Guy's Books and Thoughts

I went to Barnes & Noble and took a look
at Jack Cashill's book HOODWINKED. I had
written to some of you earlier about the book. I heard
the author on KSFO on the Morning Show with
Lee Rogers and Melanie Morgan. Thank you Lee
for interviewing Jack Cashill.

The author did provide new information that I was
unaware of. But I also recognized some of what he
wrote, since I had read material covering the same ground.

Not only does the author take aim at political issues, but
also some of the bogus garbage done in the name of science.
Both social sciences and "hard" sciences are covered. Mr. Cashill
covers the flawed work of Margaret Mead. Ms Mead. basically was told
what she wanted to hear. Derek Freeman who was originally a follower
of Mead did an expose on her. But as Mr. Cashill writes, there was
hell to pay. Mr. Freeman was condemned by "professionals" but not invited to defend his views. Only one side was presented at the
"professional" organization's meeting. I also recall reading something
in passing in a book about the Holocaust. The authors of that book criticized those who condemned Derek Freeman's work without allowing Freeman to defend his views. Though the authors did not totally agree with Freeman, they thought the actions of the "professional" organization to be inappropriate. One of the author's included
Michael Shermer, a skeptic and NOT friendly to traditional Christian theism.

Mr. Cashill also covers the work of Jonathan Wells, who wrote a devastating critique of the ten classic proofs for Darwinism
entitled ICONS OF EVOLUTION.
He covers the fraudulent drawings supporting the argument of
the embryo going through evolutionary stages of its supposed
ancestors (called Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny). A friend
of mine told me that the school official justified keeping the
fraudulent drawings, because they had been in the textbook for
so long. Defenders of evolution give excuses such as blaming
the textbook writers or hiding behind the platititude that
"science is self correcting. I find the claim of science being
self correcting to be bogus. When a science teacher tried to introduce articles questioning the drawings or exposing students to the fact that
the drawings of the embryos were fraudulent, the ACLU threatened a lawsuit to stop the teacher. According to Denysse O' Leary in her book DESIGN OR CHANCE, the teacher eventually left the public
school system. If science was so self correcting, why didn't the scientists protest the actions of the ACLU? Certainly the ACLU cannot hide behind the separation of church and state arguement. This is not
about church, but about fraudulent drawings. It is not really human
nature to correct one's errors. Granted scientists may be full of themselves and think they are above mere mortals, but they are only
fooling themselves.

Other phonies covered in the book include Ward Churchill and Kinsey (faked research). Ward Churchill claimed to be Native American (Cherokee?), but was exposed as a phony. He is not even remotely
Native American. By contrast the Morning Show radio host, Lee Rogers
is one quarter Cherokee. I understand that even the left wing American Indian Movement has also denounced Churchill as a phony.

Much of what Mr. Cashill writes can be found in various books. But for those who are pressed for time , this book is a handy one volume reference.

Guy

This is a fascinating book. Newsmax advertised it with
words to the effect as to how God intervened to save
General Washington. I did not run accross any statement
by the author saying God interevened to save George Washington.
However I did read that many regarded the storm which hit Boston
as providential. Some will say the storm caused the British to abandon
the planned attack on Washington's forces, others will say the British
had planned to abandon Boston anyways and that the storm was a face saving excuse. But the author does mention one of the British had said
the plan was originally to attack Washington's army. I found it interesting to see the religious or faith references in the book. Apparently worship services were part of the army. It was either Henry Knox or Nathaniel Greene who made a reference to prayers and Bible reading. Granted these people in Washington's army may not be members of the Holiness churches which originated int he 19th century, but neither were they secularists.

I think the faith aspect of these people from Revolutionary times
has been overlooked, neglected or maybe even suppressed by our public
schools. Granted Jefferson was a Deist and not a Chrisitian. But I find it hard to classify Washington as a Deist, since he had a sense
of providence. I don't believe providence was part of the Deist belief
system. I do recall seeing a letter by Washington saying to the address that he hopes that person will conduct himself as a "good
Christian." Note "Good Christian" not "Good Deist." There is a saying
"there are now atheist in foxholes." The people in the Revolutionary
war with people with their backs to the wall. They faced the might
of the British military. I believe Britain had the strongest navy
at the time and that continued to be the case up until the 20th century.
During the war, not only did the colonist have to face the British navy,
they also suffered the loss of New York and Philadelphia to the British.
Yet they still managed to win their independence from Britain. I wonder
if one may say that the American victory in the war for Indenpendence
was a miracle? Alright, maybe it was not a miracle on the scale
of Moses crossing the Red Sea, but look at what was accomplished inspite
of the enormity of the foe and the disastrous defeats. In spite
of the obstacles, the Colonists won their independence. I wonder
if the Revolutionaries would barf if they could see these so called
anti war types, who whine over every little obstacle in the current war, or those who would seek to abolish faith and impose a secular society?

A good companion book to read in conjunction with Mc Cullough's book is
ANGEL IN THE WHIRLWIND by Benson Bobrick. While Mc Cullouhgh 1776 is good in that it provides a detailed account of events around that year, I believe it's weakness is that it does not chronicle the entire
Revolutionary War. The book is good in so far as it goes. But I believe Bobrick's book serves as a good complement. Bobrick covers not
only the loss of New York, but the loss of Philadelphia and the war
from beginning to end. Bobrick's book gave me a perspective on the LENGTH of the struggle. The war lasted from 1776 to 1783. It was longer
than either the Civil War or World War II.

Guy

I wonder if the study of history can be made more
interesting by studying certain topics in history?
Instead of say a history of country A, why not a study
of a certain type of history, for example a history of
metals? My idea of focusing in a topic is not original.
One author has written on the role of the cod fish in history;
another has written on salt and another has believe it or not
written about the history of rum.

I talked to a friend who trained as a metallurgist. He mentioned that England (and maybe Spain) was the only available source of tin in the ancient world. Tin was a significant ingredient to creating bronze. A bronze sword would give one a decided advantage over one's opponent. Bronze was used to make many important objects besides swords. Tin was not a widely available metal. Whoever had access to tin wielded a great deal of power. Caesar's conquest was not merely to grab land but also control the source of tin. My metallurgist friend also pointed out
that PURE tin was used for drinking vessels among the Roman elite. Some
makers of those drinking vessels found a way to adulterate the tin
with lead to increase their profits. These adulterated drinking vessels leached out lead. This meant that the Roman elite suffered from lead poisoning from using those vessels. Consequences of lead poisoning included sterility and dementia. So I guess being rich or upper class was not always an advantage. I am also reminded that George
Washington received the best medical treatment of his time, which included bleeding. That bleeding probably contributed to his death.

I think a topical approach to history can be used to teach or learn other subjects. For example, I do not have a strong interest in the area of math. But perhaps I can use my interest in history to learn math. I floated that idea by a friend. He saw merit in that idea and pointed out that one could learn calculus by following the history of Sir Isaac Newton, co-inventor of the calculus. In other words one could follow in his footsteps as he discovered the calculus. Of coures one could also follow the footsteps of Leibnitz, who is also credited with inventing the calculus. So instead of a dull dry boring math lesson, one could perhaps utilize history to make the study of calculus more interesting. Mathematicians have lived interesting lives. Why focus only on their works? Why not also study their lives and research and how they came to their conclusions?

Guy