Fathers and Sons

I have often thought it interesting that a strong father can sire a weak and ineffectual son. This is particularly true of the Kings of England, who fairly abound in strong fathers and weakling sons. For the average person a weak son may be a perpetual nuisance and a continual drain on the purse strings, but nothing to worry about. However, a weak king, particularly in those days when kingship meant power, was a real pain in the proverbial.

Perhaps the best example of this father/son phenomena is Edward I and his son Edward II. Edward Longshanks rightly takes his place as one of the strongest Kings of England. Of course the Welsh and the Scots have rather less kindly opinions of this King. Just read Edith Pargeter's "Sons of Gwynedd" series, or Nigel Tranter's "Robert the Bruce". After all it was Edward 1 who, having dispatched Llewellyn, the last Prince of Wales, held the new born Edward up to the Welsh and said "Behold, here is your new Prince of Wales" not only showing how sensitive he was to other peoples feelings, but also starting a tradition of naming heirs to the throne the Prince of Wales. Edward got his other nickname "Hammer of the Scots" because of his penchant for meddling in their affairs - usually with an army in tow and while Edward I was alive, Robert the Bruce spent a fair amount of time on the run and communing with spiders.

Edward II was made of less fiery stuff. Not that he lacked courage, but he didn't seem to get things right. Firstly he lost Scotland at the battle of Bannockburn, which probably caused his dad to roll over in his grave. Secondly he had a penchant for favourites who were soundly disliked by powerful people. His first favourite, Piers Gaveston, was murdered, but he recovered from the loss and later became "good friends" with Hugh Despenser. Now Edward's queen, Isabella, hated Hugh, and decided to get her own back by taking a lover herself. This was the devious Roger Mortimer. Together they deposed Edward, forced him to abdicate, and took over the Regency in the name of his son, Edward III. Despite all their subsequent efforts - starvation, unsanitary conditions, concentration camp tortures - Edward II stubbornly refused to die. He was even briefly rescued. So there was nothing for it. They murdered him. With sadistic delight and some evil sense of commentary, they stuck a red hot poker up his nether regions. It is said that the agonising screams of the King can still be heard echoing around the halls of Berkley Castle, where the deed was done.

Of course Edward III despatched Mortimer and sent his mother into "retirement" as soon as he was able and ended up having one of the longest reigns in English history. But people have always got to carp and so it is said of Edward, that he had too many sons for England’s good. So it was down the track that his quarrelling descendants ended up having a little party called the War of the Roses. This came to a head in the reign of Henry VI. Henry was only nine months old when his father, Henry V of Agincourt fame, died. He grew up to be a gentle and sensitive man, who suffered a fair bit of illness. Some said he may have been mentally ill, and I guess any man who was more interested in sending his own soul to heaven, instead of despatching others to meet their maker, could be considered mad by the standards of the time. Barons could point out that the French were still waiting and there were more Joan of Arc's to kill, but Henry didn't care. In fact he preferred to pray and allow others to care for his kingdom. Battles for power ensured, especially with the House of York and Henry was finally defeated and sent to the Tower. He was murdered there: struck down while saying his prayers. It is said that while he lay in state, his wounds still bled as a testimony to this horrible and sacrilegious deed. In medieval times some believed that a murdered man's wounds bled in the presence of the murderer, so perhaps this is poetic licence on the part of the chronicles. If not, then the only other explanation is that the poor man wasn't dead - only in a massive coma. Makes you shudder to think doesn't it.

Macbeth-ically speaking

"Double, double, toil and trouble, Fire burn and cauldron bubble." What a neat way to set the dark scene in a dark play. "THAT play", "THE SCOTTISH PLAY" - a play that is considered so unlucky in theatrical circles that it's very name is forbidden. Should some unfortunate quote a line from that play, when not in rehearsal or performance, he has to go through an elaborate ritual to deaden the curse, and stop the misfortune, that thespians believed will fall. Disaster seems to follow that play, and there are reputably more accidents associated with Shakespeare's "Macbeth" than any other play.

Shakespeare wrote "Macbeth" for James 1, King of England. It was supposed to be a moral tale, outlining the fate metered out to those who decide to kill their King. Unfortunately, James, who Guy Fawkes had tried to blow to pieces in the failed Gunpowder Plot, found the storyline a little too close to home for comfort. He did not find Regicide an entertaining topic and made his displeasure felt. So "MacBeth" was unlucky from the start.

Nigel Tranter, the Scottish historical novelist, has more than one bone to pick with Shakespeare. This lying Sassenach had besmirched a noble king, he says, and he tries to set the record straight in his novel "Macbeth, the King". Lady Macbeth, according to Tranter, is one of the most maligned women in history. Obviously she was not known for sleepwalking and the wringing of blood soaked hands. This novel makes interesting reading for anyone who has studied MacBeth.

Why is Macbeth so unlucky? Why is it cursed? Well- according to Richard Huggett in his book "The Curse of Macbeth and other Theatrical Superstitions", Shakespeare included a real witches curse in his play. Yes folks - all that eye of newt, and hair of bat business is a witches code. The hooked nose warty ones don't really go around de-eyeing newts or doing a pluck-a-bat on Dracula's friends. These comical terms hide the identity of secret, sinister ingredients. If you want to know what they are, you'll have to become a black witch. I wonder if Shakespeare would have opted for accuracy, if he'd known what trouble the real curse was going to cause.

If you happen to find a copy of the "Curse of Macbeth and Other Theatrical Superstitions", check the index and see what the book says about Dame Nellie Melba. I guarantee you'll never think of her in quite the same way again. I hope he is wrong, that the superstition referred to is a malicious lie about a great Dame, but strange things happen in this world.

While thinking of witches, the following ditty sprang to mind. (Composed by me during a moment of madness.) I include it for your groans.

There's bad dogs breath and horses tails and lots of eye of newt

All stirred up in the stew, just for you

There's black bats wings and a nightingale sings as I stir it round the pot

And I've made it nice and hot, just for you.

You left me for another. T'was a rotten thing to do

But you'll be sorry Dearest when you've eaten up my stew.

There's oodles of poodles and wormlike noodles and Mummy bandages, too

All stirred up in the stew, just for you

There's criminals nails and puppy dogs tails and soot from the chimney flue

All stirred up in the stew, just for you

You left me broken hearted, I cried all through the night

But this concoction Darling, will make everything alright

There's toes of frog and bristles of hog and spider webs and more

And yukky things galore all about to even the score

With the rat who left me for another girl.

Noah's Ark - fact or fantasy?

Noah’s Ark found, said the headlines in the paper. Fundamentalist Archaeologists have found what they believe to be the remains of Noah’s Ark on Mt Ararat. Of course this is old news. The ark is always being found by someone and as soon as it is the sceptics all leap out of the woodwork and deny that such a thing is possible. Although I personally believe that it is unlikely that the ark has survived for over 4000 years, I am not averse to believing in the miraculous survival of religious artefacts as my previous post attests.

What I do find interesting is how diametrically opposed the rabid fundamentalists and the rabid scientists are when referring to anything that has a connection to the Bible. There never seems to be a middle ground and as a result I think we are doing ourselves a grave disservice. Of course a lot of the problem occurs because of the nature of the Bible. The Old Testament is a collection of books which include mythology, history, poetry and prophecy. The older books were handed down orally before ever they were written down and every one was written at least 2000 years ago and some up to 5000 years ago. 2000 years ago the world was a much, much smaller place than it is now and it was definitely a very small place when the story of Noah and his ark burst into our collective memories. When Noah was alive who really knew what was happening three hundred miles away? We, on the other hand, look at the world as a pretty blue and white ball, with no place more than two days air travel away from any other place. If something affects the world we think of the entire planet. The ancients thought of an area probably as far as a man could walk in a week, if that.

The Middle East abounds with flood stories and Noah wasn’t the only one building an ark and crashing on mountains. The Epic of Gilgamesh tells of another contender for saviour of the world. I suspect there is a germ of truth to the story; that someone did build a big boat and did save some animals during some sort of catastrophe. However Noah, Gilgamesh or whoever didn’t go trawling around the world looking for elephants, giraffes, kangaroos and polar bears. Why should he? He didn’t know Africa, Australia, the Americas or the Poles existed. No – he would have taken aboard his goats, sheep, cattle, dogs, cats and all the other domestic animals that made up his little world. And if everything was flooded for hundreds of miles around then obviously their entire world was flooded. It all makes sense if we look at the story from an ancient not a modern perspective.

Imagine if in five thousand years mankind tells of a modern day Noah who in 3012 used gene banks to save all the animals in the world for posterity and our space age descendants pooh poohed the story. Would the fact that he didn’t save animals from such exotic worlds as Rygel XVI or Aquarius IX make the whole story a myth just because modern Noah was completely unaware that such worlds existed let alone be populated with animals?

Considering the proliferation of Ark stories in the Middle East one wonders what major catastrophe might have lead to their creation.  Well it appears there was a massive catastrophe which did occur in the right part of the world during the time when people inhabited the region and it could have remained in the consciousness of their descendants. What is now the Black Sea was once a fertile plain, where early man had settled, raising his animals and planting his crops. It was divided from the Mediterranean Sea by a narrow strip of land which apparently collapsed about 5000 B.C. The sea flooded onto the plain inundating it and creating the Black Sea. It is fact that the remains of early settlements have been found under waters of the Black Sea and there are those who believe this event could be the origin of the flood story. Whether it was or not is open to debate but it sounds logical.

Of course the story that the flood was sent by God or the gods to punish mankind for its wickedness is probably due more to interpretation than actual fact.  Remember - everything written in the Bible was written with hindsight - unless it was prophecy.  If something bad happened then God had to be furious with us, if something good happened then God was on our side. If the Israelites won the battle it was because their cause was just.  If they didn't - then God was punishing them.  Its similar to lectures given by modern day preachers interpreting the events of modern days.

Of course we will never know if Noah, Gilgamesh or the others really existed unless the ark really is found and is verified by scientific examination, but I think the story itself is plausible providing we acknowledge that our world is not the world of the Ancients.

Happy sailing everyone.

The Shroud of Turin

On Easter Sunday I saw a very interesting documentary on one of my favourite relics – The Shroud of Turin - believed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ and by others to be a very clever medieval fraud. The documentary was a non biased, non sensational investigation into the carbon dating of this intriguing artefact, and put forward a non conspiracy explanation for its medieval carbon dating results. I was enthralled.

Those who know me well are aware of my ongoing interest in the Shroud and my certainty that there was something wrong with the carbon dating. I actually had a conspiracy theory of my own which explained the results to my satisfaction, but I am pleased to know that there is an explanation that doesn’t involve any deliberate skulduggery.

I first found the Shroud in a book entitled “The World’s Strangest Mysteries” in 1966. At that time very little was known about the Shroud beyond the fact that it was a long piece of herringbone weave linen cloth which showed the front and back image of a crucified man; that it had a recorded history taking it back to 1354 when it belonged to Geoffroi de Charnay, Seigneur de Lirey; that it had survived a fire which could well have destroyed it in 1532 necessitating repairs by the Poor Nuns of St Clare – oh and the image was actually a negative. This fascinating discovery had been made by amateur photographer Secondo Pia, when he photographed the Shroud in 1898. He was so shocked when he held the glass negative up to the light and saw the positive face of the image on the Shroud, that he almost dropped the plate. There were numerous explanations about how the image had been transferred to the Shroud. One logical explanation blamed the chemicals in the man’s body reacting to chemicals in the Shroud – but no one knew for sure.

Then in 1973 and again in 1978 the Roman Catholic Church gave a group of scientists the opportunity to examine the Shroud. Now things got interesting.

There was the pollen expert who found spores which proved that the Shroud had been exposed to the open air in France, Italy, Turkey and Palestine – in fact two spores were found nowhere else but in Palestine.

There was the forensic pathologist who stated that the image was of a man aged between 30 and 35, 5ft 11 inches tall, weighing 178 pounds. The man had been beaten, with bruising on his cheek, a black eye and broken nose. There are wounds on his wrist and feet consistent with crucifixion. Although artists have Jesus nailed to the cross by the palms of his hands, this is impossible. The weight of the body would not be supported by the palms and the nails would rip through the flesh. The bones of the wrist would support the body. A nail driven through the wrist would damage the tendon to the thumb and the thumb would disappear behind the palm. There are no thumbs depicted on the Shroud. There is blood on his hair which indicated that something sharp had been woven around something resembling one of those rings that Arabs use to secure their head dress. There are two blood streams on the arms which indicated that the man on the Shroud had used his legs to lever himself up to take a breath. Hanging on the Cross creates pressure on the chest and breathing becomes difficult. Using the legs to lever the body up, extremely painful though it was, did allow the victim to breathe. To stop victims doing this, the Romans would break the leg bones to hasten death. The man on the Shroud did not have his legs broken. There is a wound on the man’s side which was inflicted post mortem because there is evidence of blood and serum flowing from the wound. There is swelling on the shoulders indicating the man carried something heavy within hours of his death and swelling on the knee indicative of a fall. The man had been scourged front and back with a Roman whip called a flagrum, which has three thongs ending in three metal balls per thong which gouged out the flesh. Two men whipped the victim – one on each side and the number of strokes was counted by the pathologist. Whoever the man on the Shroud was, he suffered exactly as Jesus had suffered.

There were the Scientists who used NASA’s VP-8 Image Analyser on the Shroud and discovered that the image was not only a negative but also had depth information which allowed the Analyser to create a 3D image. This meant that things previously unseen could now be examined. For example there is a depression in the beard that indicated that a chin strap had been tied around the head and there is a top knot in the man's hair, which apparently was fashionable 2000 years ago. Some even claim they saw coins on the eyes, but I’m not too sure about that.

It has been proven that there is no pigment, paint or brush strokes on the Shroud. One Scientist, Dr McCrone did say he had found some pigment in the form of iron oxide and red ochre on the Shroud during the 1973 tests. Sceptics believe iron-oxide was used to create the image on the Shroud and red ochre the blood stains. However other scientists insist that the image was not created with iron oxide or any other paint or pigment. Furthermore when placed under a microscope the image fragments and disappears, while magnifying a painting usually reveals more of the painting itself. Any iron oxide or other traces of paint has been explained as likely to be caused by contamination – possibly by putting paintings or statues against the Shroud to bless them. Despite numerous tests no one can give a definite explanation about how the image got onto the Shroud.

There is real human blood on the Shroud, including a lot of blood that is actually post mortem. The blood group has been determined – AB. As soon as I heard this I knew how explosive this was and it lead to my own conspiracy theory.

Once the Scientists had their way the Shroud looked more and more likely to be 2000 years old and the possible burial cloth of Jesus. Ian Wilson, in his book “Shroud of Turin” gave an account of the 1973 investigations and included a very plausible history of the Shroud prior to 1354. According to legend, around 30 A.D. King Abgar of Edessa in Turkey wrote to Jesus asking him to come and cure him of an illness. Jesus declined but promised a visit by one of his disciples. According to all Biblical accounts Jesus’ tomb was empty on Easter Sunday with the exception of the grave clothes. Imagine the disciples’ dilemma if they found those grave clothes had an image of their Lord imprinted on its surface. Grave clothes were unclean and should be destroyed but the image made that impossible, so the disciples devised a cunning plan. Thaddeus took the Shroud to Edessa where it was folded in such a way that only the face was visible and encased in a golden frame. This portrait of Jesus was presented to King Abgar who was cured and thus converted to Christianity. However, when Abgar died his sons returned to the old religion and the relic disappeared until 544 A.D. when the “Cloth of Edessa” was found hidden behind the stones above one of the gates. Until the discovery of this artefact Jesus had been depicted in many ways including a short haired, clean shaven Roman. After this date Jesus’ image was standardised. One of the earliest paintings, the Christ Pantocrator Icon at St Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai, appears to owe a lot to the Shroud. In 944 A.D. the Cloth of Edessa was forcefully removed to Constantinople where it was revered as the Mandylion. The Archdeacon of Hagia Sophia, Gregory Referendarius, describes the cloth as a full length cloth with blood stains. It remained in Constantinople until 1204 when the knights of the 4th Crusade decided to sack the city instead of travelling to the Holy Land. The cloth disappeared, stolen by the French according to a letter to the Pope. One theory is it was hidden by the Knights Templar who participated in the sacking of Constantinople. Certainly there were rumours that the Templars were worshipping some sort of image and this supposed heresy was a good excuse for Phillip IV of France to disband the order and burn its leaders at the stake in 1314. (Dan Brown puts another interpretation on this supposed heresy, but the Shroud historians claimed it first.) One of those leaders was called Geoffrey de Charney and it is interesting to note that the first recorded account of the Shroud was belonging to a Geoffroi de Charney forty years later.

Thus it was that in 1988 the Shroud had a probable history and Science had discovered all sorts of interesting facts which tended to prove that the Shroud was Christ’s. All we needed was a carbon dating test to prove that it was indeed 2000 years old. What a shock to all believers when that longed for test dated the Shroud to between 1260 and 1390. Suddenly it was right there with the zillions of splinters from the true cross, the thousands of pieces from the crown of thorns and the hundreds of holy foreskins – it was a medieval fake. How could this be? Hadn’t science proved it to be a 2000 year old image of a crucified man? Because it was definitely science, not faith, that had turned me into a believer. Were those scientific tests flawed and if they were it called into question any other conclusions those tests had proved. I was flabbergasted. Later, I decided I knew why the tests had failed.

The Easter Sunday documentary re-examined the carbon dating and gave an explanation of why the results differed. Apparently the corner of the Shroud used for the carbon dating had been repaired probably sometime around the 1600’s. Cotton had been combined with flax, dyed to match the original material and then interwoven into the original material to produce a seamless mend. This had not been noticed by those taking the samples. It took two young Americans, convinced that the Shroud was authentic, to make this incredible discovery. They examined photos of the cloth and realised that there was a difference in the appearance of that corner of the Shroud. They took the image to experts in the textile fields who, not knowing they were examining photos of the Shroud, concluded the cloth had been mended. Eventually, Ray Rogers, the lead chemist on the 1978 project, was co-erced into re-examining the cloth. He had been reluctant to do so thinking the claims belonged to the lunatic fringe of claims that grew up after the carbon dating announcements To his surprise he concluded that the cloth had indeed been mended with a flax and cotton mix and it was this new section of the cloth that had been tested. He conducted other tests which should have been conducted at the time of the dating, but hadn’t been. Fortunately a small sliver of the test material still existed. Flax contains a natural polymer called vanillin which also decays over time. Old linen cloths like those found with the Dead Sea Scrolls have no vanillin. Medieval cloths still contain some vanillin. The section cut for carbon dating still has vanillin but threads taken from the original part of the Shroud by Rogers himself in 1978, have none. This could mean that the cloth was anywhere between 1,300 to 3,000 years old. After these tests the head of the Oxford Lab who had carbon dated one of the Shroud fragments reportedly said “One would have to be a member of the Flat Earth Society to believe the Shroud is genuine. I’ve just updated my membership.”

So there is hope for the believers after all. The Shroud will always be controversial and there will always be people who believe in it and people who will debunk it regardless of what proof for and against its authenticity is presented.

In the interest of fairness I will include one fascinating theory which surfaced a couple of years ago and which was also featured in a documentary over Easter.  This theory claims that the Shroud was a work of art by that genius of genius’ Leonardo da Vinci. Leonardo had been working for the Duke of Savoy, the new owner of the Shroud, at around the time the Shroud came into the Duke's possession. According to this theory, Leonardo used a technique called a camera obscura, where he hung up the linen and took a photograph of either a real body or a statue. Something that would need to remain motionless for days.  The theorists even suggest that Leonardo used his own face for that of Christ’s. The documentary showed that creating an image using the camera obscura technique was possible - although the image was nowhere near as detailed as the Shroud and took almost a month to produce.  I am sure that if anyone could fake the image using this method, Leonardo would be the man. However many of the features on the Shroud are invisible to the naked eye and have only become visible through modern technology. Would Leonardo go to all the trouble of using a chin strap? Would he have known that topknots were fashionable in Jesus’ time? Would he create exactly the whip marks, beatings etc on the Shroud or known exactly what type of whip was used to beat Jesus? He would have had to obtain a real body to beat and torture and also beat his own face and break his own nose into the bargain. Would he have insisted on using human blood, wouldn’t animal blood be more convenient? No one knew about the difference in blood groupings in medieval times. It is a fascinating theory and not implausible - but did it happen? No. I don’t think Leonardo was responsible. He was always treading a fine line with the Inquisition because of his experiments. I don’t think he would risk it. The theory is well thought out though.

Interestingly there is another cloth known as the Sudarium of Oviedo. This cloth has a definite recorded history and appears to have covered the face of a crucified man. In fact legend states that it was placed on the head of Jesus and tests indicate that it was placed there while he was on the cross. There is no image on the Sudarium but interestingly, the blood stains appear to match those which are on the Shroud if one image is laid over the other. Do the two cloths belong together? It would be interesting to see if those bloodstains are also AB.

I don’t think there will ever be a definite solution to the man on the Shroud’s identity but it is interesting to reflect and propose. The believer and sceptic camps will always be diametrically opposed and will always consider the other camp to be the lunatics. Information which doesn't support one or the other theory is usually ignored so I guess there will never be any definitive conclusion.  However, wouldn’t it be wonderful if, by some miracle as yet unexplained, we have a photo of the man so many around the world idolise.

Internet censorship

Apparently the Government intends bringing in a law which will filter internet content at the ISP address. I’m not exactly sure what they intend filtering, although I presume it is aimed at porn and other unsavoury topics - in other words being a super nanny when parents can’t be bothered. Whether it is also a sneaky way of stopping politically sensitive information that the Government doesn’t want us to know about is uncertain but it does make me wonder why it is necessary to do this.

I am against censorship and believe it is up to the individual to do the right thing. Unfortunately censorship, like locks, only stops the law abiding. The criminals/paedophiles/terrorists will still be able to access whatever they want. The trouble is censorship has been used in the past to limit information that Governments themselves might dislike. Think of Hitler, The Eastern Block, China, Taliban etc. Do we really want to join that list? (Would an Australian Government ever do anything like that??? Is the truth really out there Mulder?) So, even though I abhor some of the things that can be found on the internet and some of the things people do with it, I don't access such information, so problem solved for me.

It is easy to inadvertently find the wrong information on the Net, but this will still slip through regardless of the walls put in place to stop it. I remember when a colleague and I were looking for pictures of French National Costume for a school project and ended up on some very "interesting" sights. - Little maids costumes, frilly handcuffs. You get the idea. Recently, while listening to a lady talking about Britannica Online I was told how her nephew, researching the First World War, put in the search option “pictures of privates” meaning soldiers. I'll leave it to you to imagine what sort of pictures he got. So, even innocent searches can bring up unwanted results. Would they be filtered out at the ISP level? On the reverse side - how many innocent searches will be banned because the filter picks up words like sextant and bans them because it recognises the word sex. That sort of pedantry has worked against me in the past.

Besides, what is right and what is wrong is in the eye of the beholder. I remember the old lady who threw an Agatha Christie book on the desk and said it was the most disgusting book she had ever read. There was a talkback radio host once talking about books and a woman rang to say she had just read a really filthy book. He told her not to mention the title on the radio because everyone would want to read it. Was it as bad as Harold Robbins? The caller said she had never read Harold Robbins so he told her to do so and ring him back and tell him what he thought. A little while later he mentioned that the woman had told him that her filthy book was David Niven's "The Moon is a Balloon". "And I've told her to go and read Harold Robbins" he laughed.

A newspaper columnist wrote that he was reading Portnoy’s Complaint on the ferry when that book was popular. The book had been doing the rounds of the Office and someone had covered the book in brown paper. He couldn’t understand why everyone was openly smirking at him until he looked at the cover and found that someone had written “Little Women” on the front.

I always believed that banning a book or a film only made people determined to read or see said book or movie just to see why it was banned. I can remember Mum telling me she read “Love me Sailor” simply because it had been banned during the war and she wanted to know why. I suppose there was also that little twinge of guilty daring as well. This did not apply to the Zane Grey novel that her stepmother burned because said stepmother thought it was a dirty book. Zane Grey would turn in his grave.

How many people read and were bored to tears by Rushdie’s Satanic Versus simply because the Ayatollah put a price of the author’s head?

I think many people, who would not otherwise do something, will do it simply because they have been told not to and this is the major flaw in censorship.

I hope the Government re-thinks this proposed policy and give people the ability to do the right thing. Let adults be adults and parents actually be parents.

Come back little black cat

 Eeek.  When I looked at the blogs I was following, I discovered that my little reading cat had turned into a black opaque square.  How did this happen?  It looked fine in my settings.  I have spent ages trying to solve this riddle.  I have checked every available link, removed and added the picture numerous times, even went online and downloaded the picture again.  Nothing.  It was still a black square.  I tried changing settings to use my own profile.  That worked except my little cat was beheaded and I had no idea how to move the box to fix the part of my profile picture I want shown.  In the end I tried using another picture.  That has worked.  I have no idea why my little black cat decided to take its letter and go home, but I wish it would come back.  At least I can still see my little cat on my profile.  Meet my new follower icon below.

Australia Day 2010

I had a great Australia Day.  I spent it in the company of husband and friends. Our host had a swimming pool and this helped make the 40 degree day seem both pleasant and mild.  I am not exactly waterlogged but it was not for the want of trying.

I think Australia Day is a great day and should be a time to give thanks for this wonderful country of ours and I think most people would agree. However, I am getting a little tired of the press trying to turn this day into one of disharmony and conflict.  Hoons draped in Australian flags terrorising people should wake up to themselves. Aborigines who owe more of their DNA to their European "invaders" than they do to their Koori tribesmen should research the difference between invasion and settlement.  Everyone who lives in Australia arrived here from somewhere else, or their ancestors did.  Only the time frames are different.  Some arrived 40,000 years ago, some 200 years ago and some arrived yesterday.  I like to think that we can all live together in harmony as Australians.

Another Australia Day tradition seems to be calls to change our Australian Flag. Now I love my flag.  I think it is pretty and distinctive.  It means something to me because I have lived all my life under its familiar design.  However, I know that somewhere, sometime, those wanting to remove all traces of our British heritage will get their way and the flag will be changed.  I pray that sense prevails and the new design is something I like and can become fond of.  I hope the Union Jack is not replaced by the Aboriginal Flag or a kangaroo.  I like the Aboriginal flag and think it is a great design but it would look horrible stuck on our flag in its current design and its incorporation in the national flag would, in my opinion, diminish it as a great symbol of our indigenous people.  Kangaroos seem a little too kitch for my liking and it would be hard to make it look like something other than a Qantas logo.  The Southern Cross would have to be kept though.  I love it too much.

Perhaps the flag could be divided into two triangles like the striking Papua/New Guinea flag, with the Southern Cross in one triangle and something equally important in the other.  Perhaps it could be divided into three panels with the Southern Cross in one panel - something similar to the Torres Strait Island flag or the Canadian Flag.  Perhaps have a flag design something like the Northern Territory Flag with a side panel and motif.  Or maybe something completely different. Perhaps a really nice example of Aboriginal art could be incorporated into the design to acknowledge the original inhabitants. I just hope that whatever design is chosen is something I can live with and be proud of.

Waltzing Matilda as our National Anthem?  I shudder to think. Yes it was once our best known song but how many people know the words to all four verses and their meaning?  Besides I don't think the song about a swagman who stole a sheep and committed suicide is exactly the right image we want to convey to the world.  I know European Settlement started as a convict settlement but....  Besides "I still call Australia home", "We are Australian" and "Tie me kangaroo down sport" are also well known.  The thing is an anthem is something more than a popular song.  If popular songs could be anthems then there are hundreds of possibilities on the hit parades many of which would be more suitable than Waltzing Matilda.

However, all things aside I say thank you for my great country and the great people who have made it what it is. Long may we live in peace and harmony, continue to take the best of all cultures and continue to evolve into something wonderful.

Day of the Roses - The Granville Train Disaster Remembered

Thirty three years ago today a train filled with peak hour commuters crashed into a pylon on the Bold Street Bridge at Granville, derailing the first and second carriages and causing the bridge to collapse on the third and forth carriages. Massive concrete blocks tend to make a mess when they collide with flimsy metal and even flimsier humans so it is no surprise that this dreadful event left 83 people dead and 213 people injured – many seriously and life altering. It also made a deep impression on anyone who was on that train, involved in the rescue of the dead and injured, witnessed the event or its aftermath, reported it or simply watched the horror unfold on television screens across the country and around the world.

Thirty three years ago I was living at Homebush West and working at Parramatta Library. I drove to work that day completely oblivious to the tragic event that had happened approximately half an hour before. I was slightly curious as to why Parramatta Road was closed and why there appeared to be an inordinate amount of buses and police cars on the other side of the closure, but had no idea what it all meant until I arrived at work.

A colleague working at the Depot arrived at work that morning to find that all the men had left to go and help at the disaster site. They stayed there until the Rescue Units were established and it was agreed that there was little more they could do. I didn’t know that. Good on Parramatta Council Depot and Engineering staff. Their commitment should have been better known, but this was before the Internet, Intranet and Celebrating Success and most of us had little knowledge of what the rest of Council was doing.

At that time Parramatta Hospital was the main city hospital. Westmead Hospital wouldn’t open until the following year. All day long I could hear the ambulances screaming up Church Street to the hospital in an almost endless stream. Borrowers would come into the Library and provide us with news – either true or imagined but it wasn’t until I got home that I could see for myself exactly what had happened. I was appalled.

I remember Marie, the Granville Branch Librarian, telling me that as she passed the bridge on her way to the Library for her evening shift, there were hundreds of people ghoulishly watching the proceedings. She saw parents lift children onto their shoulders to get a better look at the dead and injured being removed from the carnage. Somehow a rumour circulated that the Blood Bank was going to send a mobile unit to Granville Library and she was bombarded by people who were not at all pleased when she said she knew nothing about it. Phone calls to the Blood Bank were equally unproductive as the Blood Bank never intended sending a unit to Granville.

For days the news coverage was at saturation point. We lived with the tales of miraculous rescues, sad deaths, unbelievable courage and the nobility of the human spirit. We also had to live with the dark side of humanity, especially the ba****ds who stole equipment and possessions belonging to the rescuers.

For weeks afterwards people would come into the Library with their own survival tales. As Parramatta was the last stop before the crash, such tales had a definite poignancy about them. There were people who normally travelled in the first, third or forth carriages who for some reason or another didn’t do so on that day. They overslept and missed the train, missed the bus, met a friend and decided to sit with them in another carriage, decided to catch an earlier or later train. The stories were varied but all lead to someone being saved. Then there were the tragic stories of people who were in one of those carriages who would not normally have been there. I have always tended to believe in fate – that we have an appointed time to live and an appointed time to die. Listening to those tales cemented the belief into my psyche.

After the last body had been retrieved and the rubble and steel removed, the Army constructed a temporary Bailey’s bridge over the railway line, re-connecting both sides of Granville and opening this busy road to traffic once more. The Bailey’s bridge served until a new bridge could be built.

On the first anniversary of the disaster, survivors and their families threw 83 roses onto the track in memory of the dead and injured. This has become an annual tradition and has lead to the event being called “The Day of the Roses."

Today we remember that horrific event 33 years ago. There have been and will continue to be other disasters, other lives lost, but I will never forget the day a concrete bridge fell on a train.

Definition of an expert?

An ex is a has been and a spurt is a drip under pressure.  Groan!!!!

Happy 2010 or 2014 or 2017 or ….

A quiz question once asked “If you were digging in the garden and found a coin dated 4 B.C. would it be genuine?” Of course the answer was no. One could not have B.C. before A.D. so beware the forgery. Everyone knows B.C. stands for Before [the birth of] Christ and A.D. stands for Anno Domini, or, the Year of Our Lord but when did B.C. and A.D. become accepted usage for dating the years?

It didn’t happen immediately. In fact it wasn’t until over 500 years after Christ’s birth that Dionysius Exiguus decided to count back the years to find Christ’s possible birthdate. His first problem was deciding exactly when Christ was born. Luke’s Gospel stated that Christ was born at the time of the Great Census conducted on behalf of the Roman Emperor, Augustus. That date was known. So Dionysius counted the number of Consuls and Emperors that had reigned since that day and the number of years they had reigned and he came up with the date 532 A.D. In the Roman Calendar, years were identified by naming the Consuls or Emperors who held office so you would have years listed as the 3rd year of the reign of Tiberuis, the second year of the reign of Claudius etc. Now the Romans liked to fiddle with their calendar and both Consuls and Emperors would add or subtract days and even months to please their own egos, which was why Julius Caesar tried to fix things with his Julian Calendar. It didn’t really stop the fiddling completely though. As a result there was a mistake of between four and ten years made in the calculations of Christ’s birth (Depending on the expert you believe). By the time the mistake was realised it was much easier to change Christ’s birth and death dates than all other dates, so Christ is listed as living in 4 B.C – 29 A.D or variations of same in the more astute biographical dictionaries. Various countries at various times adopted Dionysius’ dating system but it was not generally used until centuries later. In England, The Council of Chelsea ordered that it be used in 816 A.D. Gradually, with the rapid spread of trade and communications which have occurred since the Industrial Revolution most countries have adopted this numbering system and either use it exclusively or in conjunction with their own calendar systems.

Nowadays, the politically correct brigade have taken hold and I am seeing the old B.C./A.D. being replaced more and more with B.C.E (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era), but I don’t agree and will resist until I shuffle off to that big Library in the sky.

So what other years are we living in? Well if you are Jewish it is 5769-5770, Buddhist it is 2553 and Muslim it is 1430. The Hindu’s have a variety of years depending on where they live in India, all used in conjunction with the Gregorian Calendar.

So Happy 2010, 2014, 5770, 2553 and 1430. I hope it is a good one for us all.