Columbia Reviews

This book provides the most accurate and interesting history of the original television studio that brought the industry to life and for nearly four and a half decades brought us our favorite classic sitcoms. They defined the television industry as being the first Hollywood studio-owned company to produce television programs. It may be outdated, but it is an excellent look at this ancient television studio!

I received this book as a gift and at the time, little did I know that it would save a life--that of my 49-year-old sister who was recently diagnosed with advanced breast cancer.

We read through the book together and followed Dr.Rose's steps and guidelines about why you should seek a Second Opinion. The doctors my sister saw when she was first diagnosed were not experienced in breast cancer. The Second Opinion book gave us the correct advice about what to ask a doctor, such as how many prccedures he/she performed or cases he's/she's handled of a certain type. The most practice advice it gives is: If you don't feel comfortable with the answer you're getting from the first doctor you've seen, definitely get that second opinion!

Needless to say, she sought a Second Opinion at a nearby major medical center that has an entire division exclusively devoted to breast cancer. The doctors here have given her more hope for a longer term survival and even re-evaluated her from a Stage 4 cancer to a Stage 3 cancer, based on their vast knowledge and better experience with this disease.

The advice provided in Second Opinion is accurate, practical, and right on the mark! Anyone considering surgery, whether it's gall bladder or a heart transplant, should would definiately benefit from reading this book and following Dr. Rose's advice. Both my sister and I feel so much more empowered after having read it. And you know what they say: "Knowledge is Power!"

The Second Opinion book also details some of the things she might expect when she has her breast surgery, which makes the whole thing seem a lot less scary.

I don't want to think what the outcome would have been had I not been given this book and shared it with my sister. This is a definit "must read" for anyone who is not getting the medical treatment they feel they should be getting. It's also significant that a doctor is the author and he's the one who's saying: Not all doctors' diagnoses are accurate. Don't take it at face value. Get a Second Opinion.

Enough Said!

Hace que uno revalue lo que tiene o lo que no tiene en la vida. Lo que uno piensa que es grabe y lo peor, para otros en diferentes situaciones es solo un juego, o una vanalidad. El libro es muy real, es como estar ahi, viendo todo, sintiendo cosas similares.

Esa nina es una berraca!

Professor Lucas has written a well researched analysis of the burning of Columbia, South
Carolina by the Federal army. There were strategic military reasons for Sherman's march
through central South Carolina. Columbia "was an important war manufacturing
center--one of the few still in Confederate hands--providing munitions, equipment, and
uniforms....central South Carolina contained the last Confederate sources of food
untouched by war." Governor Magrath pointed out to Jefferson Davis that the borders of
South Carolina were Richmond's second line of defense which was confirmed when
Richmond fell less than two months after Columbia surrendered.

The author outlines the wartime conditions in Columbia noting that both the civilian and
military authorities were tardy in realizing the obvious danger to the city and even slower
to act. Finally the author writes "The missing ingredient with the Confederate camp....was
a belief in the possibility of success. The defeatism of Beauregard's leadership was
abundantly clear...."

Chapter 2 gives a succinct account of the evacuation of Columbia noting that inspite of
the desperate condition of the Confederate armies, the large arsenals and war supplies in
Columbia were not evacuated. The cotton in storage was moved into the streets with
orders for it to be burned which contributed to the later fires. Columbia Mayor Goodwyn
surrendered the city while scores of bewildered Columbians, in an ill-conceived attempt to
placate a dreaded conqueror, began distributing alcoholic beverages to the soldiers. This
precipitated an insurmountable problem.

A balanced account of the burning of Columbia is given. The most damaging fire began
about eight p.m.on February 17th, was of inexplicable origin and was not extinguished for
six or seven hours when the wind abated. With drunken men roaming the streets, rioting
and acts of personal violence were bound to occur. Confusion reigned and most control
over the city was lost . The extent of the damage following the fire is reviewed. About
one-third of Columbia was destroyed with the business community virtually wiped out and
265 residences burned.

Regarding who burned Columbia, the conclusions were (and still are) along partisan lines.
South Carolinians charged Sherman as "morally responsible for the burning of Columbia".
Union officers and troops felt that while the events in Columbia were regrettable they
were the results of acts of war. Sherman entered South Carolina to disrupt the state's
transportation system and bring an end to the war by destroying Southern morale.
However, Professor Lucas notes "The failure of Sherman's psychological warfare, a new
kind of war which Southern civilians did not understand, was that the hatred generated
during the invasion did not terminate with the war's end."

The post war criticisms of and charges against Sherman and the Union army are reviewed.
The author notes that the Confederates as they evacuated the city began the looting and
plundering then the entering Federal troops seized what was left. The unanswered
question of incendiarism, the most disputed issue, is complicated by a lack of reliable
eyewitness accounts.
In summary, Sherman failed to take timely and sufficient action to control both the fires
and the riots. However, the author notes that the failure of Confederate leadership in the
defense of South Carolina and the evacuation of the city played a major role in creating a
situation which resulted in the destruction of the city. In addition no preparations were
made by Beauregard, Hampton or the city fathers for the official surrender of the city
when a formal declaration of Columbia as an open city may have produced positive
results.

In conclusion, Professor Lucas writes that the burning of Columbia was a great tragedy
for South Carolina and the Union stating "....when the Union Army left Columbia on
February 20, 1865, it left behind bitter hatred. Many citizens had lost everything they
possessed, while others had gone through the catastrophe relatively unscathed. All,
however, suffered psychologically. They had promised to give their "all" in defense of
South Carolina and the Confederacy; it was painfully apparent that few had done so. Long
before Columbia was captured, Columbians had given up."

Mix the memories of a master shipbuilder, some family history thu three generations, a brief but surprisingly thorough look at British Columbia's past and present steel-shipbuilding industry, and top it all off with comprehensive details on every vessel built by Allied Shipbuilders Ltd, from 14' tugboats to sophisticated icebreakers that opened up Canada's North for oil production-that's what this book provides. Both authors wrote well and the book production is superb, with plenty of photos. I liked Ships of Steel" immensely!

A great, thrilling courtroom drama about a little known law - the law on slander. A very surprising twist to the story. Women liberationists will love it! Even though it was written by a man it is definately a woman's story. Should be better known and better reviewed in this country. Definately a hidden gem. I hope that a good U.S. publisher picks it up and promotes/sells it like it deserves.

Paul St. Pierre does for ranchers in British Columbia what James Herriott does for animals in Yorkshire. He has a knack for turning some of the most insignificant events of daily life into interesting stories. His characters start out as impulsive oddballs, but by the end of the story they become quite rational folks. This is one of those books that sneaks up on you. The first time I read it I thought it was entertaining, but nothing to visit again. But every once in a while one of the characters from the book pops into my mind and I dwell on the character and story for a few days. I usually re-read it every couple of years (I have a worn 1987 edition, now in retirement.)

I couldn't find a sample from your data base but I did read a rough copy from the author. The book is compeling and sometimes chilling. Has tantalizing moments

This is a large, beautifully-done publication. It is loaded with very high-quality pictures of some wonderful examples of Pacific Northwest Coast artwork, especially masks. It is done is a style similar to museum "catalogs," with each picture having information about the item pictured.

I would say that roughly 75% of the items pictured in this book are masks, with the remainder being pictures of carved bowls, woven hats, small carved figures, etc. There are a couple of pictures of a decorated shirt and some boxes.

If you're looking for books that cover Pacific Northwest Coast native artwork in more general terms, or how to do it, or about totem poles, then there are better books.

If, however, you want a high-production-values book loaded with very high-quality pictures of some outstanding examples of Pacific Northwest Coast artwork, especially masks, then this is a fabulous book and you should not hesitate to buy it.

It's been interesting, especially today, the final day of thecongressional impeachment hearings; to be able to look up thesespecific items on this book and of course, the starr report. Objective interpretation, is not as difficult as you would think, if you considered the $MONEY$ involved. Interesting as it may be to some, and equally exciting or disgusting to others, I know in my heart that no REPUBLICAN is going to walk away clean. They have been the ones to force me to lock out news channels (i.e. Fox) because I didn't appreciate my young sons watching cartoons in the afternoon, with newsbreaks busting in with "B*'s" and the like. In order to throw dirt, you must get dirty; the Republicans have wallowed in it for too long and it is obvious they are not concerned with the conduct of the OIC, our opinions, our hard earned dollars, or the supposed conservative people they represent, like me. If you don't like a dog, fine. If the dog is down, don't be seen kicking him. You look worse than that bad dog. Remember folks, someones watching.