The books you do [and don’t] see in bookshops

It is the first time in years I have seen a book of mine on a bookstore shelf, and a mere $39.95 as well. Has only happened twice before but incredible to see. I imagine it may have been because the title is so ambiguous – Art of the Impossible – so that it might have been anti-Trump as was every other political tract sharing the shelf. You can also buy the book from The Book Depository for A$29.21 and with worldwide free delivery. In my view, the farther we move from the election, the better the book becomes. It puts everything in context and helps you remember the might have beens, every one of which is a horror story we are not being made to endure. No book a decade from now will be able to make you understand the 2016 election the way this book does.

What has also amazed me is that even with all the interest in PDT across the world, I have never ever seen one of his own books anywhere for sale, other than in op-shops, where I am the only one to buy them at $3 a copy. In particular, why does no one sell or buy his Art of the Deal which has always been plain sailing to get through and would teach you something about the man who is president you cannot otherwise find out.

FROM THE COMMENTS: And quite unpleasant as well.

It is good to see the author is modest enough to try and wrap some sort of narrative around his ham fisted attempt to create interest in his book

So let me introduce another concept that may be foreign to some people, that it is almost a certainty that most people who write books do so in the hope that others will read them. And I will add this as well – for the author who goes to the trouble of writing these books, it is usually not to make money but just to be part of a conversation. One of the lessons, let me also add, that comes from frequenting secondhand bookshops is that you get a true understanding of how all is vanity. Every book you see – unsaleable at 50 cents – would have taken its author at least a year, and often much much more, from conception to publication. And there they now are, mouldering away, as are most of their authors. That said, every book was also something someone had once wished to do and had taken genuine effort to bring to completion. You should therefore not be resentful if an author suggests that you might read his book. In this one instance, and there are few others in life, you may be sure they are really trying to do you a good turn whatever you may think yourself.

Australian energy policy [!] viewed from Canada

From the great Canadian blog Small Dead Animals: Y2Kyoto: Blunder Down Under

Let’s take a visit to clean, green Australia where they gave up coal

In Australia, peak summer is about to hit in a post-Hazelwood-electricity-grid. There’s a suite of committee reports as summer ramps up. Everyday there’s another Grid story in the press, and a major effort going on to avoid a meltdown. Minister Josh Frydenberg announced today that “we’ve done everything possible to prevent mass blackouts”. Or as he calls it, a repeat of the South Australian Horror Show. Politicians are so afraid of another SA-style-system-black that they are throwing money: The “Snowy Hydro Battery” will be another $2 billion. Whatever. It’s other people’s money.

… to move to diesel.

Homes and businesses are so afraid of blackouts in Australia that some retailers are selling four times as many generators as normal. Mygenerator.com.au reports a 425% increase year on year. The strongest growth has been in South Australia, Victoria and western Sydney.

It’s probably nothing.

AN UPDATE ON THE LATEST EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING: From Drudge today:

Help solve a mystery

As anyone who has read my views over the years would know, Malcolm has never been my cup of tea, but when it came to the election last year, I was all in for the Libs. After the by-election yesterday, he will now lead the Libs into the next election and I am good with that. Surround even a very faulty Prime Minister with the right sort of party and things can work out. In politics, you pick the side you prefer and hope for the best. Perfection in everything is not to be expected. You are lucky to get a 51-49 for most of what is up for grabs, and often enough you are choosing 40-60 in preference to 30-70.

But this time I am coming back to a question I raised yesterday in an oblique sort of way. This is what I ask for an answer to. I know there are #NeverTrumpers and #AntiTrumpers out there but what exactly could they have expected to have occurred instead had Hillary or someone else been elected? To me it remains a mystery. What were they looking for and why is Donald Trump not at least about as good as one could have hoped for in an American president at the present time, with the political and media ebbs and flows being what they are?

ONE OF THE ANSWER FROM THE COMMENTS: This was from Peter which is how I look at things but not how everyone does.

“What were they looking for……….”

To be honest I am sure they do not know themselves. The Left has become seriously detached from reality. Reality is not a part of their design or to out it another way reality is not a part of their personal reality. They are into symbolism, rhetoric, political correctness, ideology and narratives. They wanted Hillary to be President for much the same reason they wanted Obama. He was a black man and that was enough. Therefore he could do no wrong even though clearly he was one of the worst Presidents ever and she is a woman and a symbol and therefore could do no wrong even if she turned out (as I am sure she would) to have been the most corrupt President ever.

Trump on the other hand was old, male and white. That is all they needed to know about him and was enough to condemn him in this time of insanity and hatred of western civilization. One small example. Hillary and Obama set the middle east on fire. Then they fiddled while it burned. Trump came to power, and in his first year in office was responsible for wiping out ISIS. The Left must hate that as nothing better personifies the failure of their ideologies and the hopelessness of Obama and Clinton.

My sentiments almost to the “t”. Truth to tell as far as I can work it out, for the left it’s tribal and all anti-this and anti-that. What they are for, other than fantasy, I am unable to tell. I cannot talk policy with such people since they never tell me the route to what they wish to achieve even when the can find the words to tell me what outcomes they seek. They just want things that are completely contrary to human nature as it has always been and ever will be.

The only thing Obama ever said I can wholeheartedly agree with

From The Australian via Andrew Bolt:

It’s one of former ambassador Kim Beazle y’s favourite White House stories: the time Tony Abbott met Barack Obama in the Oval Office.

“I was deeply worried,” Beazley told an audience gathered for a superannuation conference in Sydney yesterday. “It didn’t matter if it was social policy, or environmental policy, whatever it was, Tony Abbott had a totally different view to Barack Obama.”

Beazley diligently prepared briefing notes for the visiting PM, but Abbott wasn’t interested.

“It’s all bullshit. Don’t worry about it. I’m not going to use any of this stuff,” Beazley recalled Abbott saying.

So in they went to the Oval Office to find Obama, vice-president Joe Biden, secretary of defence Chuck Hagel, secretary of state John Kerry and national security adviser Susan Rice.

“I thought, ‘My god we are in for a belting’.”

Obama opened: “Courteous, erudite, pointed,” Beazley recalled, dreamily.

Then the president handed over to Abbott. Perhaps you might like to say something?

“Well, Mr President, I don’t actually have a list of complaints,” Beazley recalled Abbott opening. “I know most people who come to this office have a list of complaints. I’ve got nothing to complain about to you. Others come with a list of things that they want from you. We don’t want anything from you.”

Tony Abbott and Barack Obama
Tony Abbott and Barack Obama

Beazley recalled Abbott continuing: “But I want to say one thing. I think you’re about to get into a lot of trouble in the Middle East. And when you do, I want you to understand this. We are going to be with you and we are going to be with you in numbers.”

Our former ambassador still remembers a sharp intake of breath along the line of Americans.

Australia’s 28th prime minister certainly made an impact.

Beazley said for months after that encounter, it was reported back to him that whenever Obama was frustrated by his various opponents, domestic or international, he would say: “We need more Tony Abbotts.”

“Trusting the ABC was a rookie mistake”

An interesting article about the hysterics at the ABC and their fellow hysteric our interim Prime Minister: Four Corners stopped truth from ruining its ripping yarn. It’s about how nothing has come of the Royal Commission after “the ABC’s Four Corners announced to the world that the Northern Territory ‘tortured children’, and engaged in ‘barbarism’ in facilities such as Don Dale”. Here’s how the article ends.

During conversations with Four Corners, I sought and repeatedly was given assurances that the highest ethical standards were being applied. In the opinion of other news outlets, trusting the ABC was a rookie mistake. That trust was why it was given the ­extraordinary access.

Those ethical standards can be found in the ABC’s Code of Practice under the heading Impartiality and Diversity of Perspectives. I believe Four Corners failed all five guidelines.

The ABC is a federally funded public service organisation. It withheld information from a Prime Minister and based on partial information the Prime Minister made a call to spend $50m. Since that time, the ABC has declared its footage unavailable; attempted to suppress evidence before a royal commission; and, when asked, has refused to investigate itself. Even an ABC journalist referred to it as a “hatchet job”.

If the royal commission report does not deliver scalps or, worse still, fails to even recommend criminal investigations and prosecutions, it will be because the information that led to its establishment was deeply flawed and misleading.

“Deeply flawed and misleading” – given the way it operates I thought that was already the first item on the ABC’s Code of Practice in how it presents the news.

Look Malcolm just Get-up and go

It’s from The Saturday Paper so they are obviously not trying to help the Libs, but it wouldn’t be the first time they got something like that wrong. The story is titled: Turnbull sought GetUp! help before spill. Via Tim Blair who has his own take on all this: GETUP! AND GO TO HELL which you might consider worth a look. But first read this:

The request from Christopher Pyne was simple but unexpected. Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership was in trouble, and he was hoping GetUp! might help do numbers for him.

It was the last Saturday of November in 2009 and the phone call was to Simon Sheikh, then national director of the activist group.

“He complained that conservative organisations, particularly the Australian Christian Lobby, were contacting MPs to advocate support for Abbott,” Sheikh says. “He asked if I could organise for people to email or call MPs in support of Turnbull.”

Pyne had specifics in mind. He offered to provide GetUp! with a list of about 10 undecided MPs, whose votes might be swayed by a lobbying campaign. Given the events of this week, it seems particularly curious in hindsight.

Sheikh and Pyne had established a reasonable relationship, although the MP had expressed his frustration that GetUp! did not sufficiently distinguish between moderate Liberals such as himself and the party’s conservatives.

My problem is that I can barely distinguish between what Pyne thinks of as “moderate Liberals” and the ALP.

You would think they would hope we would all forget

From today’s Cut & Paste in The Oz:

We gave him a hard time in 2007? We gave him our endorsement. The Australian’s editorial, November 23, 2007:

Mr Rudd has spoken of recapturing some of the reform zeal of the Hawke and Keating years … We recognise that no change is free of risk, but we recommend a vote for Mr Rudd.

The Australian preferred Kevin ’07 to John Howard! Why would you bring it up? Have you no shame!