The Critical Mistake of WW I

An enlarged edition of John V. Denson's The Costs of War: America's Pyrrhic Victories features an article by historian Ralph Raico, "World War I: The Turning Point." David Gordon of the Mises Institute reviewed Raico's contribution today.

Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles blamed Germany and her allies for the war's outbreak. During the 1920s, revisionist historians such as Charles Tansill challenged this view, and by the 1930s a modified revisionist position became the consensus: None of the war's participants wanted a major European war. Miscalculation and botched diplomacy brought it on.

During the 1960s, majority opinion among historians shifted back to the Versailles verdict, due in large part to Fritz Fischer's 1961 work, Germany's Grasp for World Power. Raico staunchly disagrees; Fischer and his followers have not proven their case. Gordon writes:

True enough, the Germans encouraged Austria to deal decisively with Serbia following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. But to accept a local conflict is not to will a European conflagration, and Germany's policies were no more bellicose than those of the Entente powers. "[T]here is no evidence whatsoever that Germany in 1914 deliberately unleashed a European war which it had been preparing for years" (p. 214).

Whoever bore primary responsibility for the European war, one thing was immediately clear. No valid reason existed for the United States to become involved. To do so would fly in the face of the American tradition of noninvolvement in European power politics.

Sentiment in the United States overwhelmingly opposed involvement, and President Wilson accordingly called for neutrality. "This was somewhat disingenuous, considering that his whole administration, except for the poor beleaguered Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, was pro-Allied from the start. The President and most of his chief subordinates were dyed-in-the-wool Anglophiles" (p. 220).

In line with his pro-British bias, Wilson turned a blind eye to the British hunger blockade of Germany, even though it often violated America's rights as a neutral power. At the same time, the president was quick to protest German countermeasures to the blockade, especially submarine warfare. Wilson's partisan policy, combined with Germany's persistence in submarine warfare, led to America's entry into the war in April 1917.

Raico makes clear that American participation in the war had disastrous consequences for liberty. "In fact, 'democracy' was already beginning to mean what it means today — the right of a government legitimized by formal majoritarian processes to dispose at will of the lives, liberty, and property of its subjects" (p. 234).

Interview with Taylor Caldwell, 1978

The Captains, the Kings, and Taylor Caldwell

by

George F. Smith

Published in Writer’s Yearbook 1980
Copyright, 1979


September, 1938. The economy is still on its back. In bookstores across the country, a new novel appears: Dynasty of Death, by Taylor Caldwell. At a time when little else is moving, this epic about a munitions empire quickly becomes a hot seller.

Scribners had introduced the author as a Buffalo housewife who’d written the story on her kitchen table while her family slept. But several critics weren’t buying: the book’s air of maturity is the mark of a “seasoned literary gentleman,” they believed, writing under a phony name.

In one sense they were correct. Taylor Caldwell was definitely seasoned -- she’d spent 30 years writing more than 100 novels, all unpublished, and estimates having destroyed “two or three forests” in the process.

Having tasted her first major triumph (she’d sold a few stories to confession pulps), she continued her exhausting pace and became one of the world’s most commercially successful authors. Like Dynasty, many of her novels are long and make appealing statements about the conspiracies behind wars, monetary crises, and political facades, while titillating the reader with the passions and pretenses of worldly affairs.

The critics were with her at first, describing Dynasty as “magnificent,” “fascinating,” “powerful,” and a close cousin of Gone With the Wind. But a decade later there was grumbling that her prose was “color-blind” and overloaded with adjectives, and by 1957 she was accusing New York Times editors of publishing “monotonously vicious” reviews of her books because of her unshakable opposition to communism.

Yet while author and critics warred, her books continued to sell. Her latest estimate, hardbound and paperback: 100 million copies.

About a year ago, Doubleday published her thirty-second novel, Bright Flows the River, a title with a Biblical derivation like many of her others. In keeping with tradition, it was on the Time’s bestseller list a month later.

To her satisfaction, Testimony of Two Men and Captains and the Kings recently appeared as TV mini-series -- a belated compensation for the mistreatment Hollywood accorded her in the ‘40s, when industry moguls bought four of her books but never produced them.

Born 78 years ago near Manchester, England, Taylor Caldwell came to the United States with her family in 1906 and settled in Buffalo, New York. She soon began writing stories and when she was 12, her father sent one of her scripts to her grandfather, who was on the staff of E. P. Dutton, then a Philadelphia publishing firm. Like the disbelieving critics of Dynasty, he said it was impossible for her to have written such a book and told her father to “burn it; she’ll cause you trouble.” But she saved it, and after 46 years and many rewrites, saw it published as Dear and Glorious Physician.

She married at 18 and again at 31, bearing a daughter from each marriage. “If one of my children were a writer,” she once wrote, “I’d say, ‘God help you. You’ll need it.’ There must be easier ways of earning a living, such as working in salt mines.”

While agonizing over her writing at night, she worked at low-paying jobs during the day and acquired the formal education her father never approved of for women. Today, along with countless literary awards, she holds three doctorates in English literature, granted from Niagara University, D’Youville College, and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Her second marriage ended tragically in March, 1967, when a thug broke into her home, pistol-whipped her and fatally wounded her husband. The assault left Taylor Caldwell deaf.

She was married a third time in 1972, but divorced a year later. Then on July 6, 1978, she eloped in Erie, Pennsylvania, with her present husband, Robert Prestie, who’s also her business manager and a former Trappist monk. “I’m always committing matrimony,” she says. “My last husband had eight wives before me. If I had any sense, that would’ve been a lesson.”

Though writing is her life, she also enjoys cooking, and has often made stunningly accurate predictions. She had warned, for instance, of President Kennedy’s assassination and had forecast the fall of Khrushchev. And if her second husband had listened to her, they would have owned shares of Polaroid when it was only 31. (But her foresight is not 20-20 or there would be a Goldwater among American presidents.)

Recently, I spent two evenings with Taylor Caldwell at her North Buffalo home, listening to her candid remarks on writing and the world she writes about. On each occasion, she equipped herself with bourbon and a chaser, and plenty of low-tar cigarettes -- which she smokes without inhaling, I was told.

She’s a feisty woman who laughs deeply, sometimes at herself. Because of her hearing disability, my questions and responses had to be shown to her on paper.

WYB: On the copyright page of Bright Flows the River, it says Taylor Caldwell is a pseudonym. Someone goofed, right?

CALDWELL: What do you mean by pseudonym? A false name? Taylor Caldwell was my maiden name. I’m so sick and tired of hearing pseudonym! I was baptized Janet Miriam Taylor Holland Caldwell. I can get the baptismal certificate and prove it.

WYB: That’s OK. Let’s talk about writing. Why did you choose a career as a novelist?

CALDWELL: I didn’t choose it -- it chose me. My father was an artist, and I wanted to be an artist. I won prizes with art when I was a young woman, at the Buffalo Art Gallery. But then I started to write text explaining the pictures I painted. And my father said there was no money in painting -- I’d never make a living at it.

WYB: Did anyone encourage you to write?

CALDWELL: My parents were interested in my writing, but they expected me to be a world-famous writer by the time I was 14. And then when I wasn’t, they got mad and tried to stop me from writing. They took paper away from me, and pencils. My father destroyed nearly everything I wrote. I managed to save a few of my first novels, though, including Dear and Glorious Physician.

WYB: You wrote for 30 years before getting published, though. What kept you going?

CALDWELL: Well, I knew I was a writer so I knew it was just a matter of time. I had expected success to come earlier, but I had a family to support. I worked two jobs seven days a week and went to school nights.

But I never got discouraged. I got a little blue sometimes for two or three hours, but never depressed. Writing’s an obsession like any of the arts, and you can’t leave it alone.

About half of my published novels were written before I was published. So I didn’t write a book every two years, as some people think.

Writing -- I exist only for that. It’s the most important thing in my life. It’s not apart from me. I have no other interests, except cooking. I don’t belong to any organizations, clubs -- I don’t go to lunches. This is my life, the most important thing -- far more important than anything else I do. It has to be that way, otherwise you’re just a hobbyist.

Now, a painter needs only to know the technique of his painting, and he has to have a tremendous emotional response to it. Musicians, sculptors -- the same way. But they don’t have to know about everything. A writer does.

He has to do a tremendous amount of reading, too. I’d rather go without food, sleep, even cigarettes, than go without books. I read at least three of four books a week, plus all kinds of publications, some very weird. I like to know what’s going on, what people think. I read the far left, the far right, and in between, to see what people are doing and saying.

WYB: What are some of those weird publications?

CALDWELL: Oh, the tabloids. Newspapers, books. I spend a third of my time reading. The world is a terrible place, but it’s very interesting.

WYB: I take it you believe writers are born, not made?

CALDWELL: Yes. I’m sure you’ve run into people who’ve said, “If I just had the time, I could write a book.” Everybody thinks they can write a book. And everybody’s life story could be the subject of a book -- I don’t care who they are. It depends how you approach it. But writing itself, either you have it or you don’t have it.

Years ago, Sinclair Lewis was at some university speaking to would-be young writers. He said, “You all want to be writers? Then why the hell aren’t you home writing?”

WYB: Do born writers need three doctorates?

CALDWELL: Education is always a help. I didn’t complete high school, but I took the college entrance exam at the University of Buffalo and was admitted -- in spite of the fact that I could never get beyond long division. I still can’t.

I was never a good scholar, even as a kid. I liked to get on my skates and play hooky and wander all over Buffalo. I learned more that way than I did in school.

Once, when I was about nine, I went to a factory which was next to a creek. There were dead fish lying on the bank and the creek was covered with oil. I went in the factory and said, “What are you pouring all that oil out for and killing the fish?”” And I was thrown out.

Later I wrote a book about ecology, Tender Victory. It was published in 1956. Was I attacked by the liberal reviewers! “She’s trying to destroy the living of the poor working man -- with her demand that factories stop pouring out smoke and pollutants.” The New York Times raged and screamed. It was several book club selections, though.

I think I was the first voice raised in America against air pollution. But a reviewer said my hero -- a minister fighting the polluters -- should have been thrown out in the dung heap.

WYB: Besides stalling, what do beginning writers do wrong?

CALDWELL: I’ve read a few unpublished manuscripts by women who want to be writers. You don’t want to be a writer any more than you want to have blue eyes if you have brown eyes. You are a writer or you’re not.

But anyhow, they send beautifully typed manuscripts. Then they paste flower decals on their pages, or cut out pictures of children for the first page. That’s all right if you’re writing a child’s book, but not if you’re writing what you think is a mature novel. They’ve even punched holes in the manuscript and tied it together with a blue or pink ribbon.

WYB: What about their technique?

CALDWELL: Childish. Sentimental. Uninteresting. Full of maudlin gushings. I call them “mommy” novels. I’ve seen quite a number of male writers who I thought had something. Men are not that maudlin.

WYB: What other errors do you find?

CALDWELL: Well, each one’ll have a different error. A lack of structure. A lack of plotting. A lack of interest. Characters -- nothing. I don’t know why people think writing is so easy. Also, watch the cliches. The cliches will creep in. In the heat of writing, they will creep in. I go back over my material, and back, and back. I reread right from the beginning dozens of times, and the damn cliches still come in.

Writing isn’t fun. It’s the hardest work in the world. The very, very hardest. I mean creative writing. If it’s reportorial, it’s a different thing. When you have to create a whole milieu, with characters and background, that’s a different thing entirely.

WYB: Writing’s no fun at all?

CALDWELL: No, just labor. Oh, you start out all enthusiastic. But after two or three chapters it becomes plain drudgery. I worked about ten hours the other night just on correcting and rewriting, because what you write originally is just a shadow of what you had in mind.

WYB: I’ve read that you do much of your research by getting in touch with your many past lives. Is this true?

CALDWELL: No, I don’t believe in reincarnation. When you’re dead, you’re dead. At least, I hope there’s no such thing as reincarnation. I wouldn’t want to come back here. I’ve had it.

This world’s brought me very little joy, very little satisfaction. It’s brought me nothing but tragedy from the time I was born. I regret every day I live. The human situation is not as unique as you think it is. We’re all the same. We all get kicked in the pants, we all have our moments of elation -- though not much happiness. Happiness is a child’s word. There may be short periods of contentment, but very short. Life is mostly disappointment, tragedy, loss and failure.

It wasn’t until the last few years -- imagine, not till the last few years -- that I found out something that even a child knows. That money rules the world. That’s what nations fight about. I didn’t know it was that important. It came as a big shock to me.

WYB: You’ve written much about conspiracies in your novels. Do you think conspiracies in fact play a major role in history?

CALDWELL: Yes. And I think these are our last days. We’re going to have a terrible world holocaust. We’re building up to it.

Before Wilson’s war broke, the newspapers began talking about an energy crisis. I remember that very distinctly. I’ll never forget it -- and I never forget a damn thing, it infuriates me sometimes. The newspapers said we only had enough oil in the world to last till 1930, if we were careful.

WYB: In Captains and the Kings, and other books, you blame the conspiracies on international bankers.

CALDWELL: Of course. In 1912, the international bankers pushed for an amendment to the Constitution to create a private organization, the Federal Reserve System. It’s controlled by the bankers, who meet several times a year to decide what our dollar is worth. Our dollar, of course, is fiat money, not backed by gold or silver. And it’s printed by a private concern. The word federal is there just to deceive the people. The American people voted for the Federal Reserve without knowing what it was about.

Just as they voted for the income tax. It’s unconstitutional, but the United States and the international bankers wanted to get in the European war, so the amendment was passed. And this is what the government told the people: “It’ll never hurt you. You’ll never be taxed. It’ll just just be the very, very rich, and then only two or three percent.” And guess who pays the majority of the taxes? Then people earning under $20,000 a year. The very, very rich don’t pay taxes. Do you think the super rich are paying taxes? Of course not. They have big trust funds. It’s the working class who’s paying taxes.

I’ve stated a thousand times: the primary purpose of the IRS is not to collect taxes but to force federal controls upon the people. To bribe the obedient and destroy the dissidents. To elicit favors and impoverish independence. I have a friend who was murdered by the Internal Revenue. Outright murder. When they got after me, they suggested I commit suicide. I saw the letter.

I don’t know how I’ve survived the onslaughts of the government. It almost makes me believe in the Deity. I’m a Catholic, but I’m a Catholic-atheist, because the tragedies in life have overwhelmed me.

WYB: What’s a Catholic-atheist?

CALDWELL: It really means that, as the ancient Romans said, all roads lead to Rome. No matter what name you give to the spirit that rules law and order in the universe, it’s the same thing. But it’s forever shut out from man. It’s just the manifestations that we see. There’s really no such thing as an atheist.

WYB: Do you think your readers accept the idea of an international conspiracy?

CALDWELL: Yes, I’m very pleased. At least 50% of my readers now are young people, especially young men between the ages of 18 and 30.

WYB: In the forward to Captains and the Kings, you said that President Kennedy perhaps “knew too much” when he spoke of “the Gnomes of Zurich.” You were referring to a conspiracy?

CALDWELL: Sure. Only three weeks before he died, I warned him not to go anywhere. I sent copies of my letter to him to all the major newspapers in the country. Only one printed it -- The Messenger, in St. Paul, Minnesota.

I’d known Kennedy since he was a freshman in Congress -- I knew the whole family. He wouldn’t listen. He wrote me and said the communists could get him in church if they wanted to. I said in my letter, “He’s being attacked by the liberal media, he’s in terrible danger, and I’ve got a terrible premonition something’s going to happen to him.” That was sent three weeks before he went to Dallas.

Old Joe Kennedy gave me a lot of information for Captains and the Kings. He knew what was coming. He set up enormous trust funds for his children. Tax-free.

WYB: Your main character, Joseph Armagh, was based on Joe Kennedy?

CALDWELL: No comment.

WYB: L. V. Roper, creator of Renegade Roe detective novels, says he gets his inspiration from George Washington because it’s “his picture on dollar bills.” What do you think of that?

CALDWELL: Quite true. Samuel Johnson, the famous English writer of the 18th century, said, “No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money.” And Tolstoy said if you’re not widely read, you are a failure.

WYB: You agree?

CALDWELL: Of course. It’s just like anything else. Unless you have customers, your business is going to fail. Writing is a business -- all art is. When a man paints a picture, he doesn’t expect just to sit there and look at it. He expects to sell it.

It’s getting harder and harder to find time to work. There's too much other business going on in here, plus there’s a household to run.

WYB: Why do you write at night?

CALDWELL: Well, it was partly forced on me. I don’t like the daytime. I don’t like the summer, and I don’t like the spring. I like the night. And then I had to work for a living during the day, so I wrote all night and worked all day. I very seldom will sleep -- I don’t have the time. I only sleep when I’m absolutely exhausted, and then only for a couple of hours. That’s all I can afford.

When I’m working on a book, I’ll go from 12 to 24 hours at a stretch. I never stop. For instance, yesterday I didn't go to bed until one o’clock in the afternoon. And I’d worked from five the night before.

WYB: Writing always seems to come down to discipline.

CALDWELL: Of course. It’s a 24-hour-a-day job. I do most of my work in my mind at parties, when I’m among people. I watch them. Sometimes I can read their lips . . . You’ve also got to be a cynic.

WYB: Why?

CALDWELL: Because you’ve got to look at life clearly. No rose-colored glasses. The human race is not very admirable. It was a big mistake of God’s . . . The more I see of people, the more bitter I become. I think I appeal to readers because there’s nothing false or hypocritical in what I write. And they recognize themselves, and recognize their fears. And they know what bastards they are.

WYB: Can we get into the details of book writing itself? Do you work from an outline?

CALDWELL: No, never an outline. I have the general idea, then it works itself out. If I could do the outline, the book would be written. I do make notes about things I want to put in, in the next chapter. Writing is done in your mind. When I sit down to type, it’s just a matter of recording.

WYB: Do you do much rewriting?

CALDWELL: Quite a bit. That is sheer dull labor. And I’m an intrinsically lazy person -- very slothful. I hate physical movement. Except for cooking.

WYB: How does a writer create believable characters?

CALDWELL: Study people. Listen to their minds. Watch their expressions.

WYB: Your hearing problem has made that task even harder, I assume.

CALDWELL: Yes, I need to hear people’s opinions -- what they say and how they say it.

WYB: How do you do research?

CALDWELL: The usual way. It’s plain research -- hard, tough research. I have a whole library on every subject.

WYB: Ever lose interest in a book after working on it for so long?

CALDWELL: Sure, all the time . . . You just have to plug away. I’ve started quite a number of novels, and they just didn’t seem right to me, so I abandoned them.

WYB: Do you work on more than one book at a time?

CALDWELL: One’s bad enough. I hate to start writing. Always do. I’ll do anything possible to delay it, because I know once it takes me over, there’s no stopping.

WYB:: Ever experienced writer’s block?

CALDWELL: Sure, all the time. One lasted a year. Nothing was stirring. Happened a few years ago.

WYB: How did you overcome it?

CALDWELL: Let the field lie fallow. Wait. Chew my fingernails. Wonder when something’s going to happen. My subconscious mind works all the time.

WYB: You wrote The Romance of Atlantis with Jess Stearn. How did you break up the work?

CALDWELL: Well, I gave him the idea and wrote two chapters. He did the rest. I think it was the first big novel he ever did. After finishing, he said, “It’ll be a long time before I ever do anything like that again.” If we didn’t have to pay attention to petty things like houses and eating and sleeping, we’d be much better off. I’m a very good cook, by the way, though I don’t eat much. I have a very good cook here now, a young man. No women here anymore.

WYB: Why?

CALDWELL: Well, I don’t like women. I never did. That’s why I don’t belong to women’s lib. Most of my relatives were male. Women are the inferior sex. There’s no doubt about it -- women are the inferior sex, in every way. There’s never been any woman genius -- never. With all the opportunity in the world -- all the leisure in the world, all the shelter -- if women had any genius, it would’ve come out. It never did. There’s been no woman Michelangelo, or Beethoven, or Mozart.

WYB: What about you?

CALDWELL: It’s talent. It’s not genius. Only men have the gift of genius.

WYB: You don’t consider yourself a genius?

CALDWELL: Of course not. Of course not. No woman writer is ever a genius.

Women irritate me. I’ve met a few intelligent women -- not many. Maybe two or three. They’re usually after a man, that’s all. The more men a woman knows, the brighter she becomes. That’s true. I’ve been married many times, so I know.

WYB: And yet you dedicated your latest novel to journalist Rita Smith.

CALDWELL: She’s a very, very bright girl. She’s one of the few intelligent women I know. One of the few? Who’s the other? . . . I’ve never been popular with women.

There’s Margaret Mead. She became a big feminist. About 20 years ago she wrote an article, I think it was for Cosmopolitan, and said women should devote all their time always to nurturing their holy goddamn children. She named me and Edna Ferber -- said we’d be much happier if we just nurtured children. I wrote her a flaming letter. I said what about women who are not mommies? Not all women are mommies. I have two children of my own, but I was never a mommy. I said I don’t like children, I never wanted any children, they’re a waste of time. And they become your mortal enemies.

A stupid woman reporter, an American, I think it was in Singapore -- stupid thing -- she said, “Do you ever think of retiring?” I said, “Retiring to what?” A weak, silly smile. “You know, to give others a chance.” Well, what I said about that was unprintable. I picked up all my dirty words from my men friends. “Good God!” I said. “I’m not dead yet! Besides, there is plenty of room at the top. It’s only at the bottom where it’s crowded.” I told her that publishers were always looking for competent authors, who are few and far between, and age has nothing to do with it.

WYB: Are there any women writers you enjoy?

CALDWELL: The women writers today are doing their best work in the suspense field. That’s all I read. I don’t read other novels, except by men. Women in the suspense and murder field.

WYB: Who, for instance?

CALDWELL: One of my favorites is Mignon Eberhart. And of course Agatha Christie was excellent. Fine characterizations. The best writing in America is being done in the suspense field -- the very best. I tried it once. Never again.

WYB: Why?

CALDWELL: Too hard! The plotting is terribly intricate. And then there are all kinds of clues you have to scatter around. That’s too much -- too hard.

WYB: Not something you’d recommend for beginners?

CALDWELL: Well, I don’t know. It may be good discipline. At least they could work at it, like lifting weights or jogging. Anyone who can master that field can master anything.

WYB: Which writers most influenced your development?

CALDWELL: The old classics. Balzac, Tolstoy, Charles Dickens, Walpole. And the Bronte sisters.

WYB: Any contemporary writers?

CALDWELL: John MacDonald. He’s a marvelous writer.

WYB: I understand you’ve had trouble with the business side of your writing.

CALDWELL: I get ripped off -- Oh! You have no idea! My husband has been going through all my files. He comes up from his office downstairs in a screaming rage -- “Look what so-and-so did to you!” And not just for a few dollars, but for tens of thousands -- hundreds of thousands of dollars. “Look what they did to you!” I said, “Well, that’s all love and trust.”

WYB: Ever have trouble with publishers?

CALDWELL: No. A lot of writers start to think they’re precious, and they get very temperamental about their publishers. I never had any trouble. Many publishers don’t like writers because they get too full of themselves -- they get too egotistical. If they have one bestseller, they think they’re on top of the dung heap. Which they’re not.

WYB: What’s your attitude toward sex in literature?

CALDWELL: Well, there’s sex in my new book, Bright Flows the River, but it’s not explicit. To eliminate sex from a book is to eliminate the great creative force in the world. Out of the sexual instinct rises all the art, you know.

WYB: So I’ve heard.

CALDWELL: Oh, it’s a well-known fact. No eunuch ever wrote a book. . . .

Young children today are bombarded by the sex revolution, and they need some protection. They need to know what it’s all about. I’m very conservative -- I’m really right-wing -- but there’re things that the right-wing does and says that make me angry. For instance, I’m Catholic, but I believe in rigid birth control.

When I was young, I had a priest who used to tell use girls, “You must exercise self-control. You must be disciplined. You must judge the result of your action.” Then he said, “No girl ever ran into trouble who kept her drawers on.” At home, I told my parents, and they were up in the air. He was censored by his congregation. But we girls knew exactly what he was talking about. Children know more about sex than their parents think they do.

I believe in abortion, too. I wrote to the Right to Life people and said, “You demand that every fetus that’s conceived should live. All right, you guarantee the mother of that fetus that you will take care of that child through college. Not impose that unwanted child on the taxpayer.” Silence.

But on the other hand, the pro-abortionists are all for abortions, but a criminal murderer, his life is sacred. A human life is sacred when a person makes it sacred. The man who caused my deafness and killed my husband is out on probation, by the way. The judge cried over him and let him loose. He sentenced him to four years then put him on probation. He’s now under indictment, charged with killing two more people. . . .

WYB: Are you working on another book?

CALDWELL: Yes, and after I get rid of the book I’m writing now, about a modern Job, I’ll write a book about the life of Christ, seen through the eyes of his mother.

WYB: Will the Job novel be finished this year?

CALDWELL: No. It takes about two or three years to finish a book. I’ve got about a third done. Since I had a heart attack a year ago, I’ve not only aged ten years but I’m exhausted all the time.

I read the book of Job over and over. Poor Job. He was afflicted. According to the Bible, he was a just man. But Satan said, “You put your finger on him, and injure him, and he won’t be such a just, devout man.”

So God said to Satan, “Do anything you want with him, but spare his life.” And so he was afflicted. His children deserted him -- he lost everything. He was reduced to sackcloth and ashes. Even his wife said, “Curse God and die.” But he didn’t. But he did rebuke God. He said, “I’ve lived a devout life. Worshipped You. I was just to my fellow man. Accomplished all I could in Your name. Look what’s happened.”

And God answered him, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world? Where were you when I created the galaxies and the universes? Answer as a man! Gird up your loins and answer as a man!”

That’s the subject of my next book.

WYB: You said that writing isn’t fun. Yet you seem to be having a good time. Are you glad you’re a writer?

CALDWELL: Let me answer you this way: I was talking to a woman last night. I said, “I’m not like other people.” She started to giggle. Then I raised my voice and said evenly, “That’s one blessing God gave writers -- they’re not like other people!”

The End

A doctor's view of ObamaCare

This was emailed to me by a friend. I suspect the letter is circulating heavily on the internet. The author, Stephen Fraser, is an anesthesiologist in Indianapolis.

After reading the excerpts and the doctor's comments, I wonder what part of the bill, if any, wasn't inspired by 1984.

July 23, 2009

Senator Bayh,

As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the healthcare bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government's proposed involvement in the patient physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a healthcare system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our healthcare system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.

I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self insure!!

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

PagePage 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Page 42 of HC Bill:The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You have no choice!

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to you ur banks accounts for elective funds transfer.

Page 65 Sec 164: is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example - Translation: illegal aliens.

Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members - your Health care WILL be rationed.

Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

Page 124 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monopoly.

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make! (salary)

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE!

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide publi! c option pays 8% tax on all payroll.

Page 150 Lines 9-13: Business's with payroll btw 251k & 401k who doesn't provide public option pays 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)

Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans finances /personal records.

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that!

Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors, low income and poor are affected.

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors, doesn't matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same!

Page 253 Line 10-18: Govt sets value of doctor's time, profession, judgment etc. Literally value of humans.

Page 265 Sec 1131: Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.

Page 268 Sec 1141: Federal Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever Govt deems preventable re-admissions.

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors, treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -Govt will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Doctors what/how much they can own!

Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand.

Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT communit! y input is required.. Can u say ACORN?!!

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: Govt mandates establishment of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing.

Page 341 Lines 3-9: Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing people into Govt plan.

Page 354 Sec 1177: Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people! Unbelievable!

Page 379 Sec 1191: Govt creates more bureaucracy - Tele-health Advisory Comittee. Can you say HC by phone?

Page 425 Lines 4-12: Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life patients.

Page 425 Lines 17-19: Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!

Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death. (assisted suicide)

Page 427 Lines 15-24: Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends.

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced care planning consultant" will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOVT!

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life!

Page 469: Community Based Home Medical Services = Non profit organizations. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?

Page 472 Lines 14-17: PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORIGINATION. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based organization. Like ACORN?

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage.

Page 494-498: ! Govt wil l cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those services.

Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.

Furthermore, If you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor/patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.

Respectfully,
Stephen E Fraser MD

Government learns from its mistakes

Under a document signed by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, makers of any new swine flu vaccine are immune from lawsuit.

The last time the government embarked on a major vaccine campaign against a new swine flu [1976], thousands of people filed claims contending they suffered side effects from the shots.

During the last virus scare,

Federal officials vaccinated 40 million Americans during a national campaign. A pandemic never materialized, but thousands who got the shots filed injury claims, saying they suffered a paralyzing condition called Guillain-Barre Syndrome or other side effects.

So if you get strong-armed into getting the vaccine and end up spending the rest of your life in a wheelchair, tough. Remember, the government had your best interests in mind.

Drug lobbying pays big time

According to an NPR article, drug firms have poured $40 million into the health care debate over the last three months. Why? Billy Tauzin, a former Louisiana congresman and CEO of a consortium of 32 brand-name drug firms called PhRMA, told NPR:

"We're working with groups we never worked with before — Families USA, the American Agenda, labor, health care providers — that never stood together on the same platform," says Tauzin. "We have every business reason to want to see this happen, and we have every moral reason to see this happen, because our patients are our first concern."

Right. Jerry Avorn, a professor at Harvard medical school comments: "Of course they're supportive — they're getting exactly what they want." Take a look at what's not on the table, Avorn says. Drug re-importation from Canada? Off the table. Government-negotiated drug prices? Off the table.

"A lot of those seem to have been resolved even before the public discussion begins," says Avorn. "And usually, as with the other interest groups involved, they seem to have been resolved in favor of the interest groups, rather than in favor of the public."

You mean Tauzin is possibly lying? You mean the pharmaceutical industry is leveraging Congress for their benefit?

Normandy civilians suffered on D-Day

Writing from Paris, Hugh Schofield says that

A revisionist theme seems to have settled on this year's 65th anniversary commemoration of the Normandy landings.

The tone was set in Antony's Beevor's new book, D-Day, which tries to debunk certain received ideas about the Allied campaign.

Far from being an unmitigated success, Mr Beevor found, the landings came very close to going horribly wrong.

And far from being universally welcomed as liberators, many troops had a distinctly surly reception from the people of Normandy.

The reason for this was simple. Many Normandy towns and villages had been literally obliterated by Allied bombing.

The bombardment of Caen, Mr Beevor said, could almost be considered a war-crime (though he later retracted the comment).

Many historians will retort that there is nothing new in Mr Beevor's account.

Harrowing experience

After all, the scale of destruction is already well-established.

Some 20,000 French civilians were killed in the two-and-a-half months from D-Day, 3,000 of them during the actual landings.

Wrong impression

The haunting picture of a man confronting a line of tanks in Tiananmen Square may not, in fact, be a libertarian image.

Justin Raimondo's article of 17 June 1999, "China and the New Cold War," re-published today on LewRockwell.com, has given me reasons to reconsider that episode.

Raimondo writes:

The Tiananmen Square "massacre" is an incident so wrapped up in mythology, most of it generated by Western journalists and their professional dissident friends, that it is nearly impossible for any "revisionist" analysis to be given a hearing. The world saw the Goddess of Democracy, the bright banners and youthful idealism of the protesters, a giant rock-concert held under the gaze of the seemingly incongruous Chairman Mao, whose gargantuan portrait dominates the Square. . . .

According to Lee Feigon's pro-student protester account of The Meaning of Tiananmen, the leaders of a prominent student group, who in alliance with city workers organized the Beijing Workers' Autonomous Trade Union, "hung big pictures of Mao in the tents they pitched on the square. They talked openly and boldly about the good old days of the Cultural Revolution. Mao, they felt, had the right ideas, although he sometimes used wrong tactics. Now they were determined to use what they considered the right ones." [p. 211] . . .

Even as more reasonable student leaders, like Wu'er Kaxi, argued that the students, having made their point, should withdraw from the square and live to fight another day, Chai Lin, the "Supreme Commander," commanded her followers to stay and wait for martyrdom. Already embarked on a hunger strike that had weakened and even completely debilitated many students, they passively obeyed their fanatical "Commander." In style and spirit, the massacre at Tiananmen Square is closer to Jonestown than to a crusade for freedom.

Like the American New Left of the sixties, the Chinese New Left movement that reached its flaming apogee in Tiananmen Square employed radically self-dramatizing means to achieve egalitarian and "revolutionary" ends. They, too, held high the banner of Chairman Mao; like the Weathermen faction of SDS, Chai Lin and her hardcore supporters not only expected repression but openly hoped that their actions would provoke it.

As Eric Margolis, foreign affairs editor of the Toronto Sun, so trenchantly put it, the Tiananmen Square "massacre has become a 'cause celebre' among fashionable leftists and literati, who have never forgiven China's rulers for abandoning socialism."

What's in a pretty face?

The young lady depicted below is actress Lillian Gish. According to one of the grunts in the story Company K, which details the nightmare of being an American soldier in World War I, this picture or one like it kept him from taking his own life when he could find nothing left to live for.

Grandson's first T-ball practice

Preston turned four in March.

When photography rivals art

Lincoln on the sacred right of secession

Taken from Judge Andrew P. Napolitano's book, Dred Scott's Revenge: A legal history of race and freedom in America . . .

In his first inaugural address Lincoln equated secession with anarchy and said, ". . . no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union.” [p. 71]

Yet in January, 1848, as a congressman from Illinois, Lincoln stated that

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right -- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. [p. 75]