Wedding Bells

Today the Monk, Mausi and Harry are attending the wedding of the Monk's youngest daughter to a super young man, whose surname just happens to be the same as the Monk's middle name. The are being wed in the Parish church of St Mark, Bromley South, where Alli was once in the choir and the Monk a Reader.

The Monk hopes his readers will join him in wishing the happy couple a long, happy and fruitful marriage. He is preaching at the wedding by invitation, the first time he will be standing in that particular pulpit since he moved to Gloucestershire 21 years ago.

As you may imagine, the Monk is delighted.

Blogging over the next few weeks may be erratic as the Monk and Mausi take Harry on a short tour of the South West following the wedding.

Final Preparations

The last few days have been exceptionally busy for the Monk and Mausi. We fly to London tomorrow, with Harry vom Goldbachmoor, our Sheltie. We will be spending almost three weeks there doing a little touring in a hired Motor Home (RV to my US readers), but first we are attending my youngest daughters wedding on Friday.

As you may imagine, there have been a number of things to prepare, not least the making sure Harry has all the innoculations, worm treatments and all the other things Defra seems to think essential for any dog accompanying his family. We are now in the final stages of packing and I have a worried looking Sheltie watching every move just in case we plan to leave him 'home alone'.

Where is Dr Doolittle when you need him?

A Question Of Worth?

A recent set of exchanges sparked by the announcement that MPs are to get a 9.6% pay increase on the annual salaries of GBP63,000 plus very generous expenses, got me thinking. One of those in the debate argued that the MPs 'deserve' this since they are 'dedicated, public spirited individuals who do this often thankless work, not for the money, but because they believe they can make a better society.' It took me some time to stop choking, and I'm still not sure whether the attack was caused by anger or laughter. The commentators argument suggested that the MPs 'dedication' often imposed great strain on his family, and required them to spend long periods away from home.

That is true. It is also true that they could earn more in banking, law and one or two other professions, but they have chosen the path of politics. At their present salary - excluding expenses - they earn roughly three times what the average soldier, sailor or airman earns. They get considerably more than any firefighter, ambulance man, and most policemen. They earn vastly more than most teachers, and twice the average nurse's pay. None of those categories get a travel allowance to go to and from work, and none of them are paid any additional allowance for a 'second home' - so just why are our MPs awarding themselves almost 10% salary increases when the vast majority of public servants in the military, police, Emergency Services, medicine and the teaching professions are getting 2% or less?

I do not accept the argument that these people are 'working to improve society'. The vast majority of them - from the Labour side of the House - have gone from student activism at university, to Union activism as a Shop Steward or Union Organiser, to Local Councillor, to Parliamentary Candidate/Secretary/Researcher and then become an MP. On the other side of the House the majority have gone from University Debating Society, to Law, Banking or another Profession, thence, via Local, County and City to Parliament. In my view they have no experience of real world work, or of any of the matters they routinely regard as something to be 'improved' via their meddling. This is what gives rise to their endless legislative agendas and programmes. Half the time this is about building fences to protect their own interests or the interests of the various lobbyists they really represent, and the other half seems to be more about being seen to 'do something about "X" (Insert Latest Political Issue Here).

As Gilbert and Sullivan's sentry sings in Iolanthe,

When Britain Really Ruled the Waves1

Solo: When Britain really rul'd the waves -
(In good Queen Bess's time)
The House of Peers made no pretence,
To intellectual eminence,
Or scholarship sublime;
Yet Britain won her proudest bays
In good Queen Bess's glorious days!
Yet Britain won her proudest bays
In good Queen Bess's glorious days!

Chorus: Yes, Britain won her proudest bays
In good Queen Bess's glorious days!

Solo: When Wellington thrash'd Bonaparte,
As ev'ry child can tell,
The House of Peers throughout the war,
Did nothing in particular,
And did it very well:
Yet Britain set the world ablaze
In good King George's glorious days!
Yet Britain set the world ablaze
In good King George's glorious days!

Chorus: Yes, Britain set the world ablaze
In good King George's glorious days!

Solo: And while the House of Peers withholds
Its legislative hand,
And noble statesmen do not itch
To interfere with matters which
They do not understand,
As bright will shine Great Britain's rays
As in King George's glorious days!
As bright will shine Great Britain's rays
As in King George's glorious days!

Chorus: As bright will shine Great Britain's rays
As in King George's glorious days!

Source: www.musicsmiles.com http://www.musicsmiles.com/when_britain_ruled!.htm

Personally I think the present denizens of the House of Commons would do well to take particular note of Verse 3.

As for their increase in salary, let me say only this. They should consider this very carefully indeed. Show an example to the rest of us. The 'increase' they plan for themselves is more than my State Pension, which makes up roughly half of my total occupational and State Pension income combined. I had the privilege of working in the UK for a little over 25 years (If I had managed 40 years I'd have a bigger State and Occupational Pension), and served the Crown and my communities as a Fire Fighter and Officer. I too had to make decisions, many of which could have resulted in serious injury or death to those under my command. Some of my decisions could have wiped out the employment of many people and could, in some circumstances, be the difference between someone surviving and being rescued from a fire - or not. 

No, I never earned the sort of money MPs think they're worth, and nor do the vast majority of those who work in the Public Sector. Nor do we seek to interfere in the lives of those around us, to regulate things we don't understand, or to impose our opinions and ideologies on everyone else. We 'served' in the truest sense of the word. MPs simply don't. In fact one often has the impression when listening to them debating changes to laws or regulations that they are being told what to say, how to vote and even what to think by their lobbyists. Most have no understanding of the impact of their decisions in real terms at all - at least that is the overwhelming impression of those of us who have to try and work within their final decisions.

It is argued that they should receive more than anyone else, because their 'employment' can be taken away at the drop of a hat. Perhaps, if they stop to think about it, that is why Parliament was always the preserve of those of private means, or retired professionals who had both the knowledge and understanding of the real world to support them, and the means to support themselves. In this day and age everyone faces this problem. Employment is, we are told by the MPs, no longer for life, and while most of us struggle towards a pension (or are in receipt of one the last government asset stripped to pay for their disastrous spending plans) - they look forward to receiving a full parliamentary pension after serving just two terms in office.

No, I don't think they're worth a 10% pay rise, and I certainly don't think they deserve it.  

Tragedy on the Nile

The upheaval in Egypt doesn't seem to have any likely end in sight, even with the military arresting several of the Muslim Brotherhood's key people for inciting unrest and violence. Once again it would seem that the democratic hopes of some will be trodden underfoot in the arguments about which extreme should rule. But, as they say, there is always that spark of hope. The problem on both sides does seem to be a misunderstanding that winning a democratic election does not confer absolute right to do as the winner of the election pleases. In a real democracy, the winner must always take account of the opposition's wishes as well - but that is something it seems has got lost even in western democracy.

The Syrian situation seems to be an even worse mess all round. The death toll among civilians caught in the cross fire has run into the tens of thousands and no one seems to be bothered to count any longer. It is a toss up as to which side is now worse, Assad's military or the rebels, who now include a large number of foreign militants, some of whom have formed their own units and fight for an 'Islamic Republic' even though they are not Syrian. One such unit was recently exposed (by a Christian Aid organisation) for 'executing' a 15 year old Syrian boy for uttering what they deemed to be 'blasphemy'. Apparently they were not familiar with a local colloquialism and misunderstood the expression. The boy was beaten up and then executed with a bullet through the head in front of his friends and family. I'm pretty sure that the establishment of an 'Islamic Republic' ruled by a bunch of Ayatollahs with grandiose plans was not the reason many Syrians originally supported the rebels against the Assad regime. But this is what they may end up with if the slaughter and faction fighting continues to be supported by Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

According to an Egyptian journalist, the problems in Egypt began when Morsi decreed himself 'absolute' powers in order to circumvent the Constitutional Court and appoint a committee of Muslim Brotherhood people to write a new constitution. Even though he backtracked on this as soon as the committee was in place and he had the constitution he wanted, things were already on the slide. There has been silence in the west on the broadcasting of 'hate' speeches and TV shows against Shia Muslims, Christians and Jews. Morsi officially encouraged young men to go to Syria and fight a 'Holy War' there. It came to something of a head when he appointed new governors for every county in Egypt - all from the Association of Muslim Brotherhood. The angry populace had had enough, and protesters prevented them from entering their offices. The heavy handed retaliatory action of Muslim Brotherhood thugs resulted in numerous deaths - and raised the temperature of the protesters even further.

It is reported that when the mothers of dead 'activists' held up signs saying 'Honk if you don't want Morsi' the noise was deafening. In the end the anti-Morsi faction raised a petition for his removal - and got 22 million signatures (total population 83,688,134 of whom 43.4% are urban dwellers(Source: IndexMundi)), just over 25% of the population. Surely that alone tells you there is something going seriously wrong somewhere - but apparently Mr Morsi and his supporters felt they could ignore these 'rebels' which led to a demonstration of anger which is now officially recognised as being a few over 25 million people on the streets of every major town and city. No government can afford to ignore that sort of anger, but the President thought otherwise. That forced the military to act. Now it remains to be seen whether their action restores democratic process, or simply sweeps it aside.

If the former is the outcome, let us hope that the politicians on all sides have learned from Morsi's serious mistake. If not, the Egyptians may have yet to see the worst.

Right, So We've Got a Few Years Then ...

I'm surprised this hasn't made the front pages of several pro-AGW newspapers and magazines yet. Perhaps it's the timescale that puts them off. Still, it could be amusing to see how they'd like us to respond and 'prevent' this one.

Say what? Well it's simple really, you see some of those wonderful chappies who live in cloistered and sometimes hallowed precincts in Universities, have calculated (or perhaps even modelled) how things will go downhill for us over the next few dozen millennia. The sun will get hotter and brighter as it ages, for a start, then the CO2 in the atmosphere will decrease, and the water will boil away. Now, the problem is this, the CO2 keeps some heat in and keeps the place habitable and temperate. It is also rather essential for plant life, and plants are essential for animal life.

So, in a billion or so years, the earth will have no living plants, animals or aquatic life. The oceans will have dried out, and any life left will be microbial. UV light will sterilise whatever is exposed to it and humanity will, of course be long gone. Quite possibly before most of the other larger mammals depart.

You can read all about it in the article Life On Earth to Die Out in One Billion Years.

Of course, if we are serious, we will do one of two things. We'll either find a way to get off the planet before then and find a new home, or we'll simply wait for the inevitable. With the current drive by NGOs trying to stop climate change and wasting billions on technologies that won't sustain our current civilisations, I'd say the latter choice is likely to be the outcome.

Fortunately, on a timescale as long as this one, I'd say we've a few years to sort something out. Even if it is a case of the more willing finding ways to head for the stars, and leaving the terminally green to face the decline with a pristine planet all to themselves - until the sun fries it.

An Act of Defiance; Verdi's Requiem sung by the inmates of Terezin

Every now and then one stumbles across something so remarkable that it leaves one almost breathless. It can stop you in your tracks, and change the way you look at some aspect of society or even change your perspective on something, and a few days ago I read something that did just that. It was an account in the Huffington Post concerning the recent honouring of the memory of Rafael Schachter by the Czech Republic.

Who, you may ask, was Rafael Schachter? The answer is that he was a young Jewish composer and musician, and one of the 120,000 killed at the Terezin Concentration Camp for Jews set up by the Nazis. The why he was honoured is what stopped me in my tracks. This young man, driven by the lunacy around him, and probably by the knowledge of the fate awaiting him and everyone else in the Terezin Camp, trained and then led a choir of the inmates in a performance of Verdi's Requiem Mass.

It led Adolf Eichmann to exclaim, "These crazy Jews are singing their own Requiem!"

For those doing the singing it was many things. It was an act of defiant courage in that they knew what the Nazis intended their fate to be; it was an act of therapy as it took them out of this living death and into realms beyond, and it was an act of faith, even though it was the music and theology of Christianity and not Judaism.

Those who know Verdi's Requiem will also know that it is a monumental work. Complex, moving, magnificent and definitely not for the faint hearted to attempt to sing. Yet, as a survivor confirms, each line of the Mass conveyed a somewhat different meaning to the prisoners than it would mean to the ordinary listener. Hence its choice by Schachter who drove hundreds of his fellow prisoners to learn the parts by heart, working from a single score they had managed to smuggle into the camp. In all there were sixteen performances given, though, at first, the Nazis tried to suppress it, then used it as a propaganda tool. When the inmates were relocated, immediately after the last performance, to Auschwitz, Rafael Schachter was one of the first group sent directly to the gas chambers and killed. Of the 140,000 inmates, just 20,000 survived.

It is a fact that there were 350,000 Jews living in Czechoslovakia in 1939, today there are fewer than 10,000 in the Czech and Slovakian Republics.

An American conductor recently unearthed this incredible story, and, seventy years after the original, persuaded the Czech government, and the Roman Catholic Archbishopric, to stage a performance in the Dom of St Vitus. The audience included a handful of the survivors, now in the 90s, and the performance was supplemented by the screening of pieces of the propaganda films made by the Nazis to hide the genocide. By all reports, it was a moving experience for everyone, and I, for one, will never again hear the Verdi Requiem with quite the same understanding I had for the words of the tremendous prayers it launches in the music.

As the Requiem says so eloquently -

"O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, grant them eternal rest."

How fitting it should have been sung by the inmates of a Death Camp. By Jews destined for death to those who wished to exterminate them.

So there's no archaeological evidence of the Jews as a people?

Recently there have been a number articles, statements and even books which make the claim that the "Jews" have no history and that there is no evidence of their historical presence in Jerusalem. Most recently the Palestinian Authority has issued a statement to the effect that Jerusalem has always been a Palestinian city, and was never the capital of any Jewish state. This comes on top of a new statement made by the Al Aqsa Mosque Council, who make the outright statement that the Temple of the Jews never existed on the Temple Mount.

This does rather deny the evidence of the Roman records of 70 AD, and the depictions and inscription on the Arch of Trajan, showing the looting of the Temple following the sack of Jerusalem. It also denies all the archaeological evidence still visible to those prepared to look, of the Temple itself. There is, despite the propaganda and the rather vague statement  that the Romans razed it, quite a lot of it still standing. The difficulty of course, is that any attempt to examine what is there on the main platform is continuously blocked by the Muslim hysteria that any such attempt is purely to destroy the Al Aqsa mosque or to desecrate it and the Dome of the Rock. According to them, the Prophet ascended into heaven from here - having flown here from Medina on a winged horse. The "Rock" the Dome covers has been identified as an ancient threshing floor, and is located in the position identified by Roman and other ancient accounts, as the site of the Holy of Holies, the sanctuary of the Temple. The Dome itself sits on the foundations of a Christian Church built there long before Mohammad was born.

The last time the platform itself was properly examined was shortly after the 1967 war, when an American archaeologist was able to do a complete survey. He and his team were able to identify a number of features, some of which need further investigation, which are associated with the Temple. Among many things they identified were some now walled up entrances, a colonnade that dates to and resembles a colonnade described in the accounts of Solomon's Temple (Second Temple) as being part of the main entrance to the Temple enclosure. This was further enriched by Herod in his rebuilding. What is known, and has been for a long time, is that the so-called Wailing Wall, once the Western side of the Temple platform, is not the only part of the original that remains. Parts of the walls of the other three sides are also extant, one part built into the later city wall on that side. Like the western wall, the present walls are actually built onto earlier walls which have only been partly examined - largely because of the religious sensitivities of both the Muslims and the Ultra-Orthodox Jews. Between them they are preventing any examination of a site which is of huge importance to the whole world, not just their own narrow interests.

Unfortunately, the Temple platform, and the other sides of it, are controlled by a group known as the Waqf. They strenuously resist any examination of the platform itself, and have embarked on a number of projects which have destroyed early Jewish and possibly older archaeological structures in order to create several huge subterranean mosques. It is claimed that the Dome of the Rock, which stands separately to the Al Aqsa, is the second oldest Muslim structure in existence, but an excavation in the 1930 found a Byzantine mozaic floor beneath it and traces of earlier foundations belonging to a Christian church or monastery. Both are built over the site of the Holy of Holies of the Temple destroyed by the Romans in 70AD.

Despite what is often stated concerning the Jews and the Bible with regard to the historic truth of Jewish history, there is a wealth of archaeological evidence for its being factual. The earliest existing depiction of a "Jew" is found on an obelisk dated to 841BC. It shows an Ambassador from the Jewish king to Shalmanesser III, the Assyrian. Sennacherub's siege of Jerusalem is confirmed in a six sided 'prism' in the British Museum. These are things mentioned in the Bible specifically in Chronicles, Isaiah, 2 Kings and Daniel. Other artifacts confirm many other people mentioned in Biblical accounts of events, but, much of this remains unadvertised as it would undermine rival claims and alternate histories more in keeping with the current ideologies of the Middle East and supporters of the anti-Israel factions. 

Quite a large body of evidence and related artifacts exist, stretching back to 2000BC correlate with events described, obviously from a Jewish perspective, in the Bible. An ancient papyrus dated to 1500BC describes a range of natural disasters suffered in Egypt at this time, and some scholars translate one such as "the river is blood" something that is mentioned in Exodus - though some Egyptologists reject that relationship and even dispute (there's a surprise) the translation. It has to be said, that for those disputing it, it is a matter of protecting the Islamic belief that the Jewish accounts are entirely false and a 'modern' creation to deprive the Arabs of their rightful place as the Chosen of God. A full-ish list of these artifacts can be found on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible.