Better read than bed

I gave up trying to be well read a few years around the time I went back to university to study English Literature and I began to meet people who were so far ahead of me in the reading stakes that I realised it would be futile to try and match them.

I am however, unashamedly an absolute book snob. The only way I would read Bryce Courtney is if I were forced to with my eyes pried open with hooks A Clockwork Orange style; if you were to see me reading The Da Vinci Code, you would know that I had obviously been kidnapped by aliens and replaced with a cyborg twin. Life’s too short to read crap.

Now I have read a fair few books in my time, but my aim now is more to read well than to be well read. My reading history is pretty much a cook’s tour of literature – with only a few novelists being worthy of further investigation. To whit I have read at least one Dickens, Austen, Lawrence, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Eliot, Bronte, Hardy, Joyce, Kafka, Conrad, Mann and James. Some of them get more attention – I have only missed out on Mansfield Park in the Jane Austen cannon, but some, like Henry James are unlikely to see me revisiting – The Bostonians was good, but not good enough to have me clamouring to read Wings of a Dove or Portrait of a Lady. Who knows, that may change, but at the moment there’s a long queue and they are way at the end.

Many other novelists outside of that pantheon of stars of the 19th Century and early 20th Century have also been given the once over by my eyes, but for the most part I don’t read new novels or novelists. Occasionally I will give the latest novel by say Vikram Seth or Sebastian Faulks a go, but mostly I limit my novel reading to the much older tomes sitting on my bookshelf.

The book I am currently reading is however by a new (ie a living) author – Richard Ford. I have been meaning to read The Sportswriter for about a decade now, but had never bought a copy until a couple weeks back when I found a near new one in a great second-hand book store that I frequent on an almost weekly basis. It’s an excellent read, and I will most likely keep a look out for a good copy of its sequel – Independence Day.

The book that it replaced still sits on my bedside table, as it has on and off for the nearly 4 years since I bought it. Joseph and His Brothers by Thomas Mann is an absolute thumper of a novel. In reality it is four novels – but the good folk of Vintage Classics have conveniently put them into one volume of a mere 1207 pages. The novel is a retelling of the story from Genesis of Jacob and his sons, of whom one was Joseph who was sold into slavery by his brother only to go on and become the Pharaoh’s right hand man.

Mann wrote it while in America in self imposed exile during the 1930s and ‘40s and apparently is somewhat allegorical to the rise of Hitler in his native Germany.

Now I think Mann is one of the great novelists of the 20th Century – Doctor Faustus and Buddenbrooks are right up there in my all-time favourites list (now there's a blog for another day). And yet every time I set myself to read Joseph I falter. The opening prelude starts with the magnificent line “Very deep is the well of the past.” A fantastic opening line, for the novel is also about history and the creation of western civilisation. And yet I have been unable to get through that 35 page prelude to Chapter One. Yes it is heavy reading – but it is great writing so that does not matter.

I think subconsciously the size of the novel is just too great for me; and so I look for an escape or an excuse, and one is always found – this time it was the Olympics; I would get to bed late and thus would put off starting as though because the novel is 1207 pages long, you can only start reading it if you can devote a good hour or so to the opening pages.

And so it was replaced by The Sportswriter, and it now goes back onto the queue; back into the list of books I want to read but haven’t yet – Dickens’ Bleak House and Our Mutual Friend, Steinbeck’s East of Eden, Cervantes Don Quixote; and back as well onto the list of books I have started by inexplicably stopped near the start – Eliot’s Middlemarch, Yoshikawa’s Musashi, Lawrence’s Women in Love, Proust’s Swann’s Way, Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Seths’ A Suitable Boy, Pamuk’s My Name is Red; and will sit alongside that long list of books that stare at me from the shelf wondering when am I going to give them a go – Solzhenitsyn’s August 1916, Tartt’s The Secret History, Toole’s A Confederacy of Dunces and many, many (far too many) more.

The main reason I am never going to be one of the great well-read, is that I invariably stop reading a novel in order to start reading (or re-reading) a non-fiction work. In fact I am more likely to at any given time be reading a non-fiction work than a novel.

At the moment, on my bedside table (or in some cases laying on the floor next to it) is Martin Gilbert’s Challenge to Civilisation (the third volume in his history of the 20th Century – I’m up to 1980), the 2nd volume of Churchill’s History of the English Speaking Peoples (I’m up to Oliver Cromwell); The Pelican Guide to English Literature (Dickens to Hardy) – I picked up the whole set of 7 for a $1 each from a Lifeline sale; Sarah Waters’ The Night Watch (was given it for father’s day, and will probably read it after I finish The Sportswriter); David Wallechinsky’s Complete History of the Olympic Games (a constant at my bedside); Gerald Lawson’s World Record Breakers in Track and Field (a complete account of every world record set in track and field, a nice companion to Wallechinsky); Barry Jones’s Dictionary of World Biography (a fun, chatty encyclopedia of just about every significant figure in history); the Chambers Biographical Dictionary (a more comprehensive version of the Jones); William Goldman’s The Big Picture (a collection of essays on Hollywood by a great screenwriter); the Bible (always good for a read – especially the Old Testament from Genesis to Kings, truly the greatest literature); and Danny Perry’s Alternative Oscars (an excellent review of the best picture, actor and actress awards, and his opinion of what and who should have won).

And it strikes me as I look at that list that there are a few books missing that quite often find themselves there – any of the books by Bill Bryson; either the 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die or the 1001 Films You Must See Before You Die; and any of the many number of books I have on WWII.

Non-fiction is easy to dip back into. I don’t care if I stop half way through; in fact I like that I can do that. Fiction requires commitment – you have to give yourself to the book; non-fiction is all about giving me knowledge – it is not demanding.

And so when I am too buggered to read, but know that I need to read something or I will lie awake thinking that something feels wrong (that being that I didn’t read before going to sleep), I will grab one of the non-fiction books next to my bed (often in a lucky dip style) and enjoy 20 or 30 odd pages. Then I will look wistfully over at Joseph and His Brothers, sigh and think, maybe tomorrow night (and know probably not).

Political Poker

A week or so ago I declared Obama would win the US election, stating he held the strong hand of 3 of a kind: a big boost for the Democratic convention, a bad choice of Sarah Palin as VP for McCain, and the Hurricane Gustav dampening the impact of the Republican convention.

Since then the Gallup Daily Poll has gone from Obama leading McCain 48% to 42%, to now McCain leading Obama 49% to 44%.

Talk about whoa nellie!!

What happened was the Democratic party did get a boost; but Hurricane Gustav missed New Orleans and thus ended up being a non-event news wise; and Palin fired up the Republicans with her folksy, shoot-first, think-later speech.

McCain's speech of course was as dull as you would expect from a man who would struggle to inspire chaos in a riot; but the Republicans are back in the lead the first time in three weeks (which isn't that stunning now I think about it...) and credit for that must go to Sarah Palin.

I still think she's a bad choice for VP; but admittedly most of that belief is based on examining what she stands for. She believes climate change is a load of bull, is against universal health insurance (like Medicare), thinks that it was "God's will" that a natural gas pipeline be built in Alaska, and also believes the Iraq War is "a task that is from God", she is anti-abortion even in extreme cases, thinks conservation is for wimps, and there is anecdotal evidence that she has no problems banning books. In short she is an ultra-right winger type who thinks George W has done a bang up job over the last 8 years (you know that guy whom 64% of Americans disapprove of).

I also thought the fact that McCain didn't even want Palin as his VP candidate, and that he had only met her once before would be pointed out by the media and would cause a bit of ridicule.

But my fault was obviously to think the matter through, rather than turn off my brain and be blinded by the pithy one-liners written for her in her speech.

Her speech at the convention was well delivered, but full of hokum that plays well until you realise it's meaningless drivel. She's big on small town values? What like families? Yeah those damn Democrats are always against families. She might as well say she supports baseball and cuddly animals (though most likely Palin would be more in favour of shooting the cuddly animals...)

She made a big deal about how as Governor of Alaska she said "thanks but no thanks" to Congress for the "bridge to nowhere" that was being built in Alaska with federal government money. Unfortunately it turns out she was saying thanks until Congress decided to stop funding it (which meant the Alaskan state government would have to go it alone).

She had a shot at Obama being weak on terrorists saying: "Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?" Which is straight out of the Bush/Howard/Cheney "you're either for us or you're for the terrorists" playbook. So what she is arguing is that the Constitution which American soldiers are apparently fighting to protect can be ignored whenever it suits. You don't need to be Mohammed Haneef to know that governments occasionally get it wrong on "national defense" issues...

Look I know such analysis is way out of order. But let me just say this: I think Palin is still a bad choice for McCain if only because it is obvious the Republican Party is sheltering her from the media. Since her speech, she has not given one interview to the media (that's over 10 days now). Her first interview is set to be a soft-soap piece on ABC in America in a sort of 60 Minutes style interview normally reserved for actors (you know, pictures of her with her kids etc etc - no hard questions, except those pre-vetted by her minders). If she is such a home-run VP candidate, why keep her from the media?

But still don't listen to me - listen to what Republican Party insiders think. What does Peggy Noonan (Wall Street Journal columnist and former speech writer for Reagan), think of Palin?

When Chuck Todd asked her if this was the most qualified woman the Republicans could nominate, Noonan responded, "The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bullshit about narratives. Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and that's not what they're good at, they blow it."

Ok, Noonan comes off as a little bitter; let's try current Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice:

When asked point-blank if Palin has enough experience, Rice in an interview said, "These are decisions that Senator McCain has made. I have great confidence in him." Confidence in Palin? Rice didn't say.
Rice added: "I'm not going to get involved in this political campaign. As Secretary of State, I don't do that. But I thought her speech was wonderful."

Hang on? She's the highest ranked woman in the Republican Party and she doesn't want to get political?? Please.

Ok then why is McCain back in the lead if she's so bad? Well she's the new shiny thing; of course she will get people interested in her. But she has 2 months to stay shiny... and also McCain has to somehow overcome the fact that the only reason his own party wants him to win is because they like his VP.

It's still Obama v McCain. The VP candidate can help keep votes, but come election day, unless Palin is suddenly the name on the ticket, the choice will be Obama or McCain.

Obama still holds the best hand; but in politics as in poker, the best hand doesn't always win the pot.

The Democrats just need to hold their nerve over the next week or so and keep raising the stakes; sooner or later the Republicans will have to show whether they've got an ace in the hole, or if it's all been a bluff.

***
To go out with here's the only way to survive watching McCain's convention speech... through the viewfinder of Jon Stewart:

Flick of the Week: "John has a long moustache"

Due to Olympics, and Question Time and my bout with the flu I haven’t done a flick of the week for a while; but for this week’s flick we link with Richard Beymer from West Side Story to The Longest Day.

The Longest Day is truly in the class of the “they don’t make ‘em like that anymore” films. It is a gigantic undertaking that tries in 3 hours to cover every aspect of D-Day – from the American landings on Omaha and Utah Beaches, the British and French lands at Juno and Gold Beaches, and the paratrooper landings by both the 82nd and 101st airborne divisions. And while it’s at it, it also shows how the invasion was viewed from the German side as well. And amazingly it pulls it off.

Based on the book by Cornelius Ryan (he also wrote the book A Bridge Too Far – which was made into a much less successful film) the movie covers everything from Eisenhower deciding whether to launch the invasion to a private on a ship crossing the channel to the French resistance listening to the BBC radio for coded messages (such as “John has a long moustache”).

It’s so vast in its scope that it shouldn’t work – it should be a muddle of vignettes; a whole that is less than the sum of its parts. And yet The Longest Day is a great WWII film (and believe me I have seen a few of them).

The cast is amazing – John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Rod Steiger, Sean Connery, Robert Ryan, Robert Mitchum, Robert Wagner, Richard Burton, and of course Richard Beymer in the best thing he would do until he cropped up as Sherilyn Fenn’s dad in Twin Peaks. Most of those actors old enough to serve in WWII had actually done so (except John Wayne who was exempted because of his age, 34, and “family status” – though Henry Fonda was actually 2 years older), but the enterprise is not so bloatedly respectful as is the case with Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers.

Instead it’s just good old fashion movie making that goes for the broadest canvas possible, while still enabling you to care about individuals. It’s great history (it follows the book quite closely) and best of all doesn’t seek to make it seem like the whole thing was done by the Americans alone.

While they don’t make ‘em like that anyone, thankfully they don’t make trailers like they did back then. As the following clip shows, they hadn’t quite mastered the art of whetting your appetite.


But don’t be put off; grab the DVD for $8 or so from the bargain bin and marvel at how Robert Mitchum can wade through chest high water, get shot at from all directions, survive, and still keep his cigar in his mouth.

Best line:
Flight Officer David Campbell: He's dead. I'm crippled. You're lost. Do you suppose it's always like that? I mean war.

All things to all people

The WA State election result means one of 2 things - it means people in WA don't care who runs their state, they just wanted to send a message to Kevin Rudd, or the people in WA had had enough of Alan Carpenter, and were annoyed that he went to the polls 6 months early for no good reason.

Now I think the later, and thought as much a month ago when the election was called. The Liberal Party obviously thinks differently. Joe Hockey for one is sure the WA election is all about Rudd; he said today on Meet the Press that the result meant people were disgruntled because they are now worse off under Labor than they were under Howard.

He then went on to acknowledge that global economic conditions were better last year, but he still blames Rudd for that saying:

Mr Rudd sent the wrong message during the election campaign.
"We were warning Australians that there were dark clouds on the horizon, we knew they were coming, we knew that international credit markets were deteriorating rapidly and liquidity was going out of those credit markets, and it was going to have an impact on Australia," he said.
"Kevin Rudd was offering a message that things would just go on, there'd be no risk in a change of government.

Yep the Libs thought things were so bad that they decided the only smart way forward was to "Go For Growth"; and I guess Rudd was the reckless one when at his election launch said it was time to listen to the Reserve Bank and end the mad cycle of election spending. But then Hockey is never one to let truth get in the way of anything.

The most interesting point from the WA election, and the by-election in Lyne is the performance of the National Party. In NSW, the seat vacated by Mark Vaile, saw a 30% swing against the National Party to the independent Robert Oakeshott. There are now 3 independents in the House of Reps - all of them are ex-National Party members...

In WA, the National Party is not in coalition with the Liberal Party, and they actually won a seat from the Liberal Party and will likely hold the balance of power. Little wonder Warren Truss is suggesting the National Party may split from the Liberal Party federally. (And makes the recent merge by the QLD National and Liberal Parties even more bizarre)

The problem is that traditional National Party voters don't much like the city slicker, totally economic free-trade Liberal Party; and Liberal Party voters by and large think the National Party is a party of country hicks who they wouldn't be seen dead with. Take Malcolm Turbull's seat of Wentworth - you think many of those around Double Bay feel a deep affinity with those on the land? Conversely, do you think anyone who lives in Longreach thinks those in Double Bay are anything other than rich yuppie wankers?

In the past they have kept together purely because they hate Labor, but finally rural voters have realised that a vote for the National has just meant a vote for the Liberal Party; a party that in reality cares only for rural issues when the election comes round - and as the population in the country decreases and more and more "sea change" folk move in to the rural areas, the Liberal Party is going to care less about "those on the land" and more about "those in the electorate"; and if that means catering to those who have moved from Wentworth type areas to retirement on the coast, then so be it.

Interesting times ahead. I don't know which way it will go; but I suggest the National Party needs to be more prepared to shop around it's vote rather than merely be taken for granted by the Libs.
***
In the most recent Gallup Poll in America the state of affairs is pretty much back to where it was before both conventions. Maybe I was premature in calling it for Obama, but I'm still pretty confident Obama will win it from here.

Anyhoo, to go out with here's a great clip again from Jon Stewart highlighting the hypocrisy of American right wing commentators:

State of Play

No doubt the voters of of NSW are today looking enviously over to the West, and wishing they too were having a state election.

The late polling in WA suggests it'll go down the the wire, with the ALP a big chance to get kicked out.

NSW voters will have to wait till 2011 to do the same. And let's be honest the ALP should get turfed out in that state - imagine any other government where in the space of 2 days, the Deputy Premier quits politics, the Treasurer is sacked, and then the Premier is dumped/resigns (and add to that the fact the State is in a recession and pretty much broke). The phrase basket case doesn't even come close.

What is happening in NSW is an example of why democracy needs at least 2 strong parties. By 2011 the ALP will have been in power for 16 years. They should have lost last year, but the NSW Liberal Party is the only organisation known to humanity that can make the NSW ALP look competent - their leader was an empty suit called Peter Debnam. Even staunch Liberal Party voters didn't know who he was or what he stood for except that he once went for a swim in a pair of budgie smugglers.

The new Premier is Nathan Rees. No one knows who he is, but I guess at least he has a couple years to do some good before (surely) his Government gets turfed. But then the current Liberal Party led by Barry O'Farrell is still so useless that it recently voted against privatising the NSW power supply.

But as I said, democracy needs a strong opposition; without it you get governments staying in power for too long. Every long term government in Australia has ended badly. Think Bjelke-Petersen's QLD Government (ok, I'll say it was terrible even before it had been in power for a long time) - it ended in corruption and scandal; Menzies/Holt/McEwen/Gorton/McMahon ended a decade later than it should have - had the ALP not split with the DLP the ALP would have won the 1961 election - and if nothing else this would have likely kept Australia out of the Vietnam War; Hawke-Keating ended with the ALP lost and policies disconnected with the Australian people (ok I was still a supporter, but I was in the minority!); and even Howard's - by the end it was bloated, lazy and totally unconnected with the public - the regional partnerships programs was as close to a full on rort as you can get, workchoices was a disgrace, and the budget had no discipline as Howard sought to buy his way to electoral victory.

Personally I think every government should get two terms, another one if they're doing well, and then ideally after 3 they get the boot. That gives them about 9 years. Now obviously it only works if they are not guaranteed the first 6 years - a 6 year term would lead to extreme laziness.

The Americans have it right I think with their policy of only 2 terms for a President - there is too much advantage in being the incumbent (Bill Clinton would most likely have won in 2000 - which would have given him 12 years in office; you could argue that would be better than 8 years of George W, but the unfortunate thing with W is he got in without winning so that kinda defeats the process).

Of course such a system wouldn't work in Australia - though one could argue that no one should be PM for more than two terms.

The big problem with the NSW Liberal Party is John Howard (c'mon I had to find some way to blame him!). Basically,under Howard the Liberal Party scorned the states. Howard hated the states and anyone who wanted to be anyone in the Liberal Party gave them a wide berth and went for Federal politics. As a result, throughout the country you have ALP governments and completely unelectable Liberal oppositions. Howard also didn't stop the NSW Liberal branch becoming beholden to a bunch of right wing cranks, and as a result they ended up with Peter Debnam.

I have long argued that Joe Hockey should drop out of the federal arena and go into NSW politics. He would win the next election in a landslide.

Now I think Uncle Joe sold his soul when he became Minister for Workplace Relations under Howard, but out of the Federal sphere he may regain his heart, and realise not every sentence begins with "Union bosses...".

But still as they say, in a democracy you get the government you deserve. NSW voters might argue though it's hardly democracy when the other side is so bad you don't really have a choice; and I'm inclined to agree - surely no one deserves the NSW Government (or it's opposition).

The Republican Party Knees Up

I've been floored by bugger of a cold all week - so bad I couldn't be bothered doing a recap of Wednesday's and Thursday's QT (quick run down - Swan had a party, the Libs were so bad at one stage they actually asked a question about 1996!).

I am still struggling so in lieu of doing anything, here are a couple clips from Jon Stewart on the Republican National Convention and on Sarah Palin.



and a bit more:

On The QT: My Interest (Rate) Falls

Today's QT was an odd affair: because the Reserve Bank was to announce the expected drop in interest rate 30 minutes after the start of QT, the first part of the session was full of dumb questions, pointless answers and a stream of points of orders.

Once the interest rate fall was announced there followed more dumb questions, some better answers and a hell of a lot more points of orders.

A few highlights:

Julie Bishop asked Julia Gillard a question on how high must unemployment go before inflation will come down. Julia pointed out the Government had answered the question in the Budget papers and thereupon decided to talk about workchoices. This produced a plethora of points of orders. I have to admit I thought Julia could have done much better than she did - she has to decide if she is going to be a head kicker or not - I think she needs to go for it. To be honest the next answer by Rudd on a similar question was better.

Now there is occasionally a supposition that some members on opposite sides of the house are secretly on friendly terms. Well if their performances in QT are anything to go by, I can say without fear of contradiction that Julie Bishop hates Julia Gillard like poison; and the feeling is more than mutual. I actually think the feelings would exist regardless of their situation: if back in the 70s you had introduced young Julie Bishop from St Peter's Girls School to young Julia Gillard from Unley High I bet they would have hated each other on sight.

After the interest rate fall was announced, Nelson asked Rudd if "Australians had paid with this interest rate fall with their job". Rudd's answer provoked the next plethora of points of order mostly because Rudd began to refer to "the Nelson Doctrine" espoused yesterday wherein when it comes to interest rates (and I guess anything else) what Nelson says as opposition leader is not what he would say or do as PM. Rudd was scoring easy runs all around the ground and poor Joe Hockey was reduced to jumping up and down making points of order in a vain attempt to stem the flow of runs.

Hockey was again on his feet during Wayne Swan's answer to an absolute half tracker from Turnbull on whether this rate drop was due to the "slowing we had to have" (questions like that just serve to remind me why MT was so useless during the Republican referendum). Swan danced down the wicket and replied: "Well, Mr Speaker, I was talking before about the political opportunism and the stupidity of those opposite, and it is just so evident in that question". He then kept up the attack by referring to Nelson as Plan A, Costello as Plan B, and Turnbull as Plan C. (Though it took about 10 points of order for him to get to mentioning Plan C !)

Now I guess any day interest rates come down is a hard day for the opposition; but it doesn't help when Malcolm follows up his previous dud effort with a slow long hop asking if Swan regretted egging on the RBA back in March when inflation was 3% now that it was forecast to get to 5%. Though in Malcolm's defence, when you have Nelson fielding at first slip you'd hardly bother pitching the ball up, so you might as well see if Swan will get out going for the big hit.

Such a strategy sometimes works; more often it results in 6 runs.

Swan laughed and spoke with glee like he was the first Treasurer in 7 years to preside over an interest rate cut (which I guess he is, so we'll let him have this day; in fact I think we can say he was top scorer for the Government in this innings).

At this point the ABC telecast of QT ended; what followed highlighted how parliament acts when it knows it's not on TV (and everyone in the place knows when 3pm passes).

After an answer by Rudd to a question from Shadow Finance Minister, Peter Dutton, on the impact on the surplus of the Government's planned $40 billion infrastructure spend, the House stopped business for around 15 minutes due to Dutton saying something which the Leader of the House, Anthony Albanese, demanded he retract. The Speaker had not heard it but asked Dutton in the interest of orderly business to retract: cue Tony Abbott with a point of order saying he shouldn't have to; Albanese with a response; Joe Hockey with a point of order to Albanese's response and reiterating Abbott's previous point of order; Chris Pyne with a point of order mentioning Salem witch trials; the Speaker asking Albanese to say what Dutton said; Albanese refusing (but from what others were shouting out it seems Dutton had referred to Rudd's answer with "Derr" - yes it's an intelligent place); Tony Abbott with a point of order; Wilson Tuckey with another point of order on something Albanese had said in his non statement about what Dutton said; and finally Dutton withdrawing what he said, and then Albanese withdrawing what he had said about Dutton if Dutton wouldn't withdraw what he had said.

I would like to say that was the end of it; it wasn't - QT kept going with more dumb questions and pointless points of order for a good 30 more minutes.

Was anything important asked or said? I really don't know. I was just thinking about $50 a month less on my mortgage. Though obviously my priorities are different to those participating in QT.