5 comments about Cancer Vixen: A True Story.

1. I found this book incredibly entertaining ...simply a great read! It rocked my emotions from sadness, to laughter, to disbelief and made me feel extremely fortunate by the end. The cartoons are creative and oh, so humorous. The comedic relief was provided by Mom who could be my own. The story is a triumph over breast cancer and sends a powerful message to all women and families.A must-read, whether you are afflicted with breast cancer or not. You won't be able to put it down.
   Barb



2. This book is truly excellent. I laughed and I cried. If you enjoy comics, intelligent ones, this is a gem. Will Eisner in heels. A fantastic book. I loved this work.



3. I loved this book! Have been waiting for M.A. book since read "Who the hellis SHE anyway?!"
   My mom survived ovarian Ca and also could appreciate this book. Saw her tear up and laugh all within a couple of pages. I work in Women's health and have shared this with many intrepid women and they say it has helped too.
   Now want to try the restaurant...
   Thank You M. A. M.!



4. This book was just sent to be from a loving overseas sister. It couldn't have arrived at a better time. The story line, the illustrations and the wry black humour kept me sane today.
   Highly highly recommended.



5. this book is amazing, i love it! i read it as a newly diagnosed breast cancer patient and it was so helpful and entertaining!! marisa is a fabulous artist and she has been so honest with sharing her experiences.
   i cannot recommend it highly enough!!! a great read for anyone going through breast cancer treatment and those close to them.

5 comments about The Prince of the Marshes: And Other Occupational Hazards of a Year in Iraq.

1. Rory Stewart (British equivalent of a US FSO) went to Iraq as the war was kicking of and supported the CPA in the province of Basra. Rory does a great job of telling his own accounts of how he attempted to support the local government in the area he was responsible for and the difficulties that he had. A book that may have only occurred during a certain timeframe his lessons and experiences are valuable throughout Iraq and in other countries where a government is trying to vie for control.



2. item arrived after a long wait but was in great condition. i love this book, WOW.



3. Long before the United States thought of invading Iraq, Bassam Tibi, a Syrian political scientist, wrote that Arabs are not interested in democracy. This was restating the obvious, but not everybody noticed.
   
   And shortly after the invasion was declared a "mission accomplished," a newspaper columnist, Mark Steyn, rented a beat-up Toyota in Jordan and drove around Anbar and many other places in Iraq for a week, unmolested.
   
   What if instead of unarmed Steyn, Anbar had been occupied by several regiments of American (or Italian or even Spanish infantry)?
   
   Rory Stewart spent nearly a year in Iraq, as a "governate director" of the Coalition Provisional Authority. A more honest title would have been "satrap."
   
   He observed a lot, although he does not seem to have learned much. "The Prince of the Marshes" is his story. The title character was not the most important or even the most interesting of the Iraqis that Stewart tried to govern, but a book entitled "the quixotic Muslim cleric" or "the superannuated illiterate sheikh" or even "the addled seminary dropout" might not have sold as well. "The dishonest general" might have served but Stewart admired the dishonest general (David Petraeus) and does not understand where Petraeus failed in his military duty.
   
   The book is well worth reading, and not only for its easy charm. Whatever one thinks of Stewart's capacity to analyze (in my case, not much), his year in the marshes and few days in the Green Zone was rich in incident and adventure.
   
   The insurgency had not started when he arrived, as early as August 2003, and it was just ramping up by the time Paul Bremer handed over "authority" to an imaginary "Iraqi" "government" and Stewart went off to Harvard to reflect (not too deeply) about his experience.
   
   Scare quotes are needed everywhere. There is no Iraq, nor any Iraqi government, never has been. And authority, as even Stewart figured out, was non-existent.
   
   Although Stewart knew only a few words of Arabic, he brought some experience of Islam, and in particular rural Islam, to his job. A Scot raised in Indonesia, he tramped through Afghanistan and wrote a book about it. He writes that he was "very suspicious of theories produced in seminars in Western capitals" as they might be applied to nation-building in rural parts of the Muslim world. Well, fine, that's obvious, but what theory does Stewart think is appropriate? He never says.
   
   This sounds very much as if he was hoping something would turn up, a famous principle of British public policy.
   
   If any Arabs should have been happy to see Americans and/or Britons, it should have been the Marsh Arabs. Their strange way of life -- and many, many of them as individuals -- was exterminated by Saddam or by the Iranians, or by both. To western ways of thinking, Anybody but Saddam and Anybody but the Mullahs ought to have been preferable, and especially if that Anybody was bringing tens of millions of dollars into an area that had no real economy.
   
   Well, Marsh Arabs don't think like westerners. Duh.
   
   They are, among other things, mightily aggrieved about "colonialism" and "imperialism." To hear an Arab moan and curse about colonialism and imperialism leaves me ROTFL, but Stewart took their complaints at
   face value.
   
   As a Briton, though working for a multinational system, he sort of held the title of "political officer," equivalent to a job held by another Briton, a Colonel Leachman, who was shot in the back by an Iraqi patriot in 1920 during a revolt against "colonialism."
   
   Note the date.
   
   The Arabs in Iraq had not shot any Turks in the back -- not in the name of national political sovereignty at any rate -- during 500 years. The amount of "oppression" they had suffered under the English could not have been very great since until 1916 there were no English.
   
   Arab Muslims really do hate us (that is, western infidels) and everything we stand for (including most relevantly here, democracy).
   
   Even if they didn't, that doesn't make Iraq a nation. One of the joys of reading Stewart is his naïve restatement of the obvious. Early on, he decided that the approach of the Coalition Provisional Authority -- trying to deal with and amalgamate various former underdog factions (few of which had any higher ambition than being overdogs for a while) -- was wrong. Stewart thought the CPA should have worked through the sports leagues, the only organizations in the area that cut across all factions.
   
   Do I have to say that if the only thing you have in common is soccer, you don't have the makings of a nation?
   
   Besides, it ought to have been the policy of the United States to support a free and independent Great Kurdistan. Sympathy for, and even occasionally support of, national aspirations of real nations was an American characteristic until the administration of Woodrow Wilson.
   
   It would be worth returning to. Creating a Great Kurdistan would require breaking up Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey - a win-win-win-win situation if ever there was one.
   
   I wouldn't want you to avoid reading "The Prince of the Marshes" just because its author is a fool. There is too much lively incident, too much there between the lines to savor.
   
   Last point: Stewart is an admirer of Petraeus and Odiorno, who were just divisional officers when he saw them in meetings with the civilians of the CPA, for whom he felt deep contempt. (Stewart is not an utter fool.)
   
   Here's the problem with Petraeus. As even Stewart figured out, the foundation of any policy had to be security. It doesn't take a genius to know that security required more infantry. That was the reason for the surge, too little and too late.
   
   President Bush said, publicly, that his theater commanders could tell him if they needed more men. Never mind that there weren't more. It was the duty of Petraeus and his predecessors to tell Bush the obvious: A bigger army was required.
   
   What would have happened after they told him? Only one American politician called for a bigger army, Mitt Romney, and the voters didn't want to hear it. That, however, was not the generals' problem. In a civilian-directed system, they had a professional duty to offer professional advice to the civilian government.



4. Fascinating read about Stewarts's stint as an "assistant provincial governor" of sorts for the Coalition, running from Sept 2003 to Aug 2004, IIRC.
   
   It reminded me of The Assassins' Gate in its focus on individual Iraqis. Stewart has some experience dealing with Muslim societies from the bottom up and is certainly opinionated about the good and bad points of both the Coalition and the Iraqis. Much of his writing is both sympathetic and paternalistic towards Iraqis.
   
   Basically, his oft-stated point of view goes somewhat like this: Iraqis respect strength, can be back-stabbing when they see weakness, yet are oddly honor-bound and sentimental as well. Saddam's state was a nanny socialist state and Iraqis just don't get that the Coalition can't and won't wave magic wands to run the country. Corruption is supreme.
   
   On the Coalition side, in the Green Zone, unrealistic idealism reigns and very little is done that applies to a post-Saddam Islamic state. The Coalition is depicted as out of touch with the common folk, incapable of knocking heads together politically, cheap on small budgetary items but capable of wasting huge sums of money. Additionally, it is depicted as too reluctant to use force in political affairs (keeping in mind that the US army in 2003-2004 was pretty bomb happy during terrorist hunting).
   
   Many, too many, of the protagonists on both sides die as well.
   
   According to Stewart, too much emphasis is placed on woolly Western civic notions and picking just the "right" Iraqi partners. The most politically successful Iraqis seem to be those who manage to stay distant from the Coalition. Stewart's viewpoint is that colonial officers were infinitely more competent at managing client states than today's globe-trotting, short-rotation technocrats. Yet, he also thinks that delaying elections till things were "just right" was a huge mistake. His ideal occupying power would: a) not hesitate to be tough on civil disorder, b) not try to graft foreign notions (yep, like women's rights in Iraq - I said it wasn't PC), c) really care for the Iraqis' well-being. The Coalition fails on all counts, according to Stewart.
   
   Most chapters are prefixed with quotations from Machiavelli which meshes well with the Prince of the title, who is depicted as an opportunistic political animal that never does anything useful. Maybe honoring that famous Italian is meant to make up for the general scorn Stewart heaps on the Italian army's contributions in Iraq?
   
   This book is opinionated, and not scholarly but it remains a fascinating insight into Iraqi society and the challenges faced by the Coalition in 2003 and 2004 - the message is pretty much that it was never going to be easy and it's made me a little more cautious about second-guessing what was done. I would really rather give it 4.5 stars rather than 5 because there is little in the way of references and it remains a bunch of strung together anecdotes. But just read it and take with a grain of salt.



5. The author tells us his experience while never giving his opinion. At the end, it is very difficult not to have a very sad picture of how our intervention in Irak is going to end. It is easy to read, it is important to read it.

5 comments about Another Season: A Coach's Story of Raising an Exceptional Son.

1. There are a lot of great books out there you can read and be entertained in the process. A few of those books will even linger in your memory for awhile after you've finished them. It's more rare to read a book that really touches your heart and mind and provokes a change in your life.
   
   ANOTHER SEASON is one of those very extraordinary books that takes hold of the reader's attention in a powerful way that transcends language. It's certainly a great read--at times, even very enjoyable, as Coach Stallings describes various triumphs on the football field. But, at times, it's also painful, and painfully honest...maybe even gut-wrenching. One admires Coach Stallings for his candor and vulnerability; one envies the deep love between he and his son, John Mark.
   
   Through it all, we get a moving portrait of a caring, honorable, courageous family and get a glimpse into a father-son relationship that sets an example of what any father or son could hope for in terms of love, devotion, faithfulness, and friendship. John Mark Stallings is a heroic young man born with Down Syndrome. He has defied all odds, surviving and living with it, and touching millions of lives in the process. This young man has taught so many people how to live a life filled with meaning, purpose, and love, just like his famous daddy.
   
   This story is personal to me in many ways: I have a close relative who has lived with a particular developmental challenge ever since her birth, and we love her dearly--she adds great richness to our family, despite her difficulties. It's also personal to me because I am a life-long Alabama Crimson Tide football fan, and I lived in Alabama during that glorious 1992-1993 National Championship season. I can tell you that everybody in our state, no matter what football team they followed, was and is a big fan of Mr. John Mark Stallings.
   
   RECOMMENDATION: I cannot say enough good about this book. It will appeal to a broad range of readership; certainly, football fans will enjoy it, but also families and friends who have faced similar challenges as the Stallings family has will find much encouragement and inspiration here. John Mark, you're our hero. We love you, buddy. God bless the Stallings family, and thanks, Coach, for this deeply moving book.



2. I live in alabama and even kind of like alabama football so when we had to read it for summer reading i thought i would like it...i absolutly hated it!!! You could so tell it wasn't written by a pro writer i mean it jumped around from different dates and although i loved how inspirational it was with johnny gene stallings seemed kind of self centered and every time the family was happy moved. i hated how there was no time line and years would pass and then he would go every minute of the next day. i thought it was good how they were so religous and i liked reading it but it is not a book i would really reccomend to anybody just because there are more inspirational books and just better books!! Luv Ya!!



3. I really enjoyed this book. A very moving story involving a father's love and football. You can't get any better than that! Great summer reading!



4. Knowing Johnny and Coach, this is a 'must read' for everyone to learn to appreciate life! A tremendous blessing!



5. As the father of a child with Down Syndrome I know firsthand what Gene Stallings has been through. It's both tough and rewarding. This book helps the reader get a glimpse of what being a parent to one of these wonderful people is about. If the reader has no experience being around people with Down Syndrome I hope that this story will help them fall in love with these remarkable folks. John Mark Stallings died a few weeks ago but he was a wonderful person and the love that his father expresses in this work is something to behold.

5 comments about New Ideas from Dead Economists: An Introduction to Modern Economic Thought.

1. Economics is a very interesting subject. For many it is very confusing. Economics itself is confusing because its not very concrete. Its hard to predict things in real life using economics because there are MANNYYY variables in real life that cannot all be taken into account by specialists, so i have always wondered, how can economists spot cause and effect relationships.
   This book explains many things, in simple words, starting from the 12th hundreds, from mercantalism, to Adam Smiths oposition to it with "free trade" as a response, to economists of today. This book takes ideas from dead economists (and some living ones, as the author himself states apologetically to them) and analyzes them now, in simple situations that will make the simpleton understand it.
   I hate reading didactic books. But this one is not boring, mind-boggling or annoying. Its easy to read, and fun.
   I recommend to anyone who wants to learn a few things that affect the lives of people.



2. This book would make an excellent pre-100 level textbook for students interested in economics. Buchholz covers all major economic theories and their proponents from Adam Smith's Invisible Hand to the most currently vocal Rational Expectations theory. The detail never gets so deep as to actually present charts and diagrams, but is solid enough that the reader comes away with a general understanding of each theory.
   
   The book suffers a little in the beginning as Buchholz seems uncomfortable simply presenting the dry facts and ends up regaling the reader with anecdotes and economist in-jokes that may play in the classroom but fall flat in textual form.
   
   Buchholz really hits his stride when he starts talking about Keynes, though. Perhaps it is the benefit of having multiple economic theories at odds with each other by the early 20th century that make writing about it so easy. Whatever the case, his coverage from Keynes to the modern day is exceptionally well done. Focusing less on the character of the men and more on the value of their theories, Buchholz clearly describes Keynesian, Monetary, and Rational economic theories. He proceeds to play them off each other to the delight of the reader. Where the first part of the book failed to be dynamic, the latter half is exceedingly entertaining and informative.
   
   The problem is that I'm not interested to know that Smith was a klutz or that Malthus was well-polished. Those things are only used by Buchholz to bring life to these dead economists. He could have brought them more to life with more focus on what keeps them alive than the things buried with them.
   
   I recommend this book to anyone with an interest in getting an overview of economic thought. It will introduce you to just about all the important economic theories that have made an impact as well as the latest 'cutting edge' theories that present alternatives to the existing body of work. I hope to find a book that can replicate Buchholz's success with the modern era theories for those economists that I feel he short-shrifted in this one.



3. When I first saw this book, I thought this sounds really interesting. It is, if you like to read trivia about economists, most of whom are dead. There are loose connections made to miscellaneous events in modern times, but the bulk of the book combines jokes that have been around for decades (as dead as the economists) with mini-biographies more suited to a fan magazine, focusing on John Stuart Mill's dysfunctional childhood, John Maynard Keynes' marriage to a ballerina, John Kenneth Galbraith's height, Thorstein Veblen's odd mode of dress and his lecture on cannibalism, and similar delicacies.
   
   My impression is that the author found no use for this information when he was studying economics, but hated to throw out his boxes of notes. So he came up with a great, if dishonest, title and packaged the miscellany for sale. If you have no real interest in economics, but love gossip columns and want to sound like you know something about famous economists, this is the book for you.



4. This books generally delivers what it promises, a review of major thoughts from economists evaluated (somewhat) in a modern context. If that's what you are looking for, it's probably worth reading. However I had three problems with the book. First, he says some incredibly, bizarrely wrong things (quantum mechanics is not a hard science, the internet was invented by private industry, California may float away into the ocean). Even though they are topics outside of economics, they made me generally suspicious of his knowledge. Second, from some of his comments it is clear his writing has a political/philosophical bias but he never comes out and states what it is. Since I'm not an economist (after all, that's why I'm reading this book), it seems impossible to figure out what his bias is and how to correct for it. Third, perhaps a minor point, but he keeps drifting slightly off-topic in order to include a cute saying or clever remark. I mostly found this annoying, but other readers might find it helps keep the book light and fun.



5. Luckily, economics got that "dismal science" label a long time ago, because this book is quite the opposite. Written in both lively style and learned content, the reader will want to go through each chapter wondering "who's next on the chopping block?" And who would have expected to find this gem in a normally dry-sounding field (economics), or a self-serving field (biography). Lest anyone be turned off by the relatively un-recent publication date (1989), the author has updates covering fairly recent events.
   
   This book adds a nice thought just by itself: humor and economists. Marx and laughter. Adam Smith and mirth, etcetera. The story covers the really big names in the field in chronological order, and you just know that each personality coming up will get the same fair treatment: a description of the old economists' philosophies and systems, the good parts, the bad parts, the dumb parts, and what they said about each other. At the end, just as we figure out what the author REALLY thinks is the best economic structure, we find the answer is more along the line, "it depends." How can you not like a work like this!
   
   Dead economists. Some books are not that good, but have a great title (e.g., "Blink" or "Feel the Fear but Do It Anyway"). Many, many are the other way around, such as "Rise & Fall of the Roman Empire." "Dead Economists" is both. Do read it.

5 comments about Little Britches: Father and I Were Ranchers.

1. This is a wonderful look into how life was... I found myself thinking about the work load on children back then and thinking "and I worry that unloading the dishwasher and keeping their bath clean is too much to ask?!?" Well not any more. A great "classic"



2. I just finished this book tonight. I laughed and cried and couldn't put it down. Every family in todays society needs to read and reread this book as it is all about character and goodness. I am a better person because I read this book. I will read it to my kids immediately!



3. Oh I am speechless. This is a book full of grace, character, This is the writers real life boyhood and apparently thought he could make a good book out of it. Boy was he right! I could read this book about three hundred times and then maybe think about putting it down! This man had such a life as a kid! man you would think it was fictional but when you know its not it makes you well... Speechless!



4. This book was read to our class when I was in the 6th grade. I loved it! When our kids were growing up, I read all of the series to our kids as we traveled. Because I am a speed reader, sometimes I would "read" a funny part and start laughing, before my out loud reading would be there. Who would think that modern-day kids would be entranced with stories about early 1900 kids, but they were. Ralph Moody caught the imagination as we could see this kid getting into situations before he was there. These are marvelous. Every child in America should read them. This is the stuff of the sturdiness, resiliency, & character we come from. Adversity happens, it is happening right now...the question is can we face it with strength and imagination. Laugh until you cry. Love greatly. This is a splendid series.



5. This book, like the Little House books, gives a true look at what life was like in the past. I was amazed at what such a seemingly young boy was able to do. Kids really did grow up a lot faster then.
   
   The story tells about farming, raising cattle, cowboys (real cowboys), making do, being neighborly, dealing with not-so-neighborly people, taking responsibility for your actions, and so much more.
   
   The author tells a story that is believeable and satisfying. This is a great read-to-yourself or read-aloud. Please note there is some 'cowboy language' but nothing horrible and you can easily substitute other words in their place.

5 comments about Facing Your Giants: A David and Goliath Story for Everyday People.

1. This book sat on my shelf for months. I received it as a Christmas gift, which I had asked for because I am a huge Max Lucado fan. But I had a few giants I wasn't ready to face and I knew he would motivate me to do so. I wish I had read it sooner. The giants would have fallen months ago.
   
   This is a great book to study individually or in a small group setting. The thing I loved most about studying the life of David in this context was the way Mr.Lucado related his situation to own own. So often as Christians, we walk a life that is "One step forward, two steps back" in our faith. He does an excellent job of reminding us to focus on God so that we might move forward.
   
   Just out of curiosity, I read the posts that rate this book as one star. One of the two posters hadn't even read the book and was clearly not a Christian, and the other faluts him for making references that only American readers might understand. Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that is his target audience. Ignore these posts. Buy this book.



2. We've all heard the story of David... he's the shepherd boy with a killer sling who becomes the hero of Israel after posting the biggest battle upset of all time. It's a great story for the Sunday School crowd... right up there with Noah's ark and Jonah and the great fish.
   
   Leave it to Max Lucado to take this familiar story and show us how to apply it to our lives today. Just as David faced a seemingly undefeatable opponent in Goliath, we all have giants of our own to battle. Whether they come in the form of depression or addictions or financial difficulties, our personal giants taunt and mock us and make us believe that we have no hope of conquering them no matter what we do. Max reminds us that, while we by ourselves may not be able to defeat them, no giant can stand up to the power of God.
   
   Get the book... read it... see why Max says, "Focus on Giants - You Stumble. Focus on God - Your Giants Tumble."



3. I think this book is amazing. The life of David was one filled with the good the bad and the ugly. Yet through it all he knew exactly who was guiding him. It is an amazing reminder to me that when my life is not exactly as I pictured or had hoped, I have the ultimate father I can turn to for exactly what I need at that moment. Max Lucado spoke to my heart, he reminded me that Christians are not weak and meak. We are warriors for God we stand against Goliath every day and understand our all powerful God will give us authority when we need it, strength when we are weak and moments to dance and laugh. Thanks for this awesome book. My prayer is peace to anyone who reads this book.



4. Max is a great writer. I'm sure he is a great pastor, husband, father. This book is well written. The reason I gave it one star is because on page 181 there is a 26 word prayer to becaome a Christian. The problem is that Max doesn't mention repentance. I believe that the bible teaches that without repentance there is no forgiveness of sin. Dietrich Bonhoeffer says that cheap grace is the preaching of salvation without the need for repentance...Tell me what you think of..The Palace Theatre



5. This is an extremely well written, uplifting book based on Biblical principals. It explains Christian concepts in a very clear and easily understandable way and is very encouraging and useful for dealing with everyday life. I highly recommend it.

5 comments about The Bible: A Biography (Books That Changed the World).

1. "The Bible" by Karen Armstrong was a mental workout but I did enjoy her sweep of history and her eloquent and efficient manner of writing, I respect the amount of research she did, and found it scholarly and very confident in tone, interesting and bold. I even agree with some of it. For example, I know the Bible was misused to justify the Crusades, slavery, mistreatment of women, and other bad things. But I at also found many of Karen Armstrong's points unsupported and presumptuous. My view is that the Bible contains many apparent paradoxes that require keen spiritual insight and study to decipher.
   
   Without question, the Bible itself is a threatening document, and I am not at all surprised when the Bible is attacked, as it has been attacked for hundreds of years, since the Reformation and the almost simultaneous invention of the printing press made it widely available. I expect it will always be attacked in every way possible: through textual integrity, authorship, historicity, seemingly conflicting messages and modes of exegesis, a God that seems capricious and cruel, you name it. There are opposing books written by Christians and non-believers on each of those subjects and more. I had, in fact, more of a problem with HOW Karen Armstrong dismissed the Bible than with WHAT she actually said. She makes bold statements at times almost in passing and with little or no backup, not often crediting someone else or giving reasons for her conclusions. She does have some footnotes but they are usually not very explanatory or specific. I'll just give you a couple of brief examples. In the very first chapter of her book, she says that Hilkiah wrote Deuteronomy! This is the account, according to the text in Second Kings, where the Law is rediscovered by Hilkiah after centuries, and presented to King Josiah who implements sweeping reforms. Her claim is that the Deuteronomy section was out of sync with the rest of the Torah and logically must have been forged at that time as an effort to get Israel back on track spiritually. She just says that Hilkiah wrote it to promote reform, directly contradicting what the Biblical text says, and then she just moves on! Deuteronomy, according to my commentary, is very likely to be much older than Josiah's time because it addresses a united Israel before it divided into the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, doesn't discuss the kings of the Promised Land, and warns of upcoming Caananite religions. Another example is when she claims that the prophet Daniel himself is a fictitious character, maybe because of the miracle in the Lion's den. But Jesus Himself refers to Daniel as a real prophet. Also, Daniel's survival in the lion's den was used as an example of facing death to defend your faith, and that would not have made sense if he was fictitious. The commentaries I read by the way do give opposing points of view and the reasoning for choosing one view over another.
   
   It is a frequent and common illusion that Christians simply do not think; but, for me, faith is built on the historical evidence of the life, death, and Resurrection of Christ, the veracity of the Bible, and my own resulting faith experience (John 3:3 & Romans 8:16). I can't vouch for all Christians, and am sure that many Christians don't think about their beliefs, or distort and misuse what the Bible says, but I certainly hope that's not me.
   
   For those who question God's existence, I would recommend something called Pasqual's Wager. You may have heard of him as a 17th century scientist and mathematician, and a kind of a godfather to calculus. His reasoning goes something like this: One should believe in God because if there is no God, then you've lost nothing but if there is a God and you don't believe then you've lost everything.
   
   Anyway, that's how I see it.



2. The hopes and fears of all my years of Bible study have been met in this book!
   
   Mostly it gave me a new appreciation for the strong influence of the Jewish faith and its practices of scriptural interpretation (exegesis and midrash) on the creation of the New Testament. It cleared up misconceptions I have long held (as a by-product of the commonly held Christian belief in the New Testament as fulfilment of the Old Testament, which indeed was the initial mindset of the New Testament authors) that the Jews have always been looking for a Messiah. According to Armstrong, this was only a minor theme in the Jewish scriptures until the period just before the advent of Jesus.
   
   She also points out that the catalyst for writing of the New Testament was the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. That Zionism was originally a secular movement. And alerted me to the extremes American Christian fundamentalism is taking. Scary. But the book is well balanced by the hopes of many thoughtful religious scholars.



3. This is a book that requires undivided attention as you read. The author is brilliant but sometimes it is hard for those less brilliant to grasp what she is saying. I have read it for a discussion group in which I was participating and it has helped me to grasp the content better because of a good leader and other group members.



4. I quite liked parts of this book, but parts were appalling, in factual and discursive content. Karen Armstrong is a well respected religious writer, whose sincerity and efforts to bring different beliefs together in harmony cannot be doubted. All the more disappointing that she gets so much wrong in her latest effort.
   One good test of a non-fiction work is to examine the dating of the source material quoted by the author. For the first part of the book, which deals with the Hebrew version of biblical accounts, her references tend to be from 20-25 years ago and are not in tune with latest scholarship. For instance she gets the dating of Abraham, and the Exodus wrong, talks about Palestine in the time of the Greeks, and says the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1942! Current thinking puts the Exodus around 1200 BCE and the first of the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947. Armstrong clearly has a limited knowledge of the Qumran Community and so-called Essenes, indicated by her thinking that they did not have a coherent vision of beliefs, and continued to worship at the Temple. That is quite wrong. Their corpus of sectarian texts has a commonality of style and purpose and repeated cross referencing. They hated the Temple in Jerusalem and kept away from it.
   
   As she moves into the Christian era, her scholarship becomes stronger, as one would expect from a former Catholic nun. One has to admire her breadth of knowledge of the New Testament texts and Christian history. If only she would refrain from being so dogmatic in some of her assertions, and admit of the lack of certainty on so many issues she seems to take as gospel. As the book progresses we drift more and more away from a Biography of the Bible into a highly knowledgeable, and often interesting dissertation, on commentary from outside sources. There are diversions into, what can only be described as backwaters of Bible evolution, like Kabbalah, which she, in my view, gives far too much prominence to. The Bible has certainly been an evolving creation, and she rightly comments that Talmudic studies continue this evolutionary process. I would contend that the Koran is an evolutionary development of the Bible and as such should have been a major consideration in assessing the Hebrew-Christian texts. From someone who has done so much valuable work in Muslim areas, in helping to bring ideas and people together this is an even more surprising omission.
   
   Books by well-known authors tend to be viewed automatically as being as good as their predecessor. They should be viewed on their own merits, and this book is lacking in comparison to her previous works. It also reflects poorly on the editors of Atlantic Books as well as the back cover reviewers; Hugh MacDonald, of the Glasgow Herald; Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, Sunday Times; Edward Norman, Literary Review. They are clearly not experts in this field, although one could equally blame their editors for asking them to review such a complex work. Would you ask a gereralist to review a book on gardening? Better to ask the gardening columnist, or if there isn't one, bring in an expert from outside.



5. A good knowledge of the Bible, I think, is required to really follow and understand all the historical facts jammed into the middle of this small book. But if you don't know the Bible well and slog on through this book anyway you will still gain a general impression of how long, rich and complex the history of the development of the Bible is. It is actually many books written by many different people in different settings for different purposes. It has been significantly edited by other people. It is full of paradoxes. It is still changing (its meaning). That is it is inexhaustible (books like this and many others still written today prove that). For the author it is a scripture written by men; to others it is the word of God.

1 comments about Orange County: A Personal History.

1. OC Weekly's, Gustavo "Ask a Mexican" Arellano does it again! For those of us who live in the REAL OC, and even for those who don't - Gustavo flawlessly weaves a personal family history with the raw and interesting facts of this great county of ours. Amazing book, choc full of Arellano's brand of wit (as always). A must read!

5 comments about If Chins Could Kill: Confessions of a B Movie Actor.

1. If you want intreague, laughs, and weather your a Campbell fan like myself or not this book can be enjoyed on so many levels. Best book i've ever read.



2. Campbell, Bruce. "If Chins Could Kill: Confessions of a B Movie Actor". LA Weekly, 2002.
   
   What a Book!
   
   Amos Lassen
   
   Bruce Campbell has written quite a book with "If Chins Could Kill". He writes as if we are having a conversation with him and he gives some very interesting and provocative information.
   Campbell begins with his childhood in Michigan and how the Raimi brothers transformed his life when he was still in high school. He tells us of the various friends he had as a kid and about backstabbing and betrayals which probably are the reason as to why he never became a big star. Eventually he and the Raimis got together and began to produce "The Evil Dread" which quickly became a cult horror classic.
   Campbell has no glamour whatsoever but he is a ham. He does his own stunts, has never studied acting yet he has had a job in the film industry for almost 30 years. He is a hard worker and few of us have any idea of who he is except for those that make "B" movies. In his book he shows us blue collar Hollywood. He is offbeat and he works cheap--but, he works. Campbell makes no pretense about being a god writer but he is honest.
   In following Campbell's career, he tends to be a little private about his personal life but wide open about his career. I have the feeling that he is a very human and down to earth guy. His book is funny and satiric and I had a great time reading it.



3. I gave this as a gift to a friend who is a HUGE Bruce Campbell fan.
   She loved it! Definitely worth checking out for anyone who enjoys his work. Hilarious guy, Awesome book!



4. Such a great read, I mustve recommended it to at least 100 people who have all enjoyed it. Such a fun time to be had making your way through this one. I love the emails from fans he has included too. Also the paperback has a bonus chapter updating you on his book tour from when the hardback came out.



5. Great background info on the making of everything up to and including Evil Dead (well, and many subsequent flicks and tv shows). Campbell, silly to the core with serious on the side, celebrates the B movie world in all of its glory. Lots of fun facts about Sam Raimi included. I'm guessing, though, that a reader's enjoyment of this material is directly proportional to his/her appreciation level of Campbell's ouvre (i.e., not for everyone, but if you get a kick out of Cambpell, it's a must-read).

2 comments about Kay Francis: I Can't Wait to be Forgotten - Her Life on Film and Stage.

1. by a superb biographer. I loved the first edition so much that I wanted to buy the second edition with the new material and Mr. O'Brien doesn't disappoint. This is a sympathetic look at a complicated woman and a talent actress. Yet while the biographer looks at his subject sympathetically he doesn't make Kay Francis a saint. He brings forth a flesh and blood well-rounded human being with faults and foibles like everybody else, but who was essentially kind-hearted and misused by the studio in the later part of her film career. In the end Kay triumphs! and so does this well-written and researched book.



2. I cannot tell you how thrilled I am with this book that author Scott O'Brien did on a magnificent lady that I was
   fortunate enough to have played her daughter in two movies..." I FOUND STELLA PARISH" and "COMET OVER BROADWAY" . I was Warner Bros first child star under long term contract so therefore knew much about what happened "behind the scenes". I have often cringed at some of the books I have read about some of my co-stars or very close friends that other authors have written about but Mr. O'Briens books show what lengths he goes to substantiate his stories and facts without filling in with apochryphal tales. He did this when he wrote a biography on my dear friend Kay Francis and I salute his very high morals as an author. Lets have more books written by Scott O'Brien!! Most Sincerely Sybil Jason