Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

You should only buy this book if you're actually hoping for a far-left opinion piece rather than a book on U.S. history. I expect some bias to seep through in a history book - we are all human beings and we all process information through our personal filters despite our best efforts at objectivity. But a historian should make an effort at objectivity. I bought the book in hopes of filling in gaps that I have in my knowledge of U.S. history but I felt so manipulated by the author's deliberate leanings when I read about incidents that were familiar that I felt I couldn't trust him on his coverage of facts that were unfamiliar. Moreover, I was very confused by events he chose to cover versus events he chose not to cover. For example, he devotes almost half a page to Muhammad Ali, but does not mention Jesse Owens at all. Ali was certainly famous and was a fantastic boxer, but I'm not sure how he affected U.S. history one way or the other. Jesse Owens on the other hand affected with his athletic abilities not only U.S. history but world history, proving to the world on Hitler's own turf that Nazi theories on race were absolute lies. He states that during WWII, the U.S. downplayed the horror of the Holocaust (which is certainly true), but never once mentions the U.S. relationship with Israel. In fact, he never mentions Israel at all. He does not mention that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan or President Carter's response to the invasion. At the end of the book, the author lists "ten inventions that changed life as we know it," and he lists things like the safety pin, the remote control, the brassiere, and post-it notes, but not inventions such as the lightbulb, the telephone, the airplane. A blatant example of the author's political bias is his coverage of Reagan's presidency. According to the author, the only people who voted for President Reagan were racists, money-grubbers and far-right Christians. He never mentions Reagan's anti-Communist stance, nor does he mention that Reagan won by two landslide elections or the unprecedented number of Democrats who voted for him. He never mentions Reagan's meeting with Gorbachev at Reykjavik, the "tear down this wall" speech, the treaties he reached with Gorbachev to reduce arms, or the fact that many credit him with winning the Cold War. Whatever you think of these events, you cannot omit them from coverage on Reagan's presidency and be considered a serious historian. (The author does however describe Gorbachev as "a remarkable man.") I am certain that the author loves history and knows a great deal about it, but his talents would be put to better use in political campaign management.