Month: September 2006

Well …. not really but it caught your eye, no?

We had father’s day a few weeks ago and my children conspired to buy me, as a gift, something I had my eye on. About a month ago a new edition of all of the 007 movies were released in the UK and Australia. The US will have to wait ’till November. So my children all chipped in and bought me it.

So far I have watched about half of the movies. I was going to space it out over the next few months leading upto the release of the next movie which will be early December here. My wife however decided that she would like to see them all at once!

My first impression is that they are fantastic reproductions. My second impression is even better. The films have all been frame by frame digitally captured to cinema quality. They then went through a colour correction process to compensate for the ageing and different film stocks and environments. They did frame by frame repairs to thinks such as scratches, torn film and such defects. They then fixed other problems like noise on the film. They did a similar fix on the audio, producing a 5.1 surround mix including a DTS audio stream. They then produced a copy for DVD resolution. The quality of both the video and audio are quite remarkable. You would not know that the origonal (Doctor NO) is now over 40 years old.

The set comes in two versions, a cardboard case, which is the one I have, and a briefcase. In hind sight the brief case would have been nicer but relly it is the content not the wrapping that is important, and I am just thankfull that I have such generous children. There are 40 DVDs in the set. 20 movies and 20 disks of extra material. On the extra DVDs are some real gems, such as a segment from a 1964 TV show where Roger Moore does a 007 spoof which is quite funny. There is also a Super 8 recording made by one of the extras on one of the films which contains a comentry from the person who made the film.
In some respects this exceeds the quality of the origonal film. If you are at all keen on the 007 movies this is a must have.

OK! I admit it. Rarely does a year go by when I do not become obsessed with something or other. Often more than one thing at a time. But that is just the sort of guy I am. Gitovrit!

At the moment they are, in no particular order 007, There, Tolkien, renovations, and The Church.

Two of the above I have dealt with in print, with poor old John being sadly neglected (James can look after himself – although I will get around to why it is on the list in another post). So let me redress that sad neglect.

I read The Lord Of The Rings (LOR) thirteen times before I stopped counting and have read it many times since. I have seen the movies, bothe the theatrical release and the extended editions, a number of times, including all of the audio comentries and extras. I have read the Silmarilian several times. I have all of the Audio LPs and CDs and a copy of the BBC dramatisation of the LOR. I remember when it was first braodcast on AM radio. When it was rebradcast on FM radio I taped it off air and replayed the tapes many times. They have long since died. I know what you are thinking – “This guy needs help”. I suppose so but it could be worse – far worse!

When I bacame redundant several months ago I was able to persue several pashions which I had over time neglected for several resons. There have been published in the last few years a number of volumes on the LOT and Tolkein’s work generally which I was unable to buy. “So!” I thought, “about time I redressed this situation”. And I did. I started with The Atlas of Middle Earth from the local bookshop. I have dipped into this on many occasions now. But the real prize I was after was “The Complete History Of Middle Earth” by Christopher Tolkein. The son of JRR and executor of his estate. This is published in twelve paperback or three hard cover volumes. There is also a version with the three hard cover volumes in a slip case. I went to all of the bookshops in our city to no avail. I could not find the hard cover volumes anywhere. I then went on line and got the ISBN numbers for the hard cover volumes and armed with this information went to a local book store whome I know will order books on demand if they are available.

The three volume version with slip cover is out of print. Of the three individual hard cover books, volume one is out of print, volume two is unavailable and volume three is ex stock at a cost of $135. The young lady in the store very helpfully gave me some on line resources to investigate. Most of them were Australian second hand booksellers, but on one piece of paper was the URl www.abebooks.com. When I got home I looked up all of the URLs given to me and found the selection fairly ordinary. However, when I got to abebooks I was astounded to say the least.

Abebooks is a web clearing house for booksellers around the world. It seems to work like this. The bookseller lists their books in the abebooks database, including ISBN, edition, state (new/used), condition (scuff marks, as new etc) and a brief description. The prospective buyer then does a search on what they want and a list of books is displayed from all the sources for that book. The initial sort order is on price. Once you see the list of books you can choose one according to your requirements, new or used, condition, price and freight. The freight prices are very resonable but shipping times vary from days to months. The least time I have waited is three days and the most is three months (still not arrived – due between now and November). The source country does not seem to matter either. I have bought from Germany, the UK and the US. After placing the order confirmation emails are sent and you can display your order status from the abebooks site. The order then goes to the book seller and they then dispatch the books, usually the next day.
As for my three volumes, I have volume three and am waiting on volumes two and one; total cost – AU$300 including freight. The volume that has arrived was still in its new plastic shrink wrap. I have bought a number of other books now through abebooks and have not been dissapointed yet. A friend of mine has also bought through abebooks and is delighted. In a future post I will tell you more about my obsession and some of my purchases.

All I can say is I wish I had heard about abebooks sooner.

In the fifth amendment to the US Constitution there appears the following, ” No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”, and in the sixth amendment this is qualified further, ” In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…”.

Of course there is nothing stopping people from being imprisoned falsely which is why there arose the writ of Habeas Corpus – literally, bring forth the body. This forced a person to be presented to a court to establish the legality of their detention. This goes back to the 12th century in England and is enshrined in the US Constitution and in US law.

Of course there are instances where this is suspended – rightly or wrongly – but the principal is there to prevent abuses of power and to provide a balance against a state falsely imprisoning people.

One of the fiercest defenders of human rights is the US. They take great pains in highlighting the human rights abuses in other countries. It seems that their objective is to be the guardian of the world’s morals. Now this is a fine ambition and certainly, there are many human rights abuses around the world which need to be highlighted and redressed, and indeed they have been foremost in championing the rights of people who have been repressed and abused. This is a good thing.

Given all of this then why is it that the US are illegally holding and torturing an Australian citizen, and have been doing so for years, without trial, without any recourse to the justice system?

David Hicks has been held now for 5 years at Guantanamo Bay. The facts of the case are fairly straight forward. He has not yet been before a legally constituted court. In his own country there is no law under which he can be charged. The system which the US wished to use to try him has been deemed illegal by the US courts. The process that he is subject to violates the US constitution. He has been subject to treatment which by most definitions is considered torture, or in the words of the US Constitution is “Cruel and unusual punishment”.

If the shoe was on the other foot the US would move heaven and earth to get its citizen out of detention. Speeches to the UN, representations to the government concerned, even military action in some circumstances. It seems to me that not only is the US guilty of gross human rights violations but it is guilty of hypocrisy. If David is guilty then let him come before a legally constituted court and be tried, or release him.

Where is Australia in all of this? All of the UK citizens have long ago been released. The Australian government seems content to allow its citizen be illegally retained and tortured indefinitely. Quite frankly I am puzzled by this. What does the Australian government hope to gain?

The measure of a civilised society is not how it treats its citizens but how it treats its enemies.

As we remembered the tragedy in the US of September 2001 I am once again pondering the assertions of those who so soon forget history and the lessons it can teach us. Sometiems we just plain forget. But subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) rewriting helps as well. Some of the rhetoric has the sound of “If I say it, it makes it so”.
One of the most repeated phrases is “the event that changed the world”. It is commonly stated that the world changed on Septemer the 11th 2001. Well – yes, but the world changes every day. Today for the family of the many people dying in car accidents the world is changed. For couples getting married the world is changing. Such joys and tragedies the world changes every day. What made this particualr date so different?

Maybe the number of people, hardly. The bombing of Dresden in February 1945 during the second world war killed in excess of 35,000 men women and children. The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed in the order of 200,000 men women and children each. These are only isolated (if extreme) examples of single incidents resulting in large numbers of civilian deaths.

Oh but, you say, these examples are of milatary campaigns, the attacks in the US were terrorist! What is the difference? Certainly we were in a declared war during WW II. But does being in a declared war preclude terrorist acts? According the the extremists who perpetrated the act, they are at war with the west. Their complaint is the infiltration of the islamic states with the west. Is this a legitimate complaint? Well to them it is. It may seem unreasonable to us but they are defending their religion. So to them they are in a declared war.

So then what actually defines a terrorist act? I have seen it defined by the US administration as one where terror is created amongst a general population by act of acts of an agressor. One could hardly say that the bombing of Dresden did not create a state of terror amongst the German population. The carpet bombing of an entire city over two days would terrify the soutest heart. The complete destruction of Dresden was the intent and it was calculated to induce terror in, and completely demoralise the general population. It certainly terrorised the population.

Wether by the sword, the gun or the plane terrorism has been with us since the dawn of civilisation and will be with us till its sunset, that much is certain. To say that the world has changed is somewhat of an overstatement. It is no more changed than after any of the other countless terrorist attacks. We should not fool ourselves. The world is the same place now as before September the 11th 2001. The US may be different – at least one would hope so.

That is not to say that the act was not deplorable, as were the Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents. To justify one is to justify them all. To condemn one is to condemn them all. Whatever the excuse for these acts they were all conducted with the moral backing of the people who perpetrated them. Each of them against a perceived agressor who had to be defeated seemingly at any const. Each of them led to the loss of thousands of lives of people who had no say in the matter, who were themselves non-agressors, men women and children.

Sometimes we need to step back and view these things in perspective and in a historical context.

With the sad passing of Steve Irwin it got me thinking as to what constitutes a hero. Why is it that we single out a very small group of people and elevate them to almost god like status. And we seem to do this almost to a man.

I suppose we are always seeking heroes to lift us above the mundane. Of course Hollywood offers us any number of heroes and in many guises. They are pre-packaged and served up to us in neat containers of film stock. This is the substitute hero that does not elevate us but diminishes us. It takes away our humanity, substitutes our morality with a pre-fabricated version that reduces everything to a comfortable level of mass ignorance. No I am talking about real heroes. The people with heads of gold and feet of clay. Those people who rise above us to elevated heights, and at the same time seem to reflect some of our worst flaws. These are the true heroes.

Steve was universally acknowledged as a great Australian. He was an ordinary bloke who did things in a way and with a personality that seemed to capture our imagination. He championed the cause of the environment. We all loved him and identified with him. We were not at all surprised that his family declined a state funeral, in fact almost expected it. He was one of us which was one of the reasons we made him our hero. But – yes he was flawed. We all recall the baby incident, and the criticism it drew. However, we expect our heroes to make mistakes, that way they are no so different from us.

Of course we all remember Martin Luther King Jr. No man did more to highlight the plight of the African American. He was a focal point for civil rights during the 60s. I did then and I do now consider him one of my heroes. Flawed – oh yes. Wether the stories put about were a concoction of that arch hypocrite JEH or no it was probably the case that he was not perfect. Yet in a contest of virtue I know who would come out on top. It is interesting that arguably the most powerful person in the US at the time is now one of the most reviled. And the person who was the expert at besmirching people’s chanters was himself one of the most corrupt.

The there was that other icon of the 60s, JFK. Would he have reached such elevated status had he lived? Certainly, there is no doubt King would have. Kennedy, I’m not so sure about. That he was in a politically difficult position – there is no doubt. That his hands were tied by circumstance – is certain. That he would have achieved his agenda – possibly not. However, I think he was the right man at the right time and stands as a giant amongst the Presidents who could have been so much more and I believe achieved so much had he not had such an untimely demise.

Getting back to the start again, why was it that Steve Irwin had such an elevated status? There was really nothing to set him apart. He was just an ordinary bloke that captured our imagination. He was one of us, and could have been any of us. I suppose that this was what made him special – that he was not, special that is. He reflected that which we as Australians value the most. He loved the bush, the Australian wildlife, that sense of being one step away from danger, family and his own country. He was us in other guise. In the end he was quintesentially Australian, and I suppose that is why the Americans loved him too. He was larger than life but not so large as to alienate.

One of the characteristics of western civilisation is its sanitisation. My sanitisation I mean the desire and ability to hide things which are difficult to cope with. I suspect that the rise of sanitisation began in the early 19^th century in Victorian England where there was a desire to regularise the unpleasant and uncomfortable things in society. It started before that, and I suppose there has always been a desire, more or less, to sanitise the uncomfortable but we have almost achieved a state of societal perfection at hiding the unpleasant.

We have done this by creating institutions to hide all the unpleasant things in society, employing a special caste of people to deal with these difficult things and then pretending that they do not exist. The media has been complicit in this by romanticising these unpleasantries to make these things easier to cope with. Even our language has been sanitised.

What I am talking about is death, disease – both physical and mental, procreation, bodily functions and human aberrance. We have created institutions for each of these in order to rid ourselves of the personal responsibility of them and to hide them from view. We have commissioned people to staff these institutions and deal with the unpleasantness for us.

Last night I watched a documentary on the Twin Towers disaster in the US and more specifically on the “Falling Man” image that appeared in newspapers the next day. Following the publication of that image there was a huge outcry against its publication. As they were discussing the reaction it seemed to me that the problem was that the general population of the US were in denial. The concept of people having to jump to their deaths was expunged from the public record. Instead of admitting its existence it was replaced with the more heroic aspects of the tragedy. There were heroes yes, but we are more ordinary people that heroes and even our heroes are flawed people. To admit this is wisdom not weakness.

This is a result of the syndrome of the institutionalisation of tragedy. We construct memorials to the heroes and forget the ordinary people who could not cope – the rest of us. We lock them away in hospitals, psychiatric homes, gaols and conveniently forget them. We employ firemen, paramedics, doctors, nurses, funeral attendants and police to deal with them and hide them for us. The media is complicit in this. It censors, sanitises, packages and then presents these nice little bite sized packages for our consumption. We have a criminal, an investigation, then a court hearing all conveniently summarised in a 1 hour (excluding promotions) program for our enjoyment. Then there is the genius doctor who, when faced with the most obscure, baffling and complex case can solve it in exactly – oh well … one hour, and he gets these regularly in weekly intervals. But they are never too distressing or gory. Then there are the journalists. The professional liars if you will. Am I being too harsh? Maybe but we ask nay expect them to lie to us. This is what we have demanded from journalists and they faithfully oblige.

We have come a long way in the last 200 years. We no longer maintain workhouses and treadmills, but in some ways the situation is worse. Because the gross inhumanity has been ameliorated our consciences have been sated and we feel far more comfortable.