This is not really a review, more of a think piece at best.

Was the book (articles) well written, what other topics were convered, is it a worthwhile buy, etc etc

http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/

This is a dithering summation of the work of a partisan hack.

Was Darlene Taylor’s article meant to be a review of Andrew Bolt’s "still not sorry!" Seems like a gratuitous sales pitch to me. Shallow fan-club stuff.
Taylor offers no critique of the book’s main premise. She uncritically accepts Bolt’s wildest assertions (although she concedes he sometimes “makes connections that are a tad loose”). She makes silly assumptions of her own (“Fans and foes alike should get pleasure from Bolt’s revelation that he used to be a drummer in a dance band with a fondness for donning polka-dot bow ties and playing uncool tunes.”)
Her unabashed revelation that “Since moving to Melbourne last April, I’ve seen about five Indigenes so who knows what their position is in this otherwise diverse city” perhaps offers a clue to why she is a Bolt fan.
Taylor concludes naively: “Agree or disagree with him - I suspect a majority agree with some, most or all of his work - Bolt knows how to stimulate debate and a columnist who wasn’t capable of that wouldn’t be releasing a book.” Leaving aside the seat-of-the-pants mathematics, and the unproblematic notion of Bolt-style 'debate', there are many considerations that go into the decision to publish books. In some instances capability is about the least of them.
Let’s have a serious review of this book.

I have read already most of what Bolter's has had to say and apart from finding his style smarmy I have always considered that his arguements were based on pretty fuzzy logic -

For instance I liked his take on racism where in one article he declared he decided Australia was not rascist as Melbourne had Mayor of Chinese descent and we voted a young aboriginal girl as the Australian Idol!

Similarly after giving a pasting to Rabbit Proof Fence he turned on Finding Nemo ( I have said this b4, so sorry about the repetition)

There was a single throw away derogatory line about America - this slight which most probably missed gave rise to such a big ping on Bolters Anti American radar it generate several columns about how terrible this trend of American hating has become.

Bolter's seems to take the extreme views of a few - ie that Australia is a rascist nation and use rather limp arguements to attack any one who suggests that there are any rascist elements at all witihn our community at all.

He does the same thing with any one suggesting that there is anything at all wrong with the way the USA conducts itself on the world stage, for example, and like wise with John Howard - Bolters really is a " you are either with me or against me" kind of guy"

Bolter's described the world portrayeed by Australia's artists, writers and film makers as "usually racist, dull, cruel, shrunken in spirit and grim.”

Paradoxically if one were to describe Bolters in those terms a whole bunch of people would probably agree that those words sum him up quite nicely.

Sadly for us all Andrew, with his thin repertoire of pets hates and a rather fearless and outspoken style has been elevated to a position where he is asked his opinion on all manner of things - and the letters pages of the Herald Sun are full of "good on ya's" and "spot on Andrew!" - usually in response to a dull, cruel, shrunken in spirit and grim diatribe.

Any chance of Murdock offering him a job on FOX NEWS, he would be right at home with that crew,he would be like Noddy to O,Reillys Big ears.

How about Andrew Bolt as host of "Media Watch" , then it may become less of a lefty scab picking exercise and be watchable.

I like Andrew Bolt for his "fuzzy logic" it comes as no surprise to me that as an entertainer he wore a spotted bow tie, I thought all clowns did. I enjoy his appearences on the ABC's Insiders on Sunday mornings. He agues his logic, then the other two jurno's shoot him down in flames, another good time was had by all.

The reason he sees Australia as he does, is obliously he doesn't know any poor people, he must confine himself to his own kind, well off, which is why he has a dilemma between "his" reality, and what he sees portrayed.

Mickijo says, 'How about Andrew Bolt as host of "Media Watch" , then it may become less of a lefty scab picking exercise and be watchable'. What a fantastic idea! He would bring over his gigantic fan club from the right and we'd have a less un-balanced audience! My only reservation, Mickijo, is that, it being such a bastion of the scabby left, the ABC might infect Andrew with a dose of lefty scab picking ideas. Would it be advisable for Andrew to be inoculated against the pox of rationailty and clear-thinking before he comes along? Ideas are so dangerous these days! Can't be too careful, can we?

mickijo says "How about Andrew Bolt as host of "Media Watch" , then it may become less of a lefty scab picking exercise and be watchable".

don't you know, old Bolt is really left wing, not really his hard right persona.

If you don't believe me have a look at his forum which really takes the piss, and look at Feb 20, "Andrew replies: Dream on, Grant. Left means never having to say you're sorry." (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18208572%255E25717,00.html

Now have a look at the title of his new "book"

Well now I know what failed and disgruntled ex-Queenslander writers do when trying to adjust their mono-cultural sensibilities to living in cosmopolitan Melbourne. They write love letters to people like Andrew Bolt. Mind you, I can't understand why she didn't get a job at the Courier Mail writing niggly little opinion pieces about anything and everything. Bitching eloquently is what she appears to try to achieve in this trite little note to Andrew (ere would i be if it wasn't for blacks to slag off at) Bolt. yawn

Andrew Bolt, a slimy Howard loving propagandist, the type who would make you leave an otherwise good party.

In relation to my comment about the number of indigenous people in Melbourne, I was trying to make the point that perhaps things aren't so great for indigenous people in this country (city). Let's face it, they're nearly invisible down here in good old cosmopolitan Melbourne. I don't always agree with Bolt, but I think generally his views accord with the majority of Australians.

Err, by the way, I am a self-proclaimed centrist, moderate and "ordinary voter".

Thanks for your comments. I enjoyed reading them, particularly the one about my Queensland sensibilities. What can I say, I'm more Queensland than Barnaby Joyce, damn straight and round up the cattle.

Darlene

Stop now before you make more of a goose of yourself. Where do you hang out? Koories are not invisible in Melbourne. They live here in the thousands. Why don't you make an effort to speak to some of them this weekend?

Andrew Bolt,how anyone with some concern about racism and racist opinions views and comments,how anyone then can support,this man with a dutch mentality, and that is one way,and that is right,you may say to me ,mate by what you just said Dutch mentality,just a short explanation,I have lived for the best part of my years,with this type,my best friends are Dutch I have Dutch relatives,I have been in business,with Dutch people,I love them,but the fact remains,that,there is one thing they share,and that is rightwing political views and opinions,this excludes the DUTCH NATION,this is only about the dutch migrants,and Andrew Bolt is the worst offender when the subject is about racism,his views opinions and comments are all stamped one way only,do not turn left,it is dangerous,the roads are in bad condition,but the roads to the right are in a good condition,there are no signs warning you of danger ahead,so if you read his column,what do you read,all about is anti ISLAM and anti black Africa,and all the LEFT MEDIA outlets is bad for AUSTRALIA.In the year 2006 the above opinion of mine has been endorsed by many of my closest DUTCH friends and relatives.To Editor,if you think that this is a racist view,please edit or refrain from publishing.

I disagree in total with this review of Andrew Bolt's book, in my time the worst types of racists,were those that has some knowledge of BLACK people,house servants,nannies,garden "BOYS" AS they were termed,but were in fact grown men,their best friends before going to high school and then on to University were BLACK,and the end result was they became the greattest enemies of the black nation,ask me I was there,and if you want to know where that was,it was my land my country,the land of "Segregation the land of Apartheid",and now the land of the FREE.

Yes Frank, and I'm sure some of your best friends are Aboriginal and all that. I live in inner-city Melbourne and they are not hugely significant in this area. They are in other parts of Melbourne, but there are not as large a population as elsewhere. Interesting to see that someone is disagreeing with my review before the book has even come out. What amazing powers you must have. I get the feeling that some of the responses I have received probably go to prove the divide between the political class and ordinary Australians. To the person who accused me of writing a love letter or something to Mr.Bolt, that's a bit sexist isn't it, sweet?

Andrew Bolt's book has not been released yet, Darlene? Thank heaven you wrote that in your reply to that intellectually challenged critic, Frankgol. It is 6-30 AM now, and after initially reading your appraisal of Bolt's book,I was just waiting for 8-30 before I hopped in my car and went to Castle Towers to buy it.

The only time that I have read any of Bolt's work was his masterful analysis of "Rabbit Proof Fence" which clearly displayed that this movie was a propaganda movie on the same level as "The Eternal Jew", Alexander Nevsky", "Battleship Potemkin", "The Green Berets" and "Birth of a Nation." It also marked Mr Bolt as an insightful deconstructionist of trendy lefty wool pulling and other dishonest shenanigans.

I consider that your article was fair and well written, and your injection of ironic humour at appropriate moments marks you indelibly as a woman of singular intelligence.

Darlene
1. There are about 30,000 kooris in Victoria, so I guess one day you might bump into one. In the meantime in lieu of personal experience (since you confess your ignorance) you could check out some of the indicators, e.g. "Summary of Indigenous Health November 2005" at www.healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/ or police arrest rates for Indigenous Victorians at http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv4n1/mackay.htm. Or you could take in "Land Marks" an exhibiton of historical Victorian Indigenous art at the Ian Potter Centre at Fed Square. There are lots of ways you can improve your understanding if you really want to. I happen to think that talking to Indigenous people is the best way.

2. You seem to have misread my critique of your 'review'. I didn't 'disagree' with it; I used my 'amazing powrs' to say it was shallow, uncritical and apparently partisan. I agree with The Examiner's first post - it is not a review of Bolt's book in the way a 'review' is usually understood.

3. Your false dichotomy between 'the political class' (a singular entity - presumably including the 'left' and the 'right' wings?) and 'ordinary Australians' (another singular entity - would Kooris be in there, for instance?) is an absurdity. It's a simplistic dualism much over-used by those who can't be bothered to marshal evidence or to mount a reasoned argument.

Well, I don't think people need to be spoon fed in a "gee, the book is really good and you should buy a copy" kind of a way.

Given the explicit racism some people in this forum have engaged in (Dutch people are racist, are they?), I think pointing the finger about racism is a bit much.

I agree with Bolt's thesis about the division between "elites" and "ordinary Australians", but I feel I have tried to be balanced in relation to his views about, for example, femininity. Obviously when it comes to books by writers like Bolt some people won't take off their blinkers. Frank, you really are quite patronising and "redneck" you really are quite perceptive.

Another simplistic dualism from Darlene - those who agree with her are 'quite perceptive'; those who disagree are 'quite patronisng'. As I said, it saves time and thought.

The mere fact that even a review about Mr Bolt's book has engendered such spirited argument makes me think I'm going to have to buy it and have a read. ha-ha!

I used to have a strong emotional reaction against Andrew Bolt. In my youth my little bit of education was a dangerous thing.

I now find Andrew right about many things and believe him to be an asset to public debate in Australia. I'm very grateful for his courage and often lone and prophetic voice.

Paying some attention to his online forum he seems to be often kind, reasonable and highly intelligent.

The attacks he receives can be quite vicious but the response is intelligent argument. In my opinion Australia should encourage him as an invaluable bulwark against left wing totalitarian ideas.

"... partisan hack..." "... Noddy ..." "... slimy Howard-loving propagandist ..." "... goose ..."

Gotta love the Left. Can't mount a rational, dispassionate argument against someone whose views are contrary to your own? No problem. Just call them names! Works every time.

Shiny, give it a read and make up your own mind.

Yes to that last point, and what makes it worse is that these people claim to take the high moral ground

Darlene, Yes, there is a division between ordinary Australians and Jones, Laws, and most of the Murdoch rat-pack of conservative journo's that set the agenda and feed the great unwashed bile on a dialy basis.( Are they listed as elites in your 'centrist' little black book?)mmmm, I do wonder.

Love letters to andy bolt sexist? I'm sure he gets heaps of mail (male?) professing undying love and admiration from both genders.

And since when did lefties have to 'self proclaim' themselves as if were a contagious disease? Read my comment on elites again before you answer this.

Brisvegas weather is getting cooler, please come home. I promise to take you out to Inala or Woodridge so you can meet more than 5 Aborigines in one day. It'll do you the world of good.

xxxooo

Rainier.

I take slight offence at being referred to as a 'gruff revolutionary', I actually have a good sense of humour and proportion, too bad darlene didn't mention this, though I'm flattered that I obviously ruffled her centrist feathers enough that she would use my woodford talk as an anecdote to open her 'review' of the Bolter.
It's interesting that the 'right' is now claiming the 'centre' too.
If anyone would like a copy of my woodford talk it's available to download at the woodford folk festival website, google will give u the url
"ggrrrufff!"
M

I take it that the last person leaving a comment was Dr Hirst, the " gruff revolutionary" who was quite rude at Woodford (aren't you ashamed to be called a revolutionary in this day and age, Dr?).

I thought the most notable thing about your speech is that you upset the various hippies and pacifists by your manner and some of your attitudes.

They should've be most offended by your support of radical murderers in Iraq, of course.

I guess when you are so far to the left, it's difficult to tell the right from the centre. Here's hoping you don't teach politics at university with that sort of confusion.

I enjoyed the book and like Darlene I am a fan of Andrew Bolt. I canot help but agree with all of his arguments on Insiders on Sunday Mornings at 9 am. Barry Cassidy hardly ever gives him a chance to express himself and if ever allowed to finish while in full flow he would convince most people he is certainly worth watching. Unfortunately Barry Cassidy always has three left wingers on the programme putting Andrew at a disadvantage. The ABC and SBS are always Left Wing biased not ever giving a Liberal debater a fair go. Glenn Milne and Piers Ackerman are also terrific keep up the good work.