Category Archives: Uncategorized

I hear with my little ear: Podcasts 1-8 November 2025

Let’s just jump ahead, shall we? I have been listening to podcasts between September and November, but many of them have been current affairs podcasts, which just come and go.

The Human Subject (BBC) The Gay Man and the Pleasure Shocks From the website:

This is the story of patient B-19, a 24-year old who, in 1970, walks into a hospital in Louisiana troubled by the fact that the drugs he’s been abusing for the past three years are no longer having the desired effect. He claims he is “bored by everything” and is no longer getting a “kick” out of sex. To Dr Robert Heath’s intrigue, B-19 has “never in his life experienced heterosexual relationships of any kind”. Somewhere along the way, during the consultations, the conclusion is drawn that B-19 would be happier if he wasn’t gay. And so they set about a process that involves having lots of wires sticking out of his brain. Julia and Adam hear from science journalist and author, Lone Frank, author of The Pleasure Shock: The Rise of Deep Brain Stimulation and Its Forgotten Inventor.

Actually, I wasn’t particularly shocked by this episode. It was the 1970s after all, time of ‘Clockwork Orange’, and brain stimulation and operant conditioning was all the go. While most of us wouldn’t see being gay as something that had to be ‘cured’, I do wonder if truly deviant behaviour that would otherwise see a person incarcerated for life (an inveterate child abuser?) might not still turn to methods like this?

The Rest is History Episode 606: Enoch Powell Rivers of Blood With Nigel Farage on the loose, it seems appropriate to go back to revisit Enoch Powell and his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech. As Dominic and Tom point out, Enoch Powell is better remembered than a lot of Prime Ministers are, and he influenced Thatcher and inspired the Brexiteers. He was born in Birmingham in 1912 and was a precocious child who seemed destined to be a classics scholar. He had no interest in women, but he was obsessed by Nietzsche. He was a Professor of Greek at Sydney University by the age of 25 (I didn’t know that!), but he really wanted to be the Viceroy of India (as one does). He fought in WW2 but not in a combat role. He was a Tory, but he was often critical of the party, and championed English nationalism in Parliament in his hypnotic droning voice. He decriminalized homosexuality, was anti-Vietnam, anti-US but economically very dry. Despite the influx of Windrush and British/Pakistani immigrants in the late 1940s, immigration was seen more as a regrettable necessity rather than a national issue. At first Powell did nothing about the reported ‘white flight’ from areas like his electorate of Wolverhampton, but by 1964 it was recognized that immigration had to be controlled to avoid the ‘colour question’, a question supercharged by television of unrest in Montgomery and Alabama in the US. Why did Powell change? He argued that he was representing the views of his electorate, and he held up an ideal of the English people and became more radical as a way of distinguishing himself from Heath. In 1967 there was an influx of Indians from Kenya after Kenyatta expelled them and an Act was passed to restrict immigration. The Labour government introduced a Racial Relations Bill in 1968 which prohibited racial discrimination in areas like housing. When the Tories decided to quibble over the details but accepted the principle of the bill, Powell was furious and this was the impetus for the ‘Rivers of Blood Speech’, which was publicized beforehand, so television crews were there to record it. He was sacked as Minister for Defence, but he had strong support on the streets. He never distanced himself from violence, but he was wrong- there were no rivers of blood. And until now Tories wouldn’t touch the issue again.

The Rest is History Episode 577: The Irish War of Independence: The Violence Begins (Part 2) After their largely ceremonial electoral victory in 1917, Sinn Fein established an alternative shadow government which had cabinet positions, courts and issues a Declaration of Independence. It wanted to attend the Paris Peace Conference, but it didn’t get a seat at the table. The IRA was recruiting heavily, but the majority were more involved with logistics and protection rather than firing guns. The conflict hotted up in the early 1920s when the IRA began attacking police barracks and courts. There was a mass resignation of police, and they were replaced by ex-army soldiers, the notorious ‘black and tans’ and auxiliaries. In 1921 the Flying Columns and IRA intelligence ramped up, with localized violence. But this violence was not necessarily a sectarian war, but it certainly had sectarian aspects.

In Our Time (BBC). Apparently Melvyn Bragg is stepping down from In Our Time after 26 years. He is 85, after all, and he was starting to sound a bit quavery. So, they’re dipping back into the archives and they replayed an episode on Hannah Arendt from 2017. She was born to a non-observant Jewish family in Hanover in 1906, a family that was so non-observant that she was surprised when she found herself singled out as being Jewish. She had an affair with Heidegger, but then he became a Nazi. She was a classicist, and she maintained this interest throughout her life. She escaped to America in 1941 as a refugee, where she developed English as her third language. In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, she warned of a new sort of atomized evil, like a fungus, and she saw Eichmann as thoughtless, rather than evil. Actually, I hadn’t realized that she was anything other than a political writer: she was just as focussed on the human condition as politics.

I hear with my little ear: Podcasts 16-23 September 2025

The Shadows of Utopia Season 2 Episode 13: Tet- Part 1 Hue Time Period Covered 1968

This episode covers the Tet Offensive of early 1968. Lachlan links the media coverage of the event, with the extreme scenes in Saigon, to the reality of the offensive and what the communists hoped to achieve. It was a failure of intelligence, and the Viet Cong intended it to be the start of a revolution. Five or six major cities were taken, and there was a 6 hour fight in the US Embassy, but there was no follow-up.In Hue, perhaps the most stunning battle of the offensive took place, as for four weeks the city was occupied by the NVA and NLF. During this time, as a brutal campaign of house-to-house combat took place, the communists embarked upon a reign of terror to reshape the city they had taken, at least 2800 civilians were murdered. The US held off bombing for the first 10 days, but then they smashed the city. In the second week the US still hadn’t taken it back, but by the third week the US and South Vietnamese took it back. Hanoi admitted that expected uprisings had not occurred. The US media emphasized the surprise North Vietnamese victory and there was a turning point as Walter Kronkite described the situation as a stalemate.

And with that… I was off to Vietnam myself.

I hear with my little ear: Podcasts 16-23 August 2025

The Rest is History Episode 583 The Lion, the Priest and the Parlourmaids: A 1930s Sex Scandal The story of Harold Davidson, the Rector of Stiffkey (sometimes pronounced ‘stuckey’ for some insane English reason) challenges you as a listener to either judge him with the obloquy he deserves, or to take a more ‘charitable’ view of him as a naive man mis-cast into the clerical profession, who had been framed and punished unjustly. He was a Church of England minister who took an intense interest in young girls of easy virtue, and he became known as the ‘Prostitutes’ Padre’. He ended up being defrocked, after the Bishop of Norwich launched proceedings against him for immorality. His courtcase revealed multiple occasions of pestering, but there was only one main witness against him. Always a frustrated stage-performer, he spent the rest of his life as a Blackpool showman trying to raise the money to appeal his case, ending up being mauled by a lion as part of the sideshow. Tom and Dominic become a little silly during this episode, but it does lend itself to farce.

History’s Heroes. I must admit that I’m a bit wary of any podcast that proclaims to deal with ‘heroes’, but I was interested in the story of NZ plastic surgeon Harold Gillies, the subject of Saving Face with Harold Gillies, a two-part episode. Born in New Zealand, he trained and lived in England, and when World War I broke out, he went to the front where he worked on men who had suffered the appalling facial injuries, many of which were sustained when raising their heads above the trenches. World War I changed the nature of war: 300 men in 1914 were equivalent to 60,000 in Napoleon’s time. On the front, he recognized the importance of the work of dentists, who were better at facial reconstruction than doctors were, He pioneered the use of the ‘flap’, where skin from one part of the body was reattached to other parts of the body over a long series of surgeries (although looking at the Wikipedia entry, I don’t know that the results of the flap were much better than the original surgery). In fact, the results are so poor that perhaps Harold Gillies could be considered by the The Human Subject podcast, which looks at some of the barbarities that were carried out in the name of science. After the war, he moved into cosmetic surgery and gender reassignment surgery – indeed he carried out among the first female-male and male-female surgeries. The second episode features interviews with his son and grandson, who query somewhat the heroic status awarded to Harold Gillies, while still maintaining pride in their connection to him.

El Hilo. I’ve been appalled looking at the prison regime introduced to El Salvador by Nayib Bukele, and this 6-part series does a really good dive (if very critical) into Bukele and his policies. I’m listening to it in Spanish, and reading the Spanish transcript. However, it is possible to get an English translation of each episode here. Episode 1: Someone Like Bukule (link is to the English translation) goes to his childhood as the grandson of Palestinian immigrants, and the son of a politically engaged businessman and commentator. His political career started off with a mayoral position in Nuevo Cuscatlán, before moving on to become the mayor of San Salvador. Episode 2 Move Fast and Break Things (Muévete rápido, rompe cosas) (I don’t think there’s an English transcript) follows his career as he becomes the President, breaking the hold of the Left on the presidency by presenting himself as an outsider to the political system (even though he had been involved in mayoral politics). Despite making many populist promises during the campaign, then warns of “bitter medicine” required to solve the economic and social problems of El Salvador.

Global Roaming (ABC) And blow me down if Geraldine and Hamish don’t devote this week’s episode to Nayib Bukele as well. Meet the ‘World’s Coolest Dictator’ features an interview with Vera Bergengruen who is one of the few Western journalists to have interviewed Bukele for a TIME profile. She emphasizes Bukele’s ‘poster child’ status amongst other Latin American countries moving to the right, and his stratospheric popularity, even among families that have a family member incarcerated in his terrible prison system. Good, but it lacks the depth of the El Hilo series (only to be expected as this is a single half-hour episode compared with six one-hour episodes)

Missing in the Amazon (Guardian) Episode 5: The Fightback. In Lula da Silva’s first presidency, there had been a 50% reduction in deforestation. When he returned to the presidency in 2023, it was the closest election result in Brazilian history. After Bolsonaro had given carte blanche to illegal operations in the Amazon, Lula reactivated the special forces to apprehend the mining barges and illegal fishing. However, poverty, the size of the Amazon and organized crime mean that there are low sentences and big money. Pelado was a mid-level commander in an operation conducted by Ruben Villar (there are different versions of his name) AKA ‘Colombia’, a warlord withh strong political connections. Will he ever face court? (update as of 22/7/25- The Federal Court of Amazonas has accepted the prosecutors’ case against ‘Colombia’ ) Episode 6: The Frontline In June 2025 Dom’s book How to Save the Amazon was published. Ironically, despite Lula, it is just as dangerous today and if Dom and Bruno embarked on the same expedition, there would probably be the same result. His friend Betto thinks that Lula has squandered the opportunity to confront organized crime, while others are more optimistic, hoping that Lula wins the next election in 2026.

Off again

Of for a little trip to Vietnam, where I will meet up with Dean, Jesse and the granddaughters. Once again, you can join me at https://landofincreasingsunshine.wordpress.com/

See you on the other side.

Movie: The Friend

I read this book some time ago, and reading back my review, written so carefully to avoid spoilers, I had no idea what the ‘twist’ was at the end of it. I shouldn’t have been so delphic! Anyway, I think I must have interpreted what the film portrays as a visualization as being a fact in the book – or at least, I think it was a visualization. I found myself more worried on film to see the obvious power imbalances with this white, blonde academic luxuriating in her rent-controlled New York apartment, blithely ignoring the hispanic people who were doing their jobs, and twisting the rules about ‘service animals’ ( a term so vague that it is meaningless) to keep a dog which was far too large for an apartment.

My rating: barely 3 stars

‘Why We Remember: The Science of Memory and How it Shapes Us’ by Dr Charan Ranganath

2024, 194 p & notes

In many ways the subtitle of this book is a better indicator of its content than its headline title. The neuroscientist and memory researcher Dr Charon Ranganath does explore the connection between the evolution of the brain and human social behaviour, but he does this mainly through an exploration of the physical structure of the brain before widening his analysis to a more sociological and legal perspective.

His book starts with the evolutionary ancient structures of the brain: the hippocampus, amygdala and the nucleus accumbens. He then goes on to look at evolutionarily-later developments like the perirhinal and prefrontal cortex and the Default Mode Network. These structural elements of the brain are bathed by neuromodulators like dopamine and noradrenaline. To be honest, I couldn’t really tell you specifically what he argued in relation to these more scientific aspects of his book (I can’t remember!) but while at times he becomes rather technical, the language and approach is fairly low-key so that you don’t feel as if you are reading a science textbook.

What interested me more was the social and behavioural aspects of memory which he also deals with. Memory has evolved to enable us to forget much of what we experience. Instead of being backward-looking, memory plays an important role in orienting us to the new and unexpected, and episodic memory helps us to predict what can happen in the future. It is episodic memory, with its placement of beginnings and endings and its tethering in a specific place and time, that declines most with age, while semantic (i.e. facts and knowledge) memory, which is transferable across contexts, remains fairly constant.

The parts that interested me most were his discussions of memory-construction. A memory is not a grab from a fixed, if sometimes inaccessible, mental film-reel, but is instead the constant retrieval and updating of a memory, with subtle alterations creeping in with every reiteration. Moreover, the story varies depending on the audience for retelling as well, as when family memories are shaped into a story with which to regale listeners. As a local historian who collects oral histories, this is a rather disconcerting thought. And more than merely disconcerting are the implications of evidence in legal cases, where long interrogations and repetitions, and in particular ‘shaping’ questioning, can embed a memory that is different from the original one. Courtroom questioning, which involves retrieval of the memory for an external audience operating on different parameters, shapes memory with sometimes dreadful consequences. It’s all very destabilizing.

I had a recent example of this. I was talking on community radio about our local historical society, and was invited to select two songs and talk about the reason for selecting them. One of them was ‘5.10 Man’ by the Masters Apprentices, which I remember for being presented as a new song by the Masters when they appeared at our school social in 1969. I decided to check the Facebook page for my school, where I knew that there had been a conversation about that social, only to find that other comments made it 1968, and the ‘new song’ being ‘Turn up Your Radio’ (which couldn’t have been right because it wasn’t released then). I found myself questioning my original memory, although self-centred to the last, I’m sticking to my 1969 5.10 Man memory.

Charan Ranganath is no Oliver Sacks. His book is based far more in the laboratory than Sacks’ work, with example after example of rather odd lab tests, often using university students, that add incrementally to the science of memory. I did find his compulsion to praise everybody that he had ever worked with rather cloying as well. He intersperses his analysis with some personal anecdotes that, while being somewhat more ‘memorable’ for me than the scientific parts, were not particularly earth-shattering in themselves, and they lacked the deep empathy of Oliver Sacks’ work. So, interesting enough in its own right, although for me the implications of his work are more thought-provoking than the actual explanation.

My rating: 7/10

Sourced from: Yarra Plenty Regional Library

Read because: I read a positive review in the New Scientist.

Vale: Pepe Mujica

“Pepe” Mujica Cordano was a Uruguayan politician, revolutionary and farmer who served as the 40th president of Uruguay from 2010 to 2015. He died on 13 May 2025. He was imprisoned for 14 years and tortured as a member of the Tupamaros guerillas, and on his release he threw himself into politics. The times suited him: there were a number of left-wing Latin American governments at the time, and the economic situation was good for Uruguay. He never took a salary while he was President, and tootled around in his little blue Volkswagon, continuing to live in his very humble house. After his Presidency, he remained much as he had been while President, giving wide-ranging and wise interviews to journalists.

Today, the United States has a grifter and braggart as President. You could not find a more stark contrast than Pepe Mujica.

Off again…

Well, I’m off to Cambodia again, with a little detour via Tasmania for about ten days, and a side trip to South Korea before heading for home again.

You can follow my travels at https://landofincreasingsunshine.wordpress.com/2025/03/21/tasmania-20-march-2025/

‘Question 7’ by Richard Flanagan

2023, 288 P.

When I first heard about Richard Flanagan’s Question 7, I thought “But that’s just a rehash of everything he’s already written”. It’s true that there are flashes of his earlier work, almost as if he’s tipping his hat to it in passing. The Tasmanian section evokes The Sound of One Hand Clapping, Wanting and Gould’s Book of Fish, his mentions of his father’s wartime experience sparks memories of Narrow Road to the Deep North and his mother’s death was explored in The Living Sea of Waking Dreams, and the final chapter brings to life Death of a River Guide. But this makes the book sound like a glorified ‘greatest hits’ and it’s much, much more than that. It’s brilliant.

The title is taken from a Chekhov story, where a question is posed in the form of those schoolroom maths questions that still give me a sinking feeling in my stomach:

Wednesday, June 17, 1881, a train had to leave station A at 3am in order to reach station B at 11pm; just as the train was about to depart, however, an order came that the train had to reach station B by 7pm. Who loves longer, a man or a woman?”

Who, indeed. The real question is love, not the train or the timetable, and it’s a question that is unanswerable. So too, is the question of causality that brings each of us where we are.

Without Rebecca West’s kiss H. G. Wells would not have run off to Switzerland to write a book in which everything burns, and without H. G. Wells’s book Leo Slizard would never have conceived of a nuclear chain reaction and without conceiving of a nuclear chain reaction he would never have grown terrified and without growing terrified Leo Szilard would never have persuaded Einstein to lobby Roosevelt and without Einstein lobbying Roosevelt there would have been no Manhattan Project, and without the Manhattan Project there is no lever at 8.15 am on 6 August 1945 for Thomas Ferebee to release 31,000 feet over Hiroshima, there is no bomb on Hiroshima and no bomb on Nagasaki and 100,000 people or 160,000 people or 200,000 people live and my father dies. Poetry may make nothing happen, but a novel destroyed Hiroshima, and without Hiroshima there is no me and these words erase themselves and me with them. (p.237-8)

We meet all these contingencies and people in this book, written as a series of small shards within ten chapters: the Enola Gay pilot Thomas Ferebee, physicist Leo Slizard, the writers H.G. Wells and Rebecca West, his parents, his childhood in Roseberry, Tasmania, the Burma Railway and indigenous dispossession. Themes arise, drop and rise again, and parts of the book are an extended reflection on death and memory, encountered over and over. It’s hard to fit in into any one genre: it’s history, non-fiction, memoir and philosophy all rolled into one. The most compelling writing in the book comes at the end, when he tells his experience of nearly dying – indeed, did he die and is all this just a dream?- that he fictionalized in Death of a River Guide. My dinner was ready, and I was being summoned with increasing impatience, but I had to keep reading, even though I knew that clearly, he did, survive – and if it was a dream, then we’re all enmeshed in it too.

I have always loved Richard Flanagan’s right from Gould’s Book of Fish, which was the first of his books that I read. I’ve read interviews as part of the publicity for this book, where Flanagan said that he didn’t know if he’d write another book and I must admit that I closed it, feeling that he had written himself completely into the book, wondering how he could ever write anything else after this.

The best book that I have read in ages.

My rating: 11/10

Sourced from: borrowed for a friend (for far too long!)

I hear with my little ear: 16th -23 January 2025

History Extra How Roman Roads Transformed Europe. You know, I don’t think that I’ve ever been on a Roman road, although would I have recognized it if I was? (I haven’t travelled much in Europe, just in England and a bit in the south of Spain). Catherine Fletcher, author of The Roads To Rome: A History notes that there were eight main roads heading out of Rome itself during Roman times, and that they weren’t always straight if there was a big geographical problem in front of it. Romans could travel 30 miles a day on a Roman road, and they were later used in the Crusades as a way of quick army deployment. Napoleon dreamt of a road to Moscow, and Fascists were rather attracted to them too.

The Coming Storm Season 2: Episode 5 The Photocopier. Somehow or other Gabriel Gatehouse gets an invitation of a meeting of a start-up called Praxis that is full of all the tech-bros who are planning to start up a new state, with no bureaucracy but governed by block chain. Praxis, and other groups like it, draw on the book The Sovereign Individual by William Rees-Mogg in the 1990s which predicts the fall of the nation-state and the rise of the cybereconomy. (Yes, the father of the politician Jacob Rees-Mogg). There’s a connection with Jeff Giesea (former Trump supporter but no longer) and Peter Thiele, both tech entrepreneurs- this is all rather scary stuff.

The Rest is History Episode 295 The Rise of the Nazis: The Beer Hall Putsch Nazi Germany haunts all popular leaders in a democracy. Hitler didn’t win outright- he was given power because he was the biggest party in a systerm of horse-trading. How far back do we have to go to find the origins of Nazism? Historian Richard Evans looks to Bismarck in 1871, who built force, violence and the army into the German constitution. There was the theory of ‘germandom’ where Germans had the right to be united under the one Reich although Germany was a late-comer to imperialism. A sense of pan-Germanism arose, expressed through a ‘Band of Brothers’, Boy Scout sort of mentality. The Social Democrats were the biggest party but were never really trusted. During the 1880s and 1890s Darwinism had emphasized life as struggle and weakness, and this fed into a disdain for weakness. Judaism came to be seen as a racial rather than religious category, and antisemitism increased. The Germans didn’t think that they had started WWI. and they didn’t believe that they were defeated as such, even though they had lost the war. In 1919 Hitler was still in the army and started giving lectures for the National Socialist Workers Party, which he was good at, and he became their star speaker. In particular he used medical imagery for his anti-semitism (e.g. poisoning the blood etc). The Weimar republic at that time was headed by a monarchist but the fear of revolution, heightened by the Spartacist Uprising, helped to unite a society that might otherwise fractured. Germany had borrowed heavily to fight the war, because they assumed that they would win, and when they defaulted on their French loans, the French govt took over the Ruhr. All groups in German society, both left and right, had their own militias, and there was a general anti-government sentiment. At the Beer Hall riot, Ludendorf was influential but Hitler, who did not at this stage see himself as a leader, took the rap. The court case was manipulated in that Hitler had a choice of location and judge, and it provided an opportunity for Hitler to give a four-hour speech. At this stage there was a capitulation of all of the forces that should have been guardrails against Hitler. The President died, and there were elections at which the Nazi party received 3% of the vote. It started to work on increasing its presence amongst farmers and northerners but no one really thought that the Nazi Party could take power unless there was an unforeseen calamity. And then the Depression hit.

Rear Vision How to end conflict- the art of peacemaking Peacemaking is front of mind in Gaza and Ukraine (neither of which I have high hopes for). The current day UN and United States definition is that peace = not fighting, however, in many other traditions peace is seen as a way of living together so that each has dignity. In medieval times, war was a way of settling rights, and it always ended in negotiation and compromise- but without blame between Christian nations. This changed with Versailles, when the idea of war guilt was introduced (which arguably, led to WW2). After WW2 there was the creation of the United Nations, and the idea of mediation between warring parties either through the UN or a sponsor nation. This doesn’t always work, especially as it tends to involve the imposition of democratic structures prematurely e.g. Rwanda. South Africa and Ireland are examples where good leadership was able to bring about peace, where it was recognized that you are negotiating with your enemy (not your friend) and that risk and compromise is inevitable. Some of the speakers spoke about the need to include people who have been designated ‘terrorists’ into the peace negotiations, otherwise they will just act as spoilers.

In the Shadow of Utopia In rounding out his first season after THREE YEARS of broadcasting- what a long-term commitment!- Lachlan Peters gives a roughly one-hour summary of everything that has gone before, both as a form of revision for those who have been listening to the whole series, and as a quick catch-up for those who are joining it here. Season One Recap: Cambodian history from Angkor to Independence is a really good episode, although I do wonder whether it moved too quickly for those who weren’t familiar with it. He has been talking throughout about the concept of a ‘hurricane’ leading to Pol Pot, with pressure coming from foreign pressures, combining with internal patterns. In going through his quick chronology, which he does very well, there are three underlying themes (i) geography with Vietnam on one side and what would become Thailand on the other (ii) the style of leadership stemming from God Kings and patronage and (iii) external factors like the Enlightenment in shaping French colonialism, Marxism and the Cold War. Well worth listening to.