"Do you have your tree yet," Heather asked Robin. "There it was! That question. Only this time it was worse, because of what Sandy Goldstein had done." Sandy's family had put up a Christmas tree and called it a Chanukah bush.

This nub of the first pages in this 9-chapter, 48-page easy reader captures the conflicted feelings of Robin, the main Jewish character whose best friend Heather was Christian. Heather naturally wanted Robin to share the joy of Christmas. Robin wanted to share it too. But of course, being Jewish, her family did not have a Christmas tree, and she had to tell her friend, "There is no such thing as a Chanukah bush."

Things got worse in school, when Robin's teacher directed the children to construct holiday decorations and Sandy Goldstein sat next to Robin, making the ugliest paper chains she had ever seen. Then all the other children started talking about their tree decorations and Santa Claus. Robin felt so, so, left out.

At home, Robin had a conversation with her mother about different ways of being Jewish. Robin's mother finished by saying that if Sandy Goldstein's family had a Christmas tree that was their business, but she would not have one in her house. They lit Chanukah candles.

Then Robin's Grandpa entered. His union was holding a Christmas party and he wanted Robin to go. The story travels through another five chapters and 28 pages before the girls reach an understanding about one another and their holidays. And that understanding is truly magnificent.

This book shows children the respect that they can and should have for others of varied faiths. Children (and people) can be different, but nevertheless help and love one another, deeply.

And PS, this book is not just for girls. Our copy was a gift from a relative whose son loved the story too. Alyssa A. Lappen

Dear editors, I am writing re: my review of 1-25-99. There is a one-word error in the fifth line that changes the meaning entirely. It should read, ".....insight for NON Jewish adults...", not "insight for now Jewish adults." Would you kindly change this wording. As it reads now, it is misleading for your potential future customers, and embarrasing for me. (p.s. I actually AM Heather's mother. Susan Sussman wrote the book using our two daughters as the models for her characters Robin and Heather.)

As a Christian who's best friend was Jewish in elementary school (and to this very day) the two of us found this story to be such an entertainment that we joke about it to this very day, some nearly twenty years later. It helped to bridge a gap in understanding about what Hanukkah means to the faithful, and even now I fondly remember feeling so special being the one Christian invited to light the candles and "tell the story of God and His glory and how precious freedom was won." Even now, I tell people I was raised by a Jewish mother too, with much pride, and look forward to the festival of lights year after year.

Deadlock: The Inside Story of America's Closest Election is a workmanlike and emotionless recollection of the events surrounding the most controversial election of the past 100 years. It is a well organized, easy to follow and not visibly biased view of the relevant events leading up to and following the November 7 Presidential election. Seemingly accurate and double checked to a fault, reading this book left me with the impression that I had just read an excellent 275 page newspaper article and not much more. With almost no humor, lacking any sidebar comments, it is a book Joe Friday would be proud to call his own. While I am a Texan and Bush supporter, I much preferred Jake Tapper's Down & Dirty: The Plot to Steal the Presidency. I guess this means that like most people, when push comes to shove, I'd rather be entertained than informed. I do regret this intellectual weakness and like some of the votes in Florida I may change. But probably not in the next 36 days.

Two things struck me while reading this book, the first is that I doubt there is a book out there that is truly balanced and not somewhat biased. The second thing was that Gore really got the shaft, not so much by the recount wars, but by the election official that came up with the Butterfly Ballot. In the history of the USA this decision ranks up there with new Coke and the XFL, what a mistake. As far as the reporting in the book it was not bad for a review of all the articles they had in the paper, but it did not really dig into the particular issues very deeply. I wanted more detail and behind the scenes with both the candidates. I also wanted more details on the court cases; I felt like the sky-high overview of the issues of the cases did not do such an important issue justice.

In reading the book I think a little bit of a democratic bias comes out, just a little, but enough to notice. I also thought it interesting that they had far more details of the Gore group then the Bush camp, it follows the perception that the Post is somewhat liberal in its views. The book is an overview that came out almost 10 minutes after Gore hung up the phone on the second concession call so there are a few more details out now that they did not get in the book. Overall it is a good effort and a readable book, but not the end all be all on the subject.

I personally think the Washington Post and NY Times are liberal rags that are generally not worth the paper they are printed on. However, in fairness, when they do well I think they should be commended. I read the NY Times "36 Days" and still think that book was not worth the paper it was printed on. It was nothing more than a reprint of their articles.

Conversely, though, Deadlock was a well-written book. Two passages are worth noting. The first is about the book itself. About one-third of the way into the first chapter the book says: "These are the ... decisions, alliances, power plays, snap judgments and personality flaws revealed when a flukishly close election is played out for staggering high stakes. Both sides were nimble and brilliant and occasionally shady; both sides were also capable of miscalculations, divisions and blame. The best and worst of politics were on displayed in those 36 days, and both sides trafficked in each. This is how it happened." Although the Post endorsed Al Gore (no surprise) they tried to be equal in their appraisal of how the two campaigns sought resolution in their favor.

As for the two sides' strategy one only has to look within the first three pages of Chapter 2 where the Post records that the Democrats enlisted the services of three authors who wrote "The Recount Primer". The book reads: "Anyone who read and heeded the booklet could predict how the two sides would play America's closest president election -- at least in the broad outlines. Gore would gamble; Bush would stall. Gore would preach a doctrine of uncounted ballots; Bush would extol the dependability of machines. Gore needed more: more counting, more examination, more weighing and pondering of more ballots. Bush needed it over while he was still ahead." The only trouble for the Gore forces with this gospel was that the Republicans knew the same gospel. The book attempted to show how the two sides played out the roles assigned them.

For a behind the scenes objective look at the two sides, I think the Post did a very decent job. This could have been a... job on the Republicans and conservatives, but generally it was not (though I expected it). It could have been a... job on the Democrats and liberals, but it was not (nor did I expect it). I am not accustomed to this degree of fairness from the liberal Washington Post nor do I expect to see it very often in the future.

Like the Lewis & Clark Expedition, early Canadian settlers had less understanding about what they were getting into than the men who stood on the moon. Susanna Moodie's story of her life in the Canadian bush in the middle years of the nineteenth century illustrate how precarious was their circumstances, how unselfishly some shared their labor and their good fortune and how utterly selfish and even dangerous was the behaviour of others. The story illustrates again how at base, there ar two types of people, those who take and those who give. As you read her story you will be amazed how this gentlewoman, accustomed to Victorian drawing rooms, lived, even prospered a little, bore and raised children in a one room windowless and doorless log cabin in all weathers and enduring visits from wild Indians, wolves and bears. Of her totally unsuitable husband she is endlessly understanding and forgiving, yet the reader will find him or herself continually driven to giving him a swift kick in the pants for his apparent total lack of sensitivity to his wife, while at the same time being viewed as an upstanding citizen.

Moodie puts her readers into her own thoughts, allowing you to see just how difficult it was for her to survive in Canada in the 1800's. Her character and personality lends itself well to her writing, allowing you to laugh when she laughs, anger when she is angry, and cry when she cries (maybe less the crying, it wasn't THAT wrenching). I would recommend reading it along with an audio version of the book. I've never done it before, but i actually liked it! Another review stated that the book got boring, and it really can be if you are too involved and are looking for a really gripping read. So to listen and follow along at your own leisure was rather relaxing. It added to the humour of some of the chapters, particularly the "borrowing and lending" scenario! Enjoy!