Stuart Books

The more one learns about the Jewishness of Christ, Paul, and the Apostles, the easier it becomes to understand their mindset when writing the New Testament. Situations, idioms, cultural knowledge, and history are different now than they were in the first century A.D.

Russel's proposition is this: if the Bible predicted a series of events, and if a part of history can be found in which those events were fulfilled to the letter, why presume that they haven't yet been fulfilled?

He uses Hebrew and Greek culture, historical writings, and language to map all of the predictions of the "End Time," one for one, to events and persons prominent in the Roman siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

The Bible predicts an end of the old world and the creation of a new world in which Christ reigns. In A.D. 70, Biblical Judaism was wiped out. The Temple was destroyed; there have been no more blood sacrifices since then; the Priesthood was abolished. The old world was destroyed.

Christ returned as predicted. He rescued the believers by getting them out of the city and up into the mountains (clouds). From this point on there could be no doubts that God had abolished Judaism and given the Kingdom over to the Church. A new world was created in which Christ reigns.

I hope this will whet your appetite for a deeper understanding of what took place in A.D. 70, and how it fulfilled all remaining Biblical prophecy.

First of all, the "interview" with J.S. Russell presented is a different J.S. Russell from the author of this book, which was written in the 1890's and is reprinted by Kingdom Council. The Parousia is a classical and thorough, well-written example of Biblical exegesis which argues the case for full Pretorism, the view that all of the prophecies written about in the Book of Revelation were fufilled during the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This view, which is recently regaining theological popularity, was the majority view until premillenial dispensationalism took over the theological thinking of evangelical Christians in the early 1900's. Since that time we've had endless speculations about "the Last Days" or the "End Times" which have bordered on the ridiculous ("Last Days Madness") and which have discredited Christians in the eyes of non-Christians all over the globe. If you are interested in an understanding of Revelation which does not make silly claims and reduce Christian theology to the level of Action comic books, then I most highly recommend you take the time to read this book. The only downside to the book is that it is written in a highly literate, pre-television fashion that requires real thought and attention to digest. It is well worth the effort, however, both in terms of challenging your ideas and also in terms of introducing you to a mannor of civilized thinking that is unfortunately becomming lost in our increasingly barbaric culture

Anne Stuart is one of my favorite Romance writers, has been for twenty-years, and for no small reason. Few authors have written as many books, and yet, maintain the same quality, while never repeating a storyline. Each book is so original, so special. I have been going through some of my Keepers, doing reviews for them. Stuart delights in giving us a hero we ordinarily would not like to see as a hero - a defrocked monk, a madman, a killer, an assassin, the King's fool, a cult leader, a cat burglar. If you made up a list of the top 10 men you could never like for a hero, she has done every one, and invented a couple dozen others, just to prove she CAN make you fall for this anti-hero hero when your knee-jerk reaction is no way. This time she does the hardest hat trick - a lawyer!

Alexander "Sandy" Caldicott was a brilliant, highly paid lawyer. Only, it was boring him. He was tired of getting less than innocent people off. Tired of seeing the underdog lose. Facing a tropical vacation, the notion equally bored him. So when Jane Dexter came into his life, he was delighted. He was no longer bored. It did not matter Jane believed him to be Jimmy the Weasel, an arsonist. Jimmy was his last client, he just gotten off. As they were coming out of the courthouse, the press snapped their pictures, and credited their names in the wrong order under the picture. So Jane now thinks Sandy is Jimmy. And she wants him to torch her uncle's, Stephens business.

Her brother, Richard, was a brilliant scientist and he discovered a formula for coating metals with titanium. It could already be done, but Richard created a very cheap process for it. Just before he was to announce it, Richard died in a car accident, and suddenly her uncle is trying to sell the process to the highest bidder. And Jane is determined to stop him. Sandy decides the best way to protect Jane is go along with her and be her partner in crime. They break into her uncle's business using Richard's key, but discover someone has gone to great lengths to erase that Richard ever worked there. The next day Sandy and Jane hire on as temps, and discover Stephan is trying to sell the formula, but cannot. Richard hid a key step in the process and now Stephan is desperate to find it, willing to kill Jane to get the formula.

It's all great fun, with some wonderful Stuart throwaway lines. But there is one point in the plot that had my teeth grinding. Stephan as tried to kill Jane and Sandy by cutting the breaks on the car. Jane is still nervous, but sneaks out to go jogging by herself in the predawn hours - even knowing there is a professional hitman lurking about. Sorry, that trite "Oh, I have to get out and have air by myself and put myself in danger" is very shoddy. It's a cop out just to put the heroine in danger, and the first time I have seen Stuart sink to this old ploy. The rest of the book is five star Stuart writing. But this "mind charlie-horse", just makes you groan.

Sandy is funny, Jane endearing. The remainer it well drawn and with such great wit, showing Stuart's lighter side. All in all, a satisfying read.

She's plain and mousy, he's a suave lawyer but she thinks he's an arsonist...... The deception is hilarious and so is their relationship as the hero and heroine go undercover time and time again. Keep an eye out for the comment on loons - for some reason that had me laughing out loud.

After researching and skimming through other books written about the Oklahoma City bombing and Timothy McVeigh, this book by far takes the cake. I started reading the first chapter and before I knew it I was half way into the book! Author does a great job laying out the timeline, facts, and events that lead up to the Oklahoma City bombing- even after the event! Anoter recommendation would be "American Terrorist" by Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck.

In the rush to keep America safe, this book reminds us that the country inadvertently nurtures terrorism amongst 'all-American' types.

Both McVeigh and Nichols never would have fit the profile of a 'suspected terrorist'. This is because they were military veterans without prior arrest records who lived in middle America.

But Middle America feels alienated from its government. Come to think of it, they ultimately don't trust the government at all. Coming back after a military service, they were drawn into a gun show underground where restrictions on weapons are conveniently unenforced.

The going mantra at such events appears to be "If you want it, there is somebody who is just as willing to sell it to you". And coupled with the presence of equally chilling materials, this ultimately spelled out a recipe for disaster.

Serving as a consultant to Timothy McVeigh's defense team, Stuart Wright did not actually come across as somebody championing his client. Rather, I came away with an objective account of the tragedy.

I also compared his thoughtful examination against our ongoing public paranoia against 'outsiders' particularly those with certain-sounding names. The former seems like it offers the more reasonable strategy for effectively addressing and then winning the war against terrorism--international AND domestic.

This magnificent out-of-print book reveals many insights into Saigon's final days. Herrington was there, in Saigon the last several years until the last day. He spoke fluent Vietnamese; he knew the Vietnamese, ally and enemy. He felt the betrayal and tried to get as many out of Saigon as he could. Herrington's famous last words to the Vietnamese trying to to board the last choppers, "Khong co ai se bi bo lai" or "No one will be left behind." He meant that and by 1983, long before anyone (minus the CIA's Frank Snepp) had written about Saigon's collapse, had penned this magnificent book. It should be republished so that Americans and Vietnamese expatriates can understand why South Vietnam was lost thirty years ago.

The preface of Stuart Herrington's first memoir, "Stalking the Vietcong", relates the mood of the country in 1961: exhilarated, optimistic, omnipotent. He quotes Kennedy's inaugural, which included the pledge to "bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty". In "Peace With Honor?", his elegiac second memoir, we see the awful damage such grandiose promises can wreak.

Of course, any of the Cubans stranded without air support at the Bay of Pigs could have told the Vietnamese that some burdens were too heavy for the US to bear. Arthur Schlesinger explains in "A Thousand Days" how JFK didn't want to turn world opinion against his administration by supporting the invasion. That was a quick decision. In Richard Shultz' new book he details JFK's efforts to wage a covert war against Hanoi and still remain within the boundaries of all the international treaties. In other words, he decided to stop the North secretly, so as to maintain his honor--a less quick decision, but a decision all the same.

By the time of the fall of Saigon, the very notion of honor in Vietnam had become a little more than a source of bitter jokes. "Peace With Honor?" refers to President Nixon's version of honor in Vietnam, the Paris Peace Agreement. The question mark is added, I presume, because of the way Hanoi "honored" the agreement, and the way America enforced it. A ceasefire was declared, the Americans withdrew, the North regrouped, and attacked, and overran the South. "Peace With Honor?" is the final chapter of the tale that began with the pledge to "bear any burden". After fifteen long years the burden of Vietnam had become too heavy. A friend had to be betrayed and abandoned.

Herrington is unique in my experience with writers on Vietnam in that he knows the language. The Halberstams and the Karnows and the McNamaras have poured an ocean of words into explanations and perspectives of the war, but it all seems a little abstract next to Herrington's personal accounts. I doubt whether you can understand a culture or its problems, much less solve them, unless you speak to its people, and you can't speak to its people unless you know their language. Imagine trying to liberate France from the Nazis with no French speakers on your team. It could have been done, but would been much harder. Probably half the people in the Roosevelt administration knew some French. I wonder whether there was even one person in the Kennedy or Johnson or Nixon administrations that spoke Vietnamese.

"Peace With Honor?" then, is a portrait of the Vietnamese people, not just the southerners but those from the north as well, people from Hanoi and Saigon as well as peasants from the countryside. There is the heart-rending story of an 18-year-old boy drafted and killed in a few days, because his family elects not to pay off the conscription sergeant. There is the outrage and incomprehension of the South Vietnamese who watch the North violate the ceasefire with impunity and grind ever closer to their home. There is Col. Herrington's personal account of the evacuation airplane full of babies that crashed soon after take-off. He arrived to find the plane's fuselage "twisted and burning in the mud", and in the field around it "mud-covered infants strewn everywhere --some of them ashen-faced and quiet, others screaming in pain or fright". It would take the heart of a communist to view such a scene as a propaganda opportunity, and indeed that's what it became, with Hanoi's representatives claiming that the Americans were taking Vietnamese children to concentration camps.

One gets the impression from his conversations with North Vietnamese that they believed their own propaganda: an NVA Major insists Hanoi was bombed into rubble and that the socialist masses rebuilt the city, employing, according to Herrington, sophisticated aging techniques to make the buildings appear seventy years old. Another NVA Major tries to explain away the mass graves of civilians slaughtered in the city of Hue after it was taken during the Tet Offensive by saying they were caught in a crossfire. Herrington asks him whether he finds it unusual that the civilians had their hands tied behind their backs during the "crossfire".

The final third of the book finds Herrington struggling to evacuate as many people as he can from the collapsing Saigon. As for anyone who has come to know and love a culture, it was extremely painful for him to see it sacked. He spent a lot of time reassuring panic-stricken people that they would not be left behind to be reeducated or murdered. We Americans tend to view conflicts as presenting two options: stay and fight; or turn and run. But for the Saigonese in 1975 there was nowhere to run. In Cambodia, the only nearby country, the communists were arranging an even more efficient solution to the class enemy problem. Running in all other directions brought you to the sea.

So there was extreme terror and desperation. Near the end of the evacuation Herrington receives and obeys orders to leave on the final helicopter, though 420 people who have been assured of safe passage are still waiting on the embassy stairway. For the people of Vietnam this helicopter that never comes is the final betrayal.

I was reminded of the words of a novel that had been written a half a century before the war: "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy--they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made..."

A brilliant critique of early Existentialism. Marcel offers a very different idea of Existentialism than does the traditional Sartre school. Questionable at points, but indispensable for anyone who is interested in the philosophy. As William Barrett stressed very clearly in his book "Irrational Man", Existentialism is not a Sartre original. It was around in all areas of Europe and in all different religions.

An important work within the realm of 20th century philosophy. Marcel critiques the existentialism of Sartre, pointing out the many paradoxes and pitfalls, and then offers his own theories on ontology, metaphysics, ethics, and even psychology. It is immediately apparent that Marcel's work is daringly original, and is free from the many shortcomings found within the works of more "academic" philosophers. An independent scholar and dramatist, Marcel often considered his thought "neo-socratic." Never speaking from the pulpit of authority, but joining us in true intellectual (even spiritual) inquiry, Marcel is a philosopher's philosopher. It is unfortunate that Marcel was frequently dismissed as dogmatic, and it is equally as unfortunate that he seldom understood the small plot of common ground he shared with Sartre. In affirming human freedom and responsibility, along with recognizing the fragility and disquietude of human existence, both Gabriel and Jean-Paul had a common vision. Marcel's idea of problem and mystery, in addition to his insights on dualism are essential concepts for anyone seeking to understand 20th century thought. This book serves as a fine introduction.

This textbook is one of the best text in Physical Chemistry in the modern time. Although not a classic, it is well organized and pulls all the important information and problems from a variety of sources. The writing is clear and logical for both undergraduate and graduate students alike.

This book puts a high value on clarity and logic. Time invested with this book is repaid with UNDERSTANDING.

This is the first book I have started and finished in years. i just could not put the book down. You most certainly do not have to be a person who was abused or ill treated in anyway to appreciate where the Authoer "Stuart Howarth" was coming from in this book. I can guarantee anyone who starts to read this book will finish it within a week. I feel like I know the author just from reading his Honest, open and very real story! I respect him and wish him and his family the very best in the future. I feel this book should be used in Adult schooling, e,g social workers in training, DSS workers, Adoption agencies etc. It really is an eye opener!

This memoir by a British male survivor of a boyhood of extreme physical, sexual, and emotional abuse should be read by everyone. It will increase the reader's understanding of what is faced by child victims and adult survivors. Despite the tragedy of Stuart Howarth's childhood, this is a tale of triumph over seemingly impossible odds. It is testimony to the strength, creativity, and resiliency of the human spirit. Ultimately, this book is a work of love.
I am a therapist who has worked with thousands of survivors of sexual child abuse, and have recommended this book to clients and colleagues. As the author of two books written for male survivors and their allies ("Victims No Longer" and "Leaping upon the Mountains") I know how important it is for survivors and their allies to learn that they are not alone. Please Daddy, No is not an easy book to read, but it is well worth reading. Mike Lew, The Next Step Counseling & Training, Brookline, Massachusetts

I was enthralled by this book, and literally could not put it down...the beautifully descriptive writing, the sensitivity of the real life characters, the drama in the book. The book kept me spell-bound to the end, and the last fifty pages was a novel in itself. Blew me out of the water. Writing at its best. I highly recommend it!

"The Plum Thicket" is a beautiful book. In the tradition of "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn," Giles takes readers on a journey through a child's innocent point of view. By the novel's end, however, that innocent view of the world has been shattered. Set in the early twentieth century in rural Arkansas, the first-person narrator is Katie Rogers, a middle-aged woman visiting the town where her grandparents lived when she was a child. Katie spent many summers at her grandparents' farm, and the entire novel is a flashback to the summer when Katie was 8 years old.

Katie is a bright, intelligent child, the daughter of rather progressive thinkers of the time. She absolutely adores her grandfather, a sweet-natured man who is a veteran of the Civil War, something that Katie is very proud of. However, Katie does not like her grandmother, a cold, bitter woman who resents anything sexual about life. (This fact is a very important part of the plot.) Also present on the Rogers farm is Aunt Maggie, whom Katie idolizes. Aunt Maggie is 30 years old and engaged to the local banker, Adam. However, Aunt Maggie is not eager to marry. She regrets never having attained her dream of being an opera singer, despite the years she spent studying voice in New York City. But Aunt Maggie is a fun, cheerful soul, despite that disappointment. Rounding out the farm are Lulie, the cook/maid of both black and white ancestry, and Choctaw, the farm hand who is three-quarters Choctaw Indian and one-quarter black. (Racial and ethnic heritage also play a role in the book's plot.)

The character that the book's climax hinges on, however, is the new physician in town, Doctor Jim. Jim is a restless, immoral soul who dreamed of being a famous concert pianist but, like Aunt Maggie, was not successful in his attempt at a musical career. Maggie and Jim share that common ground, and Maggie feels attracted to Jim, but she is also repulsed by his drinking, womanizing, and lack of respect for others.

Katie sees a lot of things during that life-changing summer, and to me it's always fascinating to read a novel told from a child's point of view. Katie muses on the differences between Lulie's black Baptist brush arbor meetings and her own family's traditional Methodist church services; her Aunt Maggie's love and respect for Adam versus her love/hate relationship with Doctor Jim; Lulie's comments about the wilder side of life; her grandmother's bitterness; her grandfather's comments about the Confederacy; and a host of other topics.

This novel was one of those books that made me sit and think after I'd read the last page. The novel was bittersweet with a heartbreaking turn of events at the end, but it's definitely an excellent work.

The book is brilliant! Just one thing I would add; Take everywhere it says LSD and replace it with Amanita muscaria (Which was the real entheogen this manual is experientially based upon). Then you have it! Keep in mind that NONE of the world's religions tell the whole truth, and this includes Tibetan Buddhism. All Patriarcal religions have severe problems and you should know what those problems (false dogmas) are before experimenting. The discovery that this book is not necessarily a book for the dead but a book to map the consciousness of those experiencing the Shamanistic 'Death Experience' is crucial to humanity's understanding of Tibetan Buddhism and other world religion.

In the 1960's Leary, Alpert, and Metzner were experimenting with psychedelic chemicals. All being trained psychologists, the experiences they were having with these chemicals did not fit into the zeigeist of what they have learned concerning the "maps" of the mind. They were suprised to find that there experiences were documented step by step in a book over 3500 years old known as The Tibetan Book of the Dead. This book is an explanation of the process of psychological death and rebirth using psychedelic chemicals. If you explore with psychedelics, this book will give you a context in which to explore and achieve the desired goal...Nirvana. A true gem of the era! Highly recommended. Anything positive that can be said about this book is an understatement.

Alex Stuart was trained as a barrister, the peculiar (to Americans) profession that, bewigged and berobed, represents the Crown or the accused in British courts of law. Removing his own robe and wig and taking up pen and paper, Stuart figuratively disrobes his former colleagues in his clever cartoons. Combining his hereditary British understatement with sly and insightful humor and a gift for caricature, Stuart's book elicits many a chuckle. Lawyer jokes never had it so good.

It is a must for fans of the topical Steuart & Francis legal cartoon in The Times. I enjoyed it very much.