Books Books Books

Right, enough politics and anti-Americanism for now, though i fear there may be plenty more in the future! I have decided, with a little prompting, to write a few reviews of the books I have read this year, which are listed at the bottom of this page. It was pointed out that although jolly nice of me to share the titles of the books, it would perhaps be better to also say whether I had enjoyed them. Fair enough thought I, but at the same time I can’t help feeling a little uneasy about it. I’m a great believer in making up your own mind about something, particularly where art is concerned, and I don’t think it is really my place to pass judgement. However, it was my mother who asked, and she is a fairly formidable woman, particularly after a glass or two of wine, so I thought I had better just get on with it really.


Before we begin though I should point out that the reviews that will appear over the coming weeks and months are unlikely to be the kind you read in the Sunday papers; although prone to the occasional bout of self indulgent use of flowery prose myself, I can’t bear the pretentious nature of so called critics who write in the press. I don’t just mean literary critics, film, restaurant, music, it’s all the same. So, not for the first time, I aim to be different.

Also, the reviews will be in no particular order, although if it helps the list at the bottom is, with the title at the top being the most recent.

I shall begin with The Righteous Men, by Sam Bourne.

In a word, rubbish. Ha, this is easier than I thought.
Basically the story of a New York journalist (they seem to be the staple protagonist among crime writers, is there really so little news to report in the Big Apple?) who’s wife, or fiancé or something, is kidnapped. Unfortunately for our intrepid reporter he was away at the time, “investigating” a mysterious murder in some far flung corner of the USA. Amazingly, the mysterious murder and the kidnapping of his wife are connected. Imagine the likelihood of that! So, needless to say, our reporter begins to investigate harder, digging for the truth that can save his, yawn, wife. Now, this may not come as a surprise, but given the success of Dan Brown in recent years, Mr Bourne (Dan Brown / Sam Bourne…subtle) bases his story around religion, namely Judaism. Which is not, as I once thought, the religion of Judo black belts.
I read this book in a hotel room in Manchester earlier this year, it was raining outside (for a change) and I decided to stay in and read. In hindsight, I should have braved the weather.

Like I said, this is just my opinion. I daresay if you are planning a little spot of lying on a beach somewhere hot for a week or two this summer, this book may be right up your alley. Otherwise, avoid it.
By the way Sam Bourne is the nom de plume of a journalist. Oh, how original.


Next up, The Pilo Family Circus, by Will Elliott.

It is fairly easy to label The Righteous Men as your typical beach holiday book. A thriller by numbers offering for the masses. Nothing wrong with that by the way, and I’m sure old Mr Bourne is raking it in. This book, on the other hand, is a touch more difficult to put in a particular genre. Part macabre mystery, part social satire, part circus story, part noir fiction. Hmmmmm. I have to admit I bought this book because, and it pains me to say it, I liked the cover. I know I know, how very shallow of me. That’s like buying a Picasso because you like the frame. Not that I could afford a Picasso. Or even a decent looking frame for that matter. Anyway, I bought it, started reading it, and soon began to wonder if maybe in the future judging a book by its cover may not be such a great idea. However, the more I read the more I wanted to read. It’s the story of a guy called Jamie who is working some dead-end job in Sydney, or Melbourne I can’t remember, and one night he is walking home and he stumbles across three psychotic clowns. Well, he thinks nothing of it till he gets a little note left on his pillow inviting him to audition to join the circus. I say invite, but it’s more a threat than anything. And shortly afterwards his house is more or less destroyed by the clowns. You see this is no ordinary circus; it’s some kind of parallel world circus for lost souls, where the magic is very real. And ever so slightly dangerous, particularly for the visitors.
To say anymore would give too much away, and I really don’t want to have to explain myself to Gonko….



Seen as I am on something of a role, how about another review for luck?
Dermaphoria by Craig Clevenger. This is his second book, the other being The Contortionist’s Handbook, which I have also read.
In terms of genre I suppose this would be lumped in the noir fiction category, although that really doesn’t do it any justice. It’s hardly Chandler. Clevenger’s use of description is utterly mesmerising, he just seems to have this ability to suck you in to his story and play around with your senses somehow. It is not the kind of book you can sit and read in one session, the story is too fragmented (deliberately) and the style too jolting, but it is a brilliant book. It tells the story of a guy who awakes from a drug induced coma with little recollection of who he is, or how he got there. The police help him with the basics, but they are more interested in the bits he can’t remember. The content of the chapters flits between the present and the past he can’t remember, until at some stage the two blend to form the whole story. He seems to have a thing for people who lack identity; The Contortionists Handbook is about a guy who constantly changes his identity to stay off the social register. Both books are highly original, and definitely worth a read in my opinion. Not bad eh, two reviews for the bargain price of one there.

Fear not dear reader(s) more will follow shortly!

“I like to be in America, everything free in America!”

Not my words obviously, but I thought it was better than quoting Razorlight. That particular lyric also sums up what America stands for; The Land of Opportunity, The Land of Hope and Glory, The Land of the Free etc etc. Now the cynic within wants to add a couple of footnotes to those particular claims, but I will try to suppress the urge for now. I’ll be honest I’m not sure where this post is going really, I’ve been wanting to write something about the Good Ol’ US of A for a while, without really knowing what. So, bear with me.

Firstly, I have never been to America. Indeed, I am yet to leave Europe. However, why should that stop me sharing my opinion?! There are a few things I want to talk about really, Gun culture being one, the political system and forthcoming election, and George Bush.

Let’s start with the Gun Culture. I remember about 8 weeks ago, when the most recent University shooting took place, I really wanted to write something but never really got round to it. Initially the first reports I read and saw on the news ran the headlines about the tragedy being linked to the ever increasing gun problem within the USA. But very quickly the emphasis of the reports changed, focussing instead on alleged police incompetence for failing to evacuate the campus after the initial shooting. If you remember the Student then returned some 45 minutes later and killed a dozen or more people.

I am not here to judge the actions of the police; I have no experience of such situations to be able to comment. However, I felt at the time, and still feel now, that more should have been made about the fact that a University student was able to obtain automatic weapons. This is not the first time this has happened; it is becoming sadly a rather regular occurrence in the USA. Earlier this year an Amish community was victim to a similar tragedy. The thing that annoys me most is that each time it happens the first thing we here is that “the right to bear arms is a fundamental part of our constitution”. That, in a strictly literal sense, is true. It is the Second Amendment. However, I find it hard to believe that the founding fathers imagined it being used in this way. In the USA there are more weapons in private ownership than there are people, so although it may well be part of the constitution, something doesn’t add up. How far are we to stretch the Land of the Free mantra, free to shoot whoever you want with whatever weapon you choose?

The right to bear arms is the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. In my understanding of the English language, and maybe this is where the confusion arises in the States, the word Amendment implies it wasn’t part of the initial constitution, but was added at a later date. As such, it is hardly a fundamental part of the constitution. Secondly, it is an Amendment, so, why not amend it?!


Right, politics. This is becoming a bit of a theme to this blog really isn’t it, maybe I have too much time on my hands over here! I admit that there are aspects of the American system that confuse me, some aspects that revolt me, some that make me laugh and some I just don’t understand. So, any mistakes I make here are purely the fault of the incomplete British education system, and not my own!

The American Presidency lasts for four years, with a maximum of eight years being possible. That, for a start is a bit strange in my opinion. That means that every eight years there is bound to be some kind of major regime change, which is not great for stability. Take the example of Clinton, for all his faults he presided over 8 years of sensible economic policy, only to see Dubya come along and blow an Iraq sized hole in the treasury. That Bush was even elected is another thing I don’t understand, it is all down to the Electoral College system.
As I understand it, on election day all the Americans who are slim enough to leave their house and clever enough to tick a box (around 90million) go to vote. They “choose” the candidate they want their state to vote for. Yes, you read that right. If the majority of people in Ohio vote for the Democrat candidate for example, that means that the state appointed elector is “pledged” to vote for that candidate. By the way, the “pledge” is not legally binding! In total there are 538 state appointed electors in the country. The number of electors per state is equal to the number of elected members that state has in the House of Representatives. All of which means that votes in one state could count more than in another. That is the American version of Democracy.

To illustrate just how stupid that is, take the following example.

3 million Texans vote for the Republican candidate, 2 million vote for the Democrat. So the state of Texas votes republican. Texas has 34 votes, out of the total of 538.
Over in Maine 1 million voters vote Democrat, giving them the majority. Maine has 4 votes, out of a total of 538.

So, three times as many people vote republican, but that translates to almost ten times as many of the final votes. I understand that there may be many more Texans than there are natives of Maine, but the votes for each state do not correspond directly to the population.

So, what could happen, in theory, is that one candidate could be so unpopular in 39 states that he does not win one single vote, yet scrape home with a majority of one in 11 states and be elected president. The important states are:
CaliforniaNew YorkTexasFloridaPennsylvaniaIllinoisOhioMichiganNew JerseyNorth CarolinaGeorgiaVirginia

The question that has to be asked here is this- Is it still democracy if you can lose the popular vote and still win the election? In my opinion, no. It is also worth remembering this when you listen to pro-war propaganda justifying the invasion of various countries in the hope of introducing democracy to the people. This is particularly amusing in the case of various countries in the Middle East which used to have democratically elected leaders until the post war period where the US financially backed military coups in order to guarantee favourable oil supplies and prices!

The next election is 16 months away, but already the fight has begun to win the party nomination. The candidates from both sides have been travelling across the country canvassing for support in various key states. 16 months before the actual election, there are already candidates who are dropping out of the running, some through lack of support, and some through lack of funds. Becoming President of the USA is an expensive affair; it helps to have rich friends, or rich family. If not you have to raise the funds through private sources, usually from business men in return for favours, positions in government, or presidential pardons should they end up on the wrong side of the law. We are talking about tens of millions of dollars simply to run as a candidate. Again, not my idea of democracy. Sure anyone can raise the money in theory, but it helps to have connections. As such, you don’t necessarily need brains, policies, or political experience to become President, but rather a good campaign manager, a good tailor, a private jet and a load of cash.

Like I said, its sixteen months away, but I may as well have a little look at the candidates while I’m here. And it will be funny to look back and see how bad my predictions were!

Hilary Clinton – strong favourite to win the Democratic Candidacy, obvious advantage that Old Bill was much loved, and she is highly regarded in the Senate. On the downside, she hasn’t got Bill’s charisma, cant play the sax and I’m not sure she likes cigars. It would be a huge occasion if she became the first female president, and maybe that is what the country needs.

Barak Obama – Not too far behind Hilary at the moment, but strangely struggling in the South, where he expected to do well. His policies are taking shape, he has raised the most cash, though he is a tad opportunistic and jumps on bandwagons fairly quickly, but he is a new kind of politician in the States, young, energetic and potentially the first black president. Again, it would be a huge change.

Rudolph Giuliani – Republican front runner, strong support in Republican heartlands, but little chance anywhere else. He’s a brash New Yorker with Italian roots, hardly President material, or is he? Little opposition in the Republican Party so should gain the vote to run.

John McCain - A veteran of the Presidential race, lost the support of his campaign team, is broke, supports the war and is pushing 80. Probably has a good chance then!

There are others of course, but I think it will be a straight choice between Obama and Clinton. Personally, I’d like to see Obama win, but I think Clinton will. What odds on President Clinton and Vice President Obama I wonder? There may of course be a twist in the tale, and an independent may run and win, Michael Bloomberg has dropped hints, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see Al Gore have another pop.


Right, George Bush can wait for now, I will eventually get around to writing something about him, just not yet!

Ok, talk to you all soon!

And now for something completely different..

So, following on from three over-long posts about politics, how about something a little bit more light-hearted? As part of this website I have the option to generate a report showing how much traffic my blog is attracting. I can get a regional breakdown, which shows me which cities I have readers in (Hello whoever you are in Auckland!), or a breakdown by operating system, or by browser or any number of completely useless things. Normally I don’t use it, but I logged in this week and for the first time saw I could generate a report showing me how people had found their way to my blog. Unsurprisingly, most people use a direct link from my email or whatever, and a few people have found me from within another blog, however the most interesting, and hopefully the most amusing, are the Google searches.

Now, personally I’m a fan of Google, both the search engine and many of their other products, but every now and then I wish the search was a bit better, a bit more specific somehow. And I’m fairly sure that the poor person who typed in “Midge Ure is God” and found themselves redirected to my post about misunderstanding the lyrics to “Vienna” by Ultravox, probably feels the same! I realise by the way that the chances of this happening again have just increased, so if by any chance you are a slightly strange Ultravox fan with a firm belief that Mr Ure is indeed God, well welcome, sorry to disappoint! I should add though that although ultimately annoyed at not receiving confirmation of Midge Ure’s new status as an official deity, the misdirected reader did linger for over 10 minutes, probably searching for more Ultravox posts!

I also have a reader who typed in “Who is Flash Harry?”, so it seems that I am also providing a public service. Everyday is a school day here.

Right, I’m now going to go lay in the sunshine somewhere and bake myself in the 40 degree heat.

A New Beginning for Old Europe...Part 3

Ok, deep breath, here is the third and final part of my little piece about Europe. Apologies if anyone is mad that I've stopped being random for a minute, I do have a serious side as well! In the future though rest assured I will write about unicycling penguins, electric monks and spray paint gospel. Or something. Anyway....

As discussed, Brown is not a naturally charismatic leader in the Blair mould, and is unlikely to become Head Boy of Europe. Angela Merkel on the other hand seems to be on her way to top of the class already, her only problem is that she may not be Chancellor for much longer, depending on the stability of the German Grand Coalition. So it’s there for the taking, and you can bet your bottom Euro that Sarkozy wants it. He’s ambitious where Chirac was complacent, and has the energy and charisma to win over his doubters within Europe. On the other side of the Atlantic however, he hasn’t got a prayer.

The Americans love Blair, he’s the president they always wanted but never had. Think about it, he’s intelligent, charismatic, a genuine leader with a genuine mandate to govern, and doesn’t have a chequered past or present. And he speaks English, not some made up variation laced with a southern drawl. Brown has a chance over there too, should he wish to take it. What he lacks in charisma he can make up for with his intelligence and experience. Sarkozy on the other hand, is French. And despite his love of the US and desire to succeed over there, he will always be seen as such: the Napoleon of the 21st Century. So while he may be able to unite Europe, he will need the UK to get to the States.

And what of Angela Merkel? She’s was famously referred to, in a slightly disparaging manner, by her former boss Helmut Kohl, as “the little girl”, and many thought she would struggle to make the Grand Coalition work…but, it seems the little girl has grown up. She took a leading role at the summit on climate change, was a key factor in the EU Constitution compromise (compromise being a nice word for failure) and in many respects it seems she can do no wrong. The German economy is recovering, unemployment falling (slowly) and the general consensus seems to be positive. But, German voters are notoriously fickle, though not as bad as the French. Coalitions are a common feature of German Government, usually one of the two big parties (SPD & CDU/CSU) has to side with one of the more marginal parties in order to form a government. Currently though there is a Grand Coalition in place, and the question is really whether this will last the full term, or whether it will collapse under the weight of internal opposition. So, from a purely European point of view, despite her success, Merkel may only be a temporary player.


So what does all this mean? Well, Old Europe, as it is often called, isn’t looking quite so old anymore. At various points in history the world has been dominated by various Civilisations, Empires, or more recently, Countries. The American period of dominance is on the slide, not merely economically and militarily, but the whole ideology put forward by the States has taken a battering in recent years. The smart money is on a period of Asian dominance, China, India and to a lesser extent Japan are in a position to collaborate economically to establish a dominant trading area, although to what extent they can dominate politically is difficult to say. But, for those who know me this will come as no surprise, I don’t often go for the smart bets. Currently Europe is in no position, economically or otherwise, to become a dominant world force. But, in the future….

A New Beginning for Old Europe...Part 2

Ok, this is part two (of three), so if you haven't read part one, get cracking!

Brown has had an eventful few days since he took over, car bombs in London and suspected terrorist attacks in Glasgow, hardly the best start to a new job. On the other hand he is fortunate that for the last 10 years the Conservatives have been too busy in-fighting to come up with anything remotely resembling opposition. However, that doesn’t mean he has an easy job. Yes the economy is booming. Yes the Labour party are leading the ratings. Yes his best mate is leader of the Liberal Democrats. But, in order to be successful he has to make changes for the good of the country, not just for the sake of change, otherwise state-school educated Scotsman could lose out to Eton-educated English man. For the first time since I can remember the Conservatives have an electable leader in David Cameron. I’m not saying I would vote for him, but I could. Hague and the other bald fella were awful, plain and simple. Whether Cameron has the policies to win is another question for another day, but one thing is clear, Brown is a leftie at heart, and will lean that way whether his party likes it or not. Elections in the UK are not won on the left or the right, but in the centre, that’s where Blair was clever, and the conservatives were not. If Brown does pull away from the centre with strong social rhetoric and reform (which I believe he should), well then Cameron would be a fool to stay where he is now. Anyway, like I said, that is a topic for another day.

Let’s move now to the question of Europe, and where the UK stands. Under Blair, we were right in the thick of it, every congress, summit, meeting or dinner produced a picture of Blair surrounded by the other European leaders. Brown, although a strong personality in his own right, is not that kind of leader. Does this mean we will move away from Europe? NO. In many respects we are fortunate that despite our size and reluctance to call ourselves European, the EU needs us, both financially and politically.

Gordon Brown also has the advantage that his previous post was that of Chancellor, and it is he who for the last 10 years has kept the question of Euro entry at bay. A different leader, with a different background could easily be seduced by the thought of joining the Euro Club, not so Mr Brown. Another thing in Brown’s favour is that he is not the only new kid in class. European politics has been dominated for the last decade by Blair, Chirac, Schröder and, thankfully to a lesser extent, Berlusconi. Europe now has a new look; Merkel, Sarkozy and Brown, for the next couple of years at least, will dominate. The one to keep an eye on in that list is obviously Nicolas Sarkozy, the new French President. I’ll be honest, I’m not a fan and never have been. I lived in France when he first started to get some attention, mainly for his hardline policies on crime and justice, and took an instant dislike to him. It’s not the policies I dislike specifically, it’s his “I’m right and you’re wrong” attitude. Nevertheless, I strongly believe he is the right man for the France at the moment (that is not a veiled attempt at insulting Mlle. Royal); he has recognised that unless he can reform, and reform quickly, France is in trouble. The reforms will be painful, but they need to be, in many respects France is in a similar position to the UK in the late 70s: high unemployment, social unrest (the French national sport), strong unions and a stagnant economy. However, despite this reformist zeal Sarkozy has protectionist tendencies, and if left unchecked could cause more problems than he solves. Within Europe he will look to take over Blair’s role, both as unofficial leader of the EU and the link with the USA. The first of these he will probably manage, the second will be a lot more difficult.

A New Beginning for Old Europe...Part 1

I said the other day, or week, that I was intending to share my views on the UK’s new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. I started that, and it was an interesting read let me tell you, but I think I was been a touch narrow in my scope really. The UK is not the only country to have a new leader, and to be fair I don’t even live their anymore, so I thought I would take a more continental approach and look at Europe as a whole. By the way I heard it said recently that in Britain we view ourselves as the Continent, and the rest of Europe as the Island, can’t really argue with that! Anyway, for now I WILL write about Brown and the UK, but that, as they say, is just the beginning….

Tony Blair has been the Prime Minister of the UK for all of my adult life. I remember him being elected, I remember watching that old guy on the news with really bright shirts getting excited playing with his “swingometer”, and I remember becoming vaguely interested in politics for the first time. I am not crediting Blair with this; I think it was just coincidental timing. And now he has gone. It’s very difficult for me to judge him really, as I have nothing to compare him to. I remember John Major, I remember Margaret Thatcher, but I couldn’t tell you anything about a decision or policy or speech either of them ever made. So Blair has left the building, heading for the Middle East (and he hopes the Nobel Peace Prize) and we now have the robust figure of Gordon Brown standing outside Number 10. I think it is fair to say that we will see a number of changes over the coming years; a concentration on domestic policy, an improvement of the public services and health system, less spin and PR opportunities, and hopefully some genuine opposition from the Conservatives.

Blair’s period of office was dominated by the American lead War on Terror. I won’t criticise him for that, in many respects he had no choice but to participate, and participate fully. But his stubbornness and reluctance to listen to the people ultimately lead to his departure from office. Personally I didn’t agree with the invasion, and subsequent occupation of Iraq, but what is done is done, it is what we do now that counts. Brown, I imagine, will slowly begin to pull the troops out, despite his recent trips to Iraq and Afghanistan as part of his quest to become leader, I don’t think the climate in the Middle East suits his Scottish skin. Domestic policy, as Brown is acutely aware, is what makes or breaks a leader. This is where he will concentrate, and rightly so. The UK is economically strong, the pound is booming, and internal investment high, but socially we are in the dark ages. Our hospitals and public transport systems are a joke (unless you go private or live in London), the education system is a one-size-fits-all solution to a thousand different problems, and needs urgent overall, and both culturally and morally there is room for serious improvement. In my opinion Blair has papered over the crack somewhat on most of these points, announcing ambitious plans for city academies, and new hospitals, and then losing interest as soon as Bush called on the Bat Phone. But, if we were to believe everything he told us, we would think the UK was something close to Utopia. With Brown, I hope, we will hear the truth. For all the negative press he has received regarding his Scottish roots and dour personality, I look at it this way: I would rather have the leader of my country tell me the truth, albeit in a dry, boring manner, than be lied to by a smiling public schoolboy. I like Blair, don’t get me wrong, but after 10 years of teeth and arm waving I’m ready for a change. And I’m sure the same applies to you too, so for now, that is that. Part two will follow shortly….

If I ruled the world....

I really should avoid the supermarket….it’s becoming my muse or something!

So, following on in my egotistical reverie, here are a couple of other things I’ve noticed that I would change, given half a chance…

So you walk into a supermarket and what is the first aisle you come across? Bingo, fruit and veg. Fine, I have nothing against fruit or indeed veg, my point is this. You put your bananas and tomatoes and whatever else in your trolley or basket, happy that you at least shop healthily, even if you don’t necessarily eat the same way. Then you move on, and for the rest of the shopping trip are trying not to squash all the delicate fruit and veg with less delicate items, like tins, washing powder, wine or whatever. Why not turn the aisles round, have the heavy, ugly stuff first, and the glamorous, fragile fruit and veg at the end?! Come on you know i’m right!

Secondly, imagine you’re a bloke (hopefully for some of you that’s fairly easy) and you are out shopping with the missus. She’s off to try something on that will probably look fine but she needs at least half an hour of flattery first, so you are waiting outside the changing rooms, among all the underwear, belts and god know what other accessories women seem to buy. Why don’t shops put the men’s section near the women’s changing rooms, so that we can have a look at clothes while we wait? No matter how long I’m waiting outside the changing room the chances of me buying a bra are slim. Put some men’s shoes, or wallets, or shirts or anything, and I reckon I’d give in and buy something. Surely someone must have done this somewhere?

Or maybe it’s just me….

Right, time to go again….hasta luego