buried treasure or spandau ballet

The Local (Germany's English daily) reports that the chief of the German Socialist Unity Party (die Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, the SED dissolved after the reunification of the country and recast as the Party of Democratic Socialism with a cadet coalition of liberal political parties) is demanding that the granite colossal—the head at least, of Vladimir Lenin join an ensemble of other displaced statues in the Spandau Citadel.
The party chief insists that this chapter in German history ought to be acknowledged as any other, and is requesting that the head be retrieved from the spot in Köpenick Forest on Berlin’s outskirts, where it was interred after being dismantled with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The majestic marbles that would keep the giant head company are the likenesses of prestigious Germans that Kaiser Wilhelm II commissioned and displayed along the Siegesallee (Victory Avenue) at the axis of the city’s Tiergarten district. The statues and Siegessäule (the iconic Winged Victory) were relocated during WWII because they were in the way of architect Albert Speer’s designs for Welthauptstadt Germania to another park of the park—where the column remains today. Allied powers feared that the statues could incite imperialist sympathies and wanted to toss them on one of the numerous rubble heaps of Berlin. A museum curator convinced the authorities however to bury the statues on the grounds of Schloss Bellevue—the residence of today’s Bundespräsident. The horde was rediscovered in 1979 and eventually made their way to Spandau Citadel, which will become a showcase and proper home for these statues and others, telling the city’s history through monuments and memorials due to open to the public early next year.

ıstihbarat

Although America has had the good-sense to refrain from comment so far over revelations that the German intelligence agency eavesdropped—though accidentally, of course, but I imaging that the business of spying is always a bit clingy no matter what one's ambitions are—on the US secretaries of State. I wager, however, that the same mute referees are ecstatic that the Turkish government, also apparently overheard as part of a dragnet, are very vocal about their dissatisfaction. Though such behaviour should not come as any measure of surprise for the capable or the willing, Turkey is demanding an explanation for these actions, as if any Germany could deliver any honest accounting of peer-pressure—aside from all the fears adjudged as clear and present. What do you think?  Was the action, response or both what was badgered, goaded-on?

it happened on the way to the forum: proletariat or body-politic

As no reliable, direct records of Roman history are extant prior to the sacking of the city by the Gauls in 390 BC, politicians and historians had considerable license in constructing the mythology, building prophetic parallels and claim firsts that may or may not have happened exactly in the Romans’ favour.
One example was in the creation of the Republic, which preceded the institution of democracy in Athens by a bald year—with the ousting of the city’s final monarch and the pledge of the populace never again to embrace monarch—and pain of death for any usurper. The democracy practiced among both great civilizations is quite different—with citizenship not a birthright, slavery and suffrage vested in only land-owning males—than contemporary democracies and were quite different in terms of leadership from each other. The composition of the consul evolved many times over the centuries, but in general, candidates were elected by their peers to a term of office of one year—no reelection could be sought for consecutive years and often there was the counter-balance of co-magistrates—each with the power to veto (I forbid) any decision of the other. Because the annual election to select new leaders was also subject to veto and considerable delay, usually a compromise was brokered—lest any politician be accused of hording too much power. No duly selected consul could claim emergency powers or institute martial-law, but such situations of course arose quite often. In order to manage the ship of state during war and invasions, a separate individual was selected—no campaigning—as dictator, given absolute power to prosecute the task he was elected for, and then expected to graciously retire. All dictators of Rome kept good to this oath—until Julius Caesar. Even with this new form of government, a large demographic, the majority of the population, were not free from tyranny, however, as the patrician class excluded the plebeians, the artisans and soldiers, from high office, both secular and religious.

Disenfranchised, the plebeians saw little benefit from the wars they fought and had little influence over defensive policy. Insurmountable debt was also a common problem—the common people having become inescapably indentured to the usury of the elite, with a lot of debts piling up while away at war and households bought on credit. The plebeians pushed for social reform in stages, mostly through their most powerful weapon—withdrawal (secession plebis) or a sort of a general strike that left the city defenseless. More than once, the city was invaded and the senate lured them back with rhetoric—saying it was no good for the hands and mouth to begrudge the lazy stomach. Some changes were forth-coming: though not outright land re-distribution or debt-forgiveness but a limit on how much land the wealthy could own, not eligibility to stand for consul but the creation of office of tribune chosen by and for the plebs (also with crucial veto-powers), and perhaps, most importantly the Twelve Tables (Leges Duodecim Tabularum) that listed the laws of Rome on display in the commons for all to read and memorise to protect from capricious justice—which mostly sided with the rich and powerful. There was, however, at least one insult in the codex, committing one unwritten law, a social more, to the bronze tablets forbidding the marriage between a patrician and a plebeian citizen.

man cave

BLDGBlog shares an interesting feature article on the system of subterranean warehouses and supply-dens that the US has catacombed in Norway and other places on the periphery of the American Military Empire and the challenges for accounting for all these hidden stashes, that allow the military to deploy anywhere in the world at a moment’s notice with front-loaded equipage. In characteristic fashion, BLDGBlog also shares some clever and insightful commentary on the exercise, speculating that it is akin to the pharaohs including all the comforts and luxury of the living in their tombs—or of a back-up copy of France being created in China.
Formerly, during the land-grabs and claim-jumping of the colonial powers, control of remote lands, like Diego Garcia, Saint Helena, Tristan da Cunha, the Falklands, Gibraltar, Hawaii, Alaska and countless guano-islands for refueling, shore-leave and to maintain a sphere of influence—all of which seems a bit more adoring (if less invasive) than something hidden and under perpetual lease.