temperance league

Authorities in Wuppertal are charging a gang of eleven who style themselves the Sharia Police with impersonating an officer of the law—with uniforms that consist of orange warning-vests—and the potential for intimidation, which, as the commissioner curiously puts forward in an interview with The Local, is the exclusive domain of the state. The group operates to discourage young people from drinking and gambling and other behaviours against the tenants of Islam—and the local government pledges to stop their intrusion before it becomes a menace to society. What do you think of this? The cloak of religious purity is unsettling and the police, I think, are right to stop this encroachment before it spreads. No formal complaints have been levied against the gang though intimidation cannot be ruled out, but that the State enjoys a monopoly on social engineering and have backed much more vicious thugs for the sake of the public good has an equally unsettling ring.

it happened on the way to the forum: vox populi or render unto caesar

Julius Caesar came from an ancient though impoverished and marginalised patrician family but distinguished himself by rising through the ranks of various municipal posts, civil and religious, and holding those offices for just the requisite amount of time before advancing to the next rung. Undertaking popular causes, the charismatic Caesar found much support among the disenfranchised citizens, made redundant by slave-labour and disaffected veterans, who'd earned honour and treasure for a moribund Senate who cared little for the affairs of the city beyond their own self-interests.
Once attaining the high office of counsel, the old guard began to see this upstart as a threat to their power, and the Senate installed a conservative foil as Caesar's co-counsel in order to veto those dangerous social reforms—which included again the matter of welfare (a grain dole), debt forgiveness and land re-distribution, those usual matters of business which would never pass if put to a vote—and ride out their personal annus horribilis until Caesar's term of a year came to an end. Caesar had already garnered enough enemies in the governing body who would like to see him disposed of by any means, however, there were quite a few legal-fictions at work, and for the remainder of his year-long term, Caesar was untouchable by tradition, as the holder of the office of counsel was immune from legal process—so long as he was a counsel and not just an ordinary citizen. Caesar was safe for now but knew that he faced their collected, stewing wrath at the end of his term. Finding all his political efforts blocked by the vetoes of his co-counsel, Caesar simply moved to bypass the powers of the Senate and introduced legislation to the lower houses—a plebiscite or direct-democracy. Aghast at seeing the Senate undermined, the co-counsel took another tact to lame Caesar: the office of counsel was also vested with the power of declaring the holy days for the year—that is, days on which no work is to be conducted, and as was his wont declared that the rest of the calendar year was a holiday and put the government in recess. Though a grave sacrilegious act, Caesar pressed forward with his reforms and concocted his exit-strategy to escape from prosecution. Caesar stood for the office of pro-counsel of Roman-Gaul, which the Senate gladly endorsed—probably because they believed Caesar would not survive on this savage frontier and in any case he'd be out of the city for the five year term and in lands where he could do little harm.

Not only surviving but eventually thriving in the barbaric lands to the north, the excuse to raise an army and enter into military excursions and Roman occupation of unaligned Gaul quickly presented itself—another legal-fiction, as Romans did not attack unprovoked. A Celtic tribe called the Helvetii were living in the area around Lake Geneva, and penned in by Germanic tribes on three sides were growing weary of their raids and were seeking to migrate to better territory. Rather than moving directly through hostile lands, a Helvetic delegation came to the province of Trans-Alpine Gaul, thinking surely this man that they call Kaiser will grant them safe-passage through his land. Caesar said that he would take the Helvetii's request into consider and asked them to return later, however, no sooner than they had left, Caesar had a wall built to block the mountain pass and warned other tribes of free Gaul along the Helvetii's likely path that a marauding horde would soon be coming. Caesar then magnanimously offered to protect the locals from this coming threat, which formerly Free Gaul graciously accepted. This scheme (which makes Caesar's platform of social reform in Rome seem less than altruistic and more expedient), this casus belli, did result in actual fighting, enraging the Helvetii and many of the Gallic tribes once they realised that once invited in, the Romans were here to stay, but allowed Rome to establish permanent settlements in Gaul, expanding the empire, and justified the existence of Caesar's loyal legion. We have all these details today because Caesar was also a master propagandist for his own cause and sent to Rome regular missives, reports from the front, and this is just how the Great Caesar began, with much more to follow.

superfecta or theatre-in-the-round

NATO representatives have gathered in Wales in order to reassert the relevance of their club and address a depressing array of threats to broader peace. Such short workshops rarely result in any lasting resiliency or reflection, and instead in greater polarisation for fear of admitting to motivations that lie beneath hidden by the beards of éminence gris—but that's the trident of institutional problems. Nationally endemic problems can happily be ignored in such an ideological environment, and provocation buffets attention from all corners: Western powers are making a calculated (even unto failure) to punish Russia's stance in the Crimea with economic sanctions that are curiously—if not backfiring—only punishing to the sanction-givers, as Russia has independent means and no shortage of other buyers—and oddly chosen rhetoric, like attributing the false hubris that it might take Russia as much as two weeks to take Ukraine, when in fact it would be much quicker.

What version of history will bear the laurels of authority is a mystery in this complicated situation, but I am sure that no one comes out innocent, since after apparently winning the the imperium of non-interference in the Middle East, the organisation was directed to pick a fight with a tried and true paradigm and eagerly take up some Cold War housekeeping. And while patriotic aims fall away in this framework, the American general who has two roles that shuttle him between Stuttgart, Germany and Mons, Belgium as the European Commander and Supreme NATO Commander respectively, is prudently or brazenly arranging war-games in Russia's front yard and threatening to violate a gentlemans' agreement between Reagan and Gorbachev to not advance the bounds of NATO. Meanwhile, this posturing is being matched by more provocative sabre-rattling that is even harder to say whether it was factored in from the Caliphate. It has made overtures for overturning not only the United States, but also the royal house of Saud, and lately Russia with aims of expansion into Chechnya and the Balkans and reprisal for support of the Syrian government. Seemingly beyond the good and evil of media portrayals already (and seeing alibis as superfluous), I would wager Russia has few qualms in countering any attack by any means needed. The growing arsenal of the Caliphate and indelicate threats, however, are a source of concern not to be dismissed, what with some eleven commercial jet-liners procured from the captured airport in Tripoli ready to be deployed. All parties have a vision of the world better than the present state of things, but said aims are seen to wither in the face of real suffering and reckoning.

überholt

Provisionally, the German High Court has ruled that a popular American online service—which to my understanding essentially provides match-making for a much older craft to ply, hitchhiking.
Formerly, a prospective rider could enter his our her itinerary, be it across town or to the airport terminal, and take up the offer, most like, of the lowest or timeliest bidder. It is a bit like car-pool, only made more complicated among absolute strangers that might be perhaps going the same way and impossibly click-happy. Although the protest of the taxi-drivers, who saw their market-nook knocked away, was an important aspect, the justices' decision ultimately took into account the matter of public-safety. As dangerous as hitchhiking is reputed to be, this new scheme could be even more risky, with the winning coach, rickshaw or carriage not necessarily having adequate training or insurance for all liabilities. Although an earlier ruling against services that helped connect people with a spare bedroom or couch with budget-travelers came about over similar concerns—with the spectre of a housing shortage looming in the background but appearing as a favour to traditional hoteliers, a certain anti-entrepreneurial agenda can come across, particularly with a little spin. Of course, bulletin-boards, thumbs and other old-fashioned methods buck legislation. What do you think? Insurance-coverage for Germans is a serious and not slap-dash thing and maybe such models—the hitching-up—are not culturally ready.

hot lips

 There is the bloom of a flowering shrub in South America called the Psychotria elata, which bears an uncanny likeness to a pair of human lips. It has the vulgar name of hookers' lips but that does not detract from its popularity—the rare plant poached for Valentine's greetings. Maybe it is a case of partial pareidolia, since the effect only lasts a short time and the mature flower begins to look rather like a pair of diseased lips that no one would want to kiss—and possibly hence the name—but the effect seems too convincing to be just accidental. I wonder what evolutionary forces could have pedigreed the appearance. There is no lore to the plant that I could locate, other than Amazonian tribes using it for medicinal purposes (earaches, etc.) and no mythology of some forlorn lover transformed out of pity by a sympathetic god or cursed out of spite, humbled spirit of the forest or even vegetable intrigues—the other flowers casting this one out to be forever a curiosity to humans or a sly deal with those man-eaters to lure people deeper into the jungle.
I suppose it probably appears as something else entirely and more straightforward in the eyes of pollinators and predators. Still, I appreciate how well our houseplants have us trained to cater to their needs and wonder if there's not some higher dimension to this selected trait—an evolutionary goal to be cultivated in a hot-house and tended by environmentalists, exchanged as a symbol of affection or blogged about. Naricissus would have liked like the last two especially.

it happened on the way to the fourm: römerkastell saalburg

Though from the perspective where we last left our Romans—growing somewhat more jaded and less idealistic buffeted by power and wealth from all sides—we are jumping ahead, as it would be another two centuries before, but it was interesting to take a detour through the foothills of the Taunus and visit this restored Roman garrison on the Limes after having indulged a series of history lessons. Rome had just had their first encounter with a tribe of the Teutons on the frontier of the Rhôn river during the latter years of the Republic but it would be some time still before they had constructed a fortified border to hold the barbarians at bay. Before launching campaigns in Tunisia, Greece and Turkey (and these lands called Germania seem even more distant), it really strikes me how those consequential but small and nearly petty skirmishes with other Latin tribes were in such close proximity—that Rome was no regional power but a local stronghold like a dozen others, which may have never merited more than a footnote of history.

After victories abroad when Rome was denying social unrest the attention it demanded, a civil war erupted over the stinting of full citizenship for the neighbouring tribes that had been aligned with Rome since its inceptions. Although they fought side-by-side, the Latins were still essentially foreigners and had no means to influence the Senate and policy. Opposition in the Senate feared that rebellious factions could pose a threat to their power with a new constituency of supporters—though the truth was that the Latins were not keen on any Roman politician but wanted their own representation.
Before people from places up and down the peninsula were granted citizenship, there was an awkward civil war—called the Social War, where the Latins formed their own government, based off the Roman model, and begrudging Rome the assistance it needed and called themselves the Italic Republic. Archeologists discovered the ruins and artefacts in this spot, just outside of Frankfurt, in the mid-1800s and under the commission of Emperor Wilhelm II rebuilt the installation from 1900 to 1914 to educate the public to this known yet undiscovered heritage of this area. I was impressed with the stalls and rustic kitchens, which really were rustic kitchens, in the modern sense—with the archeological finds to back it up.

it happened on the way to the forum: oh weal, oh woe or sacer esto

 The matter of wealth disparity was the gravest threat to a Rome who had managed to quell all external threats, but the need for reform went virtually unnoticed by the Senate, who were each preoccupied with enlarging their estate own for fear that their colleague across the aisle might be able to eventually absorb the others holdings.

After another casting off of traditional laws regarding the sacrosanctity of the person of the tribune (the office made the holder untouchable—sacer esto, let him be accursed, for interfering with the business of the State) during the perennial gridlock over social legislation, the dissenting party, vetoing ever law brought before him, was merely instead removed by an angry mob loyal to the status quo for the sake of political expediency, rather than observing checks and balances that had been in place for centuries, patient but now having become too trying.  Laws were codified that made ostentation and extravagant displays of wealth a crime as well as new restrictions on how much land one man was allowed to accumulate.

There were ways, however, to skirt these new regulations with shifting fashion and the limitless expanses of the frontier colonies. These problems did not pass unrecognised by all, though, with many moralising figures arising in politics, like Cato the Elder, who warned of this new decadence—and even in the far-away kingdom of Pergamon in Asia-Minor. Nominally under the rule of first the Persians, then the Greeks and now the Romans, the last in a dynasty of philosopher-kings, without an heir of his own, decided to bequeath the lands and wealth of Pergamon to the people of Rome, in order to avoid further civil-strife there. The Senate interrupted the king's last testament differently and were not about to throw open the doors of the treasury (for fear of run-away inflation for price- and power-parity) to the rabble. This under-appreciated magnanimous act did not sit well with the people of Pergamon either.

it happened on the way to the forum: the late republican period or overseas contingency operations

When last we left our seemingly indefatigable and inexhaustible Romans, they were engaged in a war with Carthage under Hannibal's leadership that spanned a generation and spilled into grandsons as well. The careful and prudent strategy of that Fabius had first instituted kept the armies shadowing each other with a sort of sense of roving reciprocity and balance—though Hannibal, having sworn to ever be an enemy of Rome would never give up. With the nemesis threatening to cut off supply-lines at any moment and with the once apparently unlimited manpower for the legions dwindling, for the first time, the Romans began courting mercenaries to supplement its regular forces, through both foreign alliances in kingdoms neighbouring Carthage and actively recruiting fighters disillusioned with the Carthaginians for not being timely with their payments or progress on Rome. The second break with tradition was in the Senate, with a paucity of options, electing to put the legions under the control of one young and charismatic general, called Scipio Africanus, who rejected the cautious former rules of engagement and attacked Hannibal directly. These exceptions seem minor—and even positive shifts for the Republic's fortune as Carthage met a decisive defeat at the Battle of Zama in present-day Tunisia, giving Rome total control of the Western Mediterranean and allowed for expansion—though without a satisfactory explanation—eastward, beyond the Adriatic. Old rivalries and suddenly finding oneself without an enemy to fight notwithstanding, Rome had always respected Greece as its elder, the preeminent naval power that ruled the Orient and had no designs on the Occident. Whatever the reason—possibly a break unspoken with the convention of only fighting a just war even though that standard had been stretched greatly on several occasions in the past, Rome baited a scuffles enough to declare war on Macedon, the kingdom portrayed as a direct threat to Greece's liberty and security. Once the regional power had been subdued and eviscerated, as it had done with Carthage, Rome declared Greece a sovereign mandate, finally free from the spectre of foreign rule (Macedon) and pledged to protect these lands from invaders. Like the Carthaginians, the Greeks did not feel abundantly free, what with Roman patrols and incursions to break-up any possible unsanctioned allegiances or trade deals.  Formal declaration of Greece, Carthage and the Iberian peninsula as Roman provinces did not happen until many years later, after the destruction of several of the great cities of antiquity in order to staunch any future thought of rebellion. This offensive was not about preservation—though all empires make such forays and create enemies if one is not conveniently available—and I think that compromise came all too easily and quickly for Rome after cosmopolitan success.
There likely never was a golden age of equality in the young Republic, but the ideals it was founded on erode at an avalanche's pace with the infusion of outrageous wealth that's too lightly concentrated. Spoils came of these conquests in the form of treasure, land and slave-labour, which although always a part of the Roman economy, was now supplanting the Plebeian class' chance to earn a livelihood. Large estate-holders were the beneficiaries of the years of war and accrued ever greater wealth, as the squadrons and companies they provisioned returned their plunder to their patrons. Before slaves were brought in from conquered lands—more than Rome had the ability to employee meaningfully—Plebeians without means could at least to expect to eke-out a modest and unglamourous living by tilling the fields of the great plantations. Now, however, their services became redundant and more and more families came into crushing debt and those that did own small parcels of their own were forced to sell to a few rich families. Another break with tradition followed in order to find a solution to this resulting vagrancy and general loitering that took hold of the underclass, which was probably responsible for the collapse of the republican government and any pretensions of nobility and democracy: the relaxing of the standards for legionnaires. Since the raising of Rome's first militia, there was the requirement that a soldier must be able to equip himself. Considering the new economic realities, however, only a handful of the sons of the wealthy landowners could serve, so the prerequisite to outfit oneself was dropped altogether. There was no stipend, per se, for service as patrons—landowners who now were surfeited with cheap-labour, had in the past acted as paymasters and addressed pensions and survivor-benefits, etc. Now earning anything for one's tour was contingent on what war trophies each soldier could secure for his commander. This system caused matters to escalate rather quickly on campaigns, not complimenting Rome's image as a righteous overlord nor benefiting unit-cohesion, and eventual led to revolt and civil-war on the domestic front.