Tom Lehrer and I

The wonderful, multi talented American singer-songwriter, saatirsit, painist and matematician Tom Lehrer commented on the occasion of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger in 1973 that it 'made political satire obsolete'.

I am reminded of this when trying to write a blog linking the large arms fair at the Excel centre in London this week, the American Secretary of State John Kerry, arriving in London yesterday to call for support for intervention in Syria after their alleged use of chemical weapons and the latest news that Russia seems to becoming the peace broker.

So rather than write I will listen to my old Tom Lehrer CDs and reflect on how the world has changed [?] since I first heard them.

Write an essay detailing what you did in the holidays

When our children were small, Other Half used to comment that ours was probably the only home were Mum was crying because the kids were going back to school the next day and the kids were excited. Leaving that conundrum aside, many children will be facing the above written question in the next few days, maybe in a foreign language, in an attempt to ease them and their teachers back into school routine.

However, holidays are important. Time to spend with families and other friends to those of term time, different places to see - maybe only a bus ride away but still away from the norm. Different things to do - or maybe the same old things but in a different place. Jam sandwiches as a child but made by my maternal Grandmother tasted so different!

Most of the school holidays this year Other Half and I spent in our little tin hut, on a cliff in the West Country with family and friends. We camp out very often with the same 'crowd', some of whom we may only meet up with once a year. Grandchildren came and stayed, played and left again. Some asked for different things and played different games. We tried to show them things and were taught things by them and our friends. Friends came and went, some did not make it this year whilst others arrived joyfully after a gap of a couple of years. We all returned home dirtier, older and maybe a bit wiser.

I learnt that jumping on bouncy castles creates a very strange feeling in one's tum.
I saw that some children cannot bear even to drop a ball in a competitive game whilst others loved just to join with others in the fun. [This attitude seems to continue in adult children. Especially little boys of about 35 or so]
I found it possible to ignore politics when the strain became too much and a cream tea was on offer, but not the threat of another war in the Middle East.
I watched Mums smooth over many a dispute between toddlers to teenagers. As with the awareness of war, Mums can never relax their vigilance. However - waiting awhile until the dust settles often means that quarrels are forgotten and the game continues in another way.
I realised that however happy one is, the death of a dearly beloved uncle, however elderly and expected, can still break one's heart and necessitate time alone to think about him and give thanks for his life.
I enjoyed the quiet times chatting with old friends just as much as the rowdy times being ever so silly and laughing a lot. The company is the main thing in both instances.
I noticed how different we all are. Children and adults, brothers and sisters, parents and childrens - we all have differents likes and dislikes and with fixed views even at two or three years old. Trying to change another's views is so often unnessary - there is usually the space to accomodate all - or that bane of children and parents: 'Share'!
I understood that there can be as much joy in small things that don't cost much as in huge presents. Watching the face of one of my grandson's on a trip to a [free] museum as he became interested in an artefact was a treasure that could not be bought!

Maybe some of our politicians and leaders should watch children at play and learn a few things from them. It can't be worse than the way the politicos are acting now, surely?

Just a few random thoughts, and I am still sad when the [grand] children go back to school.


Photo courtesy: http://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk/forum/phpbb/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=9907&sid=8db1042267ce03e2494f9406df37d1d1

History Lessons or Isn't Napalm a chemical weapon?

If we don't learn the lessons which history teaches, just how civilised can we claim to be?

Study the 'causes' of the First World War, ask a handful of travellers on the Clapham Omnibus, and the answer will probably along the lines of 'wasn't some aristo in Sarajevo shot or something?' But in reality a complicated chain of alliances between foreign powers which were hustling for supreme power saw the result of european countries' militaries rushing into battles in which over 37 million deaths and wounded totalled amongst military and civilians world wide. Meanwhile the ordinary volunteer/conscript believed s/he was fighting for the honour of his/her country. Was s/he? Or was s/he in fact just fighting to keep the word of some Minister given over 'talks' in another country many years before, which may have been given as much for trade agreements as anything else?

And for what? Many say the the seeds of World War Two were planted in the 'peace' treaty and reparation deals of World War One. At least 60 million people were killed worldwide in what many describe as the deadliest military conflict in history with innumberable injuries. [For a breakdown - world wide - of casualties click here ]

All the major 'campaigns' since WW2 have called for similar alliances from the major powers. Harold Wilson refused to support President Johnson in Vietnam - the US government 'took over' that conflict from the French when the latter pulled out in 1965 - for a really good lesson in the history of Indo China/Vietnam this link as taught in GCSE is a great help. Tony Blair rushed to the aid of President Bush over Iraq. 'Historic alliances' are still quoted - yet how many really understand why and for what reason/benefit this alliances are quoted. How many in power question whether war of any kind is just and right?

This is a very roundabout way of discussing the debate in the House of Commons on Thursday evenings which resulted in the decision not to take immediate military action in Syria. Last weekend William Hague seemed ready to rush into Syria behind the US without any cautions such as UN intervention/inspectors. Hague suggested it was 'clear' that the Syrian regime was behind an alleged chemical attack on its people without any hard evidence. Did the electorate support his assertions?

David Cameron did at least recall parliament to vote on Syria And The Use of Chemical Weapons [text of the debate available on that link] on Thursday 29th August. Ed Milliband posted an amendment and of course there were many recriminations from speakers from both sides. Cameron's final remarks when his motion fell were: 

It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the Government will act accordingly.

were a huge relief to so many of us who campaign for peace. William Hague looked extremely angry and it was said the Michael Gove had a tantrum and shouted at his colleagues who had not voted with the government. Oh well.

Just a few thoughts:

War is wrong in any context
Chemical weapons kill indiscriminately but so do bombs and other weapons
Isn't Napalm - as developed and used by the US -a chemical weapon?
How does any army really know that they have God on their side?*





*Bob Dylan: With God on Our Side

The photograph above is a WW1 Australian soldier, http://www.awm.gov.au/visit/first-world-war-galleries/ 

I may be a bit of a Curmudgeon*

I may be a bit of a Curmudgeon* when it comes to all things royal - but here's the thing. When it comes to all things historic, I am a sucker, even if they bear the 'royal' tag. And I really like birth, marriage and death certificates because of what they can tell us. Really interesting things, like whether parents were married before or after a certain person was born/conceived. Or - as in the case with some of my more disreputable ancestors - whether the certain person's parents were married to other people completely at the time.

Sometimes these certificates show that a person one might have known for years under a certain name was ever actually registered with that name at all. I had to sign all sorts of extra forms when dealing with my late mother's affairs because she hated her given name and used a different one, an 'aka' as the solicitor put it [also known as] Whilst I sighed at the extra this would add to the eventual legal bill I also made a mental note to tell my children that this process would have to be gone through when tidying up my legal affairs as I too am not known by the name by which I was registered.

My naughty great great grandfather had two women claim to be his widow on their death certificates [or rather the informants of their death claimed the women were his widow] although neither of them in fact were. His legal wife - whom he had left around thirty years earlier, eloping with her niece - died before him but still claimed to be his widow, a story she had probably told to her friends and neighbours to cover his absence. ['Yes he popped out for some bread and died on the way back'] The niece with whom he eloped - and who became my great great grandmother - outlived him and claimed to be his widow but wasn't because they never married. [It would have been illegal in both state and church law at the time due to the relationship between the two women] And both women used his incorrect given name, as the name he was known by not being the name with which he was registered.

And trying to trace the history of someone through tracing occupations of birth and marriage certificates or census returns is also fraught with pitfalls. Many fathers want to 'big themselves up' on their daughters' marriage certificates and have described themselves as farmers instead of agricultural labourers and shopkeepers instead of shopworkers. We never did find the Public House to which one of my great grandfathers claimed to have been the licensee although I did find one which employed him as a general servant and occasional barman. I am told that certain occupations on census returns denote that women of so called certain employments are really no better than they should be. Suffice to say, not in my family laddie and move on smartly to other things!

So although I really am not that interested in the new addition to the Royal Family I did think I would have a quick look at his birth certificate, courtesy of the Daily Telegraph [above]. Should have known better. Because I have come all over extra Curmudgeonly* [I am loving that word and think I will make it my word of the week]

So here are my moans. Does 'His Royal Highness Prince' really constitute part of the baby's name? Can anyone add it to their offspring's list of names? Is 'Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom' really an occupation?  - or does that just show one's perceived status rather than occupation? 

As used as I am to perusing such certificates, the one above really does tell me something new. It tells me that although all little babies are born in roughly the same way and have the same basic needs, they will not all be viewed equally right from the very start. They will never be addressed equally if one starts out on his very first piece of paperwork as 'His Royal Highness Prince'. They can never be equal if one has parents whose occupations are unachievable by his peers parents.

Baby George does not have a surname, as shown by his father on this piece of paper. Other children in history who have not had a father's surname on their birth certificates have not usually had the sobriquet 'Prince' attached to their name. Often their parent[s] went to great lengths to hide that missing surname and children suffered inequality all their lives.

So lets have a bit more equality, shall we. If we don't start off equal even in the paper work, we are a long way from being equal in real life aren't we? And all the excitement about the Cambridges being a modern, forward thinking family will be shown to be spin, won't it?

*Noun

1.

curmudgeon - a crusty irascible cantankerous old person full of stubborn ideas

Now does that sound like me?      Elizannie xx

One's Future King* [or Queen] / Fairy Godmother wishes

I wish that every new baby arriving in this world was to be as happily welcomed as the new baby arriving very soon in the Lindo wing of St Mary's Hospital, Paddington.

I wish that all new parents could afford to spend over £6000 a night to ensure that their baby's arrival was happy and trouble free.

I wish that everybody realised that the doctors and nurses who will be ensuring that the new body has a smooth entry into his/her family were trained by our wonderful NHS.

I wish that when I put the radio on there will be talk about something else other than the imminent arrival of the new royal baby but that seems to be the triumph of hope over experience. After all there is nothing going on in the UK today: 

I wish that the PM is not apparently guilty of using an advisor who also advises tobacco companies and private health companies. [The PM was pretty arrogant when questioned by Andrew Marr yesterday on the latter's TV show, so the former must be cleaner than clean.]

I wish that people are not committing suicide because ATOS is turning down their incapacity benefit claims and/or they are losing their homes due to the bedroom tax. 

I wish Pensioners are not having to work longer because rules have been changed or their pension providers have gone into liquidation or [little dig here] Companies are reneging on their promises. 

I wish the National Health Service is not in the most dangerous state it has ever been in due to this government seeming to want to privatise it all as soon as possible [the term 'asset stripping' seems appropriate here]

I wish that the so many injustices in the UK at the moment could be righted with a wave of the Fairy Godmother's [above] wand. We could have all our libraries, post offices, coast guard stations back just as a start!

I wish that all the babies born in the next few days will have the same opportunities in life and especially of education as the one due to be born in St Mary's. Surely in the 21st century one tiny baby should not be 'worth' more just because its distant ancestors' armies managed to outkill another's army?

I wish that Thomas Jefferson's phrase 'All men [and women!] are created equal' applied in the 21st century across the globe. [Without George Orwell's 'rider' in Animal Farm that 'Some are more equal than others']

I wish peace and happiness, love and light to all new babies and their families wherever and whenever they are born.

*With apologies to the Book Once and Future King by T.H.White

The photograph is - as I am sure everyone recognises! - from the film Wizard of Oz. Billie Burke, the Fairy Godmother.

Bread and Roses

Youtube of Judy Collins singing 'Bread and Roses'. It can be bought from amazon.co.ukhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Bread-And-Roses-LP-
I have blogged about this beautiful song before, albeit under another guise, but we all need reminding of  good things - especially when they are under attack from the evil forces of our coalition government and right wing propaganda from various media sources. Elizannie may have been away from the computer for a few weeks but she is still ranting and raving!
Benefit recipients and Pensioners are and have been getting - as usual - an awful lot of flak for apparently sucking the economy dry. It would apparently please very many of the nation's citizens if those receiving such largesse if it were to be cut down to just sufficient to maintain life [bread]. Luxuries [roses] must not be included. The following song expresses so well why we all need Bread and Roses to survive. [More explanation of phrase below]
Bread and RosesAs we go marching, marchingIn the beauty of the dayA million darkened kitchensA thousand mill lofts greyAre touched with all the radianceThat a sudden sun disclosesFor the people hear us singingBread and roses, bread and roses

As we go marching, marchingWe battle too for menFor they are women's childrenAnd we mother them againOur lives shall not be sweetenedFrom birth until life closesHearts starve as well as bodiesGive us bread, but give us roses

As we go marching, marchingWe bring the greater daysFor the rising of the womenMeans the rising of the raceNo more the drudge and idlerTen that toil where one reposesBut the sharing of life's gloriesBread and roses, bread and roses
Edited from the earlier Clarice post:

The poem Bread and Roses was originally written by James Oppenheim (1882-1932), an American poet and writer, coming to prominience as a motif for the 1912 textile workers' strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts and as such is associated with the womens' movement as those involved with the strike were mainly women. One employer lowered wages when the working week was shortened by law, and the industrial action eventually spread to twenty thousand workers at nearly every mill within a week. The strike, despite predictions of other American trade unions that the workforce of a true downtrodden minority - that of ethnically diverse and mostly women workers - could not be organized, was successful. Sadly over time the union collapsed and workers rights once more were eroded.
The 'Bread and Roses' in the refrain stand for the way that workers lives are made up of more than just the struggle for work and the struggle for beauty has to take place too - other wise work has no inner meaning. To progress is not just for material gain but for emotional and spiritual beauty in our lives!
The term 'Bread and Roses' has since been associated with political strife and was the title of the 2000 Ken Loach film about the right to form a union of Mexican labourers in Los Angeles.

There is another beautiful song with the same title and message, written by Martin Whelan and sung here by my old mate Roy Bailey, who has very slightly altered the lyrics in one place:

Bread and Roses
If we don’t have our dreams
What do we live for?
If we don’t have our dreams
What did James Connolly die for?

Look up the sky is burning
With blood that workers shed
We’ll carry on the battle
For roses and bread.
Bread and roses
Roses and bread
We’ll carry on the battle
For roses and bread.

He was born to organise
That’s what Jack Jones lived for
For being a union man
That’s what Joe Hill was killed for.

Look up the sky is burning
With blood that workers shed
We’ll carry on the battle
For roses and bread.
Bread and roses
Roses and bread
We’ll carry on the battle
For roses and bread.

With dreams in solid steel
That’s what Mandela lived for.
For dreaming of what might be
That’s what Allende died for.

Look up the sky is burning
With blood that workers shed
We’ll carry on the battle
For roses and bread.
Bread and roses
Roses and bread
We’ll carry on the battle
For roses and bread.

Let’s dream that dream of dreams
Of life without sorrow.
And maybe our dreams
Will build a new tomorrow.

Another 'twist' on the phrase Bread and Roses is sometimes said as 'Bread and Circuses' but actually means the opposite! It means that 'Circuses' are being offered as diversions to deflect the masses from the austerity of the times. Sound familiar? Next time the Government is offering something that sounds too good to be true, think of bread and circuses and this definition:

a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary 

PS Elizannie has been away for a few weeks due to a mixture of family worries, family fun and holidays. Thanks as ever to the NHS for sorting out - and continuing to sort out - the family worries and to the family and friends for supplying the family fun and holidays!

Do You Value Your Vote?

As so often when I am looking for a subject to write about, suitable items seem to multiply and push themselves forward in my mind. Yesterday during some family history researching I found a male ancestor was able to vote in 1873. This led me to check the qualifications for voting at that time. They were not - as I had thought - ownership of property, but that a man was a householder and could be renting a property, thanks to the provisions of the 1867 Reform Act. This led of course to an investigation of exactly when and to whom voting rights were extended and a good, quick explanation can be found here. This link also shows how men and women campaigned - many dying - in their attempt to gain universal suffrage. We often glibly talk about the Chartists [the picture shown above is taken from one of their campaign banners] yet how many of us know the six points of the charter?:

• Votes for all men
• Equal electoral districts
• Abolition that Members of Parliament be property owners
• Payment for MPs
• Annual general elections
• Secret ballots. 

All men over 21 and women over 30 achieved the vote in the Act of 1918, and I suppose most school children who have studied the First World War would know this and quote that the Suffragettes who had laid aside their campaigning at the start of the war to help the war effort were thus rewarded - especially as so many had worked hard in munitions factories, nursing, in men's jobs to free them for war service etc etc. [I would like to point out that my feisty, trade unionist Grandmother - the original Elizannie - who had worked in a munitions factory all through WW1, whilst my Grandfather was at the front, did not get the vote at this point as she was under 30. Women had to wait for total equality to men until 1928 when their age for the right to vote was lowered to 21 also in the Equal Franchise Act.

So why am I writing today? Well perhaps you have noticed in the media that it is 100 years ago today that Emily Wilding Davison was fatally injured by the King's horse at the Epsom Derby in her campaign to obtain Votes for Women. There have been over that one hundred years many discussions about her motive for stepping out onto the race track and some can be found here. 

Emily belonged to the Women's Social and Political Union, WSPU, commonly called the Suffragettes. Their aim to extend suffrage - the vote - to women seemed hopeless at their start, madness during the campaign yet was successful in the end. It must be emphasised that Emily belonged to what is perhaps the more 'militant arm' and not all members and supporters believed that breaking windows and chaining themselves to railings etc was the way to get the vote. The WSPU has also been criticised for only worrying about  middle-class women and their higher class 'sisters'. However, as all women eventually received the vote, all women have a lot for which to thank them.

The composer Dame Ethel Smyth was a member of the WSPU and wrote this anthem for them when in 1911:


When we look at this very brief history of the campaign for universal suffrage, please let it inspire you all to vote in the next election that comes your way. Even if you 'spoil' your ballot paper to show your distaste of politicians, please take the time to go to the polling station and draw your voting slip. Remember that people, especially women, have died to get you the privilege to vote. Remember them by using that privilege and valuing your vote. Please.