The blurb on the back describes Israeli author Amos Oz as the nation's conscience. This short novel (120 pages) tells the story of 12 year old Proffy (short for Professor) and his imaginary life as an underground fighter. It is set in 1947, a year before the state of Israel was born and when those lands were under British occupation. During the novel Proffy befriends a British Sergeant interested in learning Hebrew.
I don't know much about Oz's reputation as a writer, but I presume he's pretty big. You always see his books in the shops in nice hardbacks with rave reviews on the back. This novel really didn't grab me. The style at times is irritating and self-conscious. It's one of those books that is more about the writing style than about telling a story, or entertaining you. There are densely packed pages rhapsodising over Proffy's father's library. As I was reading I was thankful that it was only some 120 pages.
At one point, when the family's house is searched by British soldiers, and Proffy says he is going to betray some secret (more specifically, a mysterious package his father has brought home and instructed his son to be mindful of), you think that some sort of drama is about to mount. But it all fizzles out.
You'd have to pay me to read another one of his novels!
Friday, January 28, 2005
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Kisch in Australia, by Heidi Zogbaum
A fun book on Australian censorship, Menzies style. Heidi Zogbaum barely manages to suppress her laughter as she describes the farcical situation of trying to use the immigration act to stop anti-war speaker, communist and Czech writer Egon Erwin Kisch from landing in Australia.
Menzies was attorney-general in 1934. On the basis of dodgy UK intelligence (a British agent named 'snuffbox' had written a report stating that Kisch was not welcome in England, but the reasons were never substantiated, despite Australian requests for more info), Menzies determined that Kisch could and would not be admitted to Australia.
The immigration act could not really be used to bar visitors because they were just that, visitors. Menzies tried and failed. Repeatedly. He ended up with egg on his face, on numerous occasions.
Interesting to note, most Australians were not with Menzies on this scare campaign. They protested in droves, demanding their right to make up their own mind on Kisch. They felt like they were being treated like children.
There are many interesting parallels to today, most notably, the use of the immigration act and scare campaigns used against foreigners. This line from Menzies, beating his chest and declaring that Kisch would never be allowed in the country, reverberate to our own day.
Mr Menzies avowed that Kisch would, 'not set foot on the soil of the Australian commonwealth'. He later had to eat his words. One thinks of Mr Howard, promising what could not be delivered to the Australian people. Refugees from the Tampa now live in Australia, despite Howard vowing they would never land.
You can't help but admire the Australians of the 1930s, determined to push aside Menzies' censorship and have a chance to listen to this foreign anti-war speaker. To illustrate how silly the censorship laws of that period were, here is a good quote. The author refers to how Kisch's book on Australia, titled Australian Landfall, never got an Australian release - until the 1960's that is, that decadent period so maligned by Nationals leader John Anderson.
'However, if appealing to Australian readers was part of Kisch's intention, it back fired. The Lyons government tightened censorship on books , and farce was never far away. In 1936, a journalist working for the Bulletin tried to discover which titles were on the list of banned materials, only to find out that the list itself was banned.'
The happy outcome of this book is that it demonstrates, ironically, how well our democratic system works. The courts decided repeatedly against the government. If Australia had been some horrid dictatorship, then Kisch would probably have had his head chopped off.
Last words to the author:
'But, despite his intentions, Kisch had demonstrated that the rule of law in Australia was intact; indeed, he had been the beneficiary of it. What had happened to him was spectacular. Ordinary Australians had stood up for him in their thousands, openly disapproving of the actions of their government, and telling the attorney-general so in no uncertain terms. Kisch should have been intensely grateful to Australia that he did not disappear into a dungeon or end up doing hard labour, cutting stone in a quarry, as the attorney-general had intended. It is strange to observe how, even at a distance, Kisch could not see how lucky he had been that his misfortune happened to him in Australia.'
Sorry, last words to me! Heidi Zogbaum is not being over the top here when she describes the attorney-general intending hard labour for Kisch. When Menzies had won his first rounds in the courts, Kisch had indeed been sentenced to six months hard labour. Of course this is ironic, seeing Menzies wanted to keep him out of the country, whereas his sentence ensured he would stay in Australia for six months.
Bonus Features: There are excerpts at the back of the book from Kisch's memoir of his time in Australia, Australian Landfall.
Menzies was attorney-general in 1934. On the basis of dodgy UK intelligence (a British agent named 'snuffbox' had written a report stating that Kisch was not welcome in England, but the reasons were never substantiated, despite Australian requests for more info), Menzies determined that Kisch could and would not be admitted to Australia.
The immigration act could not really be used to bar visitors because they were just that, visitors. Menzies tried and failed. Repeatedly. He ended up with egg on his face, on numerous occasions.
Interesting to note, most Australians were not with Menzies on this scare campaign. They protested in droves, demanding their right to make up their own mind on Kisch. They felt like they were being treated like children.
There are many interesting parallels to today, most notably, the use of the immigration act and scare campaigns used against foreigners. This line from Menzies, beating his chest and declaring that Kisch would never be allowed in the country, reverberate to our own day.
Mr Menzies avowed that Kisch would, 'not set foot on the soil of the Australian commonwealth'. He later had to eat his words. One thinks of Mr Howard, promising what could not be delivered to the Australian people. Refugees from the Tampa now live in Australia, despite Howard vowing they would never land.
You can't help but admire the Australians of the 1930s, determined to push aside Menzies' censorship and have a chance to listen to this foreign anti-war speaker. To illustrate how silly the censorship laws of that period were, here is a good quote. The author refers to how Kisch's book on Australia, titled Australian Landfall, never got an Australian release - until the 1960's that is, that decadent period so maligned by Nationals leader John Anderson.
'However, if appealing to Australian readers was part of Kisch's intention, it back fired. The Lyons government tightened censorship on books , and farce was never far away. In 1936, a journalist working for the Bulletin tried to discover which titles were on the list of banned materials, only to find out that the list itself was banned.'
The happy outcome of this book is that it demonstrates, ironically, how well our democratic system works. The courts decided repeatedly against the government. If Australia had been some horrid dictatorship, then Kisch would probably have had his head chopped off.
Last words to the author:
'But, despite his intentions, Kisch had demonstrated that the rule of law in Australia was intact; indeed, he had been the beneficiary of it. What had happened to him was spectacular. Ordinary Australians had stood up for him in their thousands, openly disapproving of the actions of their government, and telling the attorney-general so in no uncertain terms. Kisch should have been intensely grateful to Australia that he did not disappear into a dungeon or end up doing hard labour, cutting stone in a quarry, as the attorney-general had intended. It is strange to observe how, even at a distance, Kisch could not see how lucky he had been that his misfortune happened to him in Australia.'
Sorry, last words to me! Heidi Zogbaum is not being over the top here when she describes the attorney-general intending hard labour for Kisch. When Menzies had won his first rounds in the courts, Kisch had indeed been sentenced to six months hard labour. Of course this is ironic, seeing Menzies wanted to keep him out of the country, whereas his sentence ensured he would stay in Australia for six months.
Bonus Features: There are excerpts at the back of the book from Kisch's memoir of his time in Australia, Australian Landfall.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Bob Brown Gentle Revolutionary, by James Norman
This covers in more detail Amanda Lohrey's (excuse my mispelling of her name) dull as dishwater Quarterly Essay detailing what she called the 'rise' of the Greens. Bob Brown's biography really is the story of the Greens, from the Frankin River anti-dam campaigns to his prominent role as Leader of the Greens.
Sure, this book is a love-in for Bob Brown and his fellow Greenie travellers. Nevertheless, Brown should get more kudos for his achievement in - almost unwittingly - creating a national political party. A party which goes from strength to strength, despite many political commentators putting down their 2004 federal election result. Sure, they didn't pick up all the voters who departed the Democrats. Nonetheless their vote has increased.
To build all of this out of a Tasmanian enviromental protest movement, in the midst of a conservative culture, deserves more serious attention than it gets. (Also worth noting, the gay rights movement in Tassie achieved amazing success, passing the most progressive gay laws in the country, this also out of a very conservative culture. People at the top of this movement, such as Rodney Croome, were also in Bob Brown's orbit.) Instead, they're ridiculed and called all manner of absurd things things. Most notably, they've been accused of being just like the Nazis by the likes of Liberal Senator George Brandis and Murdoch press columnist Andrew Bolt. Really.
I know I'm sounding completely partisan in saying that. I've voted Greens for the past decade. Of course I'd say such nice things about them. Look, they're not perfect, they're not for everyone, but they suit me. I welcome any criticism of the Greens and Bob Brown, even if you're loopy enough to say things like Senator Brandis and Andrew Bolt. Greg Sheridan's criticisms of Bob Brown after he heckled President Bush were pretty reasonable. (In retrospect, with Mr Habib to be released from US imprisonment, he seems to have been in the right by standing up in our Parliament and demanding that Bush release Hicks and Habib. Especially if both those men have been tortured.)
For anyone wanting to get an inkling of how the Greens grew from a Tasmanian enviromental movement, in such unlikely circumstances, to a National movement, this is the book for you! How long the Greens last is another matter. Nevertheless, they deserve a more serious study of their slow but sure rise to prominence.
Another thing: all those enviromental protests that were the rumbling beginnings of what would later turn into the Greens were a real grass roots political movement, totally unlike the other professional parties (in their current state). Reading this biography, you almost get the impression that the Greens never should have developed into a political party. Bob Brown seemed to almost fall into it. His primary interest was the enviroment. The politics seemed to follow him.
Sure, this book is a love-in for Bob Brown and his fellow Greenie travellers. Nevertheless, Brown should get more kudos for his achievement in - almost unwittingly - creating a national political party. A party which goes from strength to strength, despite many political commentators putting down their 2004 federal election result. Sure, they didn't pick up all the voters who departed the Democrats. Nonetheless their vote has increased.
To build all of this out of a Tasmanian enviromental protest movement, in the midst of a conservative culture, deserves more serious attention than it gets. (Also worth noting, the gay rights movement in Tassie achieved amazing success, passing the most progressive gay laws in the country, this also out of a very conservative culture. People at the top of this movement, such as Rodney Croome, were also in Bob Brown's orbit.) Instead, they're ridiculed and called all manner of absurd things things. Most notably, they've been accused of being just like the Nazis by the likes of Liberal Senator George Brandis and Murdoch press columnist Andrew Bolt. Really.
I know I'm sounding completely partisan in saying that. I've voted Greens for the past decade. Of course I'd say such nice things about them. Look, they're not perfect, they're not for everyone, but they suit me. I welcome any criticism of the Greens and Bob Brown, even if you're loopy enough to say things like Senator Brandis and Andrew Bolt. Greg Sheridan's criticisms of Bob Brown after he heckled President Bush were pretty reasonable. (In retrospect, with Mr Habib to be released from US imprisonment, he seems to have been in the right by standing up in our Parliament and demanding that Bush release Hicks and Habib. Especially if both those men have been tortured.)
For anyone wanting to get an inkling of how the Greens grew from a Tasmanian enviromental movement, in such unlikely circumstances, to a National movement, this is the book for you! How long the Greens last is another matter. Nevertheless, they deserve a more serious study of their slow but sure rise to prominence.
Another thing: all those enviromental protests that were the rumbling beginnings of what would later turn into the Greens were a real grass roots political movement, totally unlike the other professional parties (in their current state). Reading this biography, you almost get the impression that the Greens never should have developed into a political party. Bob Brown seemed to almost fall into it. His primary interest was the enviroment. The politics seemed to follow him.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Kate Remembered, by A. Scott Berg
This book came to me as a Christmas present from my mother. I can't say that I've ever really been a fan of Katharine Hepburn. To be honest, I get sick of hearing people raving about how wonderful she was. It seems if you're a movie star and half way intelligent or decent as a human being they laud you to the skies. Surely there are millions of Katharine Hepburns the world over, it's just they're not famous.
This was a really enjoyable book. The author, A. Scott Berg, has written extensively about Hollywood and knows his subject. In 1983 he met and became friends with Miss Hepburn, frequently staying at her house. The biography is a mixture of memoir and a chronology of her work as an actress.
There was heaps I didn't know about Katharine Hepburn, and must admit to now being more intrigued to find out some of her films. What I admired most about her was she persistently flung herself at difficult and challenging acting jobs throughout her career, even repeatedly taking on Shakespeare as a stage actress. What other actresses of her generation did such a thing. She even played Rosalind in Shakespeare's As You Like It. Can you imagine any one more perfect to play that cross dressing, male willed heroine?
Katharine Hepburn had a hard core of common sense. She kept her own house and independent lifestyle all her life. She didn't get in a flap because she couldn't marry Spencer Tracy, but rather kept a cool head.
She had a sharp intelligence and articulate mind, no doubt the result of her life long devotion to reading. Check out this remarkable response, given in her eighties, to the question of whether she believed in Jesus Christ:
'I believed he lived,' she said without hesitation. 'And I believe he was an exemplary human being who walked the earth�.and if more people practiced what he preached, this world would be a better place. And I'd say a lot of people have done terrible things in his name. But was he the son of God? Well, I don't think I could honestly say�..'
It was painful to read of the last years of her life, lingering on and on and on well into her nineties, without any apparent joy in life. Also, it was shocking to read about Warren Beatty trying to coax her (successfully, after much trying) for a bit part in one of his stupid movies. (He got her to say this numb line, 'fuck a duck'. Really.) Couldn't he leave the poor woman alone and allow her some dignity? What a creep.
Michael Jackson fans should turn to page 214 for an eye popping 12 page description of a visit by the star. MJ was 25 at the time, at the height of his Thriller fame. It's the weirdest thing I've ever read. Michael seems like an evil child - oh so sweet, but entirely manipulative. He barely says anything throughout the dinner, doesn't know much about Hepburn's films, despite professing to be a fan. Near the end of the dinner he asks to speak privately to Miss Hepburn, and suddenly the other guests hear her saying, 'Absolutely not! Out of the question'. Michael wanted a photo of him with Katharine. (He had a professional photographer waiting out in his car.) When this failed he asked if she knew Greta Garbo, and if she could organise a meeting, to which Miss Hepburn gave another definite no.
A really enjoyable book. Check it out!
This was a really enjoyable book. The author, A. Scott Berg, has written extensively about Hollywood and knows his subject. In 1983 he met and became friends with Miss Hepburn, frequently staying at her house. The biography is a mixture of memoir and a chronology of her work as an actress.
There was heaps I didn't know about Katharine Hepburn, and must admit to now being more intrigued to find out some of her films. What I admired most about her was she persistently flung herself at difficult and challenging acting jobs throughout her career, even repeatedly taking on Shakespeare as a stage actress. What other actresses of her generation did such a thing. She even played Rosalind in Shakespeare's As You Like It. Can you imagine any one more perfect to play that cross dressing, male willed heroine?
Katharine Hepburn had a hard core of common sense. She kept her own house and independent lifestyle all her life. She didn't get in a flap because she couldn't marry Spencer Tracy, but rather kept a cool head.
She had a sharp intelligence and articulate mind, no doubt the result of her life long devotion to reading. Check out this remarkable response, given in her eighties, to the question of whether she believed in Jesus Christ:
'I believed he lived,' she said without hesitation. 'And I believe he was an exemplary human being who walked the earth�.and if more people practiced what he preached, this world would be a better place. And I'd say a lot of people have done terrible things in his name. But was he the son of God? Well, I don't think I could honestly say�..'
It was painful to read of the last years of her life, lingering on and on and on well into her nineties, without any apparent joy in life. Also, it was shocking to read about Warren Beatty trying to coax her (successfully, after much trying) for a bit part in one of his stupid movies. (He got her to say this numb line, 'fuck a duck'. Really.) Couldn't he leave the poor woman alone and allow her some dignity? What a creep.
Michael Jackson fans should turn to page 214 for an eye popping 12 page description of a visit by the star. MJ was 25 at the time, at the height of his Thriller fame. It's the weirdest thing I've ever read. Michael seems like an evil child - oh so sweet, but entirely manipulative. He barely says anything throughout the dinner, doesn't know much about Hepburn's films, despite professing to be a fan. Near the end of the dinner he asks to speak privately to Miss Hepburn, and suddenly the other guests hear her saying, 'Absolutely not! Out of the question'. Michael wanted a photo of him with Katharine. (He had a professional photographer waiting out in his car.) When this failed he asked if she knew Greta Garbo, and if she could organise a meeting, to which Miss Hepburn gave another definite no.
A really enjoyable book. Check it out!
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Travels in American Iraq, by John Martinkus
Assiduous television news watchers may remember a story about Australian journalist John Martinkus being kidnapped by insurgents late last year in Iraq. He was later released, because he could prove he was a journalist. His kidnappers fed his name into google and up he popped. Later he said, 'google saved my life'. Alexander Downer later castigated him for being irresponsible, then Martinkus shot back that Downer owed his an apology.
Obviously, his book Travels in American Iraq was about that trip he had just returned from. For seven weeks he toured Iraq. For dramatic effect he starts the book off with a description of the scene after a bombing. It's utterly revolting, as you'd expect. There are descriptions of body pieces everywhere. Then he feels his foot sliding on something gooey - human brains. Later that day, he dreads looking at the bottom of his boot, because he knows there may be bits left stuck (as indeed there are).
The book is a short one, 200 pages, and you can read it in a day or two. It has a sad, heart wrenching tone. Your heart just sinks as you read about the relentless suffering of the Iraqi people, who for the most part just want to get on with a better life.
The 'take away' I got from the book was the different attitudes, wildly different in a lot of cases, between occupied and occupier. Some of the conspiracy theories from your average Iraqi in the street were (from my point of view anyway) completely loopy. It seemed that so many Iraqis were clearly desperate and starved for real information on what was happening to their country, that they'd grasp at the most far fetched explanations. As for the American occupiers, you get the impression of an official line being repeatedly spouted, despite the reality on the ground. Both sides misunderstand each other, and for American soldiers, they'd obviously prefer to be home than fighting this dirty war.
Meanwhile, George W. Bush is planning a 40 million dollar party to celebrate his inauguration.
This is a very sobering read.
Obviously, his book Travels in American Iraq was about that trip he had just returned from. For seven weeks he toured Iraq. For dramatic effect he starts the book off with a description of the scene after a bombing. It's utterly revolting, as you'd expect. There are descriptions of body pieces everywhere. Then he feels his foot sliding on something gooey - human brains. Later that day, he dreads looking at the bottom of his boot, because he knows there may be bits left stuck (as indeed there are).
The book is a short one, 200 pages, and you can read it in a day or two. It has a sad, heart wrenching tone. Your heart just sinks as you read about the relentless suffering of the Iraqi people, who for the most part just want to get on with a better life.
The 'take away' I got from the book was the different attitudes, wildly different in a lot of cases, between occupied and occupier. Some of the conspiracy theories from your average Iraqi in the street were (from my point of view anyway) completely loopy. It seemed that so many Iraqis were clearly desperate and starved for real information on what was happening to their country, that they'd grasp at the most far fetched explanations. As for the American occupiers, you get the impression of an official line being repeatedly spouted, despite the reality on the ground. Both sides misunderstand each other, and for American soldiers, they'd obviously prefer to be home than fighting this dirty war.
Meanwhile, George W. Bush is planning a 40 million dollar party to celebrate his inauguration.
This is a very sobering read.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Joanna Lumley's No Room For Secrets
This is a charming autobiography by star Ab Fab star Joanna Lumley, or 'Lummers' as Ruby Wax calls her.
The book is formatted as a walk through the actress' house - hallway, kitchen, bedroom, attic. It's written like an interview, with questions and answers the whole way through the book.
Jo-Jo tells us about her various travels and adventures, her campaigns and charity work.
There's not that much on her work on Ab-Fab, just how she was 'discovered' by Ruby Wax when she was doing a stage play and then brought into Wax's show to do a few skits. From there she went to Ab-Fab.
A fun read for fans........
The book is formatted as a walk through the actress' house - hallway, kitchen, bedroom, attic. It's written like an interview, with questions and answers the whole way through the book.
Jo-Jo tells us about her various travels and adventures, her campaigns and charity work.
There's not that much on her work on Ab-Fab, just how she was 'discovered' by Ruby Wax when she was doing a stage play and then brought into Wax's show to do a few skits. From there she went to Ab-Fab.
A fun read for fans........
Friday, January 14, 2005
A Certain Maritime Incident, by Tony Kevin
A Certain Maritime Incident (the book is named after the Senate investigation into the matter) reads in large part like a ghoulish murder mystery. 353 asylum seekers, mostly women and children, lost their lives on a rickety boat, forced on at gun point by Indonesian police. Tony Kevin, a public servant for some thirty years (he served in the Prime Minister’s Department and was ambassador to Cambodia and Poland), has been obsessed with the boat’s sinking since those terrible events took place on October 19, 2001.
Could Australia have done more to help? Were we negligent in not keeping a tighter surveillance on the boat? These are the main questions that Tony Kevin asks. From the book:
‘Yet I am still searching for answers to the central moral question – why Operation Relex, with all its resources, could not or would not mount an air search for the people on SIEV X, even after the AFP-sourced report on 20 October. It seems clear that Relex did not really want to find them. There were operational incentives not to do so – rescue by the navy of 400 people up north near Indonesia would have seriously complicated an already stressed border-protection mission, and there would have been no thanks from the defence minister or the prime minister. Did Operation Relex learn from its unpleasant HMAS Adelaide and SIEV 4 experience at the hands of Howard and Reith to be ‘rescue averse’ in grey-area scenarios where it was under no legal obligation to search for possible SIEVs in distress? I think so.’
Any one who has read Miriam Wilkinson and David Marr’s Dark Victory will know that Howard saw fit to leave some 400 people on the Tampa, exposed to the elements, for two weeks. This included pregnant women. Or one pregnant woman. Remember that it was the government that contacted the Tampa and requested that the captain pick up those people – only once the boat had almost sunk. The Howard government is not exactly sympathetic to asylum seekers. The whole idea of the tough stance on incoming boats was to send a message out to the world: Don’t try to come to Australia. Indeed, pamphlets were even distributed warning that trying to come to Australia could result in death at sea.
A lot of this book is very heavy in complex detail. You are taken from agency to government department and back again. Who got what intelligence on what day, why it wasn’t passed on etc. etc. The overall picture is one of many, many question marks. And much stonewalling and overly careful answers of questions. Mick Keelty, when questioned by the senate, took in legal representation and sometimes spent up to five minutes in consultation with his legal help before answering the most simple question. Why all the secrecy? Tony Kevin even describes Jane Halton, head of the People Smuggling Taskforce, as ‘dancing’ through several days questioning. If the case of SIEV X is so clear cut, with nothing being hidden, why can’t the people being called before the Senate answer questions candidly?
To illustrate some of the absurdities of the case. John Howard declared that SIEV X sunk in Indonesian waters, but this has been proved to be false. The boat sank in international waters. Yet the official parliamentary record has still not been updated.
Margo Kingston put the question nicely: if Operation Relex provided some of the most beefed up surveillance of the seas to our north, why didn’t we pick up the boat and mount a search and rescue? Coastwatch received a report form an AFP agent in Indonesia on 20 October (I think, if I remember correctly) that the ship SIEV X was in dire trouble. Why didn’t we attempt to rescue it?
The spookiest part of the book for me is the descriptions, by survivors, of how on the night that the boat sank they were surrounded by 3 patrol boats that shone bright lights in their faces, then left. What was all of this about?
And how did Indonesian fishermen go some 60 kilometres out from shore and suddenly ‘discover’ the survivors. Were they given co-ordinates and told to go out and rescue them?
Going by the Howard Government’s record on the issue, you can’t help but tend to think that there has been negligence somewhere along the track. The Howard government would be the last people to lift a finger to help asylum seekers in distress.
I hope Tony Kevin keeps on with his thankless work. He is a brave man to plug away at a government so keen to forget the whole episode.
His website is at http://www.tonykevin.com/. Plus there is the site http://www.sievx.com/ run by Marg Hutton (it was trawled on a nightly basis by the federal police until the Australian’s IT reporter exposed what they were up to. The police then abruptly stopped. The site is mainly an archive on the subject of SIEV X, and only contains public documents. Why are they so paranoid??)
Could Australia have done more to help? Were we negligent in not keeping a tighter surveillance on the boat? These are the main questions that Tony Kevin asks. From the book:
‘Yet I am still searching for answers to the central moral question – why Operation Relex, with all its resources, could not or would not mount an air search for the people on SIEV X, even after the AFP-sourced report on 20 October. It seems clear that Relex did not really want to find them. There were operational incentives not to do so – rescue by the navy of 400 people up north near Indonesia would have seriously complicated an already stressed border-protection mission, and there would have been no thanks from the defence minister or the prime minister. Did Operation Relex learn from its unpleasant HMAS Adelaide and SIEV 4 experience at the hands of Howard and Reith to be ‘rescue averse’ in grey-area scenarios where it was under no legal obligation to search for possible SIEVs in distress? I think so.’
Any one who has read Miriam Wilkinson and David Marr’s Dark Victory will know that Howard saw fit to leave some 400 people on the Tampa, exposed to the elements, for two weeks. This included pregnant women. Or one pregnant woman. Remember that it was the government that contacted the Tampa and requested that the captain pick up those people – only once the boat had almost sunk. The Howard government is not exactly sympathetic to asylum seekers. The whole idea of the tough stance on incoming boats was to send a message out to the world: Don’t try to come to Australia. Indeed, pamphlets were even distributed warning that trying to come to Australia could result in death at sea.
A lot of this book is very heavy in complex detail. You are taken from agency to government department and back again. Who got what intelligence on what day, why it wasn’t passed on etc. etc. The overall picture is one of many, many question marks. And much stonewalling and overly careful answers of questions. Mick Keelty, when questioned by the senate, took in legal representation and sometimes spent up to five minutes in consultation with his legal help before answering the most simple question. Why all the secrecy? Tony Kevin even describes Jane Halton, head of the People Smuggling Taskforce, as ‘dancing’ through several days questioning. If the case of SIEV X is so clear cut, with nothing being hidden, why can’t the people being called before the Senate answer questions candidly?
To illustrate some of the absurdities of the case. John Howard declared that SIEV X sunk in Indonesian waters, but this has been proved to be false. The boat sank in international waters. Yet the official parliamentary record has still not been updated.
Margo Kingston put the question nicely: if Operation Relex provided some of the most beefed up surveillance of the seas to our north, why didn’t we pick up the boat and mount a search and rescue? Coastwatch received a report form an AFP agent in Indonesia on 20 October (I think, if I remember correctly) that the ship SIEV X was in dire trouble. Why didn’t we attempt to rescue it?
The spookiest part of the book for me is the descriptions, by survivors, of how on the night that the boat sank they were surrounded by 3 patrol boats that shone bright lights in their faces, then left. What was all of this about?
And how did Indonesian fishermen go some 60 kilometres out from shore and suddenly ‘discover’ the survivors. Were they given co-ordinates and told to go out and rescue them?
Going by the Howard Government’s record on the issue, you can’t help but tend to think that there has been negligence somewhere along the track. The Howard government would be the last people to lift a finger to help asylum seekers in distress.
I hope Tony Kevin keeps on with his thankless work. He is a brave man to plug away at a government so keen to forget the whole episode.
His website is at http://www.tonykevin.com/. Plus there is the site http://www.sievx.com/ run by Marg Hutton (it was trawled on a nightly basis by the federal police until the Australian’s IT reporter exposed what they were up to. The police then abruptly stopped. The site is mainly an archive on the subject of SIEV X, and only contains public documents. Why are they so paranoid??)
Dereliction of Duty, by H.R McMaster
In my search for a biography of Robert Strange McNamara at the local library this was the only book that came up. Written by a Major in the military who saw combat during the Gulf War, the book covers the period that led to full American involvement in what later became known as the Vietnam war.
The book shows in impressive detail how Lyndon Johnson unwittingly (really by deluding himself) plunged the United States into a full blown war. With the help and advice of Robert McNamara, who was Defence Secretary, LBJ pursued a ‘middle course’ (what you might call today ‘third way’) of not technically being at war, while all the time covertly escalating aggression against North Vietnam.
Robert McNamara had had a great success with the Cuban missile crisis. His theory was ‘graduated pressure’. You ‘communicated’ to the enemy that if they’d didn’t do as you wished, there would be consequences. Thus, being rational beings, your enemy would see that it was not in their best interests to pursue their course. It's almost as if McNamara saw the enemy as an organ that could be played to the desired effect, like film director Hitchcock said he wanted to play his audiences. However, graduated pressure could not be a one-size-fits-all solution. Applied to a totally different situation, Vietnam, it ended in disaster. Namely, bit by bit, small decision by small decision, McNamara helped plunge the US, before it even knew it, into war. What was worse, he ignored overwhelming military advice that it would take huge numbers of troops and some 5 years to actually win the war. (Think of Donald Rumsfeld today, and his doing war on the cheap.)
Ironically, LBJ went to elections as a ‘peace candidate’. He didn’t want the truth about his intentions for Vietnam to get out because it would interfere with his Great Society legislative programme – a liberal, left of politics programme. (One thinks of parallels with Tony Blair.)
Also stressed in the book is how the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose job it is to give honest advice, were sidelined by McNamara and Co. in favour of their ‘systems analysis’. Actual wartime experience was scoffed at by McNamara, who said this was a new war, needing new methods.
The rest is history.
This is a first class book. It shows in minute detail how delusional leaders deluded even themselves into a full blown war. LBJ wanted to have his cake and eat it too – he wanted a war without actually having a war. This is a perfect example of magic thinking at the top.
If these guys were running a company or public utility or something like, they’d all be in prison now.
The book shows in impressive detail how Lyndon Johnson unwittingly (really by deluding himself) plunged the United States into a full blown war. With the help and advice of Robert McNamara, who was Defence Secretary, LBJ pursued a ‘middle course’ (what you might call today ‘third way’) of not technically being at war, while all the time covertly escalating aggression against North Vietnam.
Robert McNamara had had a great success with the Cuban missile crisis. His theory was ‘graduated pressure’. You ‘communicated’ to the enemy that if they’d didn’t do as you wished, there would be consequences. Thus, being rational beings, your enemy would see that it was not in their best interests to pursue their course. It's almost as if McNamara saw the enemy as an organ that could be played to the desired effect, like film director Hitchcock said he wanted to play his audiences. However, graduated pressure could not be a one-size-fits-all solution. Applied to a totally different situation, Vietnam, it ended in disaster. Namely, bit by bit, small decision by small decision, McNamara helped plunge the US, before it even knew it, into war. What was worse, he ignored overwhelming military advice that it would take huge numbers of troops and some 5 years to actually win the war. (Think of Donald Rumsfeld today, and his doing war on the cheap.)
Ironically, LBJ went to elections as a ‘peace candidate’. He didn’t want the truth about his intentions for Vietnam to get out because it would interfere with his Great Society legislative programme – a liberal, left of politics programme. (One thinks of parallels with Tony Blair.)
Also stressed in the book is how the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose job it is to give honest advice, were sidelined by McNamara and Co. in favour of their ‘systems analysis’. Actual wartime experience was scoffed at by McNamara, who said this was a new war, needing new methods.
The rest is history.
This is a first class book. It shows in minute detail how delusional leaders deluded even themselves into a full blown war. LBJ wanted to have his cake and eat it too – he wanted a war without actually having a war. This is a perfect example of magic thinking at the top.
If these guys were running a company or public utility or something like, they’d all be in prison now.
Wednesday, January 5, 2005
The Violent Bear It Away, by Flannery O'Connor
For those eager to learn about American religion – especially in its current George W. Bush, born again variety – and its battle with secular American society, The Violent Bear It Away may well be the book to answer all questions.
In short, it tells the story of Francis Marion Tarwater, who is brought up by his religiously devout great-uncle (he is more than a touch mad, having spent some 4 years in a mental institution). He instructs the boy on what to do when he dies, how to bury him etc, and also tells him he will be a prophet. He is also given the task of baptising his uncle’s son – who happens to be retarded.
His uncle Rayber is a school teacher. When Tarwater finally makes his way to meet him Rayber tries to sway him away from his great uncle’s teaching and towards more ‘rational’ thought.
To begin with Tarwater rejects all his uncle had taught him, but finally, inevitably, comes around to being a prophet.
I didn’t find this novel nearly as humorous as Wise Blood. There were a few moments, like the young girl preacher who grandly tells a crowd of onlookers of how the world begun. It’s a really, really dark novel that is thoroughly disturbing. And very violent.
To be honest, I can’t figure out what the novel is really all about. Although Flannery O’Connor writes with great sympathy about her, if you can call them that (and this is probably not the right word), misfits, I couldn’t figure out whose side she’s on. She seems to be saying that the religious side will always win out, and that the secular is wafer thin and with no substance.
I know that Flannery was a devout Catholic, but the humour in her stories points to a very ironic personality. That’s one reason why I would find it hard to believe that she was what we would call today a fundamentalist. What are we to make of a young girl preacher who tells everyone that she knows the history of the world? It’s funny, but Flannery also seems to be saying that we’re pre-programmed with religious feeling or knowledge.
Also, in her short stories she likes to satirize writers or intellectuals, which I thought might be her taking the mickey out of herself. In the short story Everything That Rises Must Converge she makes fun of an intellectual son who can’t stand his racist mother. Flannery is very sympathetic to the mother character, even though she is a sad, narrow minded racist.
What I’m trying to say is that I find everything that happens in her work so mixed up it’s impossible to walk away with a definite idea of how to ‘read’ her work. Although, having said that, the violent contradictions all build up to something that strangely does make sense.
At the end of The Violent Bear It Away you can’t help but feel that Tarwater is on the right track by becoming a half crazed prophet, like his great uncle. If he turned out like the rational teacher Rayber you’d be disappointed.
I found this useful review at Amazon, that says Flannery would have been 100% on the side of Tarwater. Personally, I can’t think of her as some sort of fundamentalist – she would be humourless if that were the case. And she’s not humourless. Anything but.
‘ I think it's important to correct a common misperception that's been cropping up in the reviews here. I can understand how someone might come to the conclusion that The Violent Bear it Away is an exposure of, or an attack on, religious fanaticism, but I can say with almost absolute certainty that this was not the author's intention. Flannery O'Connor was a devout Roman Catholic, and nearly all of her stories (check out especially A Good Man is Hard to Find) carry a very extreme and uncompromising religious message. Everything connected with her - the other stories, her personal correspondence, and the text of Violent itself - suggest that it was meant as, crudely stated, an endorsement of fanaticism; or more accurately, a spiritual call to arms, and an attack of meek secularism. This doesn't mean that the book is only for religious people. Someone reading it from an antifanatic standpoint might well benefit, if only by discovering in the person of the author herself an example of the fanaticism they find so distasteful. A religious reader, though, should not be frightened away by all these reviews suggesting that The Violent is a plea for religious moderation. O'Connor's vision, above all, was radical and unconventional, and for either a religious, an agnostic or an antireligious reader, it presents something to think about.’
In short, it tells the story of Francis Marion Tarwater, who is brought up by his religiously devout great-uncle (he is more than a touch mad, having spent some 4 years in a mental institution). He instructs the boy on what to do when he dies, how to bury him etc, and also tells him he will be a prophet. He is also given the task of baptising his uncle’s son – who happens to be retarded.
His uncle Rayber is a school teacher. When Tarwater finally makes his way to meet him Rayber tries to sway him away from his great uncle’s teaching and towards more ‘rational’ thought.
To begin with Tarwater rejects all his uncle had taught him, but finally, inevitably, comes around to being a prophet.
I didn’t find this novel nearly as humorous as Wise Blood. There were a few moments, like the young girl preacher who grandly tells a crowd of onlookers of how the world begun. It’s a really, really dark novel that is thoroughly disturbing. And very violent.
To be honest, I can’t figure out what the novel is really all about. Although Flannery O’Connor writes with great sympathy about her, if you can call them that (and this is probably not the right word), misfits, I couldn’t figure out whose side she’s on. She seems to be saying that the religious side will always win out, and that the secular is wafer thin and with no substance.
I know that Flannery was a devout Catholic, but the humour in her stories points to a very ironic personality. That’s one reason why I would find it hard to believe that she was what we would call today a fundamentalist. What are we to make of a young girl preacher who tells everyone that she knows the history of the world? It’s funny, but Flannery also seems to be saying that we’re pre-programmed with religious feeling or knowledge.
Also, in her short stories she likes to satirize writers or intellectuals, which I thought might be her taking the mickey out of herself. In the short story Everything That Rises Must Converge she makes fun of an intellectual son who can’t stand his racist mother. Flannery is very sympathetic to the mother character, even though she is a sad, narrow minded racist.
What I’m trying to say is that I find everything that happens in her work so mixed up it’s impossible to walk away with a definite idea of how to ‘read’ her work. Although, having said that, the violent contradictions all build up to something that strangely does make sense.
At the end of The Violent Bear It Away you can’t help but feel that Tarwater is on the right track by becoming a half crazed prophet, like his great uncle. If he turned out like the rational teacher Rayber you’d be disappointed.
I found this useful review at Amazon, that says Flannery would have been 100% on the side of Tarwater. Personally, I can’t think of her as some sort of fundamentalist – she would be humourless if that were the case. And she’s not humourless. Anything but.
‘ I think it's important to correct a common misperception that's been cropping up in the reviews here. I can understand how someone might come to the conclusion that The Violent Bear it Away is an exposure of, or an attack on, religious fanaticism, but I can say with almost absolute certainty that this was not the author's intention. Flannery O'Connor was a devout Roman Catholic, and nearly all of her stories (check out especially A Good Man is Hard to Find) carry a very extreme and uncompromising religious message. Everything connected with her - the other stories, her personal correspondence, and the text of Violent itself - suggest that it was meant as, crudely stated, an endorsement of fanaticism; or more accurately, a spiritual call to arms, and an attack of meek secularism. This doesn't mean that the book is only for religious people. Someone reading it from an antifanatic standpoint might well benefit, if only by discovering in the person of the author herself an example of the fanaticism they find so distasteful. A religious reader, though, should not be frightened away by all these reviews suggesting that The Violent is a plea for religious moderation. O'Connor's vision, above all, was radical and unconventional, and for either a religious, an agnostic or an antireligious reader, it presents something to think about.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)