The wonderful, wonderful Book Depository - Free Delivery

I am very pleased to discover that my books are now available from The Book Depository.  This means that you can order a paperback, and instead of paying around $17 for 'Not a Man,' (the first of my  books and the most popular)  plus around $12 for freight,  then you can buy from The Book Depository and pay just $18.87.  That is a BIG difference.

http://www.bookdepository.com/Not-Man-M-McRae/9781477615966

Note: if you find the one marked 'Unavailable,' keep looking. The book you want has blue under the part that says 'The Story of Shuki Bolkiah,'  not brown.  The other is the original edition published by a firm no longer operating.

 

 

 

And the Penwinnard Books:


http://www.bookdepository.com/Angel-No-More-M-McRae/9781480251984

 These range from around $13 to $17.  Each is a self-contained story.

This part copied from The Book Depository site:

Christmas FAQs

• 
  

  • What is the last date I can place my order for Christmas delivery?

    The last ordering dates are:
    
    Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Eastern & Central Europe
    Thursday 5 December
    
    USA & Western Europe (Incl. Ireland)
    Tuesday 10 December
    
    UK
    Monday 16 December
    
    Rest of the World
    Monday 2 December
    
    
    Last order dates are recommendations and delivery by Christmas is not guaranteed. Please order as early as possible to ensure gifts arrive in time for Christmas!
    
    

    When will my order arrive?

    After dispatch:
    
    UK: 3 to 5 working days
    Australia: 10 working days
    US and Canada: 7 to 14 working days
    South America: 10-15 working days
    Rest of world: 7 to 10 working days
    

 

 

PS:  If you're not comfortable with online purchasing, they are all now available at Angus & Robertson,  (you'll have to order at the shop)  and some seem to be available at Collins Bookshops and maybe other chains. 

 

Happy Christmas.

 

A new release by Tom Winton

Catch the brand new release by an author who has made a real name for himself.

 

A Second Chance in Paradise,  by Tom Winton

 

 

Long Island salesman Sonny Raines has had it. He’s sick and tired of living in a world where wrong always wins over right. Then, on his thirty-ninth birthday, when he loses his job and comes home to the most devastating shock of his life, that’s it. He’s dropping out.

 

With nothing left to lose, and little in his pocket, Sonny chucks it all and drives his aging van fifteen-hundred miles to the lower reaches of the Florida Keys. All he wants is to get over his recent losses and simplify his hectic life, and that’s exactly what he thinks he’s doing when he settles on a paradisiacal speck of an island known as Wrecker’s Key. While surrounded by the warm aquamarine waters of two tropical oceans, he not only falls in love with the key but also establishes a close bond with the free-spirited locals who call it home.

 

But all isn’t blue skies, swaying palms, and coconut oil on Wrecker’s Key. There’s trouble wafting in the warm breezes that caress the island. Although Sonny certainly isn’t looking for romance, he finds himself falling for his next door neighbor. Ex-model Julie Albright just may be the kindest, most beautiful woman to ever grace his eyes, but there’s a snag. She has a small physical flaw that, no matter how hard he tries, Sonny can’t overlook. And his feelings are no secret to Julie. She can read them, and they weigh as heavy on her heart as they do on his. Then things get even worse. One night, under the cover of darkness, danger drifts up the deep, silent currents from the lower keys—serious danger—life and death danger. And Sonny Raines finds himself right in the middle of it.

 

 

 An excerpt:

“As soon as I stepped outside I broke into a trot. Passing all the rest of the trailers first then heading up the same narrow road I followed Julie home on the night before, all I could do was think about how she must be reacting right then. I envisioned her staying in her bed alone, thinking. I could see quiet tears making their way down her cheeks. We may have only known each other for twenty-four hours but the mutual attraction we felt – both mental and physical, was undeniable. And it was deep. I knew for sure she really liked me, but there was a lot I didn’t know about Julie Alright.

I had no idea she hadn’t had a semblance of interest in any man since her modeling days ended sixteen years earlier in New York City. Nor did I know that back then she was engaged to Mark Richardson, a very promising young attorney. Mark was about to become the youngest partner ever at Dalrymple, Stockton and Stockton, one of New York’s most prestigious law firms. Julie and Mark had been dating for two years, and they had a big wedding planned for that fall. The ceremony was to be held in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, followed by a reception at the Waldorf Astoria. Money was no problem for Mark’s parents and they insisted on buying the grandest wedding available. His father, J. Walter Richardson of Scarsdale and Palm Beach, just happened to be the sole heir of the “American Grains” breakfast cereal fortune.

At that time Julie was one of the big up-and-comers in the modeling world. As a matter of fact, she was just about to cross the threshold to cover-girl fame. But it never happened. One June morning, when she was on her way to the biggest shoot of her career, her sunny future eclipsed totally, and in an instant.

Sitting in the back seat of a Checker cab, she was headed uptown to the world-renowned Clairidge Studios where she was to pose for an upcoming cover of Vogue Magazine. The sun was beginning to shine, but Madison Avenue was still slick from a late morning rain. Julie, who was sitting behind the driver, cranked down the window and held her left hand out in the breeze, drying her freshly applied nail polish. Then, just as the cab was crossing the intersection at 44th street, another cab, heading east, didn’t bother to stop for the red light. The driver of the at fault cab, one Eloi Hernandez, was so toasted on coke he didn’t even notice the light had turned red. Thoughts of stopping never entered his hopped-up mind until after he’d sped into the intersection – and slammed broadside into Julie’s cab. The impact to the driver’s door was so forceful that her driver’s neck snapped so far sideways it literally cracked. The two vehicles then skidded, smacking sideways into each other, crushing four of Julie’s fingers in the process.The driver of Julie’s cab, a Greek immigrant from Astoria Queens, whose name she never learned, was dead by the time the ambulances reached the scene. Julie was rushed to Mt. Sinai Hospital where a team of three plastic surgeons performed micro-surgery in an attempt to re-attach her fingers. Her middle and index fingers were salvaged and the nerves regenerated in due time, but her pinky and ring finger were so badly mashed there was no possible way of saving them. Eloi Hernandez did a short stint on Riker’s Island; the Greek was buried out in Queens by his family; and Julie’s potential international fame never materialized. On top of all that, when Mark Richardson found out Julie had lost two fingers, he decided that just maybe he wasn’t ready for marriage after all. After knotting the loose ends of her life together the best Julie could, she returned to Ft. Lauderdale with lost dreams and a broken heart.”

 

About the author

Tom Winton has been listed as an Amazon Top 100 Author in Literary Fiction. It has been said that he is a man who writes with his pen dipped in his soul.

Mr. Winton's debut novel, Beyond Nostalgia, has been likened to such classics as Catcher in the Rye and To Kill a Mockingbird. Praised as "A 20th century Gone with the Wind," Beyond Nostalgia is a four-time Amazon Bestseller.

His second novel The Last American Martyr has been on six bestseller lists at the same time. His third book, Four Days with Hemingway's Ghost, has been a repeat bestseller as well.

Where you can buy Tom's books:

http://www.amazon.com/Second-Chance-Paradise-Tom-Winton-ebook/dp/B00GM2IR64/

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Second-Chance-Paradise-Tom-Winton-ebook/dp/B00GM2IR64/

 

 Where to find Tom online:

Website: http://TomWintonAuthor.com
Twitter: Tom Winton
Facebook: Facebook profile
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/edit?trk=tab_pro

 

http://www.amazon.com/M.-A.-McRae/e/B008BYWRQ2/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1340847276&sr=1-1

 



 

The Cholesterol debate, and the way doctors push drugs.

There has been a recent programme on ABC Australia - 'Catalyst.'  They provide evidence that Statins to reduce cholesterol are grossly over-prescribed, and will make no difference in almost every case.  It then looks at the rewards for doctors when they prescribe drugs, and just how the drug research is funded - mostly by drug companies.

One assertion - that many drug trials start by giving every participant the drug, and then dropping each person who shows side-effects.  The 'trial' then proceeds without those people. This initial phase is not taken into account when the results of the trial are made known. Obviously, the result will considerably underestimate the frequency of side-effects.  This practice is fraud.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/abc-australia-exposes-cholesterol-lowering-statin-drug-scam-and-pharmaceutical-criminal-activity/

 

The above is well worth watching. They say it much better than I do, and you're more likely to believe them.


STOP PRESS:  noted 12th November.

Naturally, there was a  lot of hostility after this programme aired. Some of it is well founded.  The 'experts' used turned out to have a financial interest in opposing the conventional line.
See this episode of Mediawatch for more.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/

Who can we trust when so much money is involved?

All the same, it is fairly obvious that Statins are over-prescribed.  It is not the only drug that is routinely prescribed on dubious grounds.

HRT is still strongly pushed in spite of the evidence against, Ritalin for active and naughty children, of course, and asthma medication. I've never been an asthmatic, never had an asthmatic attack, and yet three times a doctor has pushed onto me oral steroids - a strong drug with potentially dangerous side-effects. 

 

The first time was when I was still coughing a week after a nasty attack of flu. I didn't fill the prescription, I just got better.

 

I can't remember what the second time was about, but the third time was because I was doing a Fine Arts course and was over-exposed to oil-based paint. By the final year of the course, I was coughing far too much. Instead of listening to what I knew was the cause, the doctor reached into his drawer for his free sample of steroids which would do me until I had the prescription filled. I refused, and though it took some years, once I was no longer constantly exposed to fumes, I stopped coughing.

 

So three times, doctors have wanted me to start on steroid medication. 

 

What if I'd listened to that first doctor?  Then for the last thirty years, I would have been regularly taking a powerful drug. Would I be as healthy?  I really don’t think so. 

 

 

 

Health advice is apt to change every five years. What is deemed 'normal' once, is no longer deemed 'normal' once a drug has been developed for it. 

 

So be sceptical, do not be persuaded into the cocktail of drugs that doctors thrust on any elderly person, and use your own common sense to stay as healthy as your body allows.

 

And incidentally, some of the 'surveys?' There was one recently - that a person is healthier if they have at least one half-hour of activity in a day.  Well, guess what.  If you are not engaging in at least a half hour of activity in a day, then you are already at least bedridden and probably dead.  The ones who do these surveys quite often appear to get the cause and effect mixed up.

 

 

 

This web-page is by M. A. McRae, author of the Shuki series and the Penwinnard Stories.

And below is the usual ad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Banning plastic bags? Just stupid!!!

It's been announced that Tasmania in joining South Australia and the ACT in banning the sale of the supremely useful plastic bag. I thought Queensland were planning on the ridiculous ban as well, but maybe they had an attack of common sense.

So what effect does the banning of plastic bags have?  Well, in South Australia, they banned them some years ago.  On our last trip, I noticed they seemed to have a lot more blowflies than they used to - they're almost an endangered species in NSW and Victoria, and I think largely because almost all rubbish is in plastic bags, making it too difficult for them to find places to breed.

What environmental benefits does the ban have?  (Aside from encouraging rats and flies.) 

They used to say that plastic bags last 10,000 years or some such nonsense. These days, a plastic bag is lucky to see three uses before falling to bits.  I bought one from Target once, a nice big one, but it dissolved into a million tiny pieces before it could be re-used even once. Useless!





So what are their uses and how much will we miss them? 


1. To line the kitchen bin.  So instead of tipping a mess of filth into a bigger bin and then having to scrub a smelly bin, now we tie off the top, sealing inside the smells and the wettish things, (like chop bones) and dump it in the bigger outside bin.

2. Been swimming? Use a plastic bag to keep the wet swimmers from making everything else wet.

3. Have a dog?  Make sure and take a crumpled plastic bag in your pocket. It takes very little space, and if you need to, you have something to pick up your dog's droppings. A plastic bag is impervious, and you can get rid of it at the next convenient spot. You don't even have to worry about getting your fingers dirty if you take care.







4. For your lunch. Sandwiches go stale when wrapped in paper (no matter what some will pretend.) They stay fresh much longer in a sealed plastic bag.




5. At the beach?  Keep a plastic bag in your pocket in case you see shells that you want to keep.  This applies to all sorts of other things - a plastic bag has the property of folding up small and being there when needed.






6. Doing the washing?  Kids been playing in the mud?  Use a plastic bag to keep dirty, wet things from contaminating the whole wash. 

7. Ants around?  Seal off the leftover crust with honey in a plastic bag, otherwise the ants will find it for sure.

8. Would you like to take some fresh flowers to someone?  Yes, the obvious thing. A plastic bag will keep them in a moist environment so they won't wilt before you get there.


9. Propagating flowers?  Put your cutting in the soil, a few sticks around and a plastic bag over.  (Though a cut-down plastic bottle is more convenient.)




There are numerous other uses. I'm sure you can think of a few yourself. Here are just two more for your consideration.

The most interesting use - It was in a book called 'Vector' by Robin Cook. (good book)
The character used 'impermeable plastic bags' to safely hold the Anthrax spores. 


The most important use, and the one that most definitely benefits the environment.  Note that I said 'benefits.'   Young women's used sanitary pads, old people's used incontinence pants, used baby-wipes and baby nappies, the gross end-product after someone has cleaned their abscessed wound...
We need plastic bags. These things are not suitable to just toss in with the other rubbish. And those hopeful people who say we should simply use newspaper?  Have they never noticed that newspapers get wet and soggy and then fall to bits? 


Plastic bags are supremely useful.  It is just stupid to ban them.


 I cannot actually remember why plastic bags have become the scapegoat for all sorts of environmental problems.  They are an infinitesimal part of the harm that people do, and play a substantial part in minimising the harm that people do.

No.  If  you are concerned for the environment, have two children instead of three, one instead of two, and vey definitely, four instead of fourteen (but preferably two.)  

Over-population is the root cause of almost every environmental problem we have.  It is over-population we need to tackle, not the humble and supremely useful plastic bag.




Just too many people,
not too many plastic bags.

Remember the hole in the Ozone Layer?

We don't hear about it any more.  Why?  I do not remember ever being told that it was a flawed theory, or that the scientists were wrong.  It just quietly dropped out of the news.

When I went looking, I found this very credible article:

Go to: 
 http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/Crista.html

and please do read it. It is informative.    


Remember the scare in the 70s?  There was to be a new ice age.




This is New Zealand, not a new Ice Age.

Here is a reference:

http:/www.climatedepot.com/2009/10/06/dont-miss-it-climate-depots-factsheet-on-1970s-coming-ice-age-claims-2/

 

But never has a climate theory gained the status of a religion as the theory of man-made global warming seems to have done.  Those of us who've seen other doomsday scenarios come and go are reasonably sceptical.  So we are called 'Deniers',  almost as if some fanatical religion had labelled us heretics to be burnt at the stake.

They keep telling us 'The Science' is settled.  But numerous scientists do not agree with the theory.  Numerous scientists may not agree, but have learned that to keep their funding for their work, it is best to keep their mouths shut. 

Politicians dare not say that they are sceptical, in case it leads to loss of votes. 

It is taught in schools - not just that the climate is getting warmer, but that the cause is human activity.  Our own children think us ignorant if we disagree, because, naturally, what the teacher says must be right.

For myself, I have always doubted that human activity could be a cause.  I think the idea comes from the same sort of thinking that places earth at the centre of the universe - purest conceit.

The climate could be changing.  Why not?  It has changed many, many times in the past and will in the future.  Ocean levels have risen and fallen.  It is nothing new.

Be sceptical. We are always being told that something is  'scientifically proven'  and later turns out to be quite incorrect.  But usually, one has to go looking to find out exactly what did happen to that 'scientific proven fact', as each time, the information simply stops being put in front of us.




And just incidentally, there has been no overall warming in the last fifteen years - in spite of the apparent heat shimmer of the picture to the left.

(I just like using pretty pictures.) 

 

 

 



By M. A. McRae,  author of the Shuki Series
and the Penwinnard Stories.

 My books can be found on most online booksellers:

 

https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/Samray

http://www.amazon.com/M.-A.-McRae/e/B008BYWRQ2/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1340847276&sr=1-1

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/M-A-McRae?store=book&keyword=M.+A.+++McRae

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/M.-A.-McRae/e/B008BYWRQ2/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1381893484&sr=1-1

Aged fifty+? There's a conspiracy against you.

Are you aged fifty or over?  Baby boomer or older?

Do you think you have more trouble than younger people grasping all the new technology?

Have you humbly asked a young person for help, accepting the not-quite-concealed sneer as if you maybe deserve it?

Well, you are not inferior  and certainly not dim. 

Older people have trouble with the new technology because it is designed to exclude them.  Deliberately?  I'm not quite sure.

But look at my new Android tablet.  Just a small black rectangle with a screen. If you peer through your glasses, you find a few irregularities on the side.  No nice clear on/off switch, of course. But if you press for several seconds on a particular portion (that you can't quite see, mind you)  something starts to happen.  And even that delay in response is a potential problem.  Machines are meant to respond instantly, not after several seconds during which time the potential user of the technology has already pressed hard on several other areas of the edge and maybe the screen, trying to make the damn thing do something.

So why have on/off switches become tiny and usually coloured black on black?  Why is nothing labelled on and off,  but in code instead?   Its effect is that sharp-eyed young people (as we all were once)  can see it, and highly intelligent, sophisticated and knowledgeable people are humbled. The designers of these things are young - look at the sort of words they use - they scream juvenile. Google, Yahoo.  Even sillier ones that I can't think of right now.  And 'blog.'  I dislike that word; it is ugly on the ear.  But a young person chose it and now we are stuck with it.

Things are 'intuitive' these days.  Myself, I prefer logic.  I have a washing machine, maybe 10 years old.  It is called 'Fuzzy Logic.'  There is a lot that is fuzzy in the way it performs, but I have yet to find much that is logical.

The VCR that only the kids could work. Maybe because it's on the floor and older knees won't bend so easily to see the miniscule controls.  But only older people have VCRs any more - we are not so quick to throw things away when they still work. The DVD, again with all the tiny symbols black on black - or if you're lucky 'off-black'  for contrast.  Mobile phones.  You just cannot buy a mobile phone that's easy to work. Instead, they'd rather charge a fortune for a gadget that has a multitude of things that are not wanted.

We are older people, fifty and over.  Our hair has gone grey.  If we were gorillas, we'd be 'silverbacks,' respected for our maturity.

Instead, the world likes to denigrate us.

But be proud. Probably all of those grey-haired people in the picture opposite do use computers, most will use smart-phones and a lot will even use tablets and androids and Kindles. 



They may have tried to exclude us from the new technology that surrounds us,

but they have not succeeded.

This silver-back is writing a blog, has manipulated a picture to make it more interesting, and once I've finished here, I'll check,  (online, of course,)  to see how my book sales are going.

Surveys say... Really? Because I don't think so!

Do you question it when some solemn TV presenter proclaims 'surveys say' ?

 Because you should.  More and more nonsense is told to us as fact.  Some even say that the public need to be 'educated,' though very often, what causes this statement is that for once, some of  'the public' are not falling for the latest fashion in pure nonsense.

Try these:

A charity – a million Australians come to us for help every year? 

Yes?  1/20th of the population?    No way, though certainly 2% of the population might go to them for help 10 times in a year.

Blood Bank:  1 in 3 Australians will have a life-saving blood transfusion in their life-times. 

Bunkum.  And just a couple of days later, it was rephrased to: 1 in 3 Australians 'depend on life-saving transfusions.'  

So do around 7 million Australian need regular transfusions to maintain life?  Of course, we don't.  Maybe 1 in 20 will need a litre or two of blood once or twice in a lifetime when we have an operation or accident. A very few of those will need more.  Plus there are a very few people who do need regular transfusions for some condition or other.
Blood donations are needed, but there is no need for lies to get people to give blood.

Cancer:  20% of the populations will get cancer, and 50% of those will die from it.

10% of us do not die from cancer, yet this ridiculous statement was made as fact in a news bulletin.

'One teenager in every classroom has a gambling problem.'

Well, I'd bet my life that they don't!  

The Red Cross with their door-knock appeal - 'One in five children go to school hungry.'

Well, one in five children might be tempted by an extra hot breakfast if offered, but that does not mean that their parents are not providing breakfast.


It is odd that the chief culprits broadcasting these lies are charities, and other 'do-good' agencies.
'Awareness-raising' for every disease under the sun is a prime culprit, so much so that I think it is more to do with empire-building than anything else.


Of course, if you twist definitions enough, you can come up with unexpected statistics.  But then  it's just as easy to make up your own  'statistics.'  If you're a charity, especially, no-one is likely to call you on it.

Well, I am!  Charity or not, doing good or not,  do not tell us lies.

And people, for goodness sake, think about what you are told. Do not unthinkingly accept an untruth just because the liar is a charity or someone purporting to be a medical authority. 



Want more common sense?  See my related post about reining in the health police,  January, 2013.

My books can be found at:
 

http://www.amazon.com/M.-A.-McRae/e/B008BYWRQ2/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1340847276&sr=1-1

  http://www.amazon.co.uk/M.-A.-McRae/e/B008BYWRQ2/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1381893484&sr=1-1

 

https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/Samray