While Mr. Alexander writes in an colorful and gripping style, and the book is an enjoyable read, the few new insights he offers are often on the based on the most frivoulous ground, or simply untrue. For example: hie posit that a naval blockade was what ultimately defeated Germany in WW I is patently false. Germany had for centuries been the 'land power' of Europe - free of any need for supply from precious colonies - while Britain was Europes 'Sea Power.' Even before Bismarck unified Germany, she was quite self-sufficient in the vital raw materials that kept her war machine alive, (albeit vulnerably dependent upon weak allied states for some of these materials,) and in no way shared Britain's vulnerabilty to naval 'strangulation'. It was no accident that the overpopulated Island had long maintained the World's most Powerful Navy, or, that Kaiser Wilhelm II's rash attempt to challenge Britains dominance of the seas was a major contributing factor in Britain's entry into the War. Yet Mr. Alexander mentions 'naval stangulation' as the principle cause of Germany's defeat in WWI, in a short footnote in a chapter detailing Britains ultimately successful campaign against the Turks in Paalestine!

Sherman is his choice for the Unions best General - he is derisive in his treatment of Grant - yet he fails to recognize that the strategy that sent Sherman plunging deep into the South and destroying her capacity to wage war was one formulated by both Grant and Sherman, or, that Johnston's smaller and much more easily outflanked army, was hardly comparable to Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, nor that Grant largely followed same strategy of outmaneuvering his outnumbered opponent, until he had forced Lee to retreat to the Gates of Richmond. Also, with John Bell Hood appointed as the Confederate Commander in the South and Johnston relieved - as Sherman assembled before Atlanta - Sherman faced a rash General that destroyed large parts of his Army in repeated, blundering assaults. One might mention Grant's foolhardy and costly assault at Cold Harbor, yet Grant learned from this mistake - and with Lee Penned within the Richmond/Petersburg defenses - he skillfully expanded his breastworks around Peterburg until the smaller Confederate force was forced to retreat, leading durectly to Union victory. Sherman - while a brilliant General - faced no such tactical genius as Lee, and took Atlanta with comparative ease...

Such is the nature of the book: Mr. Alexander makes passing points - which are enormously debatable or simply false, (i.e., Britains naval blockade of Germany as what ultimately won WW I for the Allies,) or he simply rehashes famous military campaigns. All in all a work of mediocrity.

This book takes the reader through time and history as the author describes why certain generals won, or lost their wars. In particular, the author tries to show how certain techniques or tactics used from Ancient Rome to Genghis Khan to Napoleon are still applicable today in the modern world. Indeed, when these tactics are not used, in Korean for example, the author reveals how he feels the generals have let down their men; and their country.

As a primer, this book is good. The author has a good grasp on basic tactics and very interesting facts about history. For example, when fighting armies who have elephants, the Romans had bells with them which they would shake, scarring the beasts and making them useless for the battle.

As I said, overall this book, as a basic guide, is very good. It is not for those who have a solid background in this area already. For me, though, it was very interesting. I particularlly like the earlier chapters. In my view, as the booked came closer to present times, the author's emotions and personal feelings made him less objective. This took away somewhat, from his conclusions but, overall, the book was still a fun read.

Bevin Alexander's book may redefine the meaning of "great" commander for some of its readers. A lot of readers are in the same classroom as I when it comes to military history. I grew up accepting that the generals presented to me in history class were the best because my betters said they were. Especially,when it came to the Civil War. They don't cast bronzes of incompetents, right? Maybe, maybe not, but Mr. Alexander did a convincing job explaining why some of history's spotlights are on the wrong statues. A lack of military history won't prevent anyone from reading and enjoying his book. He will set the stage for each adventure and allow the reader to be swept along by the likes of Hannibal, Lawrence of Arabia and Erwin Rommel without loosing him. These stories are real, first class, adventures and that's how Mr. Alexander's book comes across.

If ever there were a journalist who cannot be trusted (Matt Drudge aside perhaps), it is Cockburn.

Cockburn's criticism of Reagan are by and large on the mark. But Reagan has been analyzed and critiqued by far more able critics with far greater credibility. Cockburn, a supposed "radical" and a former paid shill for the PLO (who never bothered to disclose this relationship while he was supposedly an objective reporter), was a long time contributor to the Village Voice. His pieces in The Village Voice over the years were, as often as not, a vile stew composed of ersatz radical politics, bitchy attacks on fellow journalists, and the occasional actual story accompanied by relentless self-promotion. He was also not above character assassination and very selective reading of facts in order to further his agenda du jour. Although he goes after Reagan here, liberals are often Cockburn targets -- he delights in attacking them for not being pure enough for him, even as he often gives right wingers and reactionaries a free pass. (If his recent article taken from his forthcoming book about Al Gore is any example of the book, Cockburn's newest offering is another example of this.

Simply put, there are better Marxists, better writers, better cultural critics and far more able journalists. Take a pass on this book.

Cockburn is the master of the polemic. His words about Reagan, food, travel, *anything*, are worth reading.

I read this wonderful collection of super sharp essays by the 'last marxist' himself back in the late 80s. Still have the Verso paperback edition on my book shelf and have given it as gifts for one occasion or another over the years.

Whether he is writing on Reagan, Thatcher or James Bond and travel his essays can not be beat for totally and unapologetically taking class analysis in a wildly creative and laugh out loud direction. Unpedictable, untrivial and totally original.

Get it and remember why Reagan and his machine were so dispicable.

This hardcover version of The Federalist (papers) comes is a nice package so to speak. The end of the book contains both the Declartion of Indepenence and the Constitution. Unlike most other Federalist papers books which are written as paperbacks using cheap newsprint paper, this uses a higher quality and brighter paper. The nice part about this book, unlike alotof others is that it contains the dates for each paper... alot of reproductions don't have this.

After reading the book however, I became quite concerned
because I noticed immediately that the author (intentionally or unintentionally) changed many of the words in the The Federalist!! This annoys me to no end. It's extremely bad practice for purposes of history, to change words in historical documents, because those "translated" words might accidentally get passed to future generations without aknowledgement that that wasn't what the founding fathers actualy wrote. I noticed at least a dozen changed words... there are probably thousands of errors for all I know.. This is bad, bad, bad.

Heres an example from Federalist Paper #1: (pg. 3)
This book writes: "After a full experience of the insufficiency of the existing federal government, you are invited to deliberate upon a new Constitution for the United States of America..."

Every other book in existence writes: "AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America...."

Notice the subtle, yet immensely importance difference in words.
Now what gives this dumb author the right as a scholarly academian to change the words of our founding fathers. In fact, I don't even know which version is truly correct?? (I assume the majority rules, so this book comes out the loser.)

And these errors continue right through Federalist paper #1, and several others that I noticed... Maybe even all of them!

Also, the author has a nasty habit of decapitalising words which should be capitalized in historical conext. Our founding fathers, as was customary grammar at the time, capitalized many words in the middle of the sentance. I don't fully understand the details of antiquated English, however, when I buy a book on historical figures, I expect, nay, I demand, that the reproduction be produced in exactly the manner in which it was presented by our founding fathers. It can be difficult to understand antiquated English, especially some of the stuff written by James Madison, however, I'd rather do the mental translation myself.

It's a nice book, but I cannot in good conscience give this
anything above 2 stars. In fact, I think it deserves no stars.

NOTE: After researching the matter a little bit, it occurs to me that there are actually two common distinct "translations" and this book presents just one of them.... so I take back blaming the editor. I'm not sure of the origin of these modern translations... but it does seem that this version is much less popular than what is presented in other Federalist Paper repros.
I still claim that this version is error.

This is a very nice edition of the Federalist's Papers. An idea which was inaugurated by James Hamilton to help abate the opposition which was expected toward the newly written constitution.

This Modern Library edition has several features which sets it apart from other editions. First, the editor's introduction (by Robert Scigliano of Boston College) is quite informative and helpful for those who are just getting started in their study and research of American history. And yet it is detailed enough to be informative for those who have a stronger background in American Revolutionary history. Second, the appendices include The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the U.S. along with the amendments. Third, the book has a short but nice bibliography, as well as a nice and very useful index. All these features helped to set this particular edition apart from other editions that I have owned or read.

Of course, the Federalist writings are some of the key writings in American Revolutionary history. Every American should be required to read them since they were written with the intent of promoting the ratification of the constitution. These writings contain the ideas and development of the American system of government, the separation of powers, how congress is to be organized, and the positions of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. This work provides its reader with the thoughts, inspirations, and brilliance behind the American Constitution and development of American government.
I highly recommend this edition of the Federalists.

As a Scots from Scotland, born & bred on the right side of the borders, this book became within 3 weeks of publication a bestseller (number 2 in Scotland, 7 in UK) and has seen a public awareness of a new alternative to party politics in the up coming and new Scotland. For those die hard pro-Hanoverian (or Windsor as most people know them today), I am glad to say that 'your time is up'. People, in Scotland, are already campaigning for the return of their lawful Royal House in a big way. There are many things which have been said by two particular reviewers, namely all rather negative. However, HRH Prince Michael of Albany is the legal, recognised head of the Royal House of Stewart, a title which has been mentioned on his British Passports since 1986. His claim has never been denied by the authorities in Great Britain and was, in matter of fact, confirmed by the British Home Office on 24-04-91. There are contemporary archives (British State) proving that Charles Edward's progeny, Edward James Stuart of Stuarton and Albany, survived into the 19th & 20th centuries. The book is extremely well researched, drawing from european archives and explains in details what happened to the family while surviving in exile. While passionate, it is focused. The Prince's understanding of Scottish history, for one born in Belgium, is superb and his political analysis second to none. This man, when he becomes King of Scots (notice when, not if), will prove to be what Scotland has been needing all along. A representative of the people, for the people. For all who are truly interested, not merely in the past of Scotland but in her future, read this book and learn. And no matter what some rather poorly misguided individuals may tell you, think Scotland, sing Scotland and support the Royal House of Stewart.

If only this book had been available when I was a schoolboy (post war) and had been taught as our history. Scotland will gain strength from knowing that her true Prince is back to fight for her freedom. This is a Royal House believing in 'Service to the people'. A movement has now been organised around the Prince and Scottish politicians are finally taking note of what visions Prince Michael has for Scotland. I attended one of his lecture (the hall was full, people stood for lack of chairs) and it was the best evening I have had for a long time. The house of Stewart has NEVER died out. If you believe it has, you are a fool. It is alive, kicking, it is modern, relevant, politically aware and ready to make waves. It will also bring Scottish Independence quicker than we think. Scottish businesses are linking with him in an attempt to be more fully and more efficiently represented. It is a breath of fresh air which Scotland has craved for these past many years. It is the most exciting read the end of this century has had to offer. From Scotland to Scots the world over.

"The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland" by Prince Michael Stewart of Albany. Passionately written and researched by the the author, who`s passion is fueled by the fact that it is his own family and personal identity he is establishing in the face of a two century old conspiracy who`s source is one of the most powerful governments on earth.

Forgotten Monarchy is a minutely detailed reacessment of the history of Scotland and the emergence of the Royal Scottish family. We have all heard the old adage that history is written by the victors, well, here in Prince Michael`s book are told the details concealed by the English who wrote the victor`s history we were all taught in school. One of these surprising details is the revelation that the Stewart dynasty did not become extinct as the textbooks would have us believe.

Not just dry stories here, the details have modern significance and particularly relevant to a Scotland recently voting to have their own Parlament , not had since 1707.

Of major importence to the book is the detailing of Westminster`s conspiracy against the Stewarts in exile. Included are documents that prove that Bonnie Prince Charlie had prodigy, and they were recognised as such by governments and Royal families of Europe throughout the 19th century.

In places, Forgotten Monarchy reads like a mystery, it has everything you could want in a good mystery, conspiracy in high places, destruction of documents, attempted political assassinations. It all sounds unnervingly very modern but this conspiracy started in the 18th century and has continued to this day, fairly successfully I might add.

There are those who have publicly maintained that the claims of Prince Michael and his family are all fantasy, made up of whole cloth. If they have the courage to actually check out the documentation presented in this book they just might change their tune.

Finally, Forgotten Monarchy is an engaging story of a 17 year old man raised in Belgium who moved to Scotland in 1976 becau! se he felt that his destiny lay there in the land of his forebeares.

The last 22 years have been quite an experience for Michael Stewart, for most Scots as well as the rest of us in the english speaking world, had no idea the Stewart family had survived in exile.

Shortly after arriving in Scotland, young Prince Michael paid a visit to Lord Lovat, who also had no knowledge of the Stewarts in exile. When the Lord Lovat realised who this young man at his door was, he asked "What on earth are you doing here?"

The 17 year old`s reply is best told in his own words; "I could think of no better reply than to quote the well remembered words of Prince Charles Edward, and answered..........I am come home"

As a victim of the Religious Right -- I was brought up in a Nazarene church in the Midwest, and my mother kept a well-thumbed copy of Dobson's original title, 'Dare to Discipline', right next to the hardwood paddle in our pantry -- I've seen much of the Dobson-ideology that this author debunks so thoroughly up close for most of my life. Dobson's organization, Focus on the Family, is glossy, slickly packaged, and appealing though lowbrow. It also provides warm and fuzzy justification for the behaviour of sadists and bigots who probably didn't need the endorsement in the first place, but are thrilled to find a powerful protector. I don't care what Dobson does inside his church, but his not-so-subtle move into politics alarms me; I agree with Gil Alexander-Moegerle in thinking he's dangerous, and I welcomed this book as an articulate, well-organized attack on what's a frightening abuse of power by a didactic, fanatical egomaniac.

Although most of it's material appears overly saccharine if preachy, Focus on the family has a more radical and instrusive policy than any state in this nation could ever hope to dream up. Portraying himself as a demigod, Dobson then has the audacity to scold his audience for bearing false witness.

If your family does not have the exact same values system as Dr Dobson's, why of course there is a flaw (in your family no less) That such unrealistic drivel could sell in today's world is indeed scary.

Prior to reading this book, I had the opportunity to read the author's personal testimony and appology for distorting and attacking the most important aspect of American society---justice for all. Although past and present indicate otherwise, Dobson actually believes that conservative Christians have been the most oppressed and maligned group in American History. It is to Alexander Moegerle's credit that he saw the light, stopped himself, and is now reaching out to others.

Granted, there is a growing number of books dedicated to exposing the right as the single biggest threat to America, but this book is one of the standouts. Years from now, when somebody wants to study the religious reich, they will almost certainly look to this book for a wealth of information on America's favirote media empire/con artist.

No one who gave the book 1 star has read the book--that much is obvious. As for Gil being a disgrunted employee...OF COURSE HIS IS! Gil describes in detail Dobson's meddling in his personal life--specifically, his marriage troubles. Dobson violates Gil's privacy so blatently, on so many occasions, without a glimmer of respect for his VP, it's amazing Dobson didn't drive him insane.

Anyway, Dobson fired Gil (the VICE PRESIDENT of Focus on the Family) because he divorced his wife and *Dobson* was afraid of himself looking bad due to this. Does Dobson really think the Religious Right is so naive and spoonfed that if someone in his Focus on the Family organization gets divorced the Right will leave the organization or disapprove of it? (Well, maybe Dobson is right, maybe the RR really are mindless automatons of stooges like himself, Robertson, Buchanan, Bauer...)

Gil plainly sets forth the side of Dobson hardly anyone sees--a power hungry, racist, sexist, homophobic, and paranoid leader of Focus on the Family--far worse than Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, because where the CC's ludicrous fundamentalist drivel is obvious to all those with an IQ above 80, Focus on the Family is insidious. Excellent book, excellent read, excellent buy.

Here is the table of contents:

1.Moral Combat 2.Who Is This Belligerent? 3.Into the Fray 4. Accumulation of Power 5.Guerrilla Warfare 6.Streetfighter 7. Fighting Words 8.Rewriting History 9.A Peculiar People 10.As I Say, Not as I Do 11.An Unsuspected Millionaire 12.Edited, Brushed, and Spun 13.Weird Science 14.Sexism 15.Racism 16. Homophobia 17.Abuse of Power 18.Misuse of Funds 19. Physician, Heal Thyself 20.The Dobson Agenda 21.A Good Republican 22.Abortion and Extremism 23.Church and State 24.Case in Chief 25.Invasion of Privacy 26.Breach of Confidentiality 27. Wrongful Termination 28.Unrelenting Encroachment 29. Obstruction of Justice 30. Accountability Problem 31. The Road Fewer Travel 32. The Mushy Middle Index 305

How hard can it be to make a decent audio tape of one man reading the Bible? The opposite side bleeds through and they often break between sides right in the middle (or worse, just before the end) of a verse. The 2 stars is just for Scourby's voice quality.

After reading the only review available at the time, I was hesitant to order this tape, but I already had the New Testiment read by Alexander Scourby, so I felt confident that the review was due to a bad quality tape. I was very happy with the tapes when they arrived, the sound quality is excellent and I have enjoyed hearing it as I drive around. I highly recommend this set of tapes to anyone who wants to read the bible but doesn't have much time. You can listen to these tapes while you drive or do housework! Its great!!!

Behind David Lean's directorial masterpiece 'Lawrence of Arabia' (1962) lay a series of attempts to film T. E. Lawrence's life, most of them centred around the abridged version of 'Seven Pillars of Wisdom', known as 'Revolt in the Desert.' Chief amongst the filmmakers eager to produce this epic was the great Alexander Korda, who bought the rights to both books and also to several biographies that contained their material. Korda was asked by Lawrence himself not to make the film while he was alive. Five months later, Lawrence was killed in a motorbike accident and Korda began his preparations. Locations were scouted, scripts were drafted, and several actors were tested to play the lead. Walter Hudd (who had played the Lawrence-based character Private Meek in 'Too True to be Good') and Leslie Howard were the favourites, although Cary Grant and Laurence Olivier were also considered. The Foreign Office thwarted Korda at every turn, protesting that it would be ill advised to show the Turks in an unfavourable light with the ongoing political unrest in the East. After a dozen attempts to make the film, Korda let it slide. This book is tripartite: part one sketches a brief history of the attempts to film 'Lawrence of Arabia' and includes pictures of all the key players. The second part is an interview given by Leslie Howard on how he would play Lawrence; and thirdly, the final script (1938) of the Korda epic is reproduced. While it is a laudable piece of work, the book fails to hang together and emerges as two articles and a film script that are linked by the same subject, but have no cohesion. Part One is far too brief for the reader to gain an understanding of the forces arrayed against Korda and his project, and it would benefit from more research and more expansion on the views of the various directors and actors engaged for the film in its different stages. Part Two is simply the Howard interview with no editorial comment offered. Part Three, the script, also has no analysis. This is surprising, as it is rich in allusion and with peculiar sequences that (to modern eyes) detract from the overall pacing of the film. It relies heavily on 'Seven Pillars' for dialogue and description, with little or no modification. To those who are acquainted with the Robert Bolt script of the Lean film, the Korda Lawrence is but a pale shadow: eloquent passivity rather than "nothing is written" man of action; cold detachment rather than anger and angst in crucial scenes (Tafileh, the Turkish hospital); the smug imperialist rather than the tortured anti-imperialist. Korda's Lawrence was intended to be heroic, a ( ) puff-piece with a serious bite, but looking at the script today, he seems shallow, self-important and obnoxious. The real Lawrence evaded any attempt to capture him by constant shifts in personality, presenting a different face to each person he met. It would appear that the celluloid Lawrence of Korda's vision was the same; and, as such, defeated him wholly.

Where can I purschase Alexander Scourby's reading without the music. I agree with the canadian reviewer. Also, I want the Old and New Books of the KJV of the bible.
thank you!
cliff

I must admit that I was so anxious to get my hands on this trustworthy Bible translation straight from the correct Hebrew and Greek back in January. But when I listened to it, the value of this product started to fade due to marginal acting, frequent error, and distracting background music.

The Old Testament has the "voice of God" (also known as Scourby's voice manipulated via computer technology), but portions of his recording are wearing out, therefore making his 'voice' hard to percieve -- the music is too loud.

The book of Leviticus is by far the worst in the collection because you can't hear the voice half the time and the repetitive music is an intense distraction. Yet, Leviticus is one of the most important books in the Law of Moses!

During the portion in the book of Genesis when Noah's generation is spoken of, the words 'after the flood' were accidently eliminated.

To make matters worse, the New Testament is not free of error. The words 'bewrayeth' and 'betrayeth' have different meaning.

Sound effects are too repetitive.

Overall, this is a nice production, but not worth [money]. I'm gonna sell it as soon as I can for a low, budget price. If you're looking for a perfectly done King James dramatization, don't expect to find it here. I'd reccommend the original, voice-only narration from Scourby or perhaps another reader.

(I edited this review because I thought my previous one wasn't clear enough.)

BEING A RELAATIVE NEWCOME TO AUDIO BOOKS, I found this one extremely disconcertin.

There is NO usage of today's computer technolgy. I had assumed I would be able to search in many ways. Nothing like this exists.I assumed (you know the saying about the word assume!) that the CD set would have much more flexibility.

To make matters worse the titles on the CD's are in no way indicative of the contents of that CD.

On the positive side (the only reason for a 3 rating), I loved listening to the voice of Scourby.

If you are just looking for a simple audio version of the Bible this may be for you, although the price seems very high for what you get.

The reading by Alexander Scourby is quite good -- worth five stars. But if you detest added music and sound effects (as I do), avoid this product. Nothing on this site or on the outer package warned me that it was dramatized. Only after I opened the package (rendering it unreturnable) did I find that it is filled with mushy, sentimentalized sound effects added by the editors.

Where is the JOY of this momentous tome? At best it's pedestian
monotones are lethargic. I have heard recorded bibles that are dramatically uplifting and memorable. Even awarding ONE star
flatters mediocrity.