For those wanting to learn about the ropes of investigative journalism, this book will prove disappointing. It features interviews with so called famous investigative journos, such as John Camp - whose reportage apparently brought down evangelist Jimmy Swaggart, Sydney Schanberg (The Killing Fields) etc. This should have proved fascinating reading, but this doesn't come through. For starters, it fails to recap the stories written by these journalists. So in the feature of John Camp, it describes vaguely that he uncovered the seedy money trail to Jimmy Swaggert, but fails to convey the excitement of how he broke the news, what the stories were, and how he did it. Second, the "stories'' are in question and answer format. This would be fine, except that some questions are seriously inane. For example, "do you have researchers to help you'', and worse, "do you use computer records in researching a story'' ? For those who want to be inspired about investigative journalism, reading Woodword and Bernstein in "All the President's Men'' would offer far greater insights. On the other hand, this book, while having the potential to be gripping, has turned out to be dry and boring. It had the opportunity to mine some great journalists on their biggest scoops. All it succeeded in doing was ask questions that elicited little value added. I don't care two hoots about whether they use computers. I would expect that few who pick up this book to learn about investigative journalism would.

"Raising Hell" is a collection of interviews with notable investigative reporters. The length of these talks give these journalists plenty of space to describe how they go about their work, which can take them from Vietnam and Cambodia (Sydney Schanberg, whose story was the basis for the movie "The Killing Fields") to the Boeing beat in Seattle (Byron Acohido, who won a Pulitzer for his coverage). Also interviewed are Gerald Posner, whose book on the JFK assassination, "Case Closed," is a brilliant and readable defense of the Warren Commission; conservative advocate David Brock, author of "The Real Anita Hill"; and John Camp, whose stories about Jimmy Swaggert led to the televangelist's downfall. Journalists interested in learning more about the investigative side of their profession will find this worth reading.

Palmer, Palmer, Palmer! How's the weather in La-La Land? When I read your work I was excited because the subject seemed to be original and it was a study that somebody needed to undertake. What I read was a substandard attempt to defame Robert E. Lee at the cost of logic, any basic understanding of what happened from 1861-1865, or a grasp of the discipline of writing history. In short, this book is a farce. I'll end with a plea for someone to write a full-length and competent history of Bristoe Station.

Having read several books on Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia, and having a very high opinion of General Lee, I decided I should try and be objective by reading some books that were critical of General Lee. But I was very disappointed in Palmer's work. I was hoping to read some well researched criticism. What I got was a joke. Most of Palmer's arguments have serious flaws to them, any some don't make any sence at all. Don't waste your time with this one.

Understanding the military campaigns of the numerically weaker side is one of the more challenging issue in history. Unfortunately, Mr Palmer displays a thorough lack of historical perspective in this very weak presentation.

Palmer's protrait of Robert E Lee as lacking all the necessary mental capacities when it comes to undertaking offensive warfare is completely devoid of historical understanding of the campaigns involving generals such as Hannibal, Caesar, Frederick the Great, Napoleon and many others who commanded numerically inferior armies. And of course, Palmer offers absolutely no supporting evidence to prop up his claims because in this book the outcome of the campaign is proof enough.

I agree with another reviewer here that this piece is very agenda-driven, simply because of the thin presentation, no supporting evidence, which could only come from a lack of understanding of the campaigns involving the Great Captains.

When I brought this book, I expect to read about the modern pro and con of actions of Robert E. Lee. Instead, what I got was a superifical biography on Lee and some summary judgement of his actions based on the author's say so. So where is that debate of Lee's critics?? Many people like to dismissed Lee's critics as revisionists but they got it backward. While Lee was alive, he was soundly critized in many circles by veterans of Confederacy and by his foes. It was only after Lee's death did this mythology of Lee's greatness took on a godly scale as the reconstruction period was ending. This period of Lee's mythology is the true period of revisionism which did not really end until Thomas Connelly came out with the Marble Man which brought Lee back to Earth and where author critized without merit. This book lack any depth and appears to be pretty shallow work. If the author wanted to back up Lee, do with so with evidence and logic. Just saying so don't mean much. This book will probably go back to the used book store soon......

Taylor's book is a satisfactory survey of Lee's life. Unfortunately, that is not how the book is billed. Taylor purports to answer Lee's critics. I'm squarely in his camp; I find much of the criticism of Lee to be scholarly opportunism: an attempt to make a name through iconoclasm. Taylor is right when he notes that the attempt to puncture the Lee myth went too far, but he fails to convincingly demonstrate why. He brings up specific criticisms infrequently, inadequately lays out the critic's argument, and often dismisses the criticism without having made a convincing case of his own. His arguments concerning Lee's attitudes toward slavery are never fully convincing, for example. This is particularly distressing when one can see that, in most cases, the convincing counterargument is there, waiting to be made. By constructing his book in the format of a chronological narrative, Taylor lost the opportunity to level a blast at academic graverobbers. A book aimed at answering Lee's critics needs to spend a great deal more time and effort on the critics and their arguments. To Taylor's credit, he never attempts to whitewash information damaging to one of his points. He tries to be complete in his portrayal, and that alone makes this a worthwhile read.

This trivia book has over 800 questions on Confederate generals. The problem is that numerous questions are re-used throughout the book. There is also a list of the generals in the back of the book that seems far from complete. It's good points is that it's unlike your regular trivia books due to focussing on a specific area of the war, with questions that will make you want to learn more about these men.

This book contains work by many comics creators, both American and abroad. Be aware that it's only 48 pages in hardcover! It was originally published by Editions Carabas in Europe, but this particular version was released in the US by Dark Horse Comics (its first English translation). This is a collection of pin-ups and short stories all focusing on vampires. The stories are very much like what you'd find in Heavy Metal: great artwork, with plots ranging from decent to confusing. The lineup includes Bryan Talbot, Philippe Caza, Benoît Springer, David Lloyd, Mike Mignola (pin-up), Tommy Lee Edwards, Richard Marazano, Gary Gianni (pin-up), Yoann and Sfar (hilarious Batman parody), and others. The book is topped off by a great cover by Matthieu Lauffray. Basically, the book looks great but is lacking in coherent storylines and content. Still, if you're a comic art afficionado, this is a good deal.

This is a very poor quality video of Bruce Lee's Fists of Fury, and who ever is selling this is ripping you off, with the sale that this is a book.

Potential readers should know that this book isn't a scholastic history of Robert E. Lee. Like Dwyer's "Stonewall," this book is historical fiction. Furthermore, interposed within its "story," is ultra-conservative-Texan-Christian rhetoric... I'm shocked that Amazon.com doesn't state this in the book description.