My So-Called Life
the random and not-so-random musings of a twenty-something history geek
My So-Called Lifethe random and not-so-random musings of a twenty-something history geek |
|
| About Lizzie: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lizzie is a fully qualified history teacher having finished her course at Canterbury Christ Church University. She's also a geek who was secretary of the University of Kent Computing Society during her three year BA at the University of Kent. She is very much in love with her shiny Husband, though she is sad that he doesn't glow bloo :( More about her on her website: http://carina.org.uk |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Jun. 3rd, 2009 @ 11:17 pm Euro and KCC elections, leaflets specifically. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
This post has been brought on by two things. First, it's the Euro and County Council elections (at least for us in Kent) tomorrow (possibly today, depending on when I finish writing this). Second, we finally received a leaflet from Labour today and I really don't think they're even trying to contest this election. I was shocked by the poor quality and decided to share. Then I figured that I may as well document all the political bumf that Ben and I have had through the letter box during this process. Some were addressed to me, some were addressed to Ben. Interestingly, apart from the Greens, it was different letters/leaflets addressed to each of us (if they were addressed at all), rather than any overlap. Click on pictures to embiggen throughout.  An artfully arranged display of all our leaflets. I'll start with the shoddy leaflet that kicked all this off, which is the last one we have received. This one is courtesy of Labour. I'm not a Labour supporter, so I admit this might be rather biased of me, but this is possibly the worst political leaflet I have ever seen. Acres of blank space, poor grammar and spelling, and clearly has not been proof read before being printed off. Which is sad because I can only assume it's been/being passed around the district, and it's really not a good advert for the Labour Party. Read it and you'll see what I mean. ( Labour leaflet ) The Conservatives have tried hardest, sending round several leaflets, and the only party to send someone to Canvass us. I should mention that neither Ben nor I are currently registered with any political party, so that can't be the reason we have quite so many Conservative mailshots. I can only assume that they're trying this hard with everyone. ( This was the most recent. ) ( Ben had a 'personal' letter from the KCC candidate. ) ( Another Conservative leaflet. Can't remember when this one arrived. ) This last one is a copy of the main Conservative KCC leaflet. This one was hand delivered by the canvasser. We have two copies of this as one was in with the letter that Ben got, shown further up. The problem we had with this is that it reads like a particularly poor CV. On the upside, there was little wasted space and it did appear to have been spell checked/proof read before it was printed. On the downside, it does lie, as did the Canvasser about the John Simmonds (the Cons Candidate for Canterbury West, which is our ward) being "The Local Choice". The Canvasser told me that the candidate lived "just round the corner". This is untrue. John Simmonds lives in Whitstable, which is not "just round the corner". According to google maps it is actually 5.7 miles away from my address to his. I suppose it could be a very large corner... In fact, I believe the Canvasser was referring to the Conservative candidate for the Canterbury South-West Ward (Maureen Robinson), who does live "just round the corner" in Oaks Park (I believe). While Whiststable may be "local", it's not local in the sense the canvasser, and I believe the leaflet, were aiming at. Not impressed. Also not impressed with myself - I only remembered the questions I wanted to ask the canvasser (pot holes, Iceland[as in banks, not supermarkets]) after I closed the door, and I wasn't about to go chasing after him! ( Conservative leaflet for KCC. ) The Green Party sent us two leaflets, one addressed to each of us. Unfortunately they were both identical and both came through the post. Have to wonder about the Carbon Footprint of that. ( Green Party leaflet ) We also got a leaflet from the "No2EU" party, who appear to be endorsed only by Bob Crow of RMT Union fame. ( No2EU ) We have also received the now infamous BNP leaflet. Not sure what we'll do with it yet. Possibly shred it and then set it on fire. Ben pointed out it looked rather like a kebab menu, which is funny because it's true. I don't know where to start on the ways in which this hate filled nasty little piece of racist propaganda annoys and frustrates me, so I shan't even try. I only picture it for completeness and posterity. I hope in years to come I can look back and laugh on the fact that people ever considered voting for these cretins, especially on the basis of this. I just hope they don't win a significant share of the vote, especially a share significant enough to win a seat. ( BNP ) Given my political sympathies swing towards the Lib Dems, perhaps naturally as they were the party supported by my parents while I was growing up (I delivered my fair share of Focuses, did several shifts of telling at several elections at my local polling station, had an action room in our living room during a general election - tables and tables of addresses! - and even attended a Count as Lib Dem representative - all while I was 18 or younger) I am disappointed by the efforts of the local party. No Canvassing, at least, not round my block of flats. Only one leaflet about only one of the two elections. Given they say on their leaflet that "only the Lib Dems can beat the Conservatives here" I don't feel like they really tried at all. One leaflet specifically about the election, and then only about the Europeans, nothing at all about KCC. A Lib Dem publication was the first one we got during this cycle, I seem to remember anyway, but it was a regular quarterly Focus, nothing really to do with the election. It was also in need of a proof read as at the very least the URL at the bottom of page two was wrong - "www.cantlibdem" is no URL at all. What I'm trying to say, badly, is that I'm disappointed in the Lib Dem campaign, at least in my ward. I want to vote for them, but I feel like they've done nothing to deserve it. They've certainly not actually tried to get my vote. I hoped for more. ( Focus ) We got this leaflet, which is the Lib Dem Euro specific one, only very recently - possibly the last week or so? ( Euro specific Lib Dem leaflet ) I know campaigning in a Tory stronghold (Canterbury constituency has elected only Conservative MPs since 1874, the longest any current UK constituency has remained under the control of one party [source=wikipedia]), but really, if you don't make the effort (and I apply this to Labour, much as I dislike them atm, as much as I do to the Liberal Democrats) then they'll never be beaten here. Most elections here (Canterbury) seem to have a depressing enevitability about them. Purely on the basis of who sends out the most stuff and is the most visible (including on the doorstep), it is the Conservatives who are the most visible. Anyway, I should go to bed. I'm getting up early to vote! ETA: the election is today as I finish writing. It's gone 1am! |
| ||
| Mar. 14th, 2009 @ 02:24 pm Government to track movement out of the country | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
I'm currently feeling rather annoyed by this. " All travel plans to be tracked by Government". Under the plans, starting to be brought in already: "Anyone departing the UK by land, sea or air will have their trip recorded and stored on a database for a decade." I don't know where to start on this, or what annoys me most. Perhaps it is the justifcation from the government: "The changes are being brought in as the Government tries to tighten border controls and increase protection against the threat of international terrorism." How does tracking people leaving the country and holding the details for 10 years protect us against terrorism? This comes across as a standard line from the government, much like how ID cards will apparently protect us, even if they didn't protect the people of Madrid. Or it might be the "condemnation" of the plans by Chris Grayling, the home affairs spokesman for the Conservatives: ""Of course we need to keep a proper record of people as they come in and leave the country. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound much like it's condemning the plans to me. Grrrr. This government is making me so annoyed with plans like this I barely know where to start. As soon as one lot are withdrawn, another lot comes up. I'm starting to feel quite worn down by it all. |
| ||
| Feb. 5th, 2009 @ 04:05 pm Foreword suitability fail? When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit | |||
|---|---|---|---|
I've recently been reading my brand new copy of When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit (my old one, that I had had since I was 8 or so, fell apart from being read rather a lot). I got my new copy through the ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small} lj_uk Christmas Wishlist exchange - it's this edition (2008). According to Barnes and Noble (and various other sites) this book is recommended for 8-12 year olds. I'd agree with that, seems like a good age to read it for the first time.My edition has a foreword called "Why You'll Love This Book" by Michael Morpurgo, Children's Laureate from 2003-2005. Bear in mind, when reading what comes next that this book is recommended for ages 8-12. His style in writing the foreword suggests that he is talking to these young readers. The fifth paragraph starts: "When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit, published forty years ago, speaks to us of a time most of us know only through books of history and fiction, through archive film, as well as through movies. It is from The Diary of Anne Frank to I am David and Schindler's List and The Pianist that most of us have our haunting but distant insights into the lives of those who had experienced the terrors and horrors of Nazi persecution and extermination..." I understand that 8-12 year olds may well have read the former two (The Diary of Anne Frank and I am David) - I know I had read at least one of those at that age (Anne Frank), having both a taste for the historical and something of a fascination with all things WWII (and Holocaust - I think I was a rather odd child). However, I highly doubt they have seen the latter (Schindler's List and The Pianist), not least because they're both rated 15. Don't get me wrong, they're both right up there as favourite films, I think they're amazing. But they're definitely not for children of the age the book is primarily aimed at. I dunno. That part of the foreword just felt rather odd. Surely, given the writer's status as a former Children's Laureate, he would be aware of what a child of that age has been exposed to, and what they haven't? |
| ||
| Jul. 28th, 2008 @ 05:26 pm "Public opinion" on file sharing/penalties | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
In light of the discussion on IRC earlier about DRM which led to downloading stuff, and the potential "three strike" rule (see this and this to see what sparked the discussion), I thought the following might be interesting for several people. I participate in the YouGov daily "select" surveys, and the day after they send out the results so you can see what other people think. These are the results from Friday's survey (questions above the results) - they seemed relevant. Six of the UK's biggest net providers have agreed a plan with the music industry to tackle piracy online. To what extent do you approve or oppose the following action? Music piracy should be made illegal Strongly approve 24.4% Approve somewhat 27.1% Disapprove somewhat 14% Strongly disapprove 13% Neither approve nor disapprove 18.1% Internet providers should enforce a 'three strike' rule. Strongly approve 25.9% Approve somewhat 26.5% Disapprove somewhat 12.3% Strongly disapprove 21.3% Neither approve nor disapprove 10.8% Online users should be subject to an annual levy to cover losses from file-sharing Strongly approve 7.3% Approve somewhat 12.8% Disapprove somewhat 13% Strongly disapprove 52.7% Neither approve nor disapprove 8.7% |
| ||
| Jul. 5th, 2008 @ 01:42 pm Happy Birthday NHS | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Today the NHS turns 60, and I want to wish it a very happy birthday and wish it well for the next 60. I know there are plenty of problems with it, I am not blinkered enough to say that there could not be improvements, but I believe that it is one of the greatest achievements of this country, especially in the post-World War II period. Here's why. In 1900 (that's only 108 years ago) in this country: * Life expectancy was below 50 years * 163 out of every 1000 babies born died before they reached the age of 1 (that's 16.3%) * The majority of families could not afford to see a doctor The government refused to interfere as the emphasis at this point in time was on a "laissez-faire" country, meaning that things should be left to take their own course. It was believed that interference by the Government would strangle the economy, so generally people were left to sink or swim as they could. During the latter years of the 19th Century, and the early years of the 20th Century many reports began to come out which drew attention to the plight of the poor, which was reinforced by something of a recruitment crisis for the army during the Boer War. Of those who volunteered 35% (over a third) were rejected as medically unfit, generally because of problems related to poverty. This changed in 1906 when the Liberal Party was elected, with David Lloyd George as their Chancellor of the Exchequor, and what followed was a package of reforms that ultimately led to a constitutional crisis. The reforms included the setting up of Old Age Pensions, free school meals (which went quite some way to tackling malnutrition among the poor), slum clearance programmes and Labour Exchanges (see here for more information). The most pertinent reform to what I'm discussing today was the 1911 National Health Insurance act, which brought in various safeguards for those in employment who could afford to contribute to a scheme, which would then pay for them to go see a doctor if ill, and pay a small sum every week if the contributor were unemployed or unable to work. The government paid a sum to the scheme, as did the employer. The limitations of this scheme were numerous. It only covered those able to work, which at this period were mostly men, and even then the only hospitalisation it payed for was sanitorium treatment for TB. It did not cover those earning too little to be able to afford to contribute, children, the elderly, women, and those who were chronically and mentally ill. As a result, many still relied on the quack remedies that they had done before the scheme came in to force. The sad truth was that despite the advances in Medicine that had taken place, most people could not access it. The major problems with NHI showed themselves in the 1930s during the Great Depression when so many were out of work, and so many accounts in arrears (upwards of 4 million) that the companies running the schemes made no profit, which was compounded when the government reduced its contribution. The turning point came with the Second World War. The Government were in possession of some rather terrifying figures about expected casualty rates as a result of any enemy bombing action, which thankfully never came to pass, though the Government did not know this at the start of the war. ( Expected Casualties (because I found this during my dissertation research and I think it's really interesting) ) As a result the Government planned various strategies to deal with the expected casualties (including a stockpile of cardboard coffins). The one relevant to this "History of the NHS", is the Emergency Hospital Scheme, which was funded and run by the Government and was "designed to serve the purpose of a moment" - to look after those injured in the war, especially bombing victims. Under this scheme any treatment needed, including hospitalisation, was free. It was during this period, in 1942, the the Beveridge Report was published which proposed a "free national health service" as a way of combating the five 'Giant Evils' of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. The Conservatives, who nominally had the majority in the Commons at this time (though there was actually a "Government of National Unity" in power) refused to commit to putting in place the reforms, which was one of the reasons why they were beaten so comprehensively by the Labour party in the 1945 General Election. One of their first acts when they got in to power was the 1946 National Health Service Act, which provided in law for a free and comprehensive health care system. The first day of this National Health Service was to be 5th July 1948 but there was an enormous amount of work that had to take place before it could start, including the nationalisation of Hospitals, the creation of health centres, the better/fairer distribution of doctors around the country and the creation of a new salary structure. On top of all this work, there was a huge amount of opposition (as with any large and sudden change). Most Local Authorities and Charitable Organisations who had previously run hospitals were opposed, as were doctors, who did not want to be employed by the government, or told where to work. In fact, at the beginning of 1948 90% of doctors said that they would not co-operate with the NHS. There was also opposition from many who were scared by the huge costs involved, but Aneurin Bevan who was Minister for Health at this time argued that Britain could afford it, and had to afford it. Bevan worked extremely hard to ensure the creation of the NHS, and by hook or by crook (he allowed doctors to work for the NHS and keep private patients while getting the public to sign up with doctors for the NHS - if a doctor didn't sign the form, he risked losing the patient [and the funding that came with them] to a doctor who would), made sure that over 90% of doctors had signed up by the opening day. The benefits of the NHS were visible very quickly, especially in those groups which had not been covered until its creation. Maternal and infant mortality levels fell very quickly and life expectancy rose, especially as the new techniques and drugs (such as Penicillin) became available at no cost to people who would have died for want of them. In 2008 we're looking at: * An average life expectancy of 77 years, with more and more living until 100. * An average of 5.2 out of every 1000 babies dying before the age of 1 (0.52%) [figures from 2006] * Everyone can see a doctor, irrespective of whether they can pay What I'm trying to say in an incredibly long winded way is that the NHS may not be perfect, but in comparison to what we have had before it is amazing, and I sometimes think we lose sight of just how brilliant it is amongst all the complaining about the things that are wrong and the compromises that sometimes have to be made. My dad was chronically ill with Type 1 Diabetes most of his life, and we did not have to pay towards his care. His final illness and the two weeks spent in intensive care did not bankrupt us. When my mum hurt her back and she was in bed for 6 weeks her care (a physio, home help twice a day, doctors visits, nurse visits) did not cost us. When my mum was pregnant with me and was kept in hospital for most of those 9 months my parents did not have to check her out because they were worried about the cost, nor did they have to worry about the bill they were getting at the end. When I was ill with depression I did not have to worry about the cost of my prescriptions or my counselling. The times Phil has injured himself we have not had to worry about the bill from the Hospital for getting him checked out. Ben and I have not had to worry that while I've been off work I've been without coverage for my health (or traded electricity/food/rent for insurance coverage). I think there's a lot to be said for that. So Happy Birthday NHS, here's to many many more. ETA: Pretty much 1500 words. I wrote as much as that in some of my degree essays. Sorry guys! |
| ||
| Jun. 6th, 2008 @ 11:00 am Male Circumcision | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
I'm curious about my f-list's opinions on this because I don't really know where I stand. On one of my exmormon mailing lists there's currently a rather heated discussion about Male Circumcision, which some of the posters are calling Male Genital Mutilation. Are they being over the top, or is male circumcision Male Genital Mutilation? There is no doubt that female "circumcision" is mutilation, but I am really not sure where I stand on the male circumcision thing. Is it the same or similar? If it's different, why/how is it different (not talking about the technique itself, but about its perception etc)? Is it not really mutilation at all? I know it sounds like an odd question, but I'd really appreciate your comments and thoughts on this. |
| ||
| Jan. 27th, 2008 @ 06:29 pm HMD or In which I try not to sound like an Anti-semite | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Today is Holocaust Memorial Day and I was reflecting on my drive back from Sainsbury's that I have real issues with this day being a "thing". The reason it is today is to coincide with the day that Auschwitz was liberated. That this is commemorated is not really the problem I have - it should be remembered. The issue I have is with there being a "Holocaust Memorial Day" in which everyone is told to remember the holocaust. The focus is on the Holocaust, and specifically (at least in the media) the Jewish element of it. Which in some ways it is fine - after all, the Jews were overwhelmingly the victims of the nazi mass murder policy, but millions of other people were also murdered during the Holocaust, including 3 million gentile Poles, not to mention the millions of Soviet "prisoners of war" and other soviet citizens (edit: an estimate found on an article on genocide on wikipedia suggest that between 16 and 17mn deaths attributable to the Nazis genocides in WWII of which 6-7mn are Jewish link). I feel a greater mention should be made of those. My main problem though is that I feel it should be called Genocide memorial day. A number of quotes about HMD is that it's about action - remembering other genocides, thinking about racism and prejudice that still happens. If that is the case I feel it would be better served by being called Genocide Memorial Day, so that the Armenian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide and Darfur (among many others that have happened or are happening but that I cannot think of by name edit: Ben found a list on wikipedia), yet the focus is not on these others that have happened or are happening. I dunno, that's what I think in a rather disorganised way. Hope I don't come across as Anti-Semitic, because that is not how I mean my comments. Argh. It's a subject that's irritating me a lot at the moment but is hard to talk about without sounding like a complete arse hole. |
| ||
| Jan. 12th, 2008 @ 02:47 pm Doctors - real Vs fictional | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
(or, I hope that medical professionals have more boring lives than their fictional counterparts) I came home yesterday after my appointment with my doctor and counsellor and watched an episode of Holby City because I had nothing better to do. As I watched I found myself hoping beyond hope that real doctors have very dull lives, for the sake of my health and that of those around me. The reason for this was the storyline: Doctor A has a gambling problem and has to borrow money from Doctor B (who has a crush on Dr D). At this point Doctor A's son (who is in medical school) comes in with Pneumonia brought on by his Heroin use requiring an operation (or his heart will go septic or something), and is about to be operated on by Doctor C, who has recently had brain surgery to control his parkinsons, but just as the patient is going south the parkinsons reasserts itself and Doctor C has to bow out, to be replaced by Doctor D, who is an alcoholic and thinking only of his romantic problems with his therapist, Doctor E, who is about to go to new york. The Anesthetist, Doctor F has just come off suspension having been falsely accused of rape by a patient. Eventually, despite all these problems, the patient survives to use heroin another day, while Dr A continues to gamble his life away, Dr B continues to mope after Dr D, who has run off to New York with Dr E and Dr C finds out his father has just died. The "B" plot is just as ridiculous (Dr G is having an affair with his mother in law [a secretary at the hospital], shortly after his wife [a sister on another ward] has delivered their stillborn baby...). All this led me to hope that my drs and other medical professionals with anything to do with me live in dull houses in suburbia, doing nothing in the evenings at all. Luckily I have a sense of perspective - I know that people don't really have lives like that... Do they? ( Typing speed meme ) ( What my name means ) |
| ||
thoughtful
grumpy
hot
grateful
confused
giggly