Throughout Tony Blair's infamous tenancy at number 10, Boulton reported every row, revolt, reshuffle and resignation. Boulton nowadays tries to set himself up as the Walter Cronkite of Britain, just as infamously trying to make capital out of no news items.

He has written a book that pretends to take the reader behind the scenes of contemporary history by intercepting unflattering but unimportant details of the daily work in cabinet. Tony will be ever so pleased with this eulogy, a flattery so sickening treacle syrup is salty and sour in comparison. He even makes a case that only Blair could have made the Northern Ireland peace process work by his skill and temperament. He doesn't address the real questions though, is it at an end? How much was paid to bank accounts of Northern Irish politicians to make them swallow it? Because the only cause for a freedom fight like the Irish one is always and only the enrichment of its leaders.

To make the fairytale more digestible to the less credulous reader, he sprinkles negative information into the book, well dosed not to distract from the great hero, just enough to make it believable. He reveals some of the lies, the blackmails, the bullying and the cheating of Downing Street and its inhabitant. But we knew that all before, even if some details might not have been common knowledge. He goes in great detail into the Prescott election incident. Yawn. Yes, we know.

He also writes about many other persons than only Blair Superman, for example about Lord Mandelson of Sleaze, and most come off very creditably. Which cabinet were we talking about? It is to hope that a person less hypocritically inclined will someday give us the true story of it all. Obviously, strong inducements have been brought to bear on Boulton and his wife to publish this hand tame accolade.

He analyses Blair's press officer Campbell as a ruthless bully and a compulsive liar. Well, that was exactly why he had become press officer one is tempted to say. He had to give word of a prime minister who was a compulsive liar and a ruthless bully. So no surprise there either.

He goes into the ignorance of Blair, for example his complete ignorance of the Balfour Declaration which laid the foundation of a State Israel in the lands rightfully belonging to the people of Palestine. But we knew he was an ignorant git, anyhow, so what is new about that? To this day I am not even convinced that Blair is literate.

There are many faults in little details, not even worth mentioning, and dates, that are not really that important to warrant making a list of them. The main problem of the book is that it doesn't address any real issues. All the meat is missing on the bone, because the writer carefully avoids going into the troublesome spots of that Prime Minister's tenure at Downing Street.

The obvious lapse concerns world politics. He does not tell us what made the man become a war criminal, ordering and abetting the manslaughter of tens of thousands innocent people in Iraq, locals and British alike. He leaves us in the dark by what means he was convinced of the Bush game, if by flattery, by blackmail, or by pecuniary inducements, and hereby consented to kill British Boys and Girls in the friendly fire of incompetent American marksmen.

Did Blair know that Bush was lying through his teeth when telling the world about Iraqi weapons? Did he know that it had been Bush's company which had sold chemical weapons to Iraq? Did he know that the CEO in charge of that company at that time was some Hilary Rodham Clinton? And how much was he paid for keeping quiet? How much was he paid for sending troops into a war that is and was only in the interest of the Bush family's firms in weapons and oil?

If you are somebody who likes to read what one already knows, then fine, the style is pleasing. The news content is zero, most grievously, considering that a person in the know would have been handy to give the information necessary to tell the real truth.

Teach Yourself Screenwriting - Raymond Frensham

This was the first book on screenwriting that I ever bought and I have found it invaluable. It does exactly what it says on the cover - it helps you teach yourself screenwriting. It is well-laid out in chronological order of what to do first, then second etc., finishing with how to get your screenplay seen and other business aspects of the screenwriting industry. Also, not only does it have highly useful writing exercises to try as you go along, it has little quizzes to see if you can apply anything you've learned to existing movies. As if that wasn't enough, there are a couple of useful charts and grids which I have found really helpful to copy out and fill in with my own information. This book is also very positive and encouraging, written, as it is, with the expectation that you will succeed - a necessity for most starters as one of the biggest hurdles when writing screenplays is confidence. This book will inspire you with the confidence that you will be a success.

500 Ways to Beat the Hollywood Script Reader - Jennifer Lerch.

This book is written from a slightly different point of view. Set out in easy-to-read, well-categorized bullet points (five hundred of them, if you hadn't realised) this book approaches screenwriting from the point of view of what the Script Reader will expect to see in your script if he/she is to pass it on to a producer. It's almost like a huge checklist of do's and don'ts for your script - things to make sure you've included and things to make sure you've avoided. A very handy book to have for reference.

Screenwriting For Dummies - John Logan and Laura Schellhardt

I like the “…For Dummies” series of books. This one has all the advantages of the other books in the series - large pages, easy-to-read fonts, checklists, bullet points and all the information you need to get started on your screenplay. This book also contains information on getting an agent, marketing your script and making sure it gets read by a Script Reader. It also includes information on collaborating with other writers. I would consider this book a must-have, just like the first two in this list. In fact, if you're still not convinced, you can look at this book in detail at Amazon Uk

Other books you may find useful:

Save the Cat!: The Only Book on Screenwriting You'll Ever Need: The Last Book on Screenwriting You'll Ever Need - Blake Snyder.

Mixed reviews on Amazon but it actually looks pretty good to me.

How to Write a Movie in 21 Days: The Inner Movie Method - Viki King

Some good reviews on Amazon - this looks like a book that I think I might buy!

Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting - Syd Field

I couldn't write an article about screenwriting books, without mentioning Syd Field who has written several, some with mixed reviews, but this sounds like a book to have if you're interested in starting screenwriting!

I hope this article helps if you're looking for screenwriting books! My own advice would be - don't be afraid to type the first word. That's where the journey starts.

In 1104, the Muslims had a victory at last! Could their luck be turning? They resisted conquering at Harràh. The Franj, however, merely moved on. From 1109 to 1110, they conquered Tripoli, Beirut and Saida. But once again, another Muslim city, Tyre, resisted capture; yet a little more hope. But in 1115, all hope was replaced by fear, when the Muslims and the Franj, made an alliance against a Syrian sultan. The Franj now occupied all of the coast, except for Ascalon. Even more fear came over the Muslims, when they learned that Ibn al-Khashāb, the qādī of Aleppo, a great tactician who had led many a riot against the Franj, was murdered.

Nevertheless, the Franj had lost their original grand powers. Once again, in 1128, they failed to capture another great city, Damascus. Meanwhile, Zangī became the ruler of Aleppo. Seven years after the Frankish attempt, he tried to take Damascus, in an effort to try to once again unite Syria. However, he was unsuccessful as well. In 1140, Damascus made an alliance with Jerusalem against Zangī, who was still attempting to unite Syria. In 1144, he took Edessa, the first state conquered by the Franj. “When news of the reconquest of Edessa spread, the Arab world was gripped with enthusiasm. The most ambitious projects were attributed to Zangī.” He was given so many honoring names like “ . . . the great, the just, the aid of God, the triumphant, the unique, the pillar of religion, the cornerstone of Islam, . . . the king of princes, . . . protector of the prince of the faithful.” The list just goes on. “The Franj trembled at the very mention of his name.” Two years later, when his great plans had just begun to play out, he was murdered by a drunken member of his army. He was replaced by his son, Nūr al-Dīn.

In 1148, Conrad, the German emperor, and Louis VII, the king of France, led another Frankish expedition. However, it was a weak expedition that immediately turned back. Meanwhile, Nūr al-Dīn took hold of Damascus. Muslim Syria was now under his authority. In Egypt, a man named Saladin had succeeded his uncle and become the vizier of Egypt. Saladin overthrew the Fatamid caliphate. Being the only master of Egypt, he found himself in conflict with Nūr al-Dīn. The conflict solved itself, however, when in 1174, Nūr al-Dīn died of a sickness around age sixty. From that year to 1183, Saladin took Damascus and Aleppo; Egypt and Syria were now under his control. At last, in the year of victory, 1187, Saladin reconquered Jerusalem and most of the Frankish territories. All the Franj had left, were Antioch, Tripoli, and Tyre.

In 1190, Richard the Lionheart, king of England, helps the Franj recover many Muslim cities. Jerusalem, however, still stands strong. In 1193, at age 55 Saladin dies in Damascus. His “empire is reunited under the authority of his brother, al-'Ādil.” A mere decade later, the Franj sack Constantinople. Quickly, they head for Egypt. They manage to take Damietta, but while heading for Cario, they are stopped by the sultan al-Kāmil, Saladin's nephew. In 1229, al-Kāmil hands Jerusalem over to Frederick II of Hohenstaufen. The Arab world is disgusted.

In 1244, the Muslims reconquer Jerusalem for the final time. For forty years, the Arab world goes through a series of Mongol and French invasions. At last in 1291, the sultan Khalīl takes Acre, finally ending two centuries of Frankish presence.

The Uncarved Block, also known as P'u, is the idea that “things in their original simplicity contain their own natural power”. Hoff describes all the flaws of the other Winnie the Pooh characters, and how Pooh is the only one that truly holds this principle. To be simpleminded is to know The Way one is meant for. Hoff exemplifies that Pooh can't describe the essence of the Uncarved Block, because he just is it . That is the nature and meaning of the Uncarved Block.

The Cottlestone Pie principle is another of the important principles of Taoism. This principle can also be described as the idea that “things are as they are”. It is rather similar to the Uncarved Block principle. For example, when Pooh recites each verse to the Cottlestone Pie riddle, he ends each phrase with “Ask me a riddle and I reply: "Cottlestone, Cottlestone, Cottlestone Pie"”. The phrase "Cottlestone Pie" symbolizes the idea that “things are as they are”. For example, in one of the verses of the riddle, Pooh says “A fly can't bird, but a bird can fly”. The answer, of course, is “Cottlestone, Cottlestone, Cottlestone Pie”. Thus, “a fly can't bird, but a bird can fly”, because “things are as they are”. This is a major Taoist principle, symbolizing “Inner Nature”; “ things are as they are”.

The Pooh Way, or Wu Wei, literally means “without doing, causing, or making”. This principle is based on the idea that when we work with our Inner Nature, and the nature of the things around us, we will learn to go with the flow of life, wasting little effort. In one of Chuang-tse's writings quoted in the book, he describes an old man that went with the water as a Taoist goes with life: “I go down with the water and come up with the water. I follow it and forget myself. I survive because I don't struggle against the water's superior power.”. Thus, the man survives, because he follows the water, symbolizing life, through its ups and downs. He survives because he doesn't struggle against the water, but rather goes along with it. He survives life because he doesn't struggle against it, but goes with it. Thus, with little effort, he is happy. “Without doing, causing, or making”, he goes along with life effortlessly and happily.

That Sort of Bear is a principle that states everyone is “special”. To find our Way and what we are made to do best, we must look in our Inner Self. Hoff exemplifies this principle, in a Chinese story he quoted, titled “The Stonecutter”. The stonecutter is a man who was dissatisfied with himself and with his life position. When he finally became what he thought to be “most powerful than anything else on earth”, a rock, he found that there was one flaw that could destroy even a rock; the stonecutter. Thus he realized his old life profession was more valuable than he had put it out to be. This is what the " That Sort of Bear" principle exemplifies; we are all “special” in our own way and what we must do is find that Way by looking into our Inner Self.

The Great Secret is “the key that unlocks the doors of wisdom, happiness, and truth”. And how would one obtain this Great Secret? Well, all one must do, is nothing. One may observe themselves and the world around them, and do what about it? Nothing. Nothing is after all something. And yet something “is really nothing at all”. This is a sort of indication of what the Taoists call T'ai Hs. This is the Great Nothing. Emptiness and nothingness are the keys to achieving a fresh mind; a mind so clear that it develops fresh, new ideas. After one begins at childhood and gains knowledge through adolescence, advanced adulthood is when they will begin to empty their minds; to reach that childlike state of a fresh mind that produces clear ideas. Like Chuang-tse describes with the character of Yen Hui in yet another passage quoted in the book, when one reaches nothing, they have found the Way. “I forget my body and senses, and leave all appearance and information behind. In the middle of Nothing, I join the Source of All Things.” This is the Great Secret. This is T'ai Hs. This is the Way.

According to Benjamin Hoff, these are the true principles of Taosim. By following them, you become a true Taoist.

The information is presented in a comfortable and visually pleasing style. You feel as if you are chatting with a girlfriend, not getting sage advice from a soccer mom. (no offense intended here) The thing is, it is sage advice. There are tips on what goods and services to splurge on and what to save money on, (ie. Buy the better foundation, but save on mascara) how to be a better boss, how to shop vintage and thrift stores, what to bring on trips, how to buy wine, when to buy organic and when to pass. The list goes on and on!

It is amazing how much Moreno was able to cover in the glossy, photo filled 242 pages. When I say that it covers everything, I am not kidding. Just look at these chapter titles:

• Nesting
• In the Kitchen
• Hip Hosting
• Workin' it
• Smart Style
• Budget Beauty
• Poised & Cultured
• Get Packing
• Do Good

Practically Posh was a fun and I am not ashamed to say that I learned a lot. Still, I think I will stand by my disclaimer above. This is geared toward the girls that are just starting out in the world. I have already purchased extra copies to give as gifts and I know that they will be just perfect!

 

Another example of this matter is he expression "He made an honest woman of her". Why not, "She made an honest man of him" ? If you can think of other examples - and there are more - please email them to me for inclusion here. Even Shakespeare used the "shrew" to describe one of his female characters. Is there a masculine equivalent?

There is another curious feature of this issue; we have had many canine bitches in our home and they are lovely, at least as agreeable as male dogs, if not more so. And cows are both comely as well as generous with their milk. They are good for society, providing butter, yoghurt, cream, butter-milk, etc. Not to mention the obvious, meat and hide. Why the negative connotation?

The expression "You swine!" has been used to describe a man whose morals are questionable. And anyone may be called a pig if they wolf their food down. The term 'swine!' is now dated and carries a note of humour, rather than a full-blown insult. It was used to describe a man whose morals are questionable but swine includes all pigs not just males. And anyone may be called a pig if they wolf their food down. A woman described as a dog is ugly but not a man.

Call a man Tiger and he will be quite pleased. Another example: consider the word tramp. When addressed to a man it has no moral connotation whatsoever but to a female she is free with her sexual favours. The terms bird and chick and kitten are less offensive but still imply a certain pliability and have no masculine counterpart. Chicken is asexual, meaning a coward, of course.

Only one recent word comes to mind that may indicate a change in our view of women, the expression, "a foxy lady", carries little or nothing of an insult.

I can think of only two clear departures from this sad and unjust trend; the term 'rat' is almost exclusively addressed to a man, as in "you dirty rat". Was that Edward G Robinson? Have you ever heard anyone call a woman a rat? The second is the expression, he's an "old goat", though I'm not sure what this means beyond being disagreeable.

What is clear is that the English language is, at best, far from politically correct and, at worst perpetuates some very bad attitudes to our female counterparts.

An enormous amount of Holocaust literature is available for those who desire to comprehend the dimensions of the Holocaust. Some are left behind by victims in the form of journals, letters and diaries, while others were written by Holocaust survivors. There are also accounts of resistance and stories of heroic rescues. The most important goal of learning about the Holocaust is to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again.

Here are six classic holocaust-themed books:

1. The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank

   
   
   A book comprising of excerpts from diaries written by Anne Frank, beginning from her thirteenth birthday in June 1942 which was a mere three weeks before she and her family went into hiding from the Gestapo in a building's tiny room in Amsterdam until their eventual betrayal in August 1944 when they were transported to Bergen-Belsen camp, where she died of typhus in 1945. It provides a glimpse of daily life under the Nazis and her expression of faith in human goodness in the hope of living in a world without hate.

2. Survival in Auschwitz by Primo Levi

   
   
   Originally titled "Se Questo e un Uomo" (Italian for "If This Is a Man"). This memoir recounts the author's two agonizing years at Auschwitz with his life spared mainly because of his scientific expertise being a chemist by profession, making him valuable to the Nazis. It was written to expose the atrocities perpetrated by the German Nazi regime.

3. Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl

   
   
   Initially published in 1946 under the title "Ein Psychologe erlebt das Konzentrationslager"(literally "A Psychologist Experiences the Concentration Camp" in German). Viktor Frankl chronicled his three torturous years of experience in Nazi death camps where he lost his wife and parents; and discussed logotherapy, a new psychotherapeutic method developed to assist people find a reason for living, even in the most painful circumstances including suffering and death.

4. Night by Elie Wiesel

   
   
   Originally published in Yiddish in 1956 entitled "Un di Velt Hot Geshvign" ("And the World Remain Silent"). Elie Wiesel, after having endured through four concentration camps, vowed never to speak of his holocaust experience but decided after a decade to finally break his silence when Nobel laureate Francois Mauriac encouraged him to write a memoir about it; and had since written more than 30 works dealing with Judaism, Holocaust and the moral responsibility to battle racism and genocide. It somehow enabled people to understand the horrors of the Holocaust.

5. They Fought Back by Yuri Suhl
   
   

   A book featuring a collection of more than 30 amazing stories, detailing accounts of women including teenagers, wives and widows; and of many Jewish people of diverse political beliefs who courageously conducted anti-Nazi operations in Berlin at the height of the war. It was written to in an effort to dispel the Holocaust myth that Jews did not resist their tormentors, because the truth is, many did.

6. Their Brothers' Keepers by Philip Friedman

   
   
   A scholarly work by the "Father of Holocaust History" for the purpose to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive after more than a decade of extensive research through interviews, eyewitness accounts and official documents. It features objective accounts of many ordinary individuals, who, at great personal risks, displayed great compassion and courage in aiding Jews during the Nazi occupation.

He appears to me a sincere, dedicated evangelist, a Jerry Falwell type if you will, Capella's Guide to Atheism, perhaps, in his hand, pacing the podium, quoting chapter and verse, mostly from the Bible, to validate and vindicate each tenet and credo of religious skepticism, agnosticism, nihilism, and disbelief available. Lacing his discourse with historical resources, direct quotes, and reason-his raison d'etra-he is almost impossible to dispute. Actually, I found myself in total agreement with his assertions, not so much because of his beautiful postulation as the fact that he was bang on.

It is banality that religion has caused the most pain and anguish by and for human beings throughout recorded history, and animals if we include their sacrifices at our hands. No other institution or creation of human kind has brought more destruction, torment and misery. Even politics is tied irrevocably to religion, which becomes its coda. “For G-d and country,” comes the cry, in that order. Hitchens points out indisputably that most all major wars in history were fought over religion, from the Crusades and before to World War II, in which he shows the religiosity of fascism. Our present war in Iraq is unquestionably a religious war, Muslims against Oil Worshippers.

So, Hitchen's treatise is unassailable by theologians, philosophers, logicians, and thinkers, except that it is full of guano. He is a dogmatic evangelist in his pursuit of atheism, no different than fundamental Christians, Hassidic Jews, extremist imams, or any other religious absolutists. Ironically, he whacks the Holy Bible in his ministry and quotes its texts from both the Old and New Testaments that support his opinion, as well as tomes of history, philosophy, and literature. Don't underestimate him; he is superbly knowledgeable of scripture from most religions.

But, I continue to agree with him. Religion, in its general definition, has been then bane of human existence. Simply put by radical zealots, believe in G-d as I do or die. It may not be by my sword that you die, but G-d will get you by and by. You cannot escape. To which Hitchens and his atheists say, nonsense. We don't need no stinking G-d to rule our lives.

It is interesting to speculate when we human beings created G-d in our image. As Hitchens opines, it may have come from a simple need to explain the unexplainable, or it may have come from the need to entertain with stories that stimulate the imaginations of listeners. G-d may have been born from fear of death or fear of the dark. James Michener, in The Source, might have come closest in showing that humankind explained natural phenomena via G-ds, or spirits because the unknowable was unknowable. A G-d, or a spirit, must be behind this thing, this river overflowing, this growth of crops, this catastrophe, because nothing in the real world can explain it, so ponders Michener's prehistoric theologian. Or, sitting in the desert listening and feeling the wind, our theologian might have considered it the breath of G-d, ruahkh in Hebrew. (C. G. Jung warned us not to rely only on science and logic, ergo reason as Hitchens does, to explain everything, but to explore spirituality and the unconscious realm as well.)

But as our ancient theologian learned more about how his environment worked, G-d's hand-he made sure G-d had hands like his-was seen less and less in the phenomena of nature. Indeed, he continued to use G-d to explain the unexplainable until he discovered the science of it, and we, his progeny, continue to use G-d to explain a myriad of things and events until we know the science of it.

Probably the best use for G-d we've ever found is to control our fellow creatures, whom Hitchens loves to refer to as mammals. Again, he's right on. Observe how Allah, as defined by fundamental imams in Iraq and Iran today to control their people by fear of their G-d if they do not convert or destroy infidels, or unbelievers. Torah is filled with stories of G-d's wrath against idol-worshippers and the cowering of the Chosen People before their G-d who would smite them as quickly for their disobedience. And all Christians have to do is study the Inquisition to find control by the Church.

Hitchens is also right on when he says we are capable of knowing more today and need less explanation or interference from G-d. Certainly we know Earth is not flat because we have photographed our blue egg from outer space. We know without question that outer space is not created by holes in a celestial curtain through which the light of a G-d shines by night. When the “curtain” is lifted, we know that our planet revolves around the sun, which we know is a star and not a ball of fire pulled on a chariot across the sky by Apollo. We've been to Olympus and found a dead volcano, but no G-ds or evidence of G-ds. Again, give a hand to Hitchens.

We know that the more we learn through scientific investigation, the more the unknown becomes the known, and the unknowable becomes knowable. Even evolution, probably the most perplexing discovery to ever plague religion, particularly Christianity, is fact, except to those too afraid of death and darkness to accept that we mammals, to use Hitchens' epithet, are not the clay figures sculpted by G-d in Genesis but creatures passing along a continuum, which began billions of years ago. Only egotistical humankind could set us apart as special-made by G-d himself, or herself, or itself. Hitchens preaches loudly that there is no G-d, never was a G-d, and never will be a G-d. And he is could right again.

But he continues to be gorged with guano, in my humble opinion. And let me emphasize that this is I speaking now. I am not talking, or writing, for anyone else, and I am not a theologian, religion expert, biblical scholar, or historian. I mostly do not know what I'm talking about in this realm of scholarship; I am simply an opinionated twit who pretends to be a great thinker. Judge me, as you will.

But, perhaps I am being too rough on Hitchens by saying that he is guano challenged, so I will amend my criticism by saying that I think he is missing the point of religion or G-d. Humankind, we mammals, is the only life form on this planet that needs G-ds. We need religion because of the myths it begets, from which we learn who we are as mammals. My cat, Millie, for example, does not need a G-d or a religion because she cannot question who or what she is. Millie knows her job is to pester me for food, eat it when I set it out, and sleep the rest of her day, or until she gets hungry again. If she was feral she would do the same thing only she would provide her own food by way of hunting and killing, which she is finely equipped to do. All animals, except for us, know what Millie knows, and that is who and what they are. And it doesn't matter where they are or where they come from. A cat from anywhere else in the world can relate to Millie, and that's true of all animals on this planet. A dog is a dog in his dogness, a horse in his horseness, etc.

However, that is not true of us. We are costumed, or set apart, by our particular cultures, and only recently in our journey along the continuum of evolution have we been able to, in a very limited way, accept and appreciate the plethora of costumes we confront around the world. For instance, not too long ago, say like yesterday in some places in America, those of us mammals costumed in black skin were enslaved, shunned, spat upon, lynched, beaten, and degraded. Likewise, today, no doubt, somewhere in the world, a follower of Allah would kill me because I am a follower of Jesus. Or, I might kill him or her because they follow Allah. The reasons being that their religious costumes are different and are scary. I love the T-shirt that says, “If you don't understand it, kill it.” It makes my point eloquently.

As I have studied myths from most all major and minor religions in my brief 68 years on Earth, I have learned one unassailable fact: we are all alike, except for our costumes that our cultures assign us. Case it point an Aleut from the Aleutian Islands is exactly like I am except for his culture, or costume. He explains his G-ds to me, and I explain mine to him. Just as I do, he reveals his G-ds through myths that have grown from his people as ways of explaining their opinions about who their G-ds are. If I was a Christian, imagine how he would react if I told him my G-d was born of a woman, impregnated by the one true G-d, lived and taught, then died an excruciating death for the sins of all humankind, but was raised alive from the dead three days later and is, in fact, alive right now. My Aleut friend may run away from me because he thinks I'm mad, or laugh heartily at my funny story. Perhaps, I would tell him the myths surrounding that G-d, and he would laugh more. However, he would begin to see my religious costume more clearly and, therefore, hopefully, understand who I am.

Now he tells me a story. The word Aleut is the name of the wife of the Moon, he tells me. Please, I have to say, the moon is the natural satellite of Earth.

“Yes,” he says, “I know. But Aleut was the wife of Moon in our mythology. She went to him and was disappointed that he didn't live on the actual moon but in a hut off to the side in space. Her life was not good with him because he was gone all night and slept all day, and he forbade her to see him when he was asleep. But she did, and found lying about his room masks of quarter moon, half moon, and various other masks of phases of the moon. He found out she had spied on him, so he made her wear the masks and go out each night while he lived a life of leisure, except when he went out once a month as full Moon.”

I have to say to my Aleut friend that his story is preposterous.

“A man, sired by a G-d, being killed for the sins of all humankind, then raised to eternal life in three days is not preposterous?”

I tell him my story illustrates the potential of goodness that is found in humankind and the love of G-d for his creation.

“Oh,” he says, “I understand now. My story shows that if you wish for the moon, you may not like what you get.”

He knows a little bit more about me, and I know a little bit more about him, and neither of us are as frightened as we were by our respective costumes. As we reveal more of our myths, our individual costumes will become more and more beautiful. But that wouldn't happen if we didn't tell our stories to one another.

This my elaborate way, emulating Hitchens elaborate way, of saying that in order for us mammals to cease being frightened of each other, we have to share our myths, which reveal who we are. We're not cats or other animals that understand each other because their costumes do not change as ours can. We can change costumes capriciously.

Human beings will always need G-ds and religion to explain who and what they are among themselves. I thoroughly agree with Hitchens that religion is never needed to bring morality into peoples' lives. I especially agree that the most dangerous person is the religious fanatic who will lop off your head if you're not praying in the right direction, Allah and Jesus be praised. But the mythology of our western culture involves religion, even in the broadest meaning of the term, which Hitchens explores brilliantly in his discussion of totalitarianism, showing that we mammals gravitate toward religious expression. Then, he dismisses religion as not necessary implies clearly that the religious are stupid to believe in a G-d.

I firmly disagree with him because I think religion is extremely important to most all of us mammals for the simple reason that it defines us. Most of us are not as strong as Hitchens, who can reject all religion without discomfort.

But it isn't fear of what a G-d will do to me if I don't believe. That I will let myself be drawn into the myths of religion as if they were history is what I fear most and what I see happening all around me. Once a myth becomes historic, it loses its truth precisely because of the inaccuracy of history, which, like religion, is made by us mammals. As long as my Aleut friend uses his myth of the wife of the moon to make a point about human foibles as Aleuts see them and doesn't lead me to the exact spot where she took off from Earth and show me artifacts that prove she existed in time and place, I can savor the truth that is conveys. I do not need to be proselytized.

I hope, too, he understands that the story of the raised G-d says that after death we go one influencing lives for good or bad as if we were alive. For example, Martin Luther King, Jr., lives today as much as he did before his assassination because of all that he did for us and all that he taught us. As time passes Dr. King's heroic life takes on the stuff of mythology, and a hundred years from now his life may become myth. I could go on forever with examples of people long dead, who speak to us and teach us as they did when their bodies were sentient, and who have become mythologized. Thomas a Beckett, stomped to death at the altar of Canterbury Cathedral because of his faith, later to become a saint of the church; Davy Crockett, a congressman and Indian fighter from our historic past, killed a bear when he was only three and continues to live in the legends that define us as Americans-just to name two. That, to me, is the truth I got from the myth of the raised G-d. But it is my perception of that myth, and I'm not proselytizing my Aleut friend. (It is important to know that G-ds who are killed and raised to life are found in the mythology of most all religions. It has become almost archetypical, and in most cases, the risen G-d returns to teach good.)

In summation, I am suggesting that Hitchens, for all his brilliance and scholarship, doesn't appear to understand the function of religion in the lives of us mammals. To follow his suggestion, that is throw religion away, I think would be disastrous to our understanding of one another. Am I recommending Hitchens book to you? Yes, for those who know who they are and will not be afraid. If you're not sure of yourself, particularly your religion, pass by this one because he is very persuasive. It is extremely well written and a joy to read from that perspective, but it is daunting because his scholarship is daunting, even though he may not understand religion as well as he thinks he does.