wbull1-blog

[wbull1-blog]

About Anger

About Anger by Warren BullAbout Anger By Warren BullImage from http://Pinterest.com Writers often depict characters who lose control of their anger as well as characters who manage it well. So what is anger and how is it controlled? Read on. Stuff ? Vent? Count to ten?  Stuffing it is sometimes a good idea for the short term when expressing anger would be counterproductive. No matter what you’ve heard, venting does not dissipate the emotion unless there are changes in whatever caused the anger. Counting is the best choice if we count slowly and use the time to analyze the emotional situation. Let me explain. Fear, sadness, happiness and anger (and possibly surprise and disgust) are called primary emotions. These emotions are instinctive and automatic, which means they happen to us before we can think about them. It’s not hard to see how an automatic reaction would be a good thing for an early human. As an example, lets talk about fear, when confronted by a giant bear or a saber-tooth cat some stopped to ponder, “Hmm that beast looks hungry. Perhaps I should contemplate removing myself from the immediate surroundings. Yes I believe so. I shall depart.” Those people often became the predator’s lunch. Others reacted immediately and became our ancestors. Basic emotions are hard-wired into us. Anger is very useful when it is the first emotion experienced. It’s a sign that something serious is happening. Anger can be described as a feeling of antagonism directed at someone we believe has wronged us deliberately and unjustly by taking something away from us. What is being taken is not necessarily an object. Accusations or humiliation may hurt our reputations or self-esteem. However anger also occurs as a secondary emotion. When we experience a degree fear or sadness that leaves us feeling vulnerable, anger may pop up next. Anger is less painful than the primary emotion but it is seldom helpful in resolving the events or issues that caused the emotional response. In my experience, temper tantrums and screaming rarely persuade another person to adopt my point of view. So, after taking a moment to identify which emotion is primary, I conclude that I am feeling scared and vulnerable. What can I do to reduce the risk? Can I ask for advice? Can I start over? Is this a situation where anyone would feel a bit out of control? Identifying the basic emotion allows me to take effective actions toward diminishing discomfort. For example, the first time my wife and I visited a particular church we felt ignored during a social time after the service. I interpreted my growing annoyance as feeling like an outsider. I approached someone and introduced myself, which helped with the real concern and my anger quickly faded away. What if anger is my primary feeling? I can run a quick check on what’s causing the anger. Am I actually being wronged? Is the other person behaving intentionally and unjustly? Am I at risk of losing something? Another example, when I started a new job, I was instructed to meet with people throughout the organization to learn about all the different services available for clients. When I went to meet with one supervisor he kept me waiting for close to an hour in the waiting room. It gave me the chance to get really steamed up. When the supervisor finally appeared, he apologized, saying he lost track of how long I had been waiting. He said he thought my having to meet with him was a waste of time for both of us since I would not be working in his program. Was my anger justified? Yes. The other person had wronged me. He wasted my time. Did I get angry? Yes at first but I concluded that anger might be detrimental. By the time I saw him I had decided not to express anger. It certainly helped that the supervisor immediately apologized, which served to acknowledge the validity of my anger. However, I would have been calm even if he had not. I wanted to stay on good terms with him. I also knew he would talk with my new boss. If I exploded in anger at the supervisor, my new boss would hear about it. As it turned out, later on the supervisor became my boss and we developed an excellent work relationship. In a different job, I did express my anger. Without telling me, my supervisor decided to move me to a less desirable office. I worked there part-time and a new full-time person had been hired. So the move was absolutely justified. I did not get angry about the move. I got angry about how the move was done. I showed up for work and the new person was already in “my office.” From the new hire, I learned I had been moved. I went to the supervisor and said something along the lines of. “I’m really angry with you for not telling me I was being moved to a different office. I worked here the entire day yesterday so there was plenty of time for you to come to me and explain. Leaving the explanation up to the new person, I think, was unfair to her and to me too. It seems to me to be a rather cowardly way to act. That’s all I have to say.” Then I went to where I was assigned and started to work. The supervisor did not respond. I didn’t need him to. I expressed my anger. I was satisfied. There were no negative consequences.   I expressed myself with “I” statements. I offered my opinion, not stating anything as a fact. I did not ask for an apology. (Apologies are mostly beneficial to the person who apologizes but that’s another article.) With a different supervisor, I might have chosen other words to describe of his behavior. So that’s the twenty-five cent guided tour of anger. It is sometimes a very useful emotion. However, when it covers up the primary feeling, it can get in the way of recognizing the real underlying issue. Please feel free to let me know what you think and ask any question that occurs to you.

[wbull1-blog]

Revisiting Rosa Parks Revisiting Rosa Parks by Warren Bull Image from The Guardian Rosa Parks is sometimes viewed as the tired seamstress who happened to refuse to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus in December of 1955 that sparked a boycott that ultimately succeeded in getting the city to end racial segregation on buses.In fact, that perception does not do justice to Parks, a determined life-long activist. She didn’t just happen to give up her seat. She was selected to challenge segregation laws by NAACP organizers. At the time of her arrest, she was secretary of the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP.  She worked with a new minister in town, Martin Luther King, Jr., Edgar Nixon, president of the chapter of the NAACP and other leaders. During her childhood, bullying by white children, watching the Klu Klux Klan march  by her house and seeing white children ride by in school buses, to a closer and better school than the only one she was allowed to attend, made awareness of racism inescapable. Parks attended school until age eleven. She then started at a laboratory secondary school, since there was not a public secondary school open to African American students. She was forced to drop out to care for her ill grandmother and later for her mother. In 1932 she married Raymond Parks, a barber. Her husband was a member of the NAACP. He helped raise money to defend the Scottsboro Boys against false charges of rape. He urged her to return to school and she finished high school in 1933. At that time fewer than 7% of African Americans had a high school diploma. She was not the first person to resist bus segregation. Bayard Rustin took a similar stance in 1942. Irene Morgan in 1946, Lillie May Bradford in 1951 and earlier in 1955 Claudette Calvin, Aurelia Browder, Susie McDonald and Mary Louise Smith all took on the segregation law. In 1956 the United States District Court for the Middle Division of Alabama heard the case of Browder v. Gayle and ruled that bus segregation is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. Upon appeal, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the decision. Like other Civil Rights victories, several people over many years worked persistently toward the goal.Her act of defiance and the boycott became symbols of the Civil Rights Movement. Parks was honored late in her long life, but she paid a hefty price for her actions. She was fired from her job five weeks after the boycott started. Her husband was fired a few weeks later. She developed ulcers from the stress. Unable to find steady work, they moved to Detroit with the help of relatives living there. Threats against her life continued for years. Parks described Detroit as the “Northern promised land that wasn’t.” Although signs of segregation were no longer public, housing, school and job discrimination were rampart. Police brutality was a fact of life. She and Raymond as well as her mother stayed on and off with her brother, his wife and their 13 children in a three-bedroom wood-frame house on Deacon Street. Parks worked out of town for 15 months to save money, but she missed her family and returned.In 1955 they ran through her savings of $1,300 quickly.  Decent housing for African Americans was rare. The waiting list for public housing for African-Americans was 6,000 families deep although white families rarely had to wait. Most white people refused to rent or sell to African Americans. The few that did demanded exorbitant fees for sub-standard places. The Parks’ income for 1955 was $661. They made ends meet in part with food grown in her brother’s garden. An interviewer in 1960 describer Parks as a “tattered rag of her former self — penniless, debt-ridden and ailing with stomach ulcers.”In July 1959 Rosa, Raymond and her mother moved into a two-room apartment at the Progressive Civic League. They took care of the building in exchange for lower rent. In 1961 the Parks were able to rent the ground floor of a brick flat Rosa described as located in “just about the heart of the ghetto.” She was able to find a job doing piecework sewing and Raymond found a barbering job. For 40 years Parks took part in advocating for jobs and school desegregation while opposing police brutality. The Parks never owned the place they lived in. Recognition for what she did in Montgomery, did nothing to lessen the difficulties she faced in Detroit. In 2016 Ryan Mendoza, an American artist living in Germany in concert with Parks’ niece Rhea McCauley saved the house on Deacon Street from scheduled demolition. He had it packed into crates, shipped and then he reconstructed it in Berlin. The Nash Family Foundation in Manitowoc, Wisconsin has committed $45,000 to return the house to the United States. Maybe the house will offer the opportunity for all of us to give up the image of a tired woman on a bus and embrace the reality of an activist who won one battle at a high personal cost but never settled for that. Without fanfare or public notice she continued struggling for the still far from attained greater goal of racial equality.

[wbull1-blog]

How Like An Angel

How Like An Angel by Margaret Millar: A Review By Warren Bull By the time How Like An Angel was published (1962) the author had already won an Edgar for her novel Beast in View. She was named Grand Master by Mystery Writers of America. Ed Gorman described he work as ..”too good for the mass market.” Broke, unemployed and alone, Joe Quinn is dropped off in the desert with a path to follow that leads toward a religious commune called the Tower. Addicted to gambling despite his inevitable losses, Quinn is not the sort of guy to get tangled up in other people’s problems. However, when Sister Blessing offers one hundred and twenty dollars in cash for Quinn to find out if a man named Patrick O’Gorman still lives in a town nearby, he accepts the offer with no idea what making inquiries will set off. How Like An Angel is compelling, suspenseful novel that surprises as it depicts human motivation, obsession, love and hate. Belief versus doubt plays out in the town as well as in the commune. This is a well-written study of the human condition in addition to being a truly satisfying mystery.  I am glad to be able to recommend it highly.

[wbull1-blog]

Scarcity versus Abundance

Scarcity versus Abundance I’ve noticed a number of people discussing the contrast between thinking in terms of scarcity and thinking in terms of abundance. Even for high achieving people, often there is a lack of a reference or a measuring tool that can be used to see how well a person is doing. It’s easy to start comparing what we have with what someone else has.  We might adopt a zero-sum point of view. That is like a poker game where to win means taking chips away from someone else and to lose means that another person has taken chips that used to be yours.Sometimes resources are truly limited so the scarcity idea of the world is helpful. For example, living in a desert or where everyone scrounges for food, finding water and food is necessary for survival.  Eating a prickly pear now before another person does would make sense for personal survival. In a situation of rampant uncontrolled inflation we might spend our paychecks as soon as possible before their value declines. Achievement by others can lead us toward legitimate sadness and regret because their gain is our loss.Luckily situations like that are rare for most of us.  Except for extreme situations, thinking in terms of abundance makes life more satisfying and relaxed. Knowing there is plenty of food and we will be able to eat later, makes it easier to avoid cramming the last cookies down our throats when we are already full. Thinking in terms of abundance, we can look at long-term life and financial planning.  It may make sense to postpone a vacation to be able to save money toward buying a new car.With abundant thinking it is easier to feel good when someone else succeeds when we realize that his or her success does not in any way diminish our chances to advance. Maybe we can learn from another’s success to facilitate our own.As a writer, I sometimes find myself pushing for what I would like to do.  When I stop to recognize and enjoy what I have already done, I feel better about myself.  I am more relaxed and realistic about the future. Engaging in cooperative ventures builds relationships. Skipping ads, which are designed to push the idea of scarcity, can help keep things in proportion. Comparisons to others can let the scarcity idea creep in. The comparisons are very rarely realistic. No two people face identical obstacles or have identical opportunities. When losses happen, as they inevitably will, we may be able to learn from them and find some positive aspects from the experiences that will help us in the future.

[wbull1-blog]

Ghost Story?

Ghost Story? This might be a ghost story. There was nothing unusual about the beginning. A woman came to the agency I was working for asking for therapy. She described her life history. It was clear that she had a terrible life mostly due to her continuing illicit drug use. She said she had tried repeatedly but could not stop using. All of her children except the youngest had been taken away due to her drug use. As the result of a legal hearing, she was subject to unannounced urine testing with the understanding that if she tested positive again, her youngest child would be removed from her home. She was on the verge of losing her job. She hated her boss. But she needed the income the income her job provided. Her work attendance had been erratic. On Mondays she was often so hung over that she could not work. Also, her car was old and unreliable. She lived in public housing in a dangerous building in the worst part of town. She had applied for a transfer to safer housing years earlier but the waiting list had hundreds of names on it. Feeding her addiction left her with barely enough money to buy food. After listening to the recital of problems, I asked why she wanted therapy now. The problems she mentioned were chronic. I knew there had to be an immediate reason for her to come in. After some hesitation she said one of her sons had approached her about two months ago after years of refusing to see her. He told her she had been a terrible mother, leaving her children in jeopardy when she went off to get drugs, being too stoned to take care of them and disappearing for days when she binged. He said he loved her anyway and he wanted to help her get off drugs. They started talking. She felt hope for the first time in many years. Then he was shot and killed, an innocent victim of a drive-by shooter targeting someone else. I said that was truly terrible. And I asked again, “So why come in now?” “It’s my dead son,” she said. “Every night he stands over me, not saying a word. I know he hates me and blames me for everything he had to go through.” I asked if he had done anything like that when he was alive. She said no, on the contrary, he’d been loving and supportive. He was seriously trying to help her get clean. I said, “I wonder why he has changed so much just because he died. He hasn’t said anything. He might be there for the same reasons he restarted contact with you when he was alive. Do you want to invite him to join us in the office so you can ask him?”  She refused and stormed out of my office. At the next appointment she said “I asked my son why he came to see me. He told me he still loves he. He wants to help me.” She said he insisted that she had to stop using drugs. Night after night he said the same thing. Eventually she wore down, promised to cut back and finally gave him a date in the future when she would stop using entirely. Then things started happening. The housing office called to offer an apartment in a safer place. Out of the blue, her sister called her to say she and her husband had bought a new car. Did my client want their old car? She started to show up to work on time, not hung over and she got a lot more done. She was no longer threatened with being fired. After some time she got so annoyed at her boss for putting her down that she told him off. To her surprise, he stopped insulting her. She kept her promise to her son to stop using. He continued to show up, encouraging her and acknowledging the changes she made. She met the goals she set for herself and graduated from therapy. Please note: in this account I have simplified events and condensed the time frame, but it is entirely truthful. I never saw her son. So, was her son a ghost? Was he angel? Was he an auditory and visual hallucination? Part of her mourning process? Or was his love for his mother so strong that a little thing like dying made no difference?

[wbull1-blog]

An Answer for President Trump

Why Was There A Civil War? An Answer for President Trump by Warren Bull During an interview with Salena Zito for ”Main Street Meets the Beltway,” released on April 30, 2016 when discussing President Andrew Jackson President Trump said: I mean had Andrew Jackson been president a little later you wouldn’t have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person but he had a big heart. He was really angry that he saw what was happening with the Civil War. He said, “There’s no reason for this.” People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War. If you think about it, why? People don’t ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out? Dear President Trump, After the interview you clarified that you knew Andrew Jackson died before the war started, but intended to say that if he had been alive and president he would have prevented the war.Sir, you raise a fascinating question that people have been pondering ever since the start of the war. Could a strong and intelligent president have brokered an agreement to avoid war? Respectfully, I would like to answer your questionBefore war broke out, the two most powerful men in the United States government, President James Buchanan, who personally opposed slavery and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger Brooke Taney, who personally supported slavery, tried to do exactly what you suggested was possible. They considered what was politically expedient, i.e., what was achievable and least disruptive to settle the growing rancor between states and most likely to avoid bloodshed. Their conclusion was that the continuation of slavery was the solution. They decided slavery should be protected where it existed and expanded when people in new territories and states wanted it. After all, they probably reasoned, slavery existed in the colonies before the nation was formed. In forming the United States the southern delegates to the Constitutional convention insisted that slavery had to be legal for the nation to be formed. They got what they wanted. The way to end slavery already existed. The Constitution could be amended if and when a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate called for an amendment. Also a constitutional convention could be called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures and the convention could change the document. Besides, slavery was good for the economy. Cotton production in the south was the primary engine running that economy. In the north banking, insurance and ship building all benefited from the slave trade. Exports made the entire country economically stronger. Whatever people say, they usually act to favor whatever adds to their financial well being. There was a way open to settle issues without the need for bloodshed. Dred Scott, an enslaved African-American man, sued for his freedom in lower courts. One court said he should not be freed. Another court ruled in Scott’s favor. The case was appealed to the highest court in the land. Taney seized upon the case, which asked only if one individual because of his particular circumstances and history should be freed, to answer the greater unasked for issue of whether slavery should be continued. Simply put, Taney ruled that African-Americans had no rights at all under the Constitution. I admit he had to misrepresent the case before him, misstate the opinions of the other justices and misread the Constitution to reach his decision. But consider that he wanted to preserve the nation. President James Buchanan was willing to go against his personal beliefs for the “greater good” of keeping the country together. If others had been willing to follow his example, union could have been preserved. He backed the court decision to the hilt. Question settled. No need for any more fuss. Sorry, enslaved people. Maybe the Constitution will be amended someday.However, this elegant solution did not work. People on different sides hardened their positions. The war that resulted was the bloodiest in American history. Fathers against sons. Brothers against each other. Even the newly elected President had in-laws fighting against the union. Before I continue, I should mention that some people, no doubt including some who advise you, now claim the basic conflict was not about slavery but states rights versus federal rights. They are half right. The first state to secede, South Carolina, wrote an explanation of why secession was necessary. In that document the people mention a number of states rights. They reported that there was one state right which northern states failed to honor, which required their succession. That right was to hold people in bondage, i.e. the right to keep slaves. Those same people might tell you that Abraham Lincoln said he was willing to keep slavery intact to keep the union intact. In this they are entirely correct. Lincoln said and believed that…at first. Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri, all states where slavery was legal, joined the union side of the conflict. Over time Lincoln revised his beliefs. He acted on his new beliefs even though they were not popular with a majority of voters. Unlike Buchanan, he remained faithful to his core principles. Unlike Taney, he never did more than he could legally justify. I am the first to admit that James Buchanan was not a strong President, but I do not believe that any President could have persuaded people to give up their core belief that slavery was morally wrong.   So, no. Sometimes the willingness to act against a person’s basic beliefs (if that person has firm beliefs) in order to appeal to a popular trend will only exaggerate differences between others. Flexibility can be a real asset, but so can having and sticking with core beliefs. I see no way the Civil War could have been avoided by mediation.By the way, if the expedient solution suggested, to leave slavery in place and support its expansion, had been accepted, it would have been an absolute horror. Thank you, Mr. President, for your attention.

[wbull1-blog]

Ngaio Marsh’s Hand in Glove

My review of Ngaio Marsh's Hand in Glove is available at http://writerswhokill.blogspot.com/2017/06/hand-in-glove-by-ngaio-marsh-review-by.html

[wbull1-blog]

Murder Must Wait: A Review

My review of Arthur Upfield's Murder Must Wait is available at http://writerswhokill.blogspot.com/2017/05/murder-must-wait-by-arthur-w-upfield.html

[wbull1-blog]

An Answer for President Trump

Why Was There A Civil War? An Answer for President Trump

During an interview with Salena Zito for "Main Street Meets the Beltway," released on April 30, 2016 when discussing President Andrew Jackson President Trump said:

I mean had Andrew Jackson been president a little later you wouldn’t have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person but he had a big heart. He was really angry that he saw what was happening with the Civil War. He said, “There’s no reason for this.” People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War. If you think about it, why? People don’t ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?

Dear President Trump,

After the interview you clarified that you knew Andrew Jackson died before the war started, but intended to say that if he had been alive and president he would have prevented the war.

Sir, you raise a fascinating question that people have been pondering ever since the start of the war. Could a strong and intelligent president have brokered an agreement to avoid war? Respectfully, I would like to answer your question

Before war broke out, the two most powerful men in the United States government, President James Buchanan, who personally opposed slavery and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger Brooke Taney, who personally supported slavery, tried to do exactly what you suggested was possible. They considered what was politically expedient, i.e., what was achievable and least disruptive to settle the growing rancor between states and most likely to avoid bloodshed.  Their conclusion was that the continuation of slavery was the solution. They decided slavery should be protected where it existed and expanded when people in new territories and states wanted it.

After all, they probably reasoned, slavery existed in the colonies before the nation was formed. In forming the United States the southern delegates to the Constitutional convention insisted that slavery had to be legal for the nation to be formed. They got what they wanted. The way to end slavery already existed. The Constitution could be amended if and when a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate called for an amendment.  Also a constitutional convention could be called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures and the convention could change the document.

Besides, slavery was good for the economy. Cotton production in the south was the primary engine running that economy. In the north banking, insurance and ship building all benefited from the slave trade. Exports made the entire country economically stronger. Whatever people say, they usually act to favor whatever adds to their financial well being.

There was a way open to settle issues without the need for bloodshed. Dred Scott, an enslaved African-American man, sued for his freedom in lower courts. One court said he should not be freed. Another court ruled in Scott’s favor. The case was appealed to the highest court in the land.

Taney seized upon the case, which asked only if one individual because of his particular circumstances and history should be freed, to answer the greater unasked for issue of whether slavery should be continued. Simply put, Taney ruled that African-Americans had no rights at all under the Constitution. I admit he had to misrepresent the case before him, misstate the opinions of the other justices and misread the Constitution to reach his decision. But consider that he wanted to preserve the nation.

President James Buchanan was willing to go against his personal beliefs for the “greater good” of keeping the country together. If others had been willing to follow his example, union could have been preserved. He backed the court decision to the hilt.

Question settled. No need for any more fuss. Sorry, enslaved people. Maybe the Constitution will be amended someday.

However, this elegant solution did not work. People on different sides hardened their positions. The war that resulted was the bloodiest in American history. Fathers against sons. Brothers against each other. Even the newly elected President had in-laws fighting against the union.

  Before I continue, I should mention that some people, no doubt including some who advise you, now claim the basic conflict was not about slavery but states rights versus federal rights. They are half right. The first state to secede, South Carolina, wrote an explanation of why secession was necessary. In that document the people mention a number of states rights. They reported that there was one state right which northern states failed to honor, which required their succession. That right was to hold people in bondage, i.e. the right to keep slaves.

Those same people might tell you that Abraham Lincoln said he was willing to keep slavery intact to keep the union intact. In this they are entirely correct. Lincoln said and believed that…at first. Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri, all states where slavery was legal, joined the union side of the conflict.

Over time Lincoln revised his beliefs. He acted on his new beliefs even though they were not popular with a majority of voters. Unlike Buchanan, he remained faithful to his core principles. Unlike Taney, he never did more than he could legally justify.

I am the first to admit that James Buchanan was not a strong President, but I do not believe that any President could have persuaded people to give up their core belief that slavery was morally wrong.  

So, no. Sometimes the willingness to act against a person’s basic beliefs (if that person has firm beliefs) in order to appeal to a popular trend will only exaggerate differences between others. Flexibility can be a real asset, but so can having and sticking with core beliefs. I see no way the Civil War could have been avoided by mediation.

By the way, if the expedient solution suggested, to leave slavery in place and support its expansion, had been accepted, it would have been an absolute horror.

Thank you, Mr. President, for your attention.

[wbull1-blog]

Waking Up White

I suppose I am like many other people in the majority in this country in that I don’t consider myself racist. However, I have learned over time that I participate in a society that favors Caucasians over people of other races. Without even being aware of it until recently, I have taken full advantage of the privileges granted to white people and males throughout my life. Debbie Irving in writing Waking Up White takes the reader along for her twenty-five year odyssey of learning about race. She learned that race is an invention of society and not biology. She is remarkably honest in revealing her lack of awareness that as a white person she is a member of a race. She also talks about how as a “good person” she tried to help people of other races and why her attempts so often failed. Once started on the path toward enlightenment, she persisted despite false starts and failures along the way. What she discovered opened her eyes. She woke up to the reality.  I cannot do justice to the ideas covered in her book in this brief review. Besides the author writes so clearly that I’m not sure I could express myself as well as she did. I give this book my very highest recommendation.

[wbull1-blog]

AT ONE FELL SWOOP

At One Fell Swoop by Stuart Palmer: A review by Warren Bull Published in 1951, At One Fell Swoop is one of a series of book with Hildegarde Withers, a retired maiden schoolteacher as an amateur sleuth and her friend and antagonist police detective Oscar Piper. He puts up with her schemes but benefits in the end from her insights. The pairing lasted through fourteen novels, three motion pictures and a made-for–television movie. Palmer has a deft hand at writing. The plot is tight with a justified, satisfying ending. It plays fair with the reader. The heroine is caustic and comedic. The hero is amusingly frustrated and aware of Miss Wither’s ability to unravel riddles. The novel zipped along with action, humor and surprises. Palmer was considered one of the best writers of the time. One year he was the president of Mystery Writers of America.   His characters and writing stands the test of time. I highly recommend this mystery.

[wbull1-blog]

A very enjoyable read! We all think we know good old Abe, but it's nice to see someone dig a little bit and show us a little more. Human nature is on display here, Lincoln's and that of others. For all his skill at defense, Abe excelled in his knowledge of human nature.

[wbull1-blog]

A Review of Abraham Lincoln In Court & Campaign

Amazon Customeron April 15, 2017

Warren's sories of Lincoln fascinate me because many of the problems he faced dealing a divided congress are similar to those of today. He describes how the lawyer defended a friend's son who was accused of murder and we see what thorough and clever defender he was as a man seeking justice. The story pulls you along because it is interspersed with detailed accounting of each of the the Lincoln- Douglas senate debates. The reader will see how politics can pull and change a politician who, in a push to win, will lie about his opponent to put him on the defensive. Overall, I highly recommend the book for those interested in civil war conflicts as well as those glued to today's angry environment.

[wbull1-blog]

World Book Day

World Book DayReading changes lives World Book Day - Sunday April 23, is all about celebrating reading and books. Reading paves the way for intellectual and emotional growth throughout our lives. Studies show that there are many benefits to reading — from helping us overcome stress to keeping our brains sharp. Books nurture our imaginations and our empathy, take us places we've never been, and introduce us to ideas and people we might never have otherwise encountered. Literacy skills can help empower people, positively impact communities and enrich lives. Happy World Book Day! Join us in supporting literacy The charities below work to provide books and reading resources at home and around the world. Worldreader - their mission is to create a world where everyone is a reader. Room to Read - a focus on improving literacy and gender equality in education in the developing world. First Book - provides new books, learning material and other essentials to children in need. Amazon dot com is also donating and accepting donations.

[wbull1-blog]

The Power of Not Knowing

https://www.brainpickings.org/2017/03/27/wislawa-szymborska-nobel-speech/?utm_source=Brain+Pickings&utm_campaign=d1933e19f4-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_31&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_179ffa2629-d1933e19f4-237655289&mc_cid=d1933e19f4&mc_eid=f2ab1a11bd

[wbull1-blog]

Book Review

Miss Pym Disposes by Josephine Tey: A Review by Warren BullImage from Getty Images Miss Pym Disposes, written by Josephine Tey, was published in 1948. It was the third of Tey’s novels. Of course, Elizabeth MacKintosh AKA Josephine Tey, had previously written under the name of Gordon Daviot, best known as a playwright. Once Tey entered the world, Daviot faded away. The novel is a demonstration of excellence in writing. The novel is set in a girls’ physical education college, rather than somewhere exotic. The observer is the writer of a popular psychology book who gives a lecture at the request of an old friend who is now Principal of the college. Tey takes the reader along at a leisurely pace, giving her reader the chance to get to know and care about students and staff. The everyday events held my interest because of the quality of the writing. The murder happens well past the mid point of the book. It is even more shocking than if it had occurred early on. Each character is fleshed out and interesting on her own. I was concerned about  every one.  I give this novel my highest recommendation.

[wbull1-blog]

In a Lonely Place: A Review

http://writerswhokill.blogspot.com/2017/03/in-lonely-place-by-dorothy-b-hughes.html