Hunting Down Amanda isn’t particularly unique or original in its plot or premise.  However, Andrew Klavan writes in an engaging and interesting style that keeps the reader wanting to finish the story.  Once again, this another Klavan book that makes for pretty good airplane reading.  It is just about the perfect length for the 5 hour flight from JFK to PHX.

The conceit of this 2000 novel, is that there is a kid who can mysteriously and miraculously cure people who might otherwise die.  This kid and her mother are the target of a sinister psychopath, employed by a for-hire “fixer” organization called Executive Decisions, that eliminates  any problem … for a price. Fate brings a cast of mostly-flat characters together to keep Amanda and her mum out of the clutches of this organization and the evil pharmaceutical company that hired them.

The character, Howard Roth provides a welcome exception to the flat character syndrome.  Klavan’s depiction of Professor Roth is both insightful and believable.    Roth is a depressed old man who has spent the bulk of his life immersed in a study of the classics.  Klavan introduces Roth by relating a scene in which Roth is told by a feminist toad (the college Dean) that his life’s work is no longer relevant, dismissing the entirety of Western tradition as so much chauvinism:

“I’m sorry but I don’t think Homer is really relevant to these kids, Howard,” she said.  “All these myths you love to tell them.  All that glorification of war, the romance of rape.  I’m sorry, I just don’t think they’re important to us any more.”

This was when Roth, staring down at her with a kind of mute wonder, knew that his bid to reinstall Western Civilization as a breadth requirement course had failed.  He had known it would fail all along, and yet even so he could have wept for it.  If Socrates had realized it would come to this — that the glory that was Greece would ultimately lead to this cultural black hole — this dead end … this … this Althea Feldman …

Well maybe Socrates had known.  He had drunk hemlock, after all.

However, Klavan kills off Howard and several other potentially interesting characters, before he develops them enough for the reader to get too attached to them.  Perhaps this is just as well.

The dialog, while clever, at times didn’t seem to fit the characters.  At one point in the story the main characters are running for their lives, but proceed to make jokes and banter with one another, in spite of the fact that at this juncture in the story they don’t really know one another well enough for their repertoire to be believable.   While entertaining, the scene was jarring for it’s inability to convince.

Overall, these criticisms are merely quibbles. If Hunting Down Amanda isn’t quite as good as True Crime or Empire of Lies,  it is fun to read.

Authored By Martin What Would The Founders Think?

Authored By Big Mike Tales from a tribble

Follow @Halthouse1

Did the thought ever cross your mind that, hey, this guy is a socialist?

Authored By Michael Haltman The Political Commentator

What is it with boys and girls being in a hurry to be in a relationship? I don’t get. It leaves me perplexed. Lately, I get on Facebook, and I see status like that one above there from girls… Young girls, that is, 13-16. Kids, more like babies, desperately searching for that special someone. Really?! [...]

Authored By According To Jan According To Jan

This video, while done in fun, illustrates the two primary competing economic theories in the world today. John Maynard Keynes is revered by the progressives as they both teach that government intervention will solve all our economic woes. When the theory fails and problems aren’t solved, it just means that they have not manipulated the system enough. Spend and put money in the hands of the little people. Encourage them to spend… not save! We are told by this administration that, despite the fact that this spending is digging us a financial hole that we may never climb out of, everything thing will be fine. The question is… fine for whom? We the people or them, the controlling elites?

The thinking of F.A. Hayek and others in the Austrian school is not quite as well known, understand or widely followed… which is one of the major reasons our economic world is such a disaster. The Austrian philosophy explains that the boom and bust economic cycles occur precisely as a result of the economic intervention of governments throwing money into the economy in an effort to pump it up in a effort to force perpetual expansion. The problem is that sooner or later the economic activity runs out of steam and the inflated economy comes crashing down further because of it was lifted up higher.

Currently two of the well known proponents of the Austrian school are Thomas Woods, author of the bestselling Meltdown and Peter Schiff, former candidate for the US Senate in Connecticut have been voices crying out in the wilderness that our country is on the wrong track. Even the previous administration exhibited the progressive, interventionist tendencies when, under Henry Paulsen of Goldman Sachs, took the first steps toward our destruction by insisting we throw money at financial institutions that they told us were “too big to fail”.

The takeaway for all of us is that it’s not just the party we need to look at, Keynsian thinking has infected both parties and we can no longer relie on the party label.. Economical theorists, hiding behind their ivy covered walls, who have not been elected, and who most people have never heard of, have been driving decisions that effect all of us and are beyond our reach. Understanding their thinking will help us to neutralize their clout and power our defenses against their outlandish schemes, which seem to be widely accepted despite the fact that they have never worked. Knowledge is power and it pretty much is up to each of us to educate ourselves as the public schools and most of the universities are not getting the job done.

If you haven’t played the video yet… watch it, learn and enjoy! Remember, the truth shall set us free.

Authored By Larry Miller Political Christian

I play golf with Peter. Good man. A good Canadian who loves the United States and takes great interest in our politics.

I got a note from him regarding one of my recent blogs. It sparked an exchange of the kind that I relish. Friendly, civil debate. Whether anyone convinces anyone is hard to say, but differences can be narrowed and highlighted.

Here’s how it went:

Hi Tom,
I have been enjoying your recent blogs with regard to the Catholic Church and contraception. As someone looking from the outside in, however, I don’t think the Federal Gov’t's recent directions are a violation of the first amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom but simply a statement of their responsibility as a national employer under the Affordable Health Care Act.

A lot of employees are non Catholic and a majority of Catholics practice some form of birth control and would welcome coverage under their employer’s plan as mandated by their elected gov’t. It’s up to the employee to access that benefit or not.

Most people I know, seem to object to the AHCA not because of what it tries to do but because a central government is forcing people to buy insurance which runs contrary to to the idea of freedom of choice. But it’s the law, and until it’s changed, the Church should obey the law.

Also,I don’t think the introduction of contraceptives has led to rampant promiscuity in society. I think it helps couples maintain close personal relationships and when they are ready, leads to responsible parenthood.
all the best,

Peter

Peter:
First, I want to thank you for your thoughtful email. This is precisely the kind of courteous, civil dialog I hope to initiate with my blogs.

The number of Catholics using birth control is often urged as a rationale for approving the HHS mandate. But compliance with a religious doctrine does not determine its legitimacy. Nor does the fact that non complying members of a church may welcome getting something for nothing.

Would your view be the same if the government were requiring a Jewish Hospital to provide its employees with free pork chops? It seems to me that the fact that most of the employees might welcome free pork chops would not make it more comfortable to the hospital board.

Your statement that “it’s the law, and until changed, it must be obeyed” while superficially persuasive, is not actually true. In the United States, the federal constitution, by its own terms, is the supreme law of the land.

No act of Congress and no regulation by an executive agency is really “law” if it contravenes the constitution.

In our lifetime, there were statutes on the books in several states requiring Negroes to drink at separate water fountains, sit in the back of the bus and obey various other mandates of segregation. Rosa Parks, and the generation she inspired, engaged in civil disobedience as a means of protesting these regulations.

In due course, the Supreme Court of the United States set the record straight.

If a statute violates the constitution, it is not law. When the Supreme Court declares a statute unconstitutional, it does not repeal the legislation. It simply says that the words in the statute book are not, and never were, the law.

While it is true that the vast majority of Americans, both out of respect for the elected government and out of recognition of the government’s military and economic power to enforce its mandates, are reluctant to engage in civil disobedience, it is nonetheless true that resistance to an unconstitutional mandate is precisely what an oath to support and defend the constitution requires.

Your last sentence reveals that you and I have a difference of opinion about a question of fact. These are the most difficult differences for men of good will to resolve. Our understanding of facts flows from many things: personal experience, study, reading and observation. Moreover, our belief about facts is colored by our disposition.

I’m sure that you would concede that the growth pattern of illegitimate births, divorce, social diseases and all the other indicia of promiscuity would, if shown on a chart, substantially parallel the increased availability of birth control.

Still, I would have to concede that the mere concurrence of factors does not prove a cause and effect relationship.

Like global warming, it boils down to a disputed factual conclusion. In the last analysis, we are all pawns on the chess board of life. History alone will reveal the truth. Even then, historians will disagree and debate ad infinitum.
TEB

Good morning Tom,
I certainly don’t know a lot about US Constitutional law. I can only use common sense and I would think that a law as promulgated by elected representatives, is the law until the Supreme Court says it isn’t. I presume the Affordable Health Care Act is winding its way through the system and will eventually end up with the Supreme Court for a ruling. Until then it would remain intact.

Peaceful civil disobedience against an unjust law is a legitimate way of expressing discontent and bishops are voicing their disapproval of President Obama’s edict from the pulpit. But in this case, a large majority of Americans including 61% of Catholics (as polled by the NY Times last week) approve of the HHS mandate.

With regard to levels of promiscuity, it has been impacted by a number of factors including music, movies, the internet and such but I do believe “the pill” has allowed women around the world greater control of their bodies and couples a better choice in establishing a family.

Peter

Peter:
Given the political leaning of the New York Times, I have some skepticism about their polling data, especially in light of having witnessed 2,000 Catholics spontaneously and enthusiastically burst into applause when the bishop’s letter was read at Mass.

Generally, I share your respect for laws passed by elected representatives of the people. Unhappily, the mandate about birth control was not enacted by representatives of the people. The law requires most health plans to cover recommended preventive services without copays or deductibles. But the law left it to the administration to decide which women’s health services to include.

It does not stretch credulity to infer that the administration decided to include birth control services for the very reason that so many women use them. That kind of decision has obvious attraction in an election year.

Whether the Congress would have passed the birth control benefit is anyone’s guess, but I doubt it would have been adopted without a fight.

According to Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chair of the Democratic National Committee, the average cost of birth control is $700 per year. After all, $700 is $700, and if someone wants to give you $700, you will probably be in favor of it.

I concede that artificial birth control has made it easier for married couples to plan their families. But $700 should not be too great a price to pay for the convenience of enjoying intimacy at any time of the month.

The incumbent President of the United States presents a new twist to John F. Kennedy’s famous statement. No need to ask what your country can do for you. The country will do for you without being asked.

Authored By Thomas E. Brennan oldjudgesays

Authored By The Young Federalist The Young Federalist - The Young Federalist

No, not funny pictures of cat with silly captions.  The kind where you find out your cat needs his Magnificent Tail amputated and then find out that may not be possible because he may have “significant heart disease.”  That sort of Cat Edition.

sigh

This is an all-visual Terrible Tuesday.  I’ve got no energy for anything else. (Did I mention I decided to cut (most) sugar and (a huge chunk) of refined flours & grains? I’m pretty sure my previous energetic self was merely a sugar fueled delusion.)

In the category of video. The first three of these videos are autoplay, which is really rude.  However, since you’re forewarned, I’m going for it.

Jealous monkey attack. Although, technically it’s not a monkey it’s an ape. Right, Larry?

It’s funny because it’s true.

Sheep Cyclone isn’t something you see everyday. Or ever.

For the Whovians among you: 48 years of Dr. Who in 10 minutes. I’ve only watched the reboot. I need to go back to the beginning.

Also not autoplay, Dr. R.C. Sproul’s entire Chosen by God teaching online free.

Okay. No more videos. Cartoons!

More funny because it’s true!

And more.

In the very cool stuff category

“What the Nanny Saw,” pictures of 1950s Chicago.

via MTG, interactive Starry Night.

And finally, the Cardboard Tube Fighting League.

Authored By April Oddly Said

Authored By stix1972 Stix Blog

“What Liberals don’t understand, is that you can’t put a gun rack in a Volt.”

-Newt Gingrich

Authored By stix1972 Stix Blog