If it's true that 'the winners write history', then it must be a corollary that liberals edit and selectively disseminate it. Mr. Kenneth Davis proves this by choosing in the main the worst, most unappealing aspects of American history, and then tries to fob it off on the public as 'Everything You Need to Know... etc'. His book is roughly the equivalent of a restaurant reviewer who rummages through the bins behind the top eating establishments and reports only on the garbage he finds. One would expect some semblance of accuracy from a purported history book, but such, alas, is not always the case. A couple of the serious howlers: William Randolph Hearst must have been a fast learner to have 'learned in the Civil War that war headlines sold newspapers', since he was only 2 or 3 when it ended; Richard Nixon made his 'you won't have Nixon to kick around any more' speech after losing the 1962 California governors' race, not after losing the 1960 presidential election. If Mr. Davis can be either wrong or misleading on small issues like this, why should we believe him on big ones? But it's about economics and law where Mr. Davis is especially suspect. For instance, in his panegyric on FDR, Mr. Davis never mentions a couple of inconvenient facts: there was no Constitutional basis for most of his New Deal, and most of what he tried not only didn't work, it made a bad situation worse. Want to know what really caused the Great Depression? Don't read this book, read Milton and Rose Friedman's account in their book "Free to Choose". Mr. Davis and other liberals still haven't forgiven Ronald Reagan for being both successful and wildly popular. Any objective reviewer of the US economy before and after the Reagan Administration would conclude that the 1980's benefited all strata of the American economy, not just 'the rich' as the liberals keep yammering on about. 'Objective' and Mr. Davis don't belong in the same sentence let alone book. A few other examples of the overall slant to this liberally biased account: if the only other man in the world whose power matched FDR's was Hitler, then what was Stalin, chopped liver? In disparaging the Marshall Plan which saved Europe following WWII as nothing but a capitalist plot, does Mr. Davis claim that Europe would have been better off under Stalin's heel? I can't wait for Mr. Davis next magnum opus, "Don't Know Much About Anything".