The book beat me… for now.

A few weeks ago on The Australian's book blog A Pair of Ragged Claws, there was a bit of a discussion about re-reading of books, and also about books that defeated readers.

For a long time I was guilty of starting and not finishing novels. I wouldn’t do it on purpose – and in fact it would happen even with books I was enjoying. I got 100 odd pages into Love in the Time of Cholera when for some reason lost in time I stopped reading it and began something else.

Normally when I stop in the middle of a novel it is because I have started reading a non-fiction work – or more likely have just been reading odd bits from some of the more encyclopaedic works I have sitting next to my bed, and then it’s a couple weeks later and I realise I haven’t read the novel for so long that I’ve lost the feel of it, lost the impetus to read it, or even have just forgotten the characters.

It got to such a point that my bedside table had about 4-5 novels with bookmarks in them and I realised a drastic step needed to be taken. And thus in January 2008 I actually made a New Year’s Resolution (which I generally think are complete tosh) to finish every novel I started. And I have kept it (well mostly). The resolution is more not to start reading other books while I have one on the go. If I choose to stop reading a book it is a definitive step, rather than an “oh I can read three novels at once” thing.

At the moment I am 500 pages into Steinbeck’s East of Eden. And I have to say in the past, I would probably have dropped it by now. It’s a good book, well written (of course – it is Steinbeck), but with 100 pages to go I have to say I’ve stopped caring about the characters. To be honest the whole book has been a bit of a battle. No character has really connected, save one secondary character who died some 100 pages back. I am now rushing to the end – more so I can put the book behind me with a clear conscience than out of pleasure. Oh look the book is good, and it isn’t like pulling teeth. It’s just 600 pages is a lot of words to get through when you don’t really care how it ends (and given it’s based on the Biblical story of Cain and Abel I think I know how it is going to end anyway…).

But were I to stop now, I’m not sure I would say the book beat me. More I just couldn’t be bothered fighting it.

I have stopped mid way through a number of novels, but I don’t say they have beaten me – more the fight has been put on hold. Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain is a beautiful novel, but the pace is bloody slow (it’s meant to be, so as to replicate the absence of time in the TB sanatorium). My book mark is at page 206. And I know one day I’ll get back to it. The same can be said for Dostoyevsky’s The Brother’s Karamazov. Now Dostoyevsky is a great, great, great writer. But he demands a lot. He writes psychological fiction of the highest order.

And Karamazov is no light read – it delves into the dark places of the soul and asks deep questions about life.

The book mark on the second attempt is at page 92. (which sounds very short, but I think this was one of the last books I started reading before I made my resolution). I’ll get back to it soon, but it’s not a book to read if there are any other stresses in your life.

I once started reading Bleak House and then about three chapters in decided to look at the appendix and discovered the entire plot. So I stopped straight away determined not to read it until I had forgotten who was the daughter of whom etc. I did in time forget. And then BBC did a mini-series of it, and of course I watched it, and then thought bugger it, I might as well read it. Which I did – and as with all Dickens knowing the ending doesn’t really matter.

The last book I stopped mid-way through was Seth’s A Suitable Boy. We have it in the three separate volumes edition. I stopped about one chapter into the second volume. Basically I stopped because the second volume began by concentrating on a character I didn’t like, and so thought, after 500 odd pages, I deserved a rest from post-partition India. I’ll get back to it, but it’s such a huge tome that taking it in separate bites isn’t too bad.

One big book did defeat me though. Moby Dick was just too much for me. I set to reading it one Christmas holidays. And I loved it. For 300 odd pages I was in raptures of this sea-dog tale. I loved how Ishmael would go off on tangents and seemed to get distracted by whatever came into his head about whaling and seagoing. But then I started realising, there hadn’t been mention of Ahab, and what about Moby Dick? My brain started screaming “Get to the bloody point!” And then on page 493, with Chapter 103 “Measurement of a Whale’s Skeleton” I put the the book down and said, “enough, you win! That's all I can stand. I can’t stands no more”.

I then began reading Mann’s Buddenbrooks, and perhaps had as enjoyable a reading experience as I ever have had.

I don’t think I’ll ever try Moby Dick again. I know enough people who say it is fantastic to think I probably should try. But it’ll have to wait at the end of a very long queue.

One book beat me on page 2. Joyce’s Finnegans Wake. If there has even been a more self-indulgent piece of over-rates tripe ever written, then I want to go no where near it.

Look Joyce was a genius. Dubliners, Portrait of the the Artist… and Ulysses are amazing reading, but his last book was a waste of the 17 years it took him to write it. Who cares if it tries to reinvent the wheel? Who cares if it is “ahead of its time”? It’s bloody impenetrable. Yeah there are nice jokes like calling a funeral a “funferall”, but check out this sentence from page 2 and ask if you’d keep going:

“He addle liddle phifie Annie ugged the little craythur”.

Would you keep going for 628 pages? I know a former Professor of Australian literature, a few English Lit Senior lecturers, including one whose area of focus is Modernism, and a couple English Lit PhDs. None have got past page 3.

But I’ll finish East of Eden, and my next book will be one abandoned on page 186 – Eji Yoshikawa’s Musashi. When I stoped reading it, I was absolutely loving it, but something happened that meant I went about 3 weeks without reading and so I forgot characters and parts of the plot, and generally lost the vibe of the book. I decided to stop and try it again when I had forgotten everything and thus wouldn’t feel like I’m going over old ground. It’s been about 5 years so the time is ripe. Now all I need is to finish off those last 100 pages of the Steinbeck. Or I could just stop now….

What am I expected to do, shout man overboard?

The times they have changed. And changed for the better.

Today news came that a boat carrying 49 asylum seekers, being towed to Christmas Island exploded, killing 3. So did the Australian Government use this to push some bogus political line? Did it try and pre-empt any investigation of the event and instead push a story that suits its political agenda? Nope and nope.

Here's Minister for Home Affairs, Bob Debus:

"It's a sad day and on behalf of the Australian Government I extend my sympathy to the victims and their families. The first priority is the safety of life at sea."

Of course you can always count on the Liberal Party to keep thinking it is 2001. Here's Liberal WA Premier Colin Burnett:

"It's understood that persons on the boat spread petrol and that ignited causing an explosion."

How does Debus respond to that? Does he try to whip up outrage? Does he try to use the deaths of people to further the Government's political line? Does he run with this "story" and hope that he'll be able to persuade the Australian military to lie for him? Again no:

"If the Premier of Western Australia chooses to speculate without having the kind of evidence that we think will be necessary to draw a final conclusion that is up to him. It is clearly a possibility that that is what occurred but we are not in a position to finally confirm that is so or not. What border protection is saying is they want to complete their investigation before they talk in detail about what occurred."

My God, if the difference between the two political parties in this country isn't made starkly obvious with Debus's response. Makes me proud of my vote at the last election - a reasoned, calm response to a tragedy. Just what you should expect from a Government.

The federal Liberal Party however, like the WA branch still dreams it is 2001 and that everyone is asleep. Here's Malcolm Turnbull, once again saying something he no doubt does not believe, but is saying purely to keep his leadership alive:

"The Rudd Government has made changes to the rules and procedures dealing with unlawful asylum-seekers ... and people smuggling. There is no doubt the impression had been created that we are more accommodating, or taking a less hard line on people smuggling than we have in the past. There has been a significant increase in people smuggling. That is a very bad thing.''

Once again it is perception that is the problem. Turnbull doesn't actually state which of the rules and procedures he thinks should be changed, he just thinks the wrong perception has been given.

He also states that there has been a significant increase in people smuggling, and suggests it is because of the Government's policies. Which, to be frank, is bullshit.

In today's The Australian, Mike Steketee, rather presciently wrote an article on illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. He notes that most asylum seekers come by air and not boats:

The latest report from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees says asylum applications in Australia increased by 19 per cent last year, from 3980 to 4750. How many came by boat? Actually, 179 or fewer than 4 per cent.

This year the number of boat people is already higher, at 221. But it still is tiny compared with those coming by air. And total refugee flows to Australia are much smaller than those experienced by other countries.

And so is the "significant increase" that Turnbull utters anything to do with the ALP's policy?

The UNHCR statistics show the Australian increase is part of a global trend. Refugee numbers started rising again in 2007 and last year total asylum applications in industrialised countries went up by 12 per cent. The increase for Australia of 19 per cent was above the average but much smaller than Finland's 181 per cent.

There is no mystery about the reason for the increase. The world is becoming less safe. Richard Towle, UNHCR regional representative for Australia, says: "The places traditionally looked to for refuge such as Pakistan are becoming increasingly unstable and people quite rapidly are having to look elsewhere."

So the increase in refugee numbers coming to Australia was slightly above the world average - but not surprising given our proximity to Pakistan and Afghanistan - those two areas which in the last 12 months have became basket cases.

Steketee also gives us a little history lesson about the refugees who came by boat in 2000-2001:

Every person who arrived by boat during the boom years a decade ago was checked by ASIO and not one was found to be a security risk, as though terrorists would come in leaky boats anyway. Many fled war in Iraq and Afghanistan; wars in which Australia joined against their persecutors and then turned around and punished the victims.

Ninety per cent of those who came by boat during that period were assessed as refugees, on the basis that they would face the real prospect of death or persecution if they returned home. That compares with an average of fewer than half of those who arrive by air. The first thought of most people who risk their lives on the high seas is not that Australia may be a soft touch but that they they fear for their lives.

But hey, never let the facts get in the way of a Liberal Party statement. Here's that shining light of the Liberal Party, Shadow Immigration Spokesperson, Sharman Stone:

"You can't announce a soft policy and then expect people not to loose their lives through people smuggling efforts. We (Australia) were literally inviting a new surge to occur, that's what we've seen. Perhaps we are going to see more of these tragedies in the coming weeks and months."

Really Sharman? Literally inviting?? So did Rudd sign these invites himself? Are they themed like kids' birthday party invites? Dora the Explorer perhaps? Do the refugees need to RSVP?

Pathetic, but then you wouldn't expect much more from a person who when she was opposition Arts spokesperson put out a media release suggesting that the Disney-Pixar film Finding Nemo was an Australian production (in fact a shining light of the Australian film industry).

Then again things aren't going too well all round in the Liberal Party at the moment. Today Peter Dutton on ABC2 Breakfast said this of Kevin Rudd:

"He's been described lately as the Barry Humphries of politics; he's up on top of those stairs hopping into the VIP flight overseas waving like Dame Edna Everage. Once he's on board he turns into Barry Humphries, he turns into the pig of Australian politics; this is a bloke who we have only just scratched the surface on."

Now first off, Dutton seems to have got Dame Edna confused with Les Patterson; but secondly, as Possum Pollytics points out, Rudd's approval rating is at 68% - he's more popular than any PM has ever been. And yet Dutton thinks telling the Australian public that the man they like is a pig will win votes.

I bet Dutton goes to weddings and calls the bride a skank.

Keep it up Peter.

AFL Power List – Round Three (starting to settle down)

The big upset was Carlton getting beat by Essendon; which says a fair bit given Carlton’s recent past. The Hawks woke up, and Melbourne stayed at VFA level. The Saints, Geelong and Bulldogs remain the only unbeaten sides. At the other end the Tigers, Melbourne and Fremantle remain winless. With the Tigers and Demons facing each other this week, at least one (assuming no tie) will get on the board this week.

Moment of the week happened with 30 seconds to go in the the match against the Crows, Matthew Pavlich gave away a dopey and frustrated 50m penalty, perhaps he was wondering what life would have been like if the Crows had drafted him and not Ken McGregor in 1998…

	Rank	LW	Team	Record	Comment
	1	1 ↔	Geelong	3-0	The Cats beat the Pies by playing only two quarters. Crows’ supporters will be hoping they stay as lethargic this week.
	2	3↑	St Kilda	3-0	The Saints are the form side of the competition, and only Geelong would go in as favourites against them – and even that would be a close run thing.
	3	2↓	Bulldogs	3-0	The Bulldogs are unbeaten, but I’ve got them falling back one, as the Saints have beaten better sides.
	4	4↔	Hawthorn	1-2	Bad news for the rest of the comp - the Hawk’s hang over is no more.
	5	5↔	Carlton	2-1	Poor kicking early on – especially by Fev didn’t help. Will look to right the ship against Sydney this week.
	6	7↑	Brisbane	2-1	The Lions enjoyed beating Sydney, and there’s only one team they like beating more and that’s the Pies. A huge game this week.
	7	9↑	Adelaide	2-1	The Crows are young and frustrating, but their rookie players all have big potential. This week they’ll get the ultimate test against the Cats.
	8	6↓	Collingwood	1-2	The Pies kicked 13.17; but even if they had kicked 17.13 they still would have lost. This week against the Lions is shaping as a must win game.
	9	13↑	Port Adelaide	2-1	Port got over the speed bump of the AFL in Melbourne; Hawthorn are a tad more likely to slow them down.
	10	8↓	Sydney	1-2	The Swans are shaping up as the inconsistent side of the year. So good luck tipping their match against Carlton this week.
	11	10↓	North Melbourne	1-2	North were made to look ordinary by the Hawks. Which is appropriate given that they actually are very ordinary.
	12	11↓	Richmond	0-3	The Tigers are looking rather sad at the minute. If they lose to the Demons next week, they’ll be looking tragic.
	13	14↑	Essendon	2-1	Some teams just play well against certain teams – and Essendon likes Carlton; but if they beat the Roos this week they’ll go into the Anzac Day match chock full of confidence.
	14	12↓	West Coast	1-2	West Coast were the Saints’ dinner; should be the Bulldogs’ dessert this week.
	15	15↔	Fremantle	0-3	Fremantle didn’t have the skills to beat the Crows, and I can’t see them having a hope to beat the Saints in Melbourne.
	16	16↔	Melbourne	0-3	Time for Demons’ supporters to start following NRL.

Flick of the Week: "Walter, you're wonderful, in a loathsome sort of way."

For this week's Flick of the Week we go with Cary Grant from the Hitchcockesque Charade, to one of the greatest comedies of all time, Howard Hawks' His Girl Friday.

His Girl Friday is, with The Maltese Falcon, that most unusual of films - a remake that is better than the original, in fact so good that people forget it is a remake. The original version was the Ben Hecht play and film, The Front Page, which was a comedy set in the newspaper world of the 1930s. Hawks' great addition to the original was to make ace male reporter Hildebrand Johnson into ace female reporter Hildegaard (Hildy) Johnson. And thus a seminal screwball comedy was born.

His second brilliant decision was to allow the dialogue to overlap, which allowed Grant - playing newspaper editor Walter Burns, and Rosalind Russell (who plays Hildy) to let rip with perhaps some of the fastest dialogue ever captured on celluloid.

The two throw zingers at each other, barely waiting to gather a breath before letting rip with another barb. Whereas some screwball comedies like to have a ditzy character causing havoc (Bringing Up Baby), in this film both Grant and Russell go toe to toe, line for line; matching wits at ten paces.

The plot involves Hildy returning to the newspaper to confront her ex-husband Burns, and to tell him that not only is she quitting the paper, she is also getting married to mild-mannered Bruce Baldwin (played by Ralph Bellamy). Burns who is still in love with Hildy does everything he can to put a stop to the marriage and also get Hildy back working on the paper on the biggest news story of the year.

Watching Grant in action reminds you that he is one of the best film comedians of all time - his timing and delivery is perfect - and he possesses more charm than seems possible for one man.

Russell on the other hand is "moxy" personified. Her character is as strong a female character as has ever been seen and actresses of today must look at this film and sigh in envy.

The supporting cast is full of character actors, with Bellamy playing for the second time a man who comes between Grant and his ex-wife (he played essentially the same role two years earlier in the amazing The Awful Truth).

The screenplay is sublime, even having a meta-fictional aside when Burns remarks of Baldwin "He looks like that fellow in the movies - Ralph Bellamy". And at 92 minutes, like all great comedies, it gets in, makes you laugh, and then gets out.

Best of all there are cheap DVD copies a plenty around, so pick one up and see what happens when everything in a movie is click perfectly.

Finding a good clip on youtube is tricky, so here is the first 9 minutes of the film. It serves as an excellent entree into the flavour of the film.

Newspoll ALP 58 - LNP 42

Today's Newspoll was conducted on over last Friday, Saturday and Sunday - a period when the media and the Liberal Party was doing a full court press on Rudd's abuse towards a hostess on the PM's plane back in January.

The result? Rudd's preferred PM rating went from 65% to 67%. His Satisfaction rating went from 63% to 68% - the highest it's been all year.

And Turnbull? Well only 18% think he'd be a better PM; and 42% are dissatisfied with the job he is doing, compared with 39% who are satisfied. Yep more people are dislike what he is doing than like. That pretty much means the end is nigh.

I expect over the next few weeks the name of Joe Hockey will start getting more and more air. Once they start asking in the newspoll who would you prefer as opposition leader Turnbull or Hockey, that will be the sign for the rumblings to get loud.

Hockey won't beat Rudd - in fact in QT, Rudd likes it when Hockey asks him a question; but the Liberal Party will be getting desperate, and like a drowning man, they'll clutch at a snake if they think it will save them.

They'll be even more desperate after today's announcement of the National Broadband Network. Having gone to tender for Fibre to the Node (FTTN) at 12mbs , the Government decided none of the bids were any good, and so decided bugger, it all - we'll do it ourselves, and instead make it Fibre to the House (FTTH) at 100mbs.

And instead of $4.7b, lets spend $43b over 8 years.

It's absolutely huge. It's absolutely staggering. It's as big as it gets.

First some reactions from the industry. The owner of internode, Simon Hackett, went on the "whirlpool forum" (a known IT blog) and wrote this:

My thoughts:
- It'll be ten years once they run the obviously required [tender] process first

- It reads like my keynote slides for the last few years – FTTN at $4.7bn doesn't cut it, do nothing or have the guts to build FTTH at more like $40bn.

- Wholesale only, separate to Telstra (means not touching the copper network – hence no grounds for Telstra to stop it or delay it)

- Government majority owner with intended privatisation 5 years after building – which I think is exactly the right idea

- Leaves existing copper network in place, leaves existing ADSL2+ market and competition un-impacted – meaning we've got many more years of useful ADSL2+ network building ahead of us in parallel to the emergence of the new network, to which we'll have access too, on an equal footing with everyone else.

- By avoiding the copper network, it also avoids regulatory changes – the existing access regime can continue unchanged while the new network is put in, in parallel.

- If they take industry advice and build the new network 'outside in' – fixing blackspots first, installing where ADSL2+ is already running strongly last, then everyone wins, because people with no broadband get it, while people who already have broadband can use that ADSL2+ competitive landscape in the meantime, and people who have invested in that landscape can recover that investment before the new network renders it obselete. But even then (like dialup) the old stuff will stay around for ages too – and noone loses... (!)

- I'm gobsmacked. If they do what they promise, they've actually got it right, and we might just turn into a broadband front-runner country ten years from now... after all.

Sounds pretty good.

Here's Optus:
Optus' head of government and regulatory affairs, Maha Krishnapillai, told BusinessDay that the shock announcement was "absolutely the best case scenario on every level," as it will allow the Government to completely bypass Telstra's infrastructure and run fibre directly into buildings. It was believed before today's announcement that fibre would be run out to street-side nodes, but that Telstra's existing "final mile" of copper wire would be necessary to access homes.

"It really picks up all the recommendations of the last decade and allows us, and others, to compete and invest on a level playing field, because the fundamental advantage Telstra had in the last mile of copper is gone." Mr Krishnapillai said.

Ok, Telstra's gotta hate it then right?

We look forward to having constructive discussions with the Government at the earliest opportunity. There is a lot to absorb in the Government's announcement and we will consider every aspect in detail," he said in a statement.

"We will work with the Government to assist with the implementation of its strategy, but will remain at all times committed to ensuring the best interests of our shareholders, employees and customers.

Ok, not as full of love, but given Telstra's history of criticism, it almost counts as gushing.

Now the press. Bernard Keane from Crikey used to work in the Department of Communications, so he knows a bit about the issue (in fact more than any other political journalist):

Huge? Massive? Historic? All of that, and more. This is an announcement that will roll through the ICT industry, over the media industry and across the Australian political landscape.

Kevin Rudd may not be too keen on tough decisions, but he doesn’t baulk at expensive ones. The Government has reversed the last 20 years of communications policy, hitting the reset button on infrastructure ownership and plunging completely into telecommunications infrastructure.
...
There are plenty of problems, but none are immediate. In the current investment climate, government-guaranteed infrastructure bonds are likely to be popular, so there’ll be no difficulty attracting investors. The eight-year build might frustrate voters, but the network can get off to a flying start if owners of unused fibre participate, taking an equity stake in exchange for providing existing networks.

The massive company that will result from the rollout might need the same sort of restraint as Telstra, but it will be strictly confined to wholesale services, removing the current Telstra problem of anti-competitive incentives. The risk of taxpayers losing money on the venture won’t crystallise, if it ever does, until years into the future -- not merely after 2010, but probably after 2013 and probably 2016 as well.

Now an economists view. This is Joshua Gans who is an Economics professor at Melbourne Uni writes:

The outcome of the broadband network was announced today and I must say that I almost fell off my chair with delight. If I am reading the news correctly, the government is going to do it themselves with a fibre to the home network that will put Australia right up there with the world leaders in this space.

It was only in November last year that I proposed this very same policy in AFR opinion piece. The benefits include (a) avoiding the regulatory morass that is Telstra; (b) providing not only competition in broadband but also competition across the whole of telecommunications; and (c) a great way of providing a fiscal stimulus in anticipation of the coming recession.

All I can say is wow.

Ok enough gushing. Bernard Keane perceptively notes the politics of the issue:

.... you get the feeling this is the sort of announcement many in the ALP wanted to make while they were in Opposition, but Government ownership was so unfashionable it had to be reshaped into a joint public-private initiative. Now, the private sector is in retreat and big government projects are flavour of the month. It also complements the Government’s response to the recession. 25,000 jobs a year in construction, Rudd noted. 37,000 at its peak, constructing a network to enhance Australia’s productive capacity.

He's spot on - most in the ALP would be feeling all warm and fuzzy by this big infrastructure spend - it's Ben Chifley all over again!!!

Now let's see what Malcolm Turnbull says. Surely he has learnt his lesson and will bide his time before nailing his colours to the mast? Nope:

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has accused Mr Rudd of plunging the country further into debt and says he is trying to cover up the fact the tender process failed.
"We have a Prime Minister who has always got a political strategy but no economic strategy," he said.
"He hasn't got a head for figures, he's got a head for headlines and that's all.
"And that's why we're running into tens and tens and tens of billions of dollars of unsustained debt."

Sigh. Once again he gives himself no wriggle room. He's attacked it straight out the gate. And now he's locked into opposing it. Dill.

Here's what he said back in February about the Government's last stimulus package:

You know what someone said to me just a little while ago, very wise point. He said, imagine if 60 years ago Ben Chifley and Bob Menzies had sent everyone a cheque for 50 pounds instead of building the Snowy Mountain scheme.

Well Malcolm, they now are building the Snowy Mountain Scheme of the 21st Century, and you're opposing it while sitting on 18%, you might want to ponder on how wise that is.

Errr.. can I make you a mix-pod?

Among the many items of modern life I don't own is an ipod, or for that matter, any sort of mp3 player. I just don't have a need for one. When I go for walks, it is with my family and so we chat as we walk. I don't take the bus to work, and as a news-nerd my radio is stuck on ABC Newsradio. And thus I don't have any time during the day when I would wish to tune out the world and listen to music.

This doesn't mean I don't listen to music - itunes is playing as I write. But pretty much the only time I want to listen to music alone is when I'm writing on the computer, and thus headphones and itunes does it for me.

To be honest I'm a bit of an itunes addict. And one of the more recent features, "Genius" has got me thinking about what we have lost with the improvement of technology.

The "Genius" feature on itunes essentially analyses any song and provides you with 25, 50 or how ever many other songs you want from your collection that itunes thinks you will like based on that song.

I have to say it's generally pretty much on the money.

Quite often I'll just pick a song at random, hit "genius" and then listen to the songs rather than skip from song to song throughout my collection of 2000 odd songs.

And yet it has got me thinking about what the "young kids" do nowadays.

When I was growing up, the only way you got music was either if you had enough money (which you didn't) to buy a tape or your mate had a tape and a double cassette player so he would dub a copy for you. Failing that you would even tape songs off the radio. Now through the interwebs kids (and of course me as well) have access to every single song ever sung at any moment. It is astonishing.

You can now own an ipod with 160GB of memory, meaning you could put more songs on it than would essentially be possible to listen to in one lifetime - about 40,000 songs. Just think - at an average of 3 minutes each (which is far too short) we're talking 2000 hours of music or over 83 days worth. Put the average at 4 minutes and we're over 111 days. But let's give us only 4 hours a day to listen our ipod and it would take over two years to listen to every song on your hypothetical ipod (and that's IF you don't listen to a song more than once).

Insane really. (But then again, who actually has 40,000 songs?)

The problem though with the ipod and indeed even itunes and its "Genius" button is the loss of that great item of romance; that vital step every male must at some point take; that true sign of affection which cannot be denied; that ultimate in cheap but valuable gifts.

I'm talking the mix tape.

What the hell do the youth do now?

As anyone who has read Nick Hornby's High Fidelity knows, making a mix tape for someone is an incredibly personal act.

My wife, when we we first going out, was living in country SA and thus out of range of the Adelaide radio stations and subject to the monotony of country AM radio. So I made her a mix tape off of SAFM featuring bits of humour from the Morning Zoo and songs taped over the course of about a week. I wasn't content to just tape just any old 90 minutes; nope I had that blank tape in the tape player at the ready all day, and when I heard the DJ say a song I liked was coming up, I'd stop my essay writing and would be there with my finger on the record and pause button (because if you just hit "record" it made a clunk). She loved it.

Even now when "I Don't Like Monday's" comes on the radio she'll comment how that was one of the songs I taped for her. It was a valuable gift at that point in our relationship.

Now of course she would just log onto the SAFM website and listen to the live stream. Ho hum.

The best mix tapes though were ones divined from your collection of songs based on one song a girl said she liked. It required thought and care. It had to convey everything you wanted to say, but were too scared to utter. Each song choice was vital, and thus debated and deleted and added. It had to reflect not only songs you knew she liked, but also what you liked and thus you were letting her into your world - like this tape, and you'll like me, it implied. The order was also important - do you want to end it on a downer, and have her feeling sad but wishing you were there to cheer her up, or do you want her to end feeling happy and wishing you were there to join in the fun?

The advent of CDs took the game to a new level. The quality was fantastic, and with a good printer you could do up a fake album cover to really show off your creativity.

And even when not doing it for reasons of romance a mix-CD is just a fun thing to do. I have dozens of them. Some are themed according to chronology - eg Hits of the 80s, Songs of 2006-07. For others the theme is more emotive. I have three collections titled "Beautiful Music" (1,2 and 3) which feature more mellow tracks such as Nick Cave's "Into My Arms", The Church's "Under the Milky Way", Leonard Cohen's "Suzanne", and various movie themes.

My most common mix-CDs are my "Eclectic Collection" series. I have about 5 of them, which feature tracks like Placebo's "Every You, Every Me" next to The Delfonics "Didn't I Blow Your Mind". I enjoy trying to find a perfect mix of fast, slow, sad, happy, bizarre new and traditional all on one 700MB disc.

And despite how hard I try I always end up with one track that I invariably skip - like the one CD I have with Coolio's "Gangster's Paradise" that I really only discovered afterwards I didn't actually like all that much - and for the life of me I don't know what I was thinking when I put Neneh Cherry's "Buffalo Stance" on one collection of "Fun Songs".

I also tend to have one or two songs that seem to crop up in just about every mix-CD. For a while there I was always having to stop myself from copying The Dream Academy's "Life in a Northern Town", more recently I have noticed the track "Now We Are Free" from the Gladiator soundtrack is on about 3 different CDs.

The point is though that you are limited by the size of the CD. Pretty much at best you'll be able to get 20 tracks on one CD, and thus the choice is the key.

But what do you give someone who only listens to music through an ipod? What do you give someone who views a CD as a bit of dated technology similar to how I look at an old LP record? What do you give someone who can come up with 25 songs based on the mood of one song by just hitting a "Genius" button, and then hits "save playlist"?

Do you give them a thumb drive with songs on it? Sure you can buy them a CD, or recommend a song/band. And I guess you can make up a playlist on itunes/ipod; but once again the discipline is lacking. You're not limited by space, and so you could make a playlist of 50 songs. Where's the challenge in that? And the mix-CD should also contain songs the receiver doesn't own; how do you do that in the days of downloads?

No doubt the mix-tape/CD has morphed into something, but I have to say the younger generation with their infinite choice have lost something quite magical.

Maybe I am gettin' old (of course I am); but even though the CD/mp3 player in our car has a thumb-drive slot, I can't bring myself to just plug it in and choose from a thousand songs as we go on long trips; much more fun is to make up a mix-CD to listen to on the drive.

Yep I'm old. But bugger it, I like being so, and on this issue, I think I'm right.

Hockey gets over-excited on Sunday morning

This morning on Meet the Press, Joe Hockey, presumably thinking that the news about Rudd swearing at a flight attendant will make all of Australia hate him, came out with this about the budget:

"If there is waste, if there is mismanagement, we will oppose it. We have always opposed bad policy and we will continue to oppose bad policy."

To which I say the Liberal Party is opposed to bad policy? Well that's a new one.

I guess doling out tax cuts in the middle of a boom and with interest rates rising was good policy?

I guess overseeing a dying public health system, only to takeover one hospital in Tasmania because an election was around the corner was good policy?

I suppose diverting attention and resources away from the war on terror in Afghanistan, and instead following George Bush into an unnecessary and stupid war in Iraq on the basis of the dodgiest intelligence this side of pyramid scheme get rich quick seminar was good policy?

I presume that stripping funding to Australia's public and higher education system for over a decade purely because universities are full of left wing types, and the public system is full of lefty unions was good policy, despite Australia's skill level disappearing into oblivion?

I guess introducing an immigration policy that allowed 11 people who were on the Tampa to be murdered by the Taliban when sent back to Afghanistan after being ruled non-refugees was good policy?

I suppose ignoring climate change for a decade, was good policy?

I assume then that introducing an IR policy that stripped workers of rights that had been around since Oliver Twist times was good policy?

I guess watching the internet arrive and yet do nothing to encourage the development of a national broadband network was good policy?

I presume instituting a taxation policy which merely recycled money around to allow for election-time bribes was good policy?

I suppose appointing biased political apparatchiks like Janet Albrechtsen to positions on the ABC board was good policy?

I guess appointing failed Ministers as Ambassadors to Italy and the UN was good policy?

I assume then that destroying the transparency of Government by abusing the Freedom of Information Act and changing the law relating to disclosure of party donations was good policy?

I guess essentially forcing people to take out private health insurance, and then reducing funding on health so much that bulk billing at the GP is now a luxury was good policy?

I guess presiding over the biggest mining boom in history, and yet doing bugger all about infrastructure because they could try and blame poor roads and ports on the ALP state governments was good policy?

And I guess doing all of these things, and then spending record amounts of public fund to advertise it all was just the cherry on top of all of this good policy?

"Have always opposed bad policy?" Don't make me vomit.

Oh and one last thing.

Joe, you want to block the budget? Bring. It. On.