europarl oder realpolitik

I had a chance recently to attend a political rally held in a pretty unique venue. German Green Party (Grüne Partei) head and veteran German parliamentarian in the Europe Union Cem Özdemir spoke at an indoor skate park, introducing the nominee that the Hessen faction is championing as their EU representative and talked to the audience about immigration reform, environmental stewardship, lobbyists, Ukraine and trade negotiations.
Rigid cardboard stools were the seating on the level floor between the plywood peaks and valleys of the skate-ramps, and one could pen questions on them for Özdemir to address during the rally—though symbolically then giving up ones seat. Between segments there was a DJ and a demonstration by a couple of skateboarders, who did some pretty neat tricks.

I am still not altogether certain what is that the EU assembly does and whether its powers and potential aren’t something redundant or bare—there is certainly an air of apathy or real insouciance over the elections, with only around twenty percent of voters bothering in many jurisdictions—but his words nonetheless got me motivated, not only for the kindred platform but also to learn more about what happens between Berlin and Brussels and Strausbourg.

undecimber

To help correct the drift of manmade calendars away from cycles, mundane and celestial, time-keeping systems have adopted a series of complex intercalary or epagomenal units of time to compensate.  In ancient times—and yet today for countries like India and China that maintain lunisolar timetables, there were leap months added to the year to keep observances in their seasons.  The year cannot be divided equally among our measures in any case, but cherishing regularity and symmetry, the Romans (with many inheritors) counted three-hundred sixty days to the year, with some uncountable days.

In the Chinese tradition, the extra month went unnamed, but in Rome there is evidence that this thirteenth month Undecimber (really eleven or rather December plus one, as originally the fifty-seven dreary days of Winter were not considered worthy of reckoning (lousy Smarch weather) until the reforms of King Numa, where the months included at the beginning of the year were named after gods or rituals to make a twelve or thirteen month annual cycle.  The Gregorian calendar mostly eliminated the need for inserting a whole month to realign the date and by many schedules there is only the one embolismic day in February, once every four years—with restrictions, ninety-seven in the span of four-hundred years.  However, in the West at least and with the bankers’ hours it shares with the rest of the commercial world, there is one other formal, larger unit of time that can straddle (or just fall short of) the conventional year: the International Office of Standards (ISO) counts a the first Thursday of the year as the first week of the year—sort of an overlay for the daily calendar and this is parsed into three-hundred sixty-four or three-hundred seventy-one days—to speak in terms of full work-weeks to a year for payroll purposes and financial  records.  The Roman system was contrived originally of course to keep important commemorations (and practices) from sliding away but the tweaks were also instituted to ensure that taxes and tribute could be collected in a timely manner, which due on the first day of the month, named Kalends (Latin for “those called” and derived from the name for the ledgers of accountants, kalendaria).

esquire or let me tell you a story about freedom

I have been selected to take a Foreign Service exam in a couple of months and I am delving into civics lessons as I find the time.  Practice quizzes reveal the test mostly to be general-knowledge and fun Double Jeopardy! (from the administrative embargo that protects a defendant legitimately tried and either pardoned or prosecuted from being subject again to the same charges—en France, autrefois acquit, and is codified in America by the Fifth Amendment to the US ) type questions.   There are fortunately none of those pesky sports and television categories.  I am able to sprint fairly well through the rehearsal batteries, though when actually trying to study, I get too distracted by footnotes and hyperlinks.  For instance, did you know that the most legendary amendment that failed to be ratified under house rules, but only by a very narrow margin, was the measure to strip individuals of US citizenship for accepting a title of nobility from a foreign monarch and would be banned from holding a position of trust in perpetuity?
The proposal came before the states two years ahead of the sideshow skirmish, the War of 1812, between the US and the UK (when Europe was dealing with much larger problems with the Napoleonic Wars) that came about over unresolved grudges and America designs on the rest of the continent.  Another theory for the impetus was the marriage of American heiress Betsy Bonaparte (née Patterson) to the conquering emperor’s brother, Jérôme—to Napoleon’s grave displeasure—and hopes of securing her own title, or for their son called Bo. Although cause and effect seem reversed in the first case and the timing is a bit off in the latter, for whatever reason the proposal came about, indeed some hold that the measure did actual meet the minimum requirements for passage in state legislatures and because of the state of communication at the time, the matter was dropped prematurely.  In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton expressed, “Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people…” Only that that were the only threat to a government by and for the people.  Now, mostly regarded as a historical curiosity—though as Congress imposed no time limits on the adoption of this amendment, it could still be passed, like the latest one passed in 1992 after pending for 202 years regarding the Legislative Branch raising its own salary—numerically, it would have been the thirteenth amendment—which came about some fifty-five years later, abolishing the institution of slavery.  Sometimes it’s good to be side-tracked and chase shining-objects.

hair-don’t

Following a vocal outcry of US service-members complaining that the latest embellished regulation of allowable hair-styles is bigoted and puts undue onus on certain individuals, the secretary of defense is directing each branch to take a second look at its new rules (the Army’s standards pictured here) and present their revised recommendations.
Such histrionics are not limited to peace-time armies, I suppose, and feel instantly more secure knowing that no unauthorized scrunchie could evade detection.  What do you think?  Are these unnecessary accommodations or is more sensitivity needed?