Everyone admires Grover Cleveland, and no one considers him a great president. This is probably because he was known for integrity which, while admirable, is never the leading quality of a great president.

A mildly successful lawyer with modest ambitions, he would have remained obscure except for extraordinary luck. He became mayor of Buffalo in 1881 when frustrated Republican reformers joined Democrats in seeking an honest candidate. No prominent figure wanted the low paying, slightly disreputable position, so it fell to Cleveland. A year later he became governor of New York when Republicans self-destructed by choosing an unpopular candidate, and Democratic frontrunners stalemated, forcing the party to pick a dark horse. Soon after assuming office, Cleveland won the approval of Samuel Tilden, still the dominant figure in the party. Luck continued to bless Cleveland, not only making him a presidential candidate after two years as governor but providing the slightly disreputable James G. Blaine as an opponent. A reputation for honesty made the difference in the close election of 1884.

The first Democratic president since the Civil War, Cleveland receives credit for leading his party back into the mainstream, but this is arguable because Democrat Tilden, not Rutherford B. Hayes, probably won the disputed 1876 election. Many writers complain that Cleveland's reputation suffers because he faced no great national crisis, but this is anachronism. Americans always believe they are undergoing a national crisis (aren't we undergoing one now?).

1880s America was tormented by a chronic agricultural depression, bitter labor disputes, rage against trusts and railroads, and rising fury at political corruption. Leaders of post-Civil War Democrats opposed social reform as stubbornly as Republicans but had less objection to honest government. Cleveland's first administration reinforced his reputation. He reorganized and reformed executive departments, vetoed many private and pork-barrel bills as well as any law that smacked of social reform. Certain that monetary policy and the tariff held the keys to prosperity, both parties devoted far too much energy to these issues that now seem arcane. Cleveland shared this obsession, but he was never an activist. His single major legislative effort, at tariff reform, failed because he considered it beneath him to lobby Congress. Attacks on his tariff policy contributed to the narrow defeat by Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

Then luck returned: a slump in 1890 doomed Harrison to a single term. Cleveland easily gained renomination in 1892; Democrats won in a landslide, controlling Congress for the first time in a generation. There are eerie parallels with Wilson's Democratic sweep in 1912 and FDR's in 1932, but those administrations were led by great presidents.

As Cleveland entered office again, the slump had become a depression. Growing populist, farmer, and labor movements poured out plenty of helpful suggestions which merely made Cleveland and party leaders nervous. They worried most about a weakening currency and social disorder. One legislative act, repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, enjoyed support among both parties. Cleveland demonstrated uncharacteristic energy in lobbying, but passage produced no noticeable effect. Nowadays everyone condemns Cleveland's attack on the pitiful Coxey's army of unemployed (a foretaste of Hoover and the Bonus Marchers during the next depression). We also fault him for crushing the Pullman strike, but contemporary editorials and the middle-class electorate generally approved.

In the 1896 Democratic convention, reformers easily swept to power and nominated Bryan. Cleveland considered this an irresponsible aberration and supported McKinley. It wasn't an aberration; the old conservative leadership never regained power, nor did the fractious Democrats until 1912. Cleveland was the last Democratic president who embodied nineteenth century Jeffersonian ideals (minimalist government, opposition to social legislation). Hoover was the last Republican Jeffersonian.

Great presidents demonstrate qualities such as vision, compassion, imagination, and energy in exercising power. None of these were in Cleveland's repertoire. A solid, honest, nonreforming leader, he belongs in the upper ranks of second-rate presidents.

American history buffs should collect every volume in the fine American President series, short biographies by mostly eminent writers (Robert Remini on John Quincy Adams is the best I've read so far). Like the subject, this biography is competent. Historian Graff tells the story of Cleveland's life, leaning over backward to find nice things to say without exaggerating his accomplishments. Allan Nevins' 1944 opus is probably the definitive biography, but it's long in the tooth and perhaps also too long for the nonspecialist. Readers looking for the best single volume work will find a lively and opinionated account in Horace Samuel Merrill's Bourbon Leader: Grover Cleveland (Little, Brown, 1957).

This short book is part of "The American Presidents" series edited by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. The series devotes a short volume to the life and accomplishments of each American President. The books in the series can be read quickly, and each gives the reader an overview of the life and accomplishments of an important American figure. It is a worthy goal to encourage people to get a working understanding of our presidents and part of an attempt to reeducate Americans about their country and government. The series, Schelsinger states in his introductory note, will "give readers some understanding of the pitfalls and potentialities of the presidency and also of the responsiblities of citizenship".

Professor Graff's short study of the life of Grover Cleveland (1837-1908) fulfills the aim of the series. The book consists of a brief biography of Cleveland and covers his youth, his public (and some of his private) life before he became president, his two presidencies, and his life in retirement. The accomplishments of each of his two terms are summarized, if briefly.

As do most writers who have studied Cleveland, Professor Graff finds his strength in his integrity and common sense. He was able to persuade his fellow Americans, both before and during his presidency of his honesty. Cleveland was a President without charisma and an uninspiring public speaker. He regretted his entire life his lack of a college education, and his career shows something of a discomfort with new ideas or new approaches. Yet, he was able to turn these traits, together with his own strengths into advantages. He proved a capable and inspiring President.

Professor Graff does not engage in hero-worship. If anything, I thought that he somewhat undervalued Cleveland and his accomplishment. He describes some aspects of Cleveland's presidencies which seem to run counter to the picture of Cleveland as a reformer and as given to complete probity and openness.(For examples, Graff discusses the abrupt dismissals of many Republican civil servants at the outset of his terms and the secret operation on Cleveland's jaw which was held on a ship offshore to conceal it from the public at the beginning of Cleveland's second term.) Yet Graff finds much to admire in Cleveland in his hard work, acknolwedgement of his illegitimate child, financial probity, and Civil Service reform. Graff praises Cleveland for his refusal to support the annexation of Hawaii when its queen was overthrown under dubious circumstances. Cleveland restored public faith in government at a time when it was sorely lacking. I think he was the first President who could be desribed as attempting to govern by principles that he believed were both "conservative" and "compassionate." In this he is an inspiration whose goals, if not all his specific decisions, could be followed and expanded upon.

This is not a complete study of Grover Cleveland but it succeeds well in giving the reader a sense of his accomplishment. The reader who wants to learn more might read Allan Nevins', "Grover Cleveland, A Study in Courage" (1944) which remains the standard biography of Cleveland.

Widely remembered as the only president to serve two non- consecutive terms, Cleveland hasn't gotten the attention and praise he merits. Although a Democrat, it would be no surprise that most of his views would clash with those taken by Democrats today as well as Republicans.

Following the Panic of '83, the public lost confidence in the efficacy of paper money. Cleveland believed the only solution to the restoration of prosperity was to place the country on a gold standard.

Cleveland's anti-imperialist stance would dismay many who promote the U.S. as the Hall Monitor of the World, clinging to the imperishable ideal of the Declaration that all men have the right to self-government. He was outraged to hear how the rulers of Hawaii were overthrown and replaced with a rump democracy. He attempted to undo the wrong wrought by forcible intervention. For Cleveland it was "the only honourable course for our government to pursue."

His words should be carved above some door to the Pentagon, or the Department of Defense:

"The United States," he wrote, "can not allow itself to refuse to redress an injury inflicted through an abuse of power by officers clothed with its authority and wearing its uniform; and on the same ground, if a feeble but friendly state is in danger of being robbed of its independence and its sovereignty by a misuse of the name and power of the United States, the United States can not fail to vindicate its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest effort to make all possible reparation."

Why did Hawaii hope for the restoration of self-sovereignty? Because "she could place implicit reliance upon the justice of the United States." Someone in those scattered islands must have read the same texts the beleaguered pro-democracy students in China read when they erected a crude facsimile of the Statue of Liberty in Tianmanen Square. Too bad they were kicked in the teeth.

He opposed and vetoed bills that would have provided federal handouts for numerous groups and individuals, some deserving, most bogus. But he was not blind to a "widening gulf between employers and employed. His concern was not a squishy "kinder, gentler" budget-increasing type.

Anticipating the Encyclical Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo XI, and Laborem Exercens of Pope John Paul II, he wrote that "Communism is a hateful thing . . . but the communism of combined wealth and capital, the outgrowth of overweening cupidity and selfishness, is not less dangerous."

He was an honorable man when honor in a public office was scorned. Democrats and Republicans take heed.

This book is a decent introduction to some of the most important trends of though on decline in the modern world. It is worth for that, as little else of what the author writes is coherent with these chapters. Basically, he believes that there is no real decline. His conservative liberalism is in constant conflict with the ideas he talks about, which in the end led me to think that he's unwillingly proving to be the wrong one.

First, I think the author is to be commended to taking such a fascinating and difficult topic and writing an analytical survey of it in plain English.

Essentially, what Herman seeks to do is to point out similarities between the various historical theories he groups as "declinism"--the doctrine that Western civilization faces unavoidable collapse, due to racial degeneracy, technology and capitalism, or some dark psychological force. For example, Herman draws a squiggly yet definite line between the "volkish" racial philosophers of 19th century Europe and the multiculturalist scribblers of today (who, ironically, rail against Eurocentrism).

Another common theme is the use of both one possibility and its opposite as proof for the same thing (referred to by the Frankfurt School as "dialectics" and known to plain-speaking folks as "horses**t"). Intellectual dishonesty, fitting facts to the theory--it's hard to come away from this book without feeling some new contempt for people like the Adams brothers, or Sartre, or the "Afrocentrist" grifters.

This work reminded me of other intellectual follies-type books by Paul Hollander and Paul Johnson, although here the focus is on the subjects' main ideas rather than their political idiocy or personal failings. The influence of the philosopher Karl Popper is very apparent here--Herman has praised him elsewhere. In all, this work is another testament to the unique sort of silliness that can emanate from very intelligent people. My only complaint is that Herman doesn't discuss some other latter-day pessimists--Robert Bork and Robert Kaplan, for example--who may or may not fit easily into his selected categories of thought.

The viewpoint of Spengler on the decline of the West is an insidious thesis whose continued popularity and beguiling appeal endures notwithstanding the severe flaws that emerge on closer examination. The same could be said for Toynbee's elaboration of the idea of the West's inevitable decline. Herman here joins the ranks of the critics and, despite a prickly bias in his viewpoint, makes a good case for the fallacy of the prophets of doom. And this via the history, e.g. such works as Nordau's Degeneration, of the constellation of ideas behind these first of the 'postmoderns'. In some ways the view of the classical liberal is an appropriate response to the cockeyed conservatism of Spengler, and here we have the correct suggestion the rise of the modern is a creative era in world history, and not the tail end of some Faustian civilization beginning in the year 1000 AD.
Still, the issue of decline won't go away, if only because nothing lasts forever. But the latter is not an historical thesis or theory, and it is false to say that decline is inevitable, let alone that some invigorating barbarism will renew our esthetics. So far from being an aberration the Enlightenment brought into being a new age of history, and to foresee decline, and this unconsciously willed as some perverse progress, bespeaks only the idiotic epigone of Nietzche. Herman makes this basic point in a fashion that might not sit well with the mystique of the Spenglerian horde. As for Toynbee, his mechanics of history simply cannot deal with the facts of the rise of the West or its significance in any intelligent way, as if the author stepped from some medieval monastery to be appalled at the end times in the birth of freedom. Let's hope we don't go down fighting against this tide of willed self-destruction which seems attractive to the enemies of the Enlightenment. A bit 'thinktankish', but a useful work.

In what must be some of the most horrific accounts of strom conditions at sea, In Hazard blasts you in the face with vivid tales of monster waves, blistering winds and the freighter snared in their grasp. As the days of relentless horror pass on board the freighter, the author delves deep into the lives of the men trying to survive the hurricane. Unfortunately, he abandons his gripping description of the storm for a meandering inventory of the survivors' thoughts.

The SUNDAY TIMES was right: IN HAZARD is a tremendous piece of narrative description. It's one of the finest sea stories ever written--as shocking as THE PERFECT STORM, and even better written.

The weather was building, but the captain felt almost no concern at all. His freighter was no ordinary ship, and the hurricane season was past. Surely, he was facing no more than a fall gale in tropical waters.

What he was actually facing was one of the most powerful ocean storms ever recorded. By Wednesday, the ship was experiencing a full hurricane. On Thursday, the barometer would fall to 26.99 mb and the winds would be blowing 200 knots. That's when the horror began. During the ensuing days, the wind and the sea were about to perform feats no living sailor had ever seen before. Read this book!

In Hazard is about the capacity of mankind to cope with overwhelming challenges and believe in its future against dreadful odds. It is a thrilling, sobering, and masterfully written book--but it is worth its price just for the account of the storm, whose winds will never quite die out in the mind of the reader.

What have the frommers done is Just duplicating the old edition with a new name. This so called 2001 edition " frommer's hong kong 6th eddition" has so many names I could not look up on the internet mainly because they were sold to another company with a different name. The air lines they suggested dont even fly to hong kong any more. Many restaurants were nonexistant. Things are changing rapidly in Hong Kong. Frommers has not kept up with those changes. Seems like a [price] rip off scam to me.

Good luck.

This is a good tour book tell you all you need to wrap before your traveling. This book also help you to control your travel budget and tailor your travel into your appetite! So how can you travel to Hong Kong without this one?

This is a really excellent, accurate, and carefully researched guide, full of helpful information. Note however that it is not BY Arthur Frommer, who publishes a magazine and lends his name to the series, but no longer writes guide books--the author is Beth Reiber. She is right on top of her subject, and you couldn't ask for a better, more complete guide to Hong Kong.

This is a collection of eight short stories, first published in October 1917, narrating some of the adventures of detective Sherlock Holmes, the last one entitled "His Last Bow." Sherlock Holmes is amongst the most famous characters ever created in literature, his popularity overshadowing his creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, to the point that some people are under the impression that Sherlock Holmes in fact existed. The inspiration came from Dr. Joseph Bell, a friend and tutor to Conan Doyle and who shared many personality features with the famous detective.
The author had Sherlock Holmes killed but public demand was so high for further adventures that we find him back in action. Determined to have a permanent retirement, Sherlock Holmes moves into a small farm and dedicates himself to other matters, refusing to offer his intellectual ability to the government. With World War I approaching he backs up on this determination and his return into action is narrated in "His Last Bow." The cases range from theft, burglary, kidnapping, to murder, and in all of the them Sherlock Holmes is a master in the science of deduction and analysis.
By those considered expert "Sherlockians," this is not Holmes at his best and certainly not as good as his masterpiece "The Hound of the Baskervilles."

After being killed in an adventure, Holmes suddenly reappears. Of course, the first thing he does is to tell how he came back alive. And then new, last stories, come up. The edition I read includes "The valley of terror", a convoluted and terrifying story in which Holmes participates indirectly. One can not go wrong with Holmes. Inevitably, the quality of the stories is varied, but they are always fun to read. Doyle is indeed a great writer, who must be counted among the best writers, right there with the big language-innovators and "serious" literates.

All the Sherlock Holmes short stories collections are 5 star efforts, of course, but this one has some of my absolute favorites in it. Sure, they aren't as well known as those in "The Adventures" or "The Hound..." novel, but they are great nonetheless. Particularly of interest are "The Adventure of Wisteria Lodge" and "The Adventure of the Dying Detective", a very suspenseful story indeed! These are must read Holmes tales.

This book is an interesting document about its time and place - Boston in the 50's - but in no sense can it be seen as a justification for the excesses of McCarthy or J. Edgar Hoover. The activity of the Communist Party that Philbrick reports were true enough and there is no question that many in the party sacrificed everything to the cause - including their income and all their free time and energy. But the same is going on today with numerous religious cults and crackpot militia outfits, and has gone on for as long as history records. In every age there are those willing to sacrifice all for some single - often secret and seditious - purpose. The important thing to keep in mind is that they are usually few and far between and society as a whole has little to fear from them. This is not to say that such groups are never dangerous, only that they are no cause for society to panic and start rescinding civil liberties and infringing on the rights of other citizens who are lawfully minding their own business.

The real eye opener for me in reading this book is the extent to which the FBI was willing to use a citizen to obtain information, regardless of the cost to that person, and the willingness of 'Comrad' Herb to allow himself to be used - at what cost to his wife and family he never fully reports. That someone was willing for years to live a secret life (secret even from his wife!) to help the FBI prosecute a group of deluded political extremists is a pretty sad statement of misplaced family values.

Of course, it is important to note that his years as (1) average citizen, (2) communist party member and (3) counterspy for the FBI, allowed him afterwards to have a decades long career promoting his book, making speeches and appearing before various anticommunist groups. So maybe it was all worth it to him.

I was introduced to this book by my mother. She had seen the tv series and the author had spoken at her school. I read the book, I could not put it down, I was so amazed. The way that same period in time is presented in school really falls short of the reality. The textbooks talk about the "red scare" and "McCarthyism" as if they were the product of paranoid fools. Reading this book opened my eyes and I feel that it should be required reading in schools. I saw how many of the problems forshadowed in his book have come true.

I read this book at least 20 years ago. I couldn't put it down. I watched the television series many years before. I HAVE NEVER FORGOTTEN THE BOOK. I remember the book had mentioned the communist manifesto which detailed how the communist party would take over this country, some of which I remember was the infiltration of the schools, wasteful government spending, the power of higher offices. These are but a few I remember in the book. Since reading this book, I now look at our country, and it appears to be very true. McCarthy I believe was right. I read this book through the library, but now I am going to buy it. It is no longer in print through the library. Wake up America and see the signs. Buy the book if you can!

Once upon a time, long long ago there was a group of people that believed that mathematics could be completely reduced to just a study of logic. One of the principal members of this group was Bertrand Russell (who along with Alfred North Whitehead wrote the almost incomprehendable Principia Mathematica). Jump ahead 20 years when there entered men like Godel who showed that the entire endevour was doomed for failure.

This is a text written before that fateful discovery, and as such does not have the benefit of the Incompleteness Theorem to flesh out the ideas. As such, most of the material is wanting, at best, to the contemporary reader of mathematics. Adding to this the fact that the communication of mathematical ideas has tremendously changed in the intervening years, and the result is a text that, though one day had great significance, today seems like a much faded phtotgraph from a by-gone era.

Maybe this makes the text interesting in itself. However, those readers that wish for a current look at mathematical thought, and an introduction to the philosophy of mathematics may be best served by looking elsewhere.

This book is important for revealing Russell's views, at a certain point in his career, on the philosphies of mathematics and logic. But it says little on other philosophical viewpoints (even if only to criticise them). It might be better titled now 'Introduction to a Mathematical Philosophy (Called Logicism)'. We can hardly blame Russell for not knowing about the later developments of the subject (especially Godel), but it is worth bearing in mind that the book was written before some very important discoveries.

Like anything Russell wrote, it is a pleasure to read - his writing style is wonderful, and quite extraordinary when one realises how quickly he wrote this book (in prison, too!), but I suspect that for many readers the mathematical content will prove a little tricky to grasp.

As a historical document, it is fascinating; as an introduction to mathematical philosophy it is too narrow-minded for 1999.

A magnificent, fantastic and very readable introduction to the highly abstract world of formal logic and the foundations of mathematics. Lord Russell is not only one of the greatest logicians of all time, but he is also an astonishing writer, blessed with an elegant, heavenly precise concision of style and sharpness of argumentation.

Having family that has recently moved to D.C. we felt that we needed some "see & do" books, so we ordered this one and another("Access Washington") on the subject. This is the second Frommer's we have bought and our last. It is not tight. It does not cover the subject thoroughly. It is not arranged properly. Sure, there's a lot to cover in D.C., but there are other books that do it! "Access Washington, D.C." is much superior. Access groups the city by area; it color codes by historical, lodging and dining. Wherever you are in D.C. one can find where to stay, where to eat and what to see. Frommer simply hasn't discovered how to get people to the great places. Thieir books are often written as if they had not been there.

Like other Frommers books I have used, the walking tours offered here make the D.C. edition worth it. Tours and agendas are designed around how much time one has, which is always beneficial. I found three good (and affordable) places to eat thanks to the book. Why only four stars? The map. Yes, it's free, but it isn't as detailed as I would like, and the glossy surface makes it hard to highlight. Improve on that, guys, and the fifth star is yours!

"Frommer's Washington, D.C. '98" is a stellar guide to this vibrant and culturally-diverse cosmopolitan city. Elise Hartman Ford not only gives us astute and in-depth assessments of the shops, hotels, and museums, she provides extensive background on the city itself--everything from "History 101" and "Hollywood On The Potomac" to "Washington Calendar of Events" and "Getting to Know Washington, D.C." I especially loved Ford's "Best Bets" sections, where she gives insider-info on, say, the Best Inexpensive Hotel (The Days Inn Premier) or the Best Desserts (the "no frou-frou" sweets at Cafe Berlin). The book's maps are terrific, and Ford's "Getting There" and "Getting Around" are marvelous guides to the various airports, shuttles, and public forms of transportation. Don't miss this top-notch guidebook.

I recently received and read Arthur Witebsky book Golf's Little Instruction Book what a bunch of [junk]. The title should be changed to Golf Instruction for Idiots not Dummies. An example is on page 30 Ladies Hit First I do not know what courses Arthur plays but the majority of courses I play and have played have the ladies tees further down the fairway which would slow down the game and also endanger the ladies be in harms way from someone hitting from the back tees???? I also tried calling phone number listed on page 105 for the USGEA answering machine
voice on answering machine said it was Baboo Ababoo??

[...] This book was not meant to shave off a few strokes from one's game. I enjoyed breezing through the pages and found the little tid bits to be very clever and amusing. I received this book as a gift and will be sending many out as gifts.

Apparently [another reviewer]...has never read other "...instruction books". He must have thought he would buy this book and shave off a few strokes....This is a very clever little book that should be of interest to anyone who enjoys the game...novice or pro. I am not a big golfer but enjoyed breezing through the pages, which are chock full of little tid bits on the game. I received it as a gift and will send many out as gifts.