Reminds me of Jim Garrison more than anything really.

 

[timschochet]

78. A Kiss Before Dying

Ira Levin

1953, 244 pages

Suspense

Like The Desperate Hours, Ira Levin's A Kiss Before Dying is a classic novel of suspense. The two works were written only a year apart, and are roughly the same length. And that's about all they have in common. As I wrote above, The Desperate Hours is a straightforward suspense work without mystery. A Kiss Before Dying is filled with mystery, so much so that I can't really reveal the plot here without giving it away. Except that involves MURDER!

The novel is divided into 3 parts. In the first part, we don't know who the narrator is, only that he intends to murder his pregnant girlfriend. In the second part, the girlfriend's sister is on the hunt for the murderer, and it's one of 3 guys, but we don't know who. By the beginning of the 3rd part, all is made clear, and the murderer is now trying to achieve his goal- will he succeed?

Ira Leven became famous over the years for Rosemary's Baby, The Stepford Wives, and The Boys From Brazil. But while those are fine novels, none of them match the brilliance of his first work, written when he was only in his early 20s. This novel reads like the best Hitchcock film is to watch- it's that's good.

Up next- John Grisham's sequel to his first (and best) novel...

Hmmm, think I'd like to read this one.

I originally read the title as "A Lesson Before Dying" and couldn't figure out where the hell you were getting that plot from (very different type of book).

Ernest Gaines, right? Very good novel.

 

[timschochet]

Garrison is an interesting comparison. I don't know too much about him. I gather he was nothing like Kevin Costner?

 

[krista4]

78. A Kiss Before Dying

Ira Levin

1953, 244 pages

Suspense

Like The Desperate Hours, Ira Levin's A Kiss Before Dying is a classic novel of suspense. The two works were written only a year apart, and are roughly the same length. And that's about all they have in common. As I wrote above, The Desperate Hours is a straightforward suspense work without mystery. A Kiss Before Dying is filled with mystery, so much so that I can't really reveal the plot here without giving it away. Except that involves MURDER!

The novel is divided into 3 parts. In the first part, we don't know who the narrator is, only that he intends to murder his pregnant girlfriend. In the second part, the girlfriend's sister is on the hunt for the murderer, and it's one of 3 guys, but we don't know who. By the beginning of the 3rd part, all is made clear, and the murderer is now trying to achieve his goal- will he succeed?

Ira Leven became famous over the years for Rosemary's Baby, The Stepford Wives, and The Boys From Brazil. But while those are fine novels, none of them match the brilliance of his first work, written when he was only in his early 20s. This novel reads like the best Hitchcock film is to watch- it's that's good.

Up next- John Grisham's sequel to his first (and best) novel...

Hmmm, think I'd like to read this one.

I originally read the title as "A Lesson Before Dying" and couldn't figure out where the hell you were getting that plot from (very different type of book).

Ernest Gaines, right? Very good novel.

Yes, it was terrific.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Garrison is an interesting comparison. I don't know too much about him. I gather he was nothing like Kevin Costner?

Nothing like him, complete opposite (real or onscreen). Definite similarities with McCarthy though, which I could elaborate on, but yeah the Costner version of Garrison had zero to do with reality, almost a wholly fictional character.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim, I thought you might be interested in this oral history with Willard Edwards of the Chicago Tribune, whom you mention above.

http://trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/edwardsw.htm

- As a side issue I think it can show the interplay between media and politics and how one can feed the other.

On the subject though Edwards seems to suggest that he had created a Frankenstein and he ended up abandoning him, and even himself became a fan of Truman.

 

[timschochet]

I knew that movie was junk. I remember watching it thinking this is very well done but I bet it's all crap.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I thought you might be interested in this oral history with Willard Edwards of the Chicago Tribune, whom you mention above.

http://trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/edwardsw.htm

- As a side issue I think it can show the interplay between media and politics and how one can feed the other.

On the subject though Edwards seems to suggest that he had created a Frankenstein and he ended up abandoning him, and even himself became a fan of Truman.

Good stuff!

 

[msommer]

Interesting that the "liberal media" was already being blamed for stuff in the 50'ies

 

[msommer]

I knew that movie was junk. I remember watching it thinking this is very well done but I bet it's all crap.

Oliver Stone is a hard man/director to love or even like.

To me he is like Michael Moore. Sometimes he has a point, but he is so concerned with ramming it down your throat that you end up more disgusted than enlightened

And yet, sometimes he makes good stuff

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

McCarthy era, Continued

Before traveling to West Virginia, McCarthy had done a little- a very little- homework. It would be too much to call it research. For the most part his "rough draft", as he later described it to reporters, was a scissors-and-paste job made up of passages from other Republican addresses, only slightly altered. According to the Wheeling Intelligencer, he had hacked out a paragraph from a speech Nixon had delivered in the House of Representatives on January 26:

NIXON IN CONGRESS: The great lesson which should be learned from the Hiss case is that we are not just dealing with espionage agents who get 30 pieces of silver to obtain the blueprint of a new weapon..but this is a far more sinister type of activity, because it permits the enemy to guide and shape our policy.

McCARTHY IN WEST VIRGINIA: One thing to remember in discussing the Communists is that we are not dealing with spies who get 30 pieces of silver to steal the blueprint of a new weapon. We are dealing with a far more sinister type of activity because it permits the enemy to guide and shape our policy.

So far as is known, his own investigation of subversion was limited to a single phone call. He phoned Willard Edwards of the Chicago Tribune Washington staff and told him he needed help for his speech. From Edwards he learned of two inquiries, both brief and largely forgotten, into the loyalty of State Department workers. During a preliminary screening of some 3,000 employees who had been transferred to the State Department from wartime agencies, the screeners had recommended against the permanent employment of 284. Of these, 79 had been discharged. By subtracting 79 from 284, McCarthy acquired the magical figure of 205.

To grasp the dimensions of Senator McCarthy's fraud, one must remember that he had no dossiers, no raw data, and no specifications, however vague. If pressed, he was incapable of producing a single name. Yet when he spoke on the radio from Wheeling, he said:

I have here in my hand a list of 205 members of the Communist Party who are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.

He might have been holding a laundry list, a shopping list, or a Christmas card list. Whatever it was, it cannot have been important, because afterwards he threw it away. But now the Associated Press had the story and soon it was on the front pages of every newspaper in the country. Suddenly, with this one startling claim, McCarthy was famous. Reporters demanded to know who the 205 people were. McCarthy said he had been misquoted; he had spoken not of 205 Communists but of 205 "bad security risks. (The fact that it was a radio recording didn't seem to bother McCarthy's claim that he had been "misquoted"). McCarthy assured the press that he would name names before the entire Senate, and that if he could not do so, he would resign. This was the first of many boasts by McCarthy that he would either be proven absolutely right or he would resign immediately.

January 1950, 4 years into his term, right?

See this is the part that interests me, when the light switch gets flipped on.

Before that speech he's a bland nobody (as far as Senators are/were concerned) and then he gets this bit of info and he's off, he's a star.

This part just fascinates me. Reminds me of Jim Garrison more than anything really.

And Tim, one more item on this:

- You can see right here where Nixon is the progenitor of McCarthy. McCarthy lifts almost in totality the essence of his speech and his dirty accusation right from Nixon.

McCarthy you have as one of the all time worst villains, but Nixon you rank in this thread as the No. 12 President, and I suspect if you could get away with it you would put him in your Top 5. But you can see the horrible stain he introduced into our politics.

 

[timschochet]

But Saints, McCarthy was a one trick pony. Nixon started out as a Communist witch hunter, but there was so much more to him than that. He's one of the most complex, fascinating characters in American political history.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But Saints, McCarthy was a one trick pony. Nixon started out as a Communist witch hunter, but there was so much more to him than that. He's one of the most complex, fascinating characters in American political history.

I don't think McCarthy ever used the subtle underhanded accusation segue method to get ahead and increase or keep power, which Nixon was so expert at. Nixon did that to the very end. Also he was an expert at the pathos rhetorical method, something McCarthy never learned, When Welch took on McCarthy it was (and still is) like the bookish kid at school finally decking the bully in the schoolyard in front of everyone. Nixon never let that happen, he was always the "victim" and he always controlled the conversation. Frost is a good example of that.

So yeah they were different and Nixon went on to much greater things whereas McCarthy imploded, but McCarthy simply did not have Nixon's cunning or skills. He was like a guy who was handed a machine gun but didn't know how to use it. After spraying his bullets everywhere he was eventually going to be killed. But it's obvious from that snip you provided (which is indeed cool) that McCarthy did learn his "one trick" from Tricky D|ck Nixon.

 

[ScottNorwood]

Tim, if instead of your top 100 novels, you were ranking your top 100 noodles, where would Macaroni rank?

 

[timschochet]

Tim, if instead of your top 100 novels, you were ranking your top 100 noodles, where would Macaroni rank?

Not high at all.

 

[timschochet]

The McCarthy era, continued

During the Lattimore hearings (which actually turned into an investigation of McCarthy's tactics, and led by Senator Tydings, were highly critical of him), McCarthy's opponents had won all the battles of reason of decency, but McCarthy had never tried to be reasonable or decent, he was a political charlatan, and his brand of quackery was sweeping the spring primaries. While the committee which had investigated him debated whether to use this adjective or that adverb, Willis Smith was ousting North Carolina Senator Frank P. Graham with a McCarthyite campaign; Congressman George A. Smathers was defeating Florida's liberal Senator Claude Pepper with a second McCarthyite campaign; and the senatorial candidacy of California's Helen Gahagan Douglas was being smeared by Manchester Boddy in a third McCarthyite primary- with Richard Nixon preparing yet a fourth McCarthyite campaign which would defeat her in the general election.

(Saints, with regard to the last it's worth noting that while McCarthy stole from Nixon to become famous, Nixon stole from McCarthy too for the 1950 campaign against Helen Douglas. Or more precisely, he stole from Manchester Boddy, a conservative Democrat running against Douglas, who stole from McCarthy. it's fair to say that Nixon, despite having been the primary figure exposing Alger Hiss to the public, would never have attacked Douglas in the way he did if McCarthy hadn't been successfully doing the same thing. It was one thing to expose a real Communist spy like Hiss, but it was quite another to smear liberal Democrats with the Red Label. Once McCarthy started, other Republicans followed the successful pattern.)

Thus the report attacking McCarthy was discredited before it had been written. In the end it ran pretty much as expected, accusing McCarthy of perpetrating "a fraud and a hoax" and engaging in deliberate, willful falsehoods. Knowing what it would be like, McCarthy had already branded it "a disgrace to the Senate" and a "green light to the Red fifth column in the United States." Taft had called the proceedings a "farce" and an insult to "a fighting Irish Marine." RNC Chairman Guy Gabrielsson maintained that the GOP was uncovering "spies, emissaries, agents and members of the Communist Party who infest the government of the United States."

By summer optimists thought they saw signs that McCarthy had run his course. The wire services were reducing his news conferences to an inch or two of type, and most papers weren't printing even that. Events in the struggle abroad had overwhelmed his sideshow (North Korea attacked South Korea, which will be the subject of my next post); when he took the floor to brandish an "FBI report" exposing "three Communist agents" in the State Department, J. Edgar Hoover's repudiation of the performance surprised no one. For the moment, at least, McCarthyism seemed to be finished.

It was an illusion. Against all logic, Americans by the tens of millions had come to regard Wisconsin's junior senator as the symbol of anti-Communism, and as long as Communism remained an issue, he would be a hero to them. His arrogance continued to grow. Remind that he had not replied to the committee's indictment, he said, "I don't answer charges, I make them." A reporter asked, "Wasn't that a classified document you were reading?" The senator snapped, "It was. I declassified it." At a cocktail party a girl inquired, "Senator McCarthy, when did you discover Communism?" Leering, he shot back: "Two and a half months ago."

 

[timschochet]

77. Sycamore Row

John Grisham

2014, 464 psges

legal thriller

Sycamore Row was John Grisham's long awaited sequel to his first (and best) novel, A Time To Kill, and features several of the characters from that work, including the young lawyer Jake Brigance, and his mentor, the ever colorful Lucian. This time Jake must defend the rights of a black housekeeper in Mississippi who receives the unlikely inheritance of a millionaire. The family of the deceased naturally sues to try to stop it, and the KKK gets involved as well. Grisham is a master at relating shenanigans in and out of court, and also very good (as so many southern writers are) at discussing the evolution of the racial struggle in the South.

With only two exceptions most of Grisham's best works, like Stephen King, were written well before 2000; this is one of those exceptions. Part of the reason for this is that both writers seem to feel the need to publish at least one novel a year; this means there's a lot of stuff that just isn't high quality. Sycamore Row, however, is a stellar return to Grisham's better, earlier efforts.

Next up: a psychiatrist fights evil by screwing with the company that caused his patient to commit suicide...

 

[msommer]

Sycamore Row and Gray Mountain are pretty good books. I probably liked Sycamore Row a little better.

I read all of Leon Uris' books as a teenager. Can't say I have gone back to them since then. I remember liking "Exodus" the best.

 

[Chadstroma]

100 favorite novels? How in the hell do you have time to read more than 100 novels and write as much as you do in the FFA? Is this all you do? Read books and type posts in the FFA?

 

[timschochet]

100 favorite novels? How in the hell do you have time to read more than 100 novels and write as much as you do in the FFA? Is this all you do? Read books and type posts in the FFA?

Sometimes I argue with people who defend racism.

 

[timschochet]

Sycamore Row and Gray Mountain are pretty good books. I probably liked Sycamore Row a little better.

I read all of Leon Uris' books as a teenager. Can't say I have gone back to them since then. I remember liking "Exodus" the best.

I didn't like Gray Mountain at all. It was one of the few Grisham books Icouldnt finish.

 

[Chadstroma]

100 favorite novels? How in the hell do you have time to read more than 100 novels and write as much as you do in the FFA? Is this all you do? Read books and type posts in the FFA?

Sometimes I argue with people who defend racism.

You mean outside of the FFA because otherwise you are still down to only two things you do all day/night long.

 

[timschochet]

100 favorite novels? How in the hell do you have time to read more than 100 novels and write as much as you do in the FFA? Is this all you do? Read books and type posts in the FFA?

Sometimes I argue with people who defend racism.

You mean outside of the FFA because otherwise you are still down to only two things you do all day/night long.

Its only one thing. All those novels are in the past. I am now fully committed to posting in the FFA 24/7. Haven't spoken to my family in months. Gotta run now! There's another thread I need to post in...

 

[Chadstroma]

100 favorite novels? How in the hell do you have time to read more than 100 novels and write as much as you do in the FFA? Is this all you do? Read books and type posts in the FFA?

Sometimes I argue with people who defend racism.

You mean outside of the FFA because otherwise you are still down to only two things you do all day/night long.

Its only one thing. All those novels are in the past. I am now fully committed to posting in the FFA 24/7. Haven't spoken to my family in months.Gotta run now! There's another thread I need to post in...

You have family? I just assumed the threads about your daughter were just new thread ideas.... kinda like a new novel idea.

 

[timschochet]

I have a family in my mind...what's the difference? They're real to me!

 

[Chadstroma]

I have a family in my mind...what's the difference? They're real to me!

Without a make belief family then there would be a lot less FFA material to post about. Makes sense.

 

[timschochet]

The McCarthy era, continued

It's necessary at this time in the narrative to give a very brief summary of the Korean War, which broke out just as McCarthy was charging Owen Lattimore with espionage. The details of this war are not vital to this narrative, but it IS important to know as background, because it played a large part in extending the McCarthy era well into the 1950s.

Following the collapse of Japan in 1945, Korea was divided into two halves along the 38th parallel, with the northern half becoming Communist and allied with Mao's regime and the USSR, while the southern half a democratic republic (but actually corrupt regime). On June 25, 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea, and drove it's armies into Seoul, the southern capital. Under the Truman Doctrine, the United States was pledged to defend South Korea; this was also the first real test of the United Nations. The UN, minus Russia, authorized the use of force to defend South Korea. Truman then called upon General Douglas MacArthur.

MacArthur was one of the four great American military heroes to come out of World War II among the public (the other 3 being Eisenhower, Patton, and Admiral Halsey), and MacArthur was especially revered by conservatives because of his political conservative convictions and his hatred of communism. (This is especially ironic because during the 5 years between World War II and the Korean War, MacArthur had spent his time governing Japan, in which he established a social Democratic republic on the modern western European model of Sweden, with strong trade unions, which has led to Japanese prosperity ever since.) Truman was not excited about MacArthur from the first; Mac Arthur had had a 30 year reputation of being disobediant to Presidents and going his own way. Yet their was no denying his brilliance.

Just how brilliant would be demonstrated quickly as MacArthur's UN troops (about 75% American, with British, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, and several other countries with a small number of soldiers) landed at Inchon, drove across the southern Korean peninsula, and took back Seoul. It was the greatest military achievement of MacArthur's career. He completely ousted the North Korean troops, who fled, and fled, and fled, until they were north of the Yalu River in the northernmost part of Korea.

At this point China became concerned. Zhou En Lai, the Chinese foreign minister, warned that the UN forces had to leave northern Korea immediately, and they had better not pass the Yalu and threaten China's sovereignty. But largely due to Henry Luce and the China lobby, most of the world did not recognize Communist China. The country called China in the United Nations was Chiang Kai Shek's remnant government in Taiwan. Practically the only country outside of the Soviet Union that had diplomatic relations with China was India, and nobody really took them seriously either. Thus the Chinese warning either did not reach Truman and MacArthur, or it was ignored.

The American and UN forces crossed the Yalu, and the Chinese attacked. MacArthur was caught by surprise. He had promised American newspapers the troops would be home by Christmas. Instead, they were being chased back to South Korea. If not for the incredible bravery of a few US Marine regiments, it might have been the greatest defeat in American military history. Instead it became a bloody stalemate. Embarrassed, MacArthur reverted to what he had always done- blame the President. He hinted to the newspapers that it was Truman's fault, Truman was keeping him under wraps. MacArthur then approached Truman with his solution: drop nuclear bombs on Peking.

Truman fired MacArthur. The public response was to split down the middle, with liberals extolling Truman (whom they had formerly loathed) and conservatives making MacArthur their greatest hero ever. MacArthur came home to the largest ticket tape parade in history. The war continued for two more bloody stalemate years until Eisenhower as President finally put an end to it. Nothing had been gained on either side. Hundreds of thousands of lives had been lost, with devastation.

The truth was that neither side in the Cold War fully realized until Korea that with the advent of the nuclear age, there was no way to win such a war. That's why Truman fired MacArthur, because even only 5 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the use of nuclear weapons had become unthinkable. But this stalemate result was extremely frustrating to an American public that was used to victory. Despite his previous successes in the Cold War, Truman's approval ratings descended to the lowest of any American President. And Senator Joe McCarthy, who loudly claimed that the fault for everything that went wrong was Communist spies in the United States, continued to rise in popularity.

 

[timschochet]

76. Dr. Neruda's Cure For Evil

Rafael Yglesias

1996, 706 pages

Psychological novel

This book represents a bit of a departure for me, both in subject matter and style. The main character, Dr. Neruda, is a half-Jewish, half Cuban psychiatrist, who, as the novel reveals, was badly abused as a child. When one of his patients commits suicide, Dr. Neruda takes it upon himself to investigate the computer software company that employed his patient- and screw with them. Basically he uses his therapy skills to mess with the minds of the people whom he blames for causing his patient to kill himself.

This sounds like it could be a humorous plot but it isn't- the author is deadly serious. Much of the novel reads like the HBO drama In Treatment (excellent and highly recommended.) Krista, if you're reading this, based on some of the stuff you like I think this might really be the one for you to try. It was previously out of print but now it's available on Kindle for $7.99. If you do try it out, let me know what you think.

Up next: A Jodi Picoult novel about an Asperger's kid who gets accused of murder...

 

[Ilov80s]

78. A Kiss Before Dying

Ira Levin

1953, 244 pages

Suspense

Like The Desperate Hours, Ira Levin's A Kiss Before Dying is a classic novel of suspense. The two works were written only a year apart, and are roughly the same length. And that's about all they have in common. As I wrote above, The Desperate Hours is a straightforward suspense work without mystery. A Kiss Before Dying is filled with mystery, so much so that I can't really reveal the plot here without giving it away. Except that involves MURDER!

The novel is divided into 3 parts. In the first part, we don't know who the narrator is, only that he intends to murder his pregnant girlfriend. In the second part, the girlfriend's sister is on the hunt for the murderer, and it's one of 3 guys, but we don't know who. By the beginning of the 3rd part, all is made clear, and the murderer is now trying to achieve his goal- will he succeed?

Ira Leven became famous over the years for Rosemary's Baby, The Stepford Wives, and The Boys From Brazil. But while those are fine novels, none of them match the brilliance of his first work, written when he was only in his early 20s. This novel reads like the best Hitchcock film is to watch- it's that's good.

Up next- John Grisham's sequel to his first (and best) novel...

Tim, I know you aren't aiming for anything highbrow or super literary, but this is really pushing it.

 

[timschochet]

78. A Kiss Before Dying

Ira Levin

1953, 244 pages

Suspense

Like The Desperate Hours, Ira Levin's A Kiss Before Dying is a classic novel of suspense. The two works were written only a year apart, and are roughly the same length. And that's about all they have in common. As I wrote above, The Desperate Hours is a straightforward suspense work without mystery. A Kiss Before Dying is filled with mystery, so much so that I can't really reveal the plot here without giving it away. Except that involves MURDER!

The novel is divided into 3 parts. In the first part, we don't know who the narrator is, only that he intends to murder his pregnant girlfriend. In the second part, the girlfriend's sister is on the hunt for the murderer, and it's one of 3 guys, but we don't know who. By the beginning of the 3rd part, all is made clear, and the murderer is now trying to achieve his goal- will he succeed?

Ira Leven became famous over the years for Rosemary's Baby, The Stepford Wives, and The Boys From Brazil. But while those are fine novels, none of them match the brilliance of his first work, written when he was only in his early 20s. This novel reads like the best Hitchcock film is to watch- it's that's good.

Up next- John Grisham's sequel to his first (and best) novel...

Tim, I know you aren't aiming for anything highbrow or super literary, but this is really pushing it.

Hey now do NOT diss SVH. That is uncool.

 

[timschochet]

The McCarthy era, continued

Rather than rinse and repeat, I'm going to skip ahead now to McCarthy's downfall in 1954. That will take some time to narrate. The years in-between were an awful continuation of the same pattern: McCarthy would make terrible charges, they would turn out to be false, the public would support him, he would continue on. A lot of innocent people got hurt. Edward R. Murrow, the conservative Republican journalist, challenged McCarthy on CBS and lost his time slot over this. (This is documented in the fine movie Good Night and Good Luck). But it didn't do McCarthy any harm. Nothing did, until he finally went too far by challenging the United States Army...

In the spring of 1954 the United States was beset by major issues of great consequence for the Cold War: the Bricker Amendment, the crisis in Indochina (the fall of Dien Bien Phu), the hearings for J. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb- yet it is an astonishing fact that all of these at the time were overshadowed by a question so absurd, so petty, so devoid of significance or even serious as to cast grave doubts upon the ability of democratic institutions to survive the challenges of the second half of the 20th century. Incredible as it seems now, for 35 days the nation was engrossed in a dispute which began as a quarrel over who had granted a routine promotion, from captain to major, to a left wing Army dentist named Irving Peress.

"Who promoted Peress?" Senator McCarthy demanded over and over. He never found out, and the truth is that he wasn't much interested. Peress merely gave him an excuse to wade into the Army. Actually the dentist's majority had to come to him not because any of his superiors approved it, but because he was entitled to it under automatic provisions of the Doctor Draft Law, a measure meant to correlate military pay with civilian earnings- and one which McCarthy had approved. Press had entered the Army in October 1052. He received his bronze oak leaves a year later. Next it developed that he had been longed to the American Labor Party, then tantamount to being a Communist. In testifying before McCarthy's subcommittee at Camp Kilmer, New Jersey, on January 30, 1954, he invoked the Fifth Amendment. The Office of the Adjutant General had already instructed the First Army to discharge him, and 3 days later it did, but that wasn't enough for the junior Senator from Wisconsin. McCarthy thought the Army should have court-martialed Peress. He took it's failure to do so as proof that Communists had infiltrated the Department of the Army, a situation he meant to remedy by his investigative powers.

McCarthyologists reasoned that there must be more to it than that, and in fact there was much more. The tale that now needs to be told is about a well known Washington lawyer, Roy Cohn, and his lover, G. David Schine.

 

[timschochet]

75. House Rules

Jodi Picoult

2010, 548 pages

family legal drama

House Rules is one of two Jodi Picoult novels I have chosen for this list. I enjoy her books, which are largely formulaic (family dramas which inevitably turn into legal battles, with some twist at the end.) But I'm not the biggest fan. A lot of them seem like scripts for Lifetime Channel movies. House Rules, however, is an exception.

It tells the story of a teenager with Asperger's who is accused of killing his tutor, whom he professes to be in love with. Even more so than The Rosie Project (reviewed earlier) this novel offers an excellent look into the mind of somebody with Aspergers, and the trouble that parents and loved ones have dealing with him. It's a great, suspenseful story and Picoult does a very good job at creating believable and likable characters. A very quick read, well worth it.

Next up: Tom Perrota's satire explores religion...

 

[timschochet]

The McCarthy era, continued

Roy Cohn was short, dark, insensitive, and haughty. He possessed a photographic memory. Like McCarthy, he loved a quarrel for its own sake. He came from a respected family; his father- a Democrat- was a judge in the appellate division of the New York Supreme Court. He was precocious; at 20 he graduated from Columbia Law School; at 21, he was sworn in as an Assistant US attorney. He became a specialist in what was called subversive activities, working on, among other cases, the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Soon he was a special assistant to Attorney General James McGranery. Cohn believed that his office wasn't big enough so he had 3 other junior lawyers evicted. He then became well known in Washington for preparing the indictment which charged Owen Lattimore with perjury. That case collapsed, but by then Cohn didn't care; in early 1953 he resigned from the Justice Department to become chief counsel for Senator Joseph R. McCarthy's Permanent Investigations Subcommittee.

Schine was the sleeker of the two, a fair, languid youth with the face and physique of a young Greek god. Born to wealth, he was a graduate of Andover and Harvard. Like Cohn, he became interested in Communism. In school he wrote a paper about it which he afterward published as a 6 page pamphlet, "Definition of Communism". After Schine later became famous Time called it "remarkably succinct." The New Yorker, more critical, wrote that

It puts the Russian Revolution, the founding of the Communist Party, and the start of the First 5 Year Plan in years when these things did not happen. It gives Lenin the wrong first name. It confuses Stalin with Trotsky. It confuses Marx with Lenin.

By then copies of it had become extremely rare, but when it first appeared, "Definition of Communism" could be found in every Schine hotel: including the Ambassador in Los Angeles and the Ritz Carlton in Kansas City. (These were owned by Schine's father.) One guest who read it with pleasure was a certain Rabbi Benjamin Schultz, the director of something called the American Jewish League against Communism. Rabbi Schultz sought Schine out and introduced him, through mutual friends, to Roy Cohn. Cohn introduced him to McCarthy.

McCarthy didn't like Schine, but Cohn wanted Schine on the payroll (because Cohn fell in love with him). But Schine didn't have any qualifications as a government official. So Schine convinced McCarthy to appoint his new friend "Chief Consultant on Psychological Warfare." This was a title Cohn made up. Schine was delighted to serve without pay. In New York the two young men set up temporary headquarters at the Waldorf, where Schine had a permanent suite, and there they planned to investigate all kinds of government agencies, starting with the Voice of America. Most of the plans were made in bed.

They then flew to Europe and continued their "investigation" on the government dime. They surfaced in Paris on April 4. 18 days of madness followed: in-and-out trips to European capitals during which they strutted and posed for the press and exercised, to the greatest possible degree, their rights and prerogatives as representatives of the US Congress. Then Schine was drafted, and all hell broke loose.

 

[timschochet]

74. The Abstinence Teacher

Tom Perotta

2007, 358 pgs

cultural satire

Tom Perrotta has written several fine novels, including Election and The Leftovers, both of which have had excellent film and TV adaptation. IMO, The Abstinence Teacher is his finest (and funniest) novel. It's about a midwestern sex education teacher who is faced with a social conservative takeover of the school district which forces her to teach abstinence. Meanwhile the soccer coach of her teenage daughter becomes a religious Christian and attempts to lead his team in a prayer after a game. These two events lead to an exploration of evangelical Christianity and it's influence on modern American society.

Perotta stays respectful and attempts to be accurate in his descriptions, but there's no question that his heart lies with secular opposition to conservative Christianity. The novel is both funny and disturbing as it raises interesting questions as to what the effects are of some of these very religious non-denominational churches are on suburbia, both positive and negative.

Next up: Harry Turtledove's alternative history of the Civil War...

 

[timschochet]

The McCarthy era, continued

By late 1953, McCarthy's hostility toward the White House and President Eisenhower was apparent to all around him. 2 days before Thanksgiving he made it public. In a November 16 broadcast Harry Truman, now retired, had referred scathingly to "McCarthyism." Joe had demanded equal time to reply. Like the administration, the networks were trying desperately to appease him, and the request was granted. But after the first few minutes the senator had turned his wrath from Truman to Eisenhower. At a press conference the week before Ike had said he didn't know what McCarthyism meant. He would soon find out, Joe said ominously. Ike had also expressed confidence in his ability to rid the government of security risks; in next year's congressional elections, he said, the issue would be a dead one. Far from it, the senator told his television audience. The "raw, harsh, unpleasant fact" was that "Communism is an issue and will be an issue in 1954."

Of course, he said patronizingly, the Republican administration was doing "infinitely" better than the Democrats in this respect. But there were "a few cases where our batting average is zero- we struck out". As always he got down to cases: names, dates, figures, dossiers- the wrong ones, though his listeners couldn't tell that. Joe said that it was shameful, it was disgraceful, it made McCarthy sick way down deep inside. But there was worse. Despite admonitions from him, Eisenhower, like Truman before him, persisted in adhering to mutual aid treaties with Britain while the British insulted the memory of American boys who had fallen in Korea by trading with Peking. McCarthy's voice rose nasally:

Are we going to continue to send perfumed notes? It is time that we, the Republican Party, liquidate this blood-stained blunder...We promised the American people something different. Let us deliver- not next year or next month- let us deliver now...we can do this by merely saying to our allies and alleged allies, "If you continue to ship to Red China...you will not get one cent of American money.

Eisenhower was furious. His closest aides urged him to repudiate McCarthy as a Republican at the next Presidential press conference. Jim Hagerty, press secretary, agreed. But Nixon warned that the real victim in such a showdown would be the Republican party. It was decided that John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State, should answer McCarthy at his own press conference on December 1 with a statement that Eisenhower would approve word by word. McCarthy, Dulles said, had attacked "the very heart of US foreign policy." That policy was to treat other nations as sovereign, not to pick their trade partners or "make them our satellites." As a real anti-Communist hardliner- unlike McCarthy- Dulles observed that the United States must always be prepared "to retaliate with a devastating blow against the vitals of Russia", and that it retained the capacity to do this "only because we share the well-located bases of other friendly countries".