Who said the following statement this week?

It suffices as evidence of this your entering of this war and your excusing of American soldiers from being held to account by the European courts. For this reason, this address of mine is to you, not to your politicians, as it is no longer a secret that Blair, Brown, Berlusconi, Aznar, Sarkozy and those with him and their like love to shade themselves in the shade of the White House. And there isn’t a major difference worth mentioning between them and many of the leaders of the Third World.

A - Cindy Sheehan

B - Nancy Pelosi

C - Osama bin Laden

D - Harry Reid

E - Dick Durbin

F - John Kerry

G - John Murtha

H - Hugo Chavez

Hard to tell, eh?   The answer is C - Osama bin Laden…. but you would hardly know for sure, would you?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Via The Corner:

Gallup Poll Results — PRINCETON, NJ — Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data from the last four November Gallup Health and Healthcare polls. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans report having excellent mental health, compared to 43% of independents and 38% of Democrats. This relationship between party identification and reports of excellent mental health persists even within categories of income, age, gender, church attendance, and education.

*befuddled*  I can’t see how this is news? 

After all, what else would you expect from a bunch of communist-protecting, socialist-breeding, Islamist-coddling, free speech-destroying, America-hating, angry anarchists who see a conspiracy in everything and try to destroy the lives of Americans that don’t share their angry view of the world?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

This came to Dan and I last night from a reader who has been hostile to us since GayPatriot was born:

I am rather puzzled by the amount of outrage. I would  not have  minded if the youtube questioners from the democratic version were  Republicans. Or even republican plants for that matter. I have heard  [Gen.] Kerr speak in person, he also works with SLDN, and he seems like a  decent guy.

What alternative exactly would you propose? That questions can only  be asked of Republican candidates by loyal Republican questioners?  We are electing the President of the United States, not the  President of the GOP. So long as the questions asked were fair and  were not biased in of themselves I really don’t think you have much  to  complain about.   If you can provide examples to the contrary  please do so.   CNN should
have vetted better though.

Besides which, as a general principle I think its better that  candidates answer questions from hostile audiences. The answers they  give are usually much more  illuminating of a candidates views than  the organized PR pablum that campaign stops are.

And now Bruce apparently wants to excommunicate Kerr from Log Cabin  or the GOP or both.,. Its never much of a surprise anymore how  swiftly Bruce turns on someone once they doesn’t pass his particular  idealogical fatwa.  Kerr republicanism doesn’t fit Bruce’s idea of  ideological purity. But Bruce’s idea of a GOP Big Tent is  increasingly looking about the size of a handkerchief.

Never mind  that Kerr spoke only about DADT and that as a retired General he has  more practical knowledge of DADT than Bruce ever will.  Next thing  you know Bruce will be trying to send people to jail for naming  their
teddy bears Hillary.  I should send him a Hillary Care Bear.  That ought to give him some doozy nightmares.

My response:

You are so tunnel-visioned and clueless…

I could care less if Democrats questioned Republicans and vice versa.  It is probably a good thing.

But in the DEMOCRAT YouTube debate… all of the questioners reinforced the Democrat/liberal point of view…. they were affirmations.

In the GOP YouTube debate… they were planted Democratic party operatives, sympathizers and volunteers and were not identified as such…. and were challenging the candidates, not affirming their positions as in the Democrat debate.

[Critic’s Name Withheld] – I know you can’t possibly understand this… but it is a question of simple fairness and fair play.

YOU think the news operations of NYT CNN MSNBC NBC ABC etc, etc are NOT tainted in their reporting with a liberal perspective.   The CNN/YouTube debate put the truth to that lie in your head.  But you are too myopic to see it.

Do you really think the Stonewall Democrats would allow a person on the steering committee of Mitt Romney to stay affiliated with their DEMOCRAT political organization?

If you do, you are not only clueless, myopic, partisan and ignorant…. you are insane and a danger to yourself.

Dan is welcome to add his response…. I didn’t feel it was appropriate for me to post it.

One editorial side note on my part…. is Kerr’s conduct of withholding information, being a plant, and supporting Clinton & Kerry while being a member of Log Cabin (Republicans) consistent with the ethics & values he learned in the US military?  Or did coming out as a gay man somehow trash all of that teaching about respect, honor and dignity?

Finally, GP Community Terms of Conduct are null and void when emails are sent to me directly…. in this particular case by an individual I’ve repeatedly asked to stop emailing me.   Just so ya know.

-Bruce (GayPatriot) 

When i was speaking with a friend who reads this blog, he wondered about the date/time-stamp on our posts. When he said it appeared that our posts had been published in the near future, I realized that we had not reset our blog “clock” with Daylight Savings Time, so instead of having a time stamp on Eastern Time (as we normally do), our posts were given a stamp an hour earlier. I have since corrected that. Apologies for any confusion that caused.

I expect to have more to say on the gay angle of the latest example of biased coverage at CNN. It almost makes me wish I had tuned into last night’s debate instead of watching Rain Man. (I was eager to see flick, roughly a quarter of which takes place in my home town).

Suffice is to say that while impressed (yet again) by Dustin Hoffman’s Oscar-winning performance, I pretty much found the movie disappointing. While well made, it seemed quite dated, not as powerful last night as it had been when first I saw it, now nearly two decades ago.

But, today the big issue is the blogosphere is not how well quality movies hold up over time, but the aforementioned bias at CNN. First, we learn that an openly gay veteran whom CNN invited to the debate to ask a question served on Mrs. “Clinton’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender steering committee.” She isn’t the only Democrat this man supported. “He was also active in John F. Kerry’s 2004 campaign for president.“

To be sure, this man raised an important issue, asking about gays in the military, but it compromises the intended purpose of this Republican forum to invite voter who has already made up his mind in this election by choosing to support a candidate the opposing party.

And it’s not just this Clinton supporter. It seems that with each passing hour today, we learn that yet another person questioning the Republican candidates last night was affiliated with the campaign of a Democratic contender — or else had worked for a Democratic politician.

As I noted in the updates to Bruce’s initial post, we have since learned that one questioner works for Democratic Senate Whip Dick Durbin while another works for Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson. Later, it came out that another backed John Edwards while yet another had worked for Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman.

Calling CNN the “Last Name in News,” John Podhoretz notes how CNN’s bias n particularly pernicious in staging this forum for Republican candidates:

This sort of liberal media bias would have been far less of an issue if we were talking about a debate between the Democratic and Republican nominees for president, because in those circumstances both candidates are seeking to govern all Americans, even those who don’t vote for them. But in a Republican primary debate, when it is GOP members who are trying to determine which candidate should best represent their party, an overwhelmingly Democratic institution like CNN needs to be specially conscious of the way its biases might play into question selection.

No wonder Hugh Hewitt has called CNN The Most Busted Names In News”.

If CNN wishes to live up to its self-description as “the Most Trusted Name in News,” it needs to fire all those who chose the questions (and hence vetted those asking them) for last night’s debate. Only employees who can show that they favored a more thorough vetting process than that used should be allowed to keep their jobs.

While those on the left delight in portraying Fox as a biased network, CNN’s inclusion of a number of questioners who have supported Democratic candidates (without so identifying them) in last night’s Republican debate shows that supposedly impartial news source as being far more off-center than its supposedly conservative rival (news network). This is yet another piece of evidence that CNN leans far more to the left than Fox does to the right.

If CNN wishes to live up its mantra, heads should roll at the network.

UPDATE: CNN defends its vetting of the questions (Via Dan Riehl via Instapundit). I might be more sympathetic to this defense if CNN had indicated the questioners’ affiliation with or suport of other presidential candidates. But, the main thing is that it shows the similarity of the world view between those vetting the questions and supporters of Democratic presidential candidates. Given that this was a forum for Republican candidates, it would be nice if CNN could have identified good questions from individuals who back Republican candidates or support conservative causes.

They don’t seem familiar with issues on the mind of Republican voters. And this, after all, is a contest for who will be the party’s standard-bearer in next year’s presidential election.

And this coupled with past examples of CNN bias helps confirm the conservative charge of network bias.

UP-UPDATE: Given some of the comments critics made in the comments and which I received in at least one e-mail, I thought I’d offer excerpts form posts of other bloggers who have thoughts similar to my own — and expressed them better than I did. Given the length of this post, I have placed them beneath the jump, so just click here on the more to read on. (more…)

Poll: Mitt Romney Is Candidate Most Voters Want To Get Into Bar Fight With

Hmm… I’m thinking that offering voters the opportunity to mess up Edwards’ perfectly-coiffed hair might help to raise his standing the polls.

– John (Average Gay Joe)

SAY WHAT?!?

Following the debate, CNN learned that retired brigadier general Keith Kerr served on Clinton’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender steering committee.

CNN Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate, David Bohrman, says, “We regret this incident. CNN would not have used the General’s question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate.”

Prior to the debate, CNN had verified his military background and that he had not contributed any money to any presidential candidate.

Following the debate, Kerr told CNN that he’s done no work for the Clinton campaign. He says he is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and was representing no one other than himself.

Okay… now things are getting interesting for me on this story. How can say you have “done no work” for the Clinton campaign when this press release announces your involvement? What exactly is Gen. Kerr’s definition of “work”, I wonder?

But the real outrage to me is that there is a Log Cabin Republicans member working on a Clinton campaign gay and lesbian steering committee! Are you effing kidding me?

Hey folks… this is supposed to be a GAY REPUBLICAN organization. There are enough gay Democrat organizations to open up a store and sell them off the shelves, for crying out loud.

Patrick Sammon…. you have some explaining to do.

[Related Story:  Digging out more CNN/YouTube plants - Michelle Malkin]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): I expect to have more to say about this later. Kudos to Bruce for covering this.

Let’s hope (for Log Cabin’s sake) that this guy who claims to be a member of the organization is pulling a Clinton not telling the truth. It would, however, not surprise me if he were, given that when I was last at a Log Cabin meeting, several members suggested they might voe for Ms. Hillary if certain Republicans won the nomination.

As to CNN, well, once again, no wonder that some believe that the network’s acronym stands for “Clinton News Network” as I noted in this post.

UP-UPDATE (also from GPW): This looks to be developing into quite an embarrassment for CNN. Non-partisan web-sites have picked this up, with the Politico headlining its piece: ‘Gay question’ general linked to Clinton. Not good for Mrs. Clinton, even worse for her family’s eponymous “news” network.

UP-UP-UPDATE (also from GPW): Hugh Hewitt calls CNN: The Most Busted Names In News.

UP-UP-UP-UPDATE (also from GPW): With each passing hour, bloggers discover more Democratic plants at last night’s debate. Scott of Powerline notes that one questioner works for Democratic Senate Whip Dick Durbin while another works for Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson.

UP-UP-UP-UP-UPDATE (also from GPW): Finding yet another Democratic “plant,” blogger Jason Coleman asks: “Exit question for CNN (although I’ll never get an answer): Did you endeavor to select ANY questions from real Republicans other than Grover’s?” (Via Michelle Malkin).

And the left accuses Fox of being biased. Well, as I said when the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Convention in San Diego, CNN is far more biased to the left than is Fox to the right. The way the network conducted this debate proves my point.

UPDATE (JohnAGJ): I like how Hot Air summed this up:

Just identify the guy, CNN. His question’s perfectly fair. And, apropos of nothing, Hunter’s answer is awful.

There were two questions (well, at least) asked to the Republican candidates last night that are of particular interest to the GayPatriot community.

First, a question about gays in the military.

The answers were disappointing. Especially, in my view, from John McCain. Alex and Jarrod have a lot of work to do!

Unfortunately, the entire topic itself may be overshadowed: For the second time in the YouTube debates, a Clinton campaign staffer/volunteer was planted and CNN allowed the question.

Second, here’s a question to Governor Mike Huckabee about his willingness to accept support from Log Cabin Republicans.

PatriotPartner and I part ways on our potential support for Huck (I like him and would vote for him), but the Governor gave a very thoughtful and respectful answer. I think a President Huckabee would be an open participant to having substantive discussions with the gay community — if he were given the same respect by the gay community, of course.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Apparently, the forest that grows Presidential timber has been thinned faster than a fashion model with a box of laxatives.

For the Democrats, the ever inclusive rainbow assortment of candidates consists of a woman, an African-American, an Hispanic, a trial lawyer whose wife is battling cancer; two senators closer to diapers than the nomination, and a wanna-be UFO abductee who doesn’t so much need a coherent platform, as platform shoes.

Sure, it looks like diversity – in everything but issues. Could the average voter really read a nameless position paper on health care or the economy and know which campaign it came from? Does the average American voter really know the minute differences between Edwards and Obama on immigration? How about Clinton versus Obama on Health Care? That’s like asking the typical moviegoer to explain the differences between ‘Rendition’ and ‘Redacted’; one’s worse than the other, but who the hell would waste $10 bucks and two hours to sit thru it?

It’s not much better on the Republican side: You might have trouble seeing the forest for the trees – they’re pretty much identical, too. They’re all white men of faith – although, what they’re faithful to remains an open question:

Rudy’s a Cafeteria Catholic that is squishy on social issues and has a track record on marriage like Mickey Rooney. He’s the ‘café-a-gym-a-torium’ of candidates – he’ll pretty much twist himself into whatever space is needed.

Mitt’s a little more militant on social / fiscal policy, but he appears to have become a believer for only slightly longer than one of Rudy’s marriages. He’s also a Mormon, which the left views as ‘cult-ish’ and the right views it as ‘kook-ish’. His positions are ‘evolving’ but most American’s are uncomfortable with anyone who views caffeine as ‘sinful’.

Fred Thompson has solid conservative credentials, but he appears exhausted just getting on the campaign trail to extol them. Perhaps ‘working’ in Hollywood did him in: rumor has it his campaign has the best craft services tables available anywhere – it’s like a buffet on steroids - but the star of the Thompson campaign just might be a diva in disguise. Too much drama, even for a reality-addicted nation.

As for Senator McCain; he’s got the guts and the balls – but not the patience or the temperament. Apparently, he’s replaced Bob Dole has America’s favorite cranky old man. And the right will never get over McCain’s attempt to move our southern border to northern Guatemala.

As for Ron Paul: anyone who can organize anarchists and turn anti-war pacifists into anti-military militants has more than one trick up his sleeve. He’s replaced Pat Buchanan as the ideal isolationist; he’d dump the UN, close the IRS and dissolve the Federal Reserve. He’ll probably bring frock coats and top hats back into style, too.

All in all, a rather dull and drifting bunch of presidential cordwood, if you ask me. I’d much prefer a candidate I agree with on 50% of the issues, but respected 100% of the time. Someone like Harry Truman: a decent man, a faithful husband, and a caring father. He wasn’t afraid of anything - except his mother in law.

Cheers!

Vera Charles…. sipping a White Cosmo

Earlier this month when I wrote about Logo’s logo’s first ever half-hour gay newscast,” I wondered if it would “cover important gay issues which the rest of the gay media has been largely ignoring, notably the increasing persecution of gay people in such Islamofascist regimes as Iran.” Well, when a friend of mine e-mailed me a link to recent program, I found that the program was doing just that, reporting on the plight of gays in Iran and alerting viewers to a longer program on that topic.

Kudos to Jason Bellini and the staff at Logo for covering a story that all too many gay leaders and organizations have been ignoring (or to which they have been giving short shrift).

Hopefully, this reporting will make more people aware of the dire situation of gays and lesbians in such nations. And as more attention is drawn to their plight, we may find a means to act on their behalf.

All that said, this is a good sign that the producers of Logo’s newscast are more interested in covering gay issues than in parroting a leftist agenda. This may truly become a non-partisan source for gay news.

Just read an e-mail from a reader linking me to a piece an e-mail David Horowitz received and posted from a gay reader. In that missive, M offers a view on Andrew Sullivan’s shift to the left near identical to my own, that he did so for social reasons. That one-time conservative had grown tired of being ostracized in the gay community for his political views so he adopted the views of the gay “political milieu” “in order to maintain both friends and sex partners,” commenting:

I know this sounds crude, simplistic, and mean-spirited, but frankly it is the only plausible explanation I can think of. I made the decision long ago to wear the scorn of such people as a badge of honor. I was virtually excommunicated from the gay “community” years ago for my conservative political views, and have been quite content to associate with my fellow thinkers, regardless of their sexual orientation. Needless to say, VERY few of them are gay.

Sounds like this guy has experienced something similar to what a number of our readers (and even yours truly) has experienced.

I wonder if he reads this blog.

If you’re planning to vote in Virginia’s February Republican presidential primary, be prepared to sign an oath swearing your Republican loyalty.

The State Board of Elections on Monday approved a state Republican Party request to require all who apply for a GOP primary ballot first vow in writing that they’ll vote for the party’s presidential nominee next fall.

There’s no practical way to enforce the oath. (AP/WAVY-TV)

This is a good example of what I meant when I said the Virginia GOP has been taken over by extremists and is out of control. The national party can’t hold a candle to the boneheads in the Commonwealth. It becomes really difficult to make people aware of why Democrat ideology is flawed when Republican idiots are flapping their arms and making fools of themselves. Get ready for the open Senate seat from the Old Dominion to cross the aisle…

– John (Average Gay Joe)

RESPONSE (from Dan): I hope to have something to say about this at a later date, but got carried away with the blog news of the day and other obligations. Suffice it to say, this goes to some of the problems I have witnessed in the Virginia GOP, problems which plagued the party in the 1980s which were by and large corrected in the 1990s, but started returning sometime in this decade. When the party learns the lessons of the ’80s and focuses on unifying conservative ideas as it did in the 1990s, it wins. But, lately, we’ve seen the party fail to present an optimistic agenda. I even read that two of the leading Republicans in the state, the Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General went around the state in the most recent election, reminding Virginians what the party did in the 1990s when it dominated state politics instead of focusing on what it planned to do in the current decade. More on this anon (I hope).

UPDATE: Reaction to this news is coming in and it ain’t pretty. Democrats are obviously making sport of this, as I would in their place, but they aren’t alone.

NRO The Corner:

That’s amazing. Politicians make and break promises all the time—but apparently they want voters to make a promise and keep it. Hey Virginia GOP: Didn’t you pledge to phase out the car tax completely, oh, say, ten years ago?

Hot Air:

Stupid not only for its unenforceability but for the assumption that it will actually deter Democrats so driven by partisan fervor that they’d vote in the Republican primary to sabotage the strongest candidate…

Leslie Carbone:

There’s no way to enforce the oath, but that’s no comfort to people (like me) who keep our vows. If this ruling stands, I won’t be able to vote in the Virginia Republican primary. Read my lips: I don’t make vows I don’t keep.

UPDATE: It appears that the conservative publication The American Spectator isn’t please by this either.

What is pretty clear is that the SBE is going to lose the inevitable lawsuit on this matter, and it should. This oath is an unconstitutional infringement on any GOP voter’s right to vote given that it extracts a promise to vote in the general election for candidates unknown and unknowable as of the primary election day. Even if the oath is construed to require simply “loyalty,” rather than an actual vote, it is an affront to private thought and conscience…

This loyalty oath also contradicts Republican principles. It robs the political process of any incentive or competition to nominate the best available candidate acceptable to the widest of Reaganite coalitions. It stipulates an outcome rather than trusting to the wisdom or judgment of individual party members. It gives the party a free pass on producing quality candidates for the voters’ consideration.

Gang Rape Victim Sentenced to Whipping in Saudi Arabia - Scotsman.com

SAUDI Arabia yesterday defended a court’s decision to sentence a woman who was gang-raped to 200 lashes.

The 19-year-old Shiite woman and an unrelated male companion were abducted and raped by seven men in 2006.

Ruling according to Saudi Arabia’s strict reading of Islamic law, a court originally sentenced the woman to 90 lashes and the rapists to jail terms of between ten months and five years. It blamed the woman for being alone with an unrelated man.

Sudan Charges British Teacher With Insulting Religion - FOX News.com

Sudan on Wednesday charged a British teacher with insulting religion and inciting hatred, a crime punishable by up to 40 lashes, six months in prison or a fine, after she named a class teddy bear “Muhammad.”

The charges come a day after a 7-year-old Sudanese boy said Gilliam Gibbons, 54, asked him as part of a school assignment what he wanted to call the stuffed animal and he said, ‘Muhammad,’ after his name.

A spokeswoman for the National Organization for Women said the situation “is definintely on the radar, and N.O.W. is not ignoring it.

But she added that the U.S.-based organization is “not putting out a statement or taking a position.”

The National Organization for Women will “not take a position” on the flogging of the British teacher in Sudan. NOT TAKE A POSITION?!? Does this mean they think there is some element of justice for Ms. Gibbons??

But folks, it isn’t only the deafening silence and indifference of the National Organization for Women.

Where is the Human Rights Campaign on these crimes against women? They were all over the Jena 6 case…. and never hesitate to take up an abortion fight. Or criticize a Christian leader at the drop of a hat. But they have consistently and deliberately ignored the threat to gays and women by Islamic terror around the world.

Nope, no statement from the Hypocrite Rights Campaign on these latest atrocities. Just good old “holiday shopping” for gay rights.

And where is Hillary Clinton? Michelle Obama? Barbara Boxer? Sheila Jackson-Lee? Barbara Streisand? Rosie O’Donnell? Do they not care about women of Arab descent being persecuted? Do they only care about leftist American women who can’t have abortions on demand?

Are they completely dumb, deaf and mute to the FACT that millions of women are oppressed under Sharia law around the world — yet they criticize their own nation, its President and its military that proactively LIBERATED 60 million women from oppressive regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq? Incredible.

These women and organizations are not in favor of womyn’s rights… they are in favor of their own political power and wealth.

Pathetic.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Commenting and Trackbacks: (courtesy of OutsideTheBeltway)

Commenting and trackback/pingback capability is provided to encourage thoughtful discussion of the ideas posted on this site. We welcome open debate and viewpoints that differ from those of the post authors. That said, we wish to keep the conversation civil and the following policies, subject to change without notice, apply:

• Remember that the people under discussion are human beings. Comments that contain personal attacks about the post author or other commenters will be deleted. Repeated violators will be banned. Challenge the ideas of those with whom you disagree, not their patriotism, decency, or integrity.
• The use of profanity stronger than that normally permitted on network television is prohibited.  A substantial number of people read this site from an office or in a family environment.

Each individual author is responsible for monitoring the comments to their posts, and ultimately determines which comments merit deletion.  Each individual commenter is also responsible for maintaining the civil discourse at GayPatriot.

Since the approval and moderation system is automated, it is possible that your e-mail address or domain will be placed on system maintained whitelists or blacklists. If for some reason you find yourself unable to comment due the anti-spam software please notify the editor and we’ll investigate.

Well, well, well.

Take that Ahmadinejad!  Bush and Maliki just played a long-term checkmate on your ass.

The United States and Iraq have spelled out basic principles for a future bilateral relationship as a first step to normalizing ties between Washington and Baghdad. VOA’s Michael Bowman reports from Washington, the declaration, issued Monday, envisions a long term U.S. security commitment in Iraq after a United Nations mandate for multinational troops expires.

The White House says President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed the declaration during a teleconference. An adviser to President Bush on the war in Iraq, Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, says the document reflects the two leaders’ common belief that a long term relationship is in both nations’ interests.

The declaration sets forth a U.S. commitment to support Iraq’s democratic institutions, to promote its economic and financial well-being, and to support its security forces. Specifically, the United States remains committed to training and equipping Iraq’s police and military, to combat terrorism, and to help safeguard Iraq from foreign threats to its territory.

It appears the Iraq=Germany are the more apt analogy than the old, tired, John Kerry, MSM version of Iraq=Vietnam.

-Bruce (GayPatriot) 

One of the most difficult things about reviewing a friend’s book is not merely the challenge of writing objectively about it, but avoiding looking for your friend in the characters he creates. And given Sean Froyd’s love of beer, I assumed he had based Rolig the Dwarf on himself. Early in Inanis the Hooded, that diminutive figure loses his cool when discovering that the beer in his tankard has suddenly (and inexplicably) turned sour.

I would expect a similar reaction from Sean if a tankard of his beloved beverage did not meet his exacting expectations.

While I enjoyed Sean’s book, it was clear this was his first effort at a sustained narrative. The prose at times was clunky with a few sentences which fell flat while others seemed contrived. But, despite the occasional awkward language, the book did on the whole read well. More importantly, the story was richly imagined. Sean succeeded in creating an interesting fantasy realm with an engaging quest.

The very beginning reminded me of Michael Crichton’s debut novel, The Andromeda Strain (the inspiration for the eponymous 1971 movie) when an old man finds a baby alive after the plague has ravaged a town. In Crichton’s book, an old man a a baby are a town&#