Conspiracy of Fools - Kurt Eichenwald

I became a fan of Kurt Eichenwald after reading "The Informant". His journalistic style of writing and ability to turn even the most arcane business subjects into lightning paced stories, sets him apart from other writers in the same genre. So when I picked up a copy of "Conspiracy of Fools", I knew it wouldn't disappoint. It turned out to be a thrilling account of how the one of the largest corporations in America - Enron - was brought down by the greed and recklessness of its leaders.

The book was published in 2005, a year before the trial of Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, so it does not describe their ultimate fate. Thankfully there's YouTube and C-Span for those of us who want to see the many congressional hearings! The book does take us from the very beginning of Enron's story, when the company was heralded as a pioneer in devising creative business strategies in the energy industry, which was just beginning to understand the opportunities and pitfalls of deregulation. Somewhere in the middle, Enron - under the misguided leadership of individuals who put a greater weight on short term gains over long term growth - started its downward spiral.. playing fast and loose with accounting rules, taking enormous risks without any regard for safety nets, rewarding reckless deal makers with huge bonuses and enabling one of the most flagrant corporate criminals to amass a fortune (it's own CFO.. Andy Fastow), while the company lost billions.

As you read the book, and the descriptions of the many convoluted deals that Fastow engineered to give the illusion of a healthy balance sheet for Enron (while keeping a cut of the loot for himself), you begin to realize that even though he was "stealing from the house", nobody was really "watching the house". I still cannot grasp the level of naivete that Ken Lay (as Chairman of the Board) and the 25 Board of Directors showed quarter after quarter. They never asked the hard-hitting questions that you would expect from the stewards of a company. Even when Sherron Whatkins (the self proclaimed Enron whistle blower) brought the various accounting issues to Lay's attention - he was not shrewd enough to ask for an independent review. He went on to project an image of confidence, when he knew there were inherent problems with many of Enron's divisions. Though, I'm not sure if "naive" is how I would describe Ken Lay - there are clues in the earlier part of the book that would lead me to believe that Ken's moral fibre left much to be desired.

The most fascinating aspect of the book is the unravelling of Jeff Skilling. As Enron's CEO - who resigned just months before the company declared bankruptcy - Skilling is a mass of contradictions. He was the one who decided to use "mark to market" accounting for evaluating Enron's energy contracts - something that was highly risky and signalled the "beginning of the end" for Enron. He was the one who gave the approval for Fastow's shady deals, without ever reading the details of the contracts. He had knowledge of the rot that had set into Enron's disastrous international projects, and yet continued to front a demeanour of success and confidence. The author gives an incredible look into how Skilling struggled under and ultimately gave in to the burden of maintaining this facade.

I just couldn't put down this book.. I started on a sleepy Sunday morning, and finished the following Sunday night. And even after I was done, I couldn't help scouring the internet for videos of congressional hearings, and trial scripts. The following YouTube videos are a must watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zxAJO7owy8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPqH3DrWEEU

I would also recommend an analysis of the Lay/Skilling trial, written by the lead prosecutor himself - "Behind the scenes of the Enron Trial: creating the decisive moments" by John C. Hueston. It's available on Amazon.com for $10, but worth it - because you get insights into the prosecution's strategy and the many missteps of the defense.

Marie Antoinette - The Journey - by Antonia Fraser

Antonia Fraser is able to give voice to one of the most misunderstood and besmirched figures in history.. Marie Antoinette. As the youngest child of Empress Marie Therese, Marie Antoinette had a largely care-free childhood in Austria. But it was a tragic twist of fate that transplanted MA from the informal court of Vienna to the austere and formal court of Versailles, at the age of fourteen when she became the bride of Dauphin Louis Auguste, the fifteen year old heir to the French throne. MA was hopelessly unprepared for the public life she was to lead in Versailles, and was almost immediately the target of tabloids who nicknamed her "l' Autrichienne" or "The Austrian Woman". And thus began her 23 year life in a country that mostly viewed her with suspicion and never wholly embraced her as their Dauphine, and later their Queen.

The book is quite a page-turner, and Fraser is adept at revitalizing a history lesson into something that is both intelectually stimulating and entertaining. The author offers fascinating details of 18th century life in the royal courts of Vienna, Versailles and Paris, while also trying to dispel the many myths that masked MA's real personality. However, I have to give the book only 3 stars out of 5, because I would have enjoyed the book even more if the author had given a more cohesive picture of the events that led up to the French Revolution (instead of focusing on just the events that had a direct impact on MA's life). Yes, the book is supposed to depict MA's evolution from an Austrian princess to the Queen of France, but no biography of MA would be complete without a more detailed explanation of one of Europe's most violent and pivotal revolutions. It was very frustrating that key figures and events of the revolution were merely mentioned in passing!

My second point of criticism is that sometimes Fraser gave herself license to embellish events when presented with an absence of documentary evidence. For example, there is no "real" evidence to support that MA had an extramarital affair with the dashing Count Fersen of Sweden, however the author makes it a point to insist that this was the case, basing her assertions on hear say. The best historical non-fiction writers not only share facts, but also their invaluable insights. Yet there were times when I got the feeling that Fraser was extending her insights into the dangerous territory of exaggeration.

Despite these shortcomings I would still recommend this book for anyone wanting to get a better understanding of MA, and her life from its innocent beginning in Vienna to its brutal end in Paris. You cannot help but feel some compassion for this woman who, despite the accusations of frivolity, was a generous person, a loving mother, a connoisseur of art, lover of music, theater, architecture and all things beautiful. MA's biggest fault was that she did not keep wise counsel. But how could she, when everyone around her was using her as a pawn to advance their own political interests? By the end, her head was wanted by one of the extremist proponents of the Revolution - Jacques Hebert- who had promised it to the "sans-culottes", or the poorer, more radical faction of the Revolutionaries. And so, MA's death - as her life - was yet another political calculation.

Nicholas and Alexandra - Robert K. Massie

The last Romanov Tsar (Nicholas II) and Tsaritsa (Alexandra) need no introductions - the tragic and brutal murders of Russia's Imperial family is known to most people. However, in this book, Robert Massie attempts to uncover the true natures of Nicholas and Alexandra, their fateful marriage, the secret illness of their only heir (Alexis) and the calamitous effect it had on a dynasty that had ruled Russia for over 300 years.



Massie is one of those rare authors who can transform meticulous research into a story that is rich with atmosphere, precise historical details and yet manages to keep a pace that rivals a best selling novel. Even though the author is sympathetic to the Imperial family, this should not be misconstrued as bias - the author's main triumph is his ability to remain objective, and use the available facts to illustrate all the different factors that culminated in their ultimate downfall.

As you read the book, you cannot help but feel the sense of doom in the last few years of the Autocracy as it begins to teeter from the rumblings of a revolution after - the unrelenting death toll of an ongoing war; a pseudo government that was completely mismanaged by a Tsar/Tsaritsa under the destructive influence of a charlatan (Rasputin); and dire warnings, which went unheeded, from the other members of the Imperial family who tried to pursuade Nicholas to create a constitutional monarchy.

Would the history of Russia be any different if any of these elements were changed? We will never know the answer, but we do know that even though Nicholas / Alexandra made mistakes during their rule, they acted out of the irrational fear that is typical of parents with a sick child. Inspite of all their short comings, the author tries to reveal a portrait of an intimate and loving family, who were unfortunate enough to pay the ultimate price for the political insensitivity of their patriarch.

I cannot bring myself to end this post on a negative comment, when in fact I was so moved by the personal story of Nicholas and Alexandra. I'm going to quote Winston Churchill who perfectly described Nicholas, the man, a decade after the Tsar's death....

"...He had made many mistakes, what ruler has not? He was neither a great captain, nor a great prince. He was only a true, simple man of average ability, of merciful disposition, upheld in all his daily life by his faith in God. But the brunt of supreme decisions centered upon him... His was the function of a compass needle. War or no war? Advance or retreat? Democratise or hold firm? These were the battlefields of Nicholas II. Why should he reap no honour for them? The devoted onset of the Russian armies that saved Paris in 1914; the mastered agony of munitionless retreat;... the Russian entry upon the campaign of 1917, unconquered, stronger than ever; has he no share in these? Inspite of errors vast and terrible, the regime he personified, over which he presided, to which his personal character gave the vital spark, had at this moment won the war for Russia."

Public Enemies - Bryan Burrough

Bryan Burrough meticulously pieces together recently released documents from the FBI archive to connect the criminal lives of Depression era bank robbers and kidnappers - from John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, Bonnie and Clyde to the lesser known Machine Gun Kelly, Pretty Boy Floyd and Alvin Karpis.

The book describes in vivid detail, the FBI's efforts to capture these criminals. The FBI's "War on Crime" spanned the early 1930's and played an important role in shaping the Bureau into the nation's top crime fighting organization. Though J. Edgar Hoover took most of the credit for this, the author separates propaganda from real life events to show that there were other individuals within the FBI who worked tirelessly, dealt with the corruption at local law enforcement agencies and sacrificed their lives to capture the likes of Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson etc.

As far as the criminals are concerned - the author uses memoirs and witness accounts to describe their state of mind and relationships, but he makes no attempt to aggrandize their lives or their motives. At the end of the day, they were crooks who got an early start to a life of crime thanks to a depressed economy. Their stints in jail with other hardened criminals only perpetuated their cycle of violence and contempt for the law. That being said, you cannot help but feel the aura of celebrity around Dillinger, who was no less than a movie star in those days. His final capture by the FBI is one of the most gripping chapters in the book.

The book is NOT a collection of individual biographies. The author describes events in the order that they happened - so the reader has an acute sense of being right in the middle of all the action. And there's lots of it! You can just imagine Dillinger standing in a bank in his suit, fedora and with a tommy gun as he says "Stick 'em up boys, this is a hold up!", or the tires squeeling as a get-away car is mobilized at the end of a bank robbery, or the bullets flying as the police give chase, or the constant fear of capture as the criminals move from one hiding place to another.

Michael Mann's 2009 movie "Public Enemies" pales in comparison to the book. The movie is not based on facts, is slipshod, and does nothing to further our understanding of both the criminals or their captors. Melvin Purvis, who was in charge of the FBI Chicago office, and at the beginning of his career with the FBI was hand picked by J. Edgar Hoover to spearhead the "War on Crime" - was portrayed as someone who single-handedly brought down Dillinger, whereas this was far being true. Purvis, after a string of high profile and embarassing failures to capture Dillinger was demoted, and replaced by Sam Cowley who laid the foundation for Dillinger's final capture. Hollywood once again managed to take a complex story and whittle it down to 2 hours of shooting scenes between the "bad guys" and the "good guys". The only person who managed to recreate a character with authenticity was Johnny Depp - whose portayal of Dillinger was spectaculor.

Invictus - a movie by Clint Eastwood

Genuine, heartfelt emotion is difficult to portray on celluloid. Inspiring words are often lost in platitudes. This is not the case in Clint Eastwood's "Invictus". The movie takes us through one year in Nelson Mandela's fledgeling presidency, and his determination to forge a new unity among South Africans. After decades of Apartheid, Mandela wants to give the nation a common purpose, a reason to come together - and he finds what he's looking for in Rugby. With only one black player in the team, the "Springboks" weren't exactly the symbol of a new South Africa - in fact, their flag, their colors, even their song, were looked upon by most blacks as a representation of their oppression.

As the Springboks prepare for a tough journey to the 1995 Rugby World Cup, Mandela launches a campaign to make the South African team an inspiration for the rest of the country. This was an unpopular move at the time, however, the movie showcases moments where blacks and arikaners come together in support of their team.

Morgan Freeman (as Mandela) and Matt Damon (as Francois Pienaar, captain of the Springboks) are masterful in their roles. Freeman's characterization of Mandela is free from cliches, and you can almost sense the steely determination in his hushed tones as he urges Pienaar to set an example, both on and off the field. Damon is ever the consummate actor, fitting the bill perfectly as the quietly confident Pienaar.

Pienaar gathers strength from Mandela's encouragement, and is humbled by the leader's ability to rise above the animosity that still lingers from the nation's sordid past. Pienaar leads his team through a series of improbable wins and finally to victory at the World Cup finals. His words right after his team won the final match - "We did not have 63,000 fans behind us today, we had 43 million South Africans" - brings home the entire message of the movie. Clint Eastwood does an excellent job of showing how Mandela's leadership attempted to transform the distrust between the black majority and the afrikaner minority into the beginning of a mutual dialog. Eastwood accomplishes this by doing away with hackneyed sayings, and just focuses on the merits of the story itself.

You will hear snatches of a poem, written by a Victorian poet (William Ernest Henley) throughout the film, as the movie shows how this poem motivated Mandela to "stand when all I wanted to do was to lie down".

Invictus - by William Ernest Henley
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.