Books Read in January

Affiliate links below

Angel Death, by Patrician Moyes, a Henry Tibbet mystery.  I am generally mildly fond of these, but this one is not in the top 20 list of her books I like. For perspective, I believe she only wrote 19 of the Tibbet books.

Above Suspicion, Helen MacInnes, this is her first, published in 1941, set in Germany just before the invasion of Poland.  It’s *very* anti Germany, understandably given the time frame, and it’s also a really good read. Really, really good. If you’re hitting WW2 in your history studies, I’d add this to your free reads at the same time.

Just David– I kind of liked this and I kind of didn’t. IT’s hard to explain. It’s by the author of Pollyanna, and there’s a lot that is sweet and admirable. But there’s a lot that I find deeply disturbing, and that stuff is a bit more subtle , so it’s harder not to absorb it, especially for young readers. Also, I find the father’s judgement horrifyingly irrational, and his decisions are irresponsible. In real life a child brought up like David would be a deeply traumatized youngster. You’ve also got the old hereditary determinism which would grow up shortly thereafter to become fullblown eugenics. You’ve got a strange notion of a Christianity completely without Christ, and what bothers me most about this one is how it seems to have just gone right over the heads of a good many Christian readers I respect. We have a completely unrealistic view of the child nature. Also, there are notions I find incompatible with reality, such as the harshly critical attitude toward hunting even for food, because the animals wouldn’t want to be dead-
particularly since it doesn’t really seem like the boy or his father are actually vegans.

The father has taught him a charming notion about life as an orchestra where everybody has a part to play and if you don’t do your part you make the orchestra out of tune. I did like that theme very much. However, he never conveys to the child that many people *want* to be out of tune, and sometimes we are in that discordant group who choose discordancy out of our own selfishness, because that not be in keeping with his (and the author’s?) notions of children as essentially perfect and unspoiled by any selfish tendencies of their own they might just have naturally.

In the beginning of the book we have young David being raised by his father alone in a mountain cabin with no contact with the outside world except the occasional necessary meeting witha delivery boy or a village worker they have to meet. He never is allowed to have any real conversations with anybody but his father. He is never permitted to know that death exists, he doesn’t even know what it is, nor does has he heard of much of anything unpleasant, including sin or the redemptive work of Christ, or Christ period- I harp on this because this is a book often promoted as a Christian book, but he religion in it is more akin to something like Buddhism.

By choice the boy’s father has left the ‘civilized world’ and determined to bring the boy up with no exposure to anything but goodness (as determined by the father) or anything unpleasant at all. Music is the center of their lives and both father and son are gifted violinists. The father falls ill and they hastily pack everything up and head down the mountain to return to society, but while far frmo their cabin but still in a small hamlet much out of the minstream, the father collapses and dies and leaves this poor child alone and totally ignorant of the ways of the world. He does not even know his own surname, so nobody can look for relatives. His dad does manage to hastily hand over a large amount of gold coins he tells the boy to hide on his person (never mind the sheer weight of that amount of solid gold), and then he’s gone.
It’s sheer luck that anybody takes the boy in at all instead of shipping him off to an orphanage, and tht his gold doesn’t get found and stolen, or any number of other things likely to befall such a naive child left on his own who doesn’t know his own name, but then again, everything that happens is to the boy’s benefit and it’s all sheer luck and, of course, like Pollyanna, everybody eventually falls in love with him and finds him irresistable. He is a darling character, regardless of how unrealistic he is. The people he meets are interesting and have interesting backstories of their own. I don’t hate it, I just… find it frustrating.


Bark of the Bog Owl– this is the first in a trilogy, and the only one I’ve read. It’s an interesting reclothing of the DAvid story in the Bible, only it’s set here in a fictional kingdom more like Wales and Scotland. I found it an enjoyable read, and I expect kids of around 11-14 or so would like it, too, probably even younger, especially as a read aloud. The correlation between the Kind David story and this one is not heavy handed, but if you know the David story it is soon obvious (I hadn’t realized this when I started). I would like to read the next two. My favourite part is the Feechie people, and I understand there’s more of them in the second book.

Omnilingual: a fun H. B. Piper short story about a race against time as space archeologists are trying to find the key they need to decode an ancient Martian language before the imminent destruction of the long abandoned city. It’s pretty cool. Your teens should read it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Born Alive Act

The Born Alive act passed. But 183 Dem. legislators voted to deny medical care to babies who survive abortion. They voted for infanticide.

They are not pro-choice.  They are pro-abortion.  They are pro-death.

A few examples of cases where babies survived their abortions only to be killed directly or denied medical care, as reported by clinic workers. Estimates are between 900 and 1200 aborted babies are born alive- annually.


MOre here:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Elizabeth Warren’s Faux Indian Heritage

Elizabeth Warren claims she has never benefited from her claims that she’s Native American (claims she makes in the face of DNA and historical evidence to the contrary).  However, that is at odds with these facts:

“Warren also listed herself as a minority in a legal directory published by the Association of American Law Schools from 1986 to 1995. She’s never provided a clear answer on why she stopped self-identifying.

“She was also listed as a Native American in federal forms filed by the law schools at Harvard University and University of Pennsylvania where she worked.

And in 1996, as Harvard Law School was being criticized for lacking diversity, a spokesman for the law school told the Harvard Crimson that Warren was Native American.”
Those facts are taken from an article that is, overall, favourable to her.   For example, while it does mention her “Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee” recipes in the ‘Pow Wow Chow ” cookbook, it omits the information that her recipes are plagiarized from a French chef.

More significantly, the article does not explain that during her political career, Warren never made any public claims about her alleged native heritage until after 2012, when reporters discovered Harvard represented her as a Native American.  And,in fact, her first response to questions about that was to claim ignorance:

“When confronted by reporters, Warren claimed not to know why Harvard[6] was promoting her as Native American, and said that she only learned of it by reading the newspaper reports.”

But journalists (remember when we had those?) discovered she herself had claimed minority status as an American Indian at Harvard and Penn State.  She is the one who listed herself as a minority, so it’s odd she would say she has no idea why Harvard represented her as Native American.

It doesn’t mention that when asked why she listed herself as a minority she lied:

“I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,”

That explanation did not make sense[15] because the AALS faculty directory only listed Warren as “minority,” not as “Native American,” so putting herself on that list was not a way to meet other Native Americans.

Later, reporters uncovered that Warren had represented herself to both U. Penn[16] and Harvard for federal reporting purposes[17] as Native American.  Warren herself never disclosed that she had represented herself to U. Penn and Harvard as Native American, that information was discovered by reporters.

The Boston Globe[18] reported that Warren received recognition as a “minority” law professor while at U. Penn Law School:

“The University of Pennsylvania, where Warren  taught at the law school  from 1987 through 1995, listed her as a minority in a “Minority Equity  Report” posted on its website. The report, published in 2005,  well after her departure, included her as the winner of a faculty award in 1994.  Her name was highlighted in bold, the designation used for minorities in the  report.”

Investigative reporter Michael Patrick Leahy of uncovered that in 1993, when Warren was a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School, the Harvard Women’s Law Journal included Warren on a list of Women of Color in Legal Academia.[19]  It was the policy of the Law Journal to check with the persons on the list before they were listed.”

She never made any claims to Native American ancestry until she used it related to being hired by universities.  As soon as she gained tenure at Harvard she stopped making those claims, and never made them again until journalists uncovered her history- and even then, her first response was to deny that she had anything to do with it and claim she had no idea what Harvard was talking about and only heard it by reading the paper (shades of Obama). It seems obvious that of course she benefited from those claims- it’s why she only made them when and where she did.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The skincare aisle








Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Responses

The Victory of Reason, Stark

Theology distinguishes Christianity from other religions, says Stark. It is ‘a sophisticated, highly rational discipline that is fully developed only in Christianity.
“…theology consists of formal reasoning about God. The emphasis is on discovering God’s nature, intentions, and demands, and on understanding how these define the relationship between human beings and God. The gods of polytheism cannot sustain theology because are far too inconsequential. Theology necessitates an image of God as a conscious, rational, supernatural being of unlimited power and scope who cares about humans and imposes moral codes and responsibilities upon them, thereby generating serious intellectual questions such as Why does God allow us to sin? does the sixth commandment prohibit war? When does an infant acquire a soul?”
“To fully appreciate the nature of theology, it is useful to explore why there are no theologians in the East, Consider Taoism, the Tao is conceived of as a supernatural essence, an underlying mystical force or principle governing life, but over that is impersonal, remote, lacking consciousness, and definitely not a being. It is the “Eternal way,” the cosmic force that produces harmony and balance. According to Lao-tau, the Tao is ‘Always nonexistent,’ yet “always existent,” “unnameable,” and the “name that can be named,” both “soundless and formless, ” it is always without desires,” one might meditate forever on such an essence, but it offers little to reason about. The same applies to Buddhism and Confucianism. Althought it is true that the popular versions of these faiths are polytheistic and involve an immense array of small gods (as is true of popular Taoism as well) the ‘pure’ forms of theise aiths as pursuded by the intellectual elite, are godless, and postulate only a vage divine essence- buddha specifically denied the existence of a conscious God. The East lacks theologians because those who might otherwise take up sich an intellectual ursuit reject its first premise: the existence of a conscioius, all-powerful God.”
“In contrast, Christian theologians have devoted centuries to reasoning about what God may have really meant by various passages in scripture and over time the interpretations often have evolved in quite dramatic and extensivie ways. For example, not only does the Bible not condemn astrology but the story of the Wise Men following the star might seem to suggest that it is valid. However, in the fith century Saint Augustine reasoned that astrology is false becauseto believe that one’s fate is predestined in the stars stands in opposition to God’s gift of free will. In similar fashion, although many early Christians, including the apostle Paul, accepted that Jesus had brothers, born of Mary and fathered by Joseph, this view came increasingly into conflict with developing theological views about Mary. The matter was finally resolved in the thirteenth century when Saint Thoams aquinas analyzed the doctrine of Christ’s virgin birth to deduce that Mary did nto bear other children. “So we assert without qualification that the mother of God conceinved as a virgin gave birth as a virgin and remained a virgin after the birth. The brothers of the Lord were not natural brothers, born of the same mother, but blood-relations.”

Posted in Books | Leave a comment

  • Amazon: Buy our Kindle Books

  • Search Amazon

    Try Audible and Get Two Free Audiobooks

  • Brainy Fridays Recommends:

  • Search: