What kind of sit is this?

     Sitting. It's a simple physical act. In fact, I wouldn't even call it an act. It's more of a lack of action, though there are obvious physical activities, internally, that are occurring in our bodies. But still, it's hardly the same. I read a news article a few days ago, and in it it stated that Britons spend 14 hours, on the average, parked on their bottoms. Fourteen hours? How painfully unforgiving is that? Talk about a future streak of undeniable muscle ache, muscle atrophy, and a regrettable check list of other ailments and physical setbacks that may, or may not, leave you looking like the Humpback's estranged cousin from southern Aquitaine.

    Why do I mention this? Well, I have acquired a new job, and as delighted as I should be about it, I'm not. Granted with the economy in it's current dilapidated state, and the depressing truth that my country's currency is slowly becoming equal to that of laminated Monopoly money, I still can't bring myself to be joyful over my new found employment.

    Now, not to sound ungrateful, as I was out of work for over a year, and living on air, water, and the occasional serving of whole wheat noodles, but there are days when I almost begin to feel that I was healthier and happier BEFORE going back to work. If I was hungry, I ate; even if it was on the minimalist's scale. If I was thirsty, I poured myself a glass of water. If I was tired, I took a nap. If I wanted to stretch a leg, I went for a walk. Now there's something. A walk. Oh walks, how I miss you sometimes, if not all the time. My days were my own, and I set the bar for the intensity and stress that would follow.

    This is where my point drops in like a mercury anvil on an ant. When I was out of work I was incredibly active. I jogged, I walked, I did yoga, and even dabbled in qigong again. I was becoming a healthier me. And I loved it.

    And then I got a job...

    Again, don't get me wrong, I love the fact that I can go out and buy food. Real food. Good food. And that I don't have to worry about whether or not I'll be able to keep the lights on, are the heat going, or the water flowing. However, there seems to be a crucial trade-off that, at times, I question whether it's worth it. For example, and this is the big one, where I work I am not allowed breaks. Ever. I can go to lunch, yes, but those nice 10 or 15 minutes breaks, fitted somewhere in the first and last 4 hours of the 8 hour workday...well...they're not allowed. Why? Not even Buddha knows the answer to that. And this is the problem. I sit. All day. I sit in the car for my 40 minute drive to work. I sit, per the demand of the place where I work, for 8 hours. Then I get back in my car to sit for another 40 minutes.
    (Sheesh, my legs have gone numb just writing that.)
    Anyway, that's 9 hours and 20 minutes, a day, worth of sitting. That's not including the times I sit when I get home, though, I admit, those sitting sessions feel less like 'work sitting', and more like liberation sitting. It's almost like I'm sitting to rest from the all the sitting I did at work and in the car. How the hell does that make sense? But really, every work week I sit for at least 46 hours. That's almost two days for crying out loud!

    The human body works like a giant, organic pump system. Blood and, depending on physical activity, lactic acid, is pumped through the body constantly, and what does all the pumping? Muscles. If the muscles aren't doing anything, the blood isn't flowing like it should. This, in turn, causes muscle weakness, dizziness, atrophy, lethargy, and, in worst cases, thrombosis. Not to mention you aren't burning off the calories of the foods you're eating, usually at your desk because management frowns every time you leave your chair, even if it's to take a crap, or relieve your screaming bladder from all the coffee and/or pop you've been downing like a fish. (Though I personally don't drink either. My bladder screams from over consumption of ice water.)

    So what are we left with? A body that is brutalized with inactivity for over a third of the day. Honestly, why does the working world still cling to this dinosaur ideology of: "We must have them in chairs, in brick and mortar buildings! We must SEE them at their desk!"

    Why not have people work from home? The traffic on the roads would be cut in half. The pollution would be far less. People could get up and move around whenever they wanted, and, given the means to do so, could actually be doing an exercise routine WHILE doing their work on the computer. How insane is that? Making it so your job fits to your life, instead of shackling on the chains and rattling down the road of Employment Purgatory, shouldn't be scoffed at with idiotic comebacks that start with "That's a great idea, but...."

    But I suppose it's the trade-off in today's society. Either be poor and, having the knowledge to be as such, relatively healthy. Or work extensively and watch your body mutate into something awkward and, for some of us watching ourselves in the mirror, unfamiliar.

    Let's hear it for the employers' markets! Long live the unaware indentured slave.

The Last Vestiges of Weary Romance

"When the heart feels, but the mind disagrees, the romance will be fierce, and without reason and stability. When the mind senses chemistry but the heart feels nothing, the romance will be formal and without passion. True romance and love comes when both the mind and heart are in full agreement; though one must be mindful not to upset the balance between the two, for it is easy to risk falling into the aforementioned traps."

                                                                                    - Aristotle's Yo-yo

A Collect Call to Arms

     There has been, and in some respects, still is, a steadfast and emotionally fueled crusade to admonish people on the use and ownership of certain firearms in the United States. From politicians to actors, the march on certain calibers and configurations has touched nearly all professions, and from this tone-deaf chorus of raised voices comes a dull reminder of a modern citizen clenching to the present as though it might end, and forgetting, or ignoring, the echoing mistakes of the past.

    Is the firearm the old evil of a morally forward-moving society? Should the firearm be caged and buried deep where no one will ever remember it existed? What's more, could it be done? The simple answer to both questions is: No.
    The history of the weapon is a seemingly eternal one, be it a dagger, spear, sword, firearm, or pointed stick. Humans have used all manner of weaponry to defend and/or conquer others in times of war or civil strife. But is the modern firearm something to be ultimately feared? Is there something safer that could replace it? Does history provide us any insight to a time when things were better without firearms?
    Furthermore, are firearms capable of killing people en masse, as apposed to something less destructive, like, say, an old clunky sword? What empire of antiquity had a healthy assortment of weaponry used to devastating effect? Well, the Romans for a start. The Roman Empire was massive by ancient and even modern standards, and carried a worthy arsenal.

So what were the weapons of ancient Rome? Well...

GLADIUS:  The gladius (general Latin for 'sword') was the staple weapon of the Roman solider. It was a light sword, measuring, on the average, about 24 inches. Depending on your wealth as a Roman soldier, and your rank, you might carry a gladius made of better iron quality, perhaps something from Hispania, and the wooden handle might be made of something more elaborate, and decorative. A soldier cared for the condition of his sword before entering battle, as a chipped, dirty, rusty sword would likely leave you in dire straits before long. The Roman soldier's life depended on the state and shape of his weaponry, much like the soldiers today.

JAVELIN: In the early days of the Roman Republic's army you had velites, the men who rushed forward and did a bit of pointed stick throwing at the enemy. The javelin was considered the lighter, earlier version of the well known pilum.

PILUM: The pilum was the heavy version of the javelin, and capable of considerably unpleasant damage to an armored, or unarmored opponent. The pilum was the missile weapon most used by the later Roman legions; usually carried in pairs by a Roman legionary. The usual weight of a pilum was around 4.5 to 8.8 pounds. Unlike the bow, however, this was a short range missile weapon.

BOW: The Romans used the composite bow for medium range missile fire, with the bows usually being made of horn, wood, and sinew, and held together with hide glue. The arrows themselves were comprised of a wood shaft, and topped with iron heads of various shapes and sizes, depending on the target.

 

DARTS: The late infantrymen of the Roman army employed darts for what could be considered medium range missile fire. Called a plumbatae, the dart was lead-weighted, capable of reaching distances of 30 meters (98 feet), and early examples of its use start around 500 B.C.E. in ancient Greece. 

BALLISTA: The Roman ballista is a developed successor of the Greek ballista, with ammunition ranging from various sized balls of stone, or heavy darts. Its effective range was around 200-300 meters (656-984 feet) with a maximum range of around 600-700 meters (1,969-2,297 feet).

SCORPIO: Known also as the Scorpion, this was a smaller, sniper-like equivalent of the larger ballista design. This version could be manned by one soldier, and had a killing distance of 100 meters (328 feet). In parabolic shooting the range was around 400 meters (1,312 feet), and had a firing speed of 3 to 4 rounds per minute.


ONAGER: The onager was a type of catapult employed by the Roman army. This style catapult uses torsional force by means of twisting rope to store energy for the shot.

The onager's framework is made out of two beams from oak, which curve into humps. In the middle they have quite large holes in them, in which strong sinew ropes are stretched and twisted. A long arm is then inserted between the bundle of rope, at its end it has a pin and a pouch. It strikes on a huge buffer with a sack stuffed with fine chaff and secured by tight binding. When it comes to combat, a round stone (often clay balls with combustible substance in them, which explode on impact and burst into flames) is put in the pouch and the arm is winched down. Then, the master artilleryman strikes the pin with a hammer, and with a big blow, the stone is launched towards its target.   —Ammianus Marcellinus

    While these weapons are considered horribly obsolete by today's military standards, one must keep in mind that these weapons were state-of-the-art in their time, and just as capable of killing large numbers of people. At the Battle of Cannae over 45,500 Roman soldiers, and over 2,700 Roman horsemen were killed in combat at the end of the battle's one day duration. This does not include those combat casualties on the Carthaginian side, which would raise the casualties to over 56,000.
    This battle would have been fought with spears, swords, axes, clubs, bare hands (if disarmed or the infantryman's weapon broke), and short range missile weapons.

The Battle of Cannae resulted in more combat deaths than those of the following United States wars fought with modern style weaponry; such as artillery and firearms:

 United States Wars Fought - Duration - Total Combat Deaths 

• American Revolutionary War - 8 Years - 8,000
• War of 1812 - 3 Years - 2,260
•  Mexican-American War - 2 Years - 1,733
• Korean War - 3 Years - 33,686
• Vietnam War - 20 Years - 47,424
• Afghanistan - 2001-Present (12 Years) - 1,435
• Iraq War - 8 Years - 3,542

Battle of Cannae - 1 Day - 46,000 to 50,000 Romans

    In the argument in the United States about "gun control" there is no solution, as there is no regulating violence, no matter what form it is presented. Many proponents of gun control argue that a world without firearms would be a better one. If history has shown us anything from horrific battles like the one fought at Cannae between the Romans and Carthaginians, it is that there is no such thing as a world without violence, or a world without weapons capable of terrible devastation.

    The comparison of an ancient battle to those fought in more modern times is not to diminish the dangers of modern weaponry, but to show that even a world without the presence of firearms is no safer, or lessened in violence, than one with them. Simply removing one type of weaponry only drives wanting hands to obtain another.
    In London, England, where firearms are heavily restricted, the firearm finds itself replaced another weapon, be it edged, blunt, or merely with one's bare hands, as can be seen by the following numbers table.

   

Table of Number of Fatal Stabbings, Shootings and Other fatal wounding for Teenage Murder in London – 2005 to 31st Dec 2012

YEAR	Number of TEENAGE MURDERS	Stabbed	Shot	Beaten	Arson	Strangled	Other
2005	14	9	1	3	0	1	0
2006	18	11	5	2	0	0	0
2007	28	18	8	1	0	0	1
2008	29	23	3	2	0	0	1
2009	14	10	1	0	2	0	1
2010	19	10	7	1	0	1	0
2011	15	11	1	2	0	0	1
2012	8	6	0	1	0	1	0

    When it comes to people committing acts of violence against another, the argument of what weapon is used is irrelevant. It is the existence of intent and execution of action that make for moments of terror and loss of life. The weapon is only a tool; a means to an end. Those people who wish to see a country or world without firearms should look beyond such endeavors. It is not a world without weapons that they should strive for, nor is it a world without violence, as that is a dream farfetched and without probability. A more perfect world is one where people understand the purpose of any weapon, and carry it with respect and understanding.
    A world society knowledgeable and respectful of all weapons that have been, and will be, is more lasting, merciful, and endurable than one plagued with ignorance and spite. Until that day comes, those who would show respect must defend themselves from those who dwell blissfully in the outer stretches of untamed ignorance.

"The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts: therefore, guard accordingly, and take care that you entertain no notions unsuitable to virtue and reasonable nature."

                                                                                          - Marcus Aurelius

On the Authority of Morals

"A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true."

                                                                                                            - Socrates

Of Sun and Earth: The Greek Who Hazard A Theory

     If asked, a great many people might inform you that Galileo Galilei was the first man to bring about the determined theory that the solar system was heliocentric (Sun-centered solar system), and not, as the church deeply suggested, geocentric (Earth-centered solar system).     
    Galileo did play a significant role in the Scientific Revolution, and his contributions included improvements to the telescope, the confirmation of the phases of Venus, the observation and analysis of sunspots, and the discovery of the four largest satellites of Jupiter. However, Galileo's proposal of heliocentrism was not without its opponents, such as fellow astronomers who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of a stellar parallax, and, more seriously, the rebuffing of the Vatican. 
    But what is the stellar parallax--that vital missing component to solving the heliocentric conundrum? Well, imagine having six tennis balls placed at random positions on a table. Now move your head left and right across the plane of the table surface. Notice how the tennis balls appear to be moving? Of course it is not the tennis balls, but you, who is moving. 
    Stellar parallax--parallax being a displacement, or difference, in the apparent position of an object viewed along different lines of sight--is the effect of parallax on distant stars in astronomy. Seeing as astronomers, during Galileo's time, did not know of this, it was accepted that the stars and planets were moving around the Earth.
    But was Galileo the first astronomer to introduce this idea of heliocentrism? And what's more, were the arguments against such a theory always met with hesitation and fierce criticism? 

Aristarchus of Samos
(Ἀρίσταρχος, Aristarkhos, 310 BCE – ca. 230 BCE)

    In 310 B.C.E. a man named Aristarchus was born, and lived until sometime around 230 B.C.E. He was the first astronomer to place the Sun at the center of our solar system, over 1,700 years before Galileo was born, and Aristarchus maintained that not only did the Earth revolve around the Sun, but that it also rotated on its axis. 
    Aristarchus based his heliocentric model off of Philolaus's (470 – c. 385 BCE) idea that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Philolaus proposed that all things in the universe revolved around a hypothetical astronomical object he called the 'Central Fire'. 
    Aristarchus adopted this Central Fire idea, and identified it with the Sun. He then positioned the planets in their appropriate order of distance around the Sun. But like Galileo after him, Aristarchus was met with an age old rival, the geocentric theory of Aristotle and Ptolemy. 
    To counter this, Aristarchus proposed that because the stars were such a great distance from Earth, there was no observable parallax, and without a telescope capable of seeing just how far the stars were, the possibility of the introduction of the stellar parallax was highly improbable. Thus without the stellar parallax, Aristarchus's calculations were not exact; such as his claiming that the Sun was 18 to 20 times the distance away, instead of its actual 390 times the distance. However, in retrospect, his model is still sound, even if the spacial dimensions are incorrect.
    Unfortunately, Aristarchus's heliocentric solar system would be rivaled and pushed aside by the widely accepted geocentric theory. Although heliocentrism found a Hellenistic supporter in Seleucus of Seleucia, an astronomer who lived over a century after Aristarchus, it would take over 1,800 years later for astronomers like Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Isaac Newton to breath new life into the ancient heliocentric theory.
    Like Galileo and Copernicus, Aristarchus suffered harsh criticisms, and venomous accusations of his Sun-centered solar system. Greek philosophers like Cleanthes wrote in his 'Against Aristarchus' that Aristarchus should be indicted for impiety for "putting into motion the hearth of the universe." 
    Fortunately this sour look on heliocentrism was not shared by all. Archimedes mentions Aristarchus's theory in his work, 'Sand-Reckoner', and stated that if Aristarchus was indeed correct, it would make the universe massively larger than had been believed. Centuries later, Aristarchus would be an influence for 1600s Polish astronomer, Nicolaus Copernicus, who cited in his work "Six Books Concerning the Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs" that Aristarchus was the ancient authority who espoused the motion of Earth. (However, this reference was excluded from the eventual published version.)

    The only surviving work of Aristarchus is "On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon." From this geometric work we get the following premises from Aristarchus, though the following degrees and distances are incorrect:

• (1) As observed during a lunar eclipse, the diameter of Earth’s shadow is twice the diameter of the Moon.
• (2) The Moon and Sun are each 2 degrees in angular diameter.
• (3) At the time of quarter Moon, the angular distance between the Moon and the Sun is 87 degrees.

*Aristarchus showed that the Sun is between 18 and 20 times farther away from Earth than the Moon is. (The actual ratio is about 390.)

*Aristarchus found the Moon’s diameter to be between 0.32 and 0.40 times the diameter of Earth and the Sun’s diameter to be between 6.3 and 7.2 times the diameter of Earth. (The diameters of the Moon and the Sun compared with that of Earth are actually 0.27 and 109, respectively.) 

*Aristarchus stated that the angle subtended by the Sun's diameter is 1/2 degree; a near accurate measurement. (The actual average value is 0.53 degrees.) 

*Aristarchus's 87° degrees is slightly off. The true angle is 89°. 

    

Of Loops and Fingers - The Beginnings of the Yo-yo

    For those not entirely convinced of Aristotle ever having had a yo-yo, let me illustrate, briefly, the history of the yo-yo. Early records date the yo-yo as far back as 500 B.C.E., with the disks being made of terracotta, although other materials would be wood, or metal--most likely bronze or iron. How's that for a finger workout? A little game of around-the-world might just clear a room of failed onlookers. 
    However, disks made of terracotta were used primarily for ceremony, as offerings to a specific god when the child came of age. What's more, the yo-yo is often considered the second oldest toy in history, though if you were to ask me, I think a stick is the first.

 A terracotta yo-yo made in ancient Greece.

    A good yo-yo friend of mine, who was long ago devoured by a horde of insatiable Papua New Guinea termites, belonged to Aristarchus of Samos while he was deciphering the complexities of a heliocentric solar system. For those of you who are unaware of Aristarchus, well, I suppose I'll have to discuss him later. In the meantime, do indulge in a good hour of yo-yo enjoyment. It works wonders for a bewildered or beleaguered mind.

Unto the Price of Liberty

"Democracy is only as perceptively righteous as the one who pays for it."

                                                                    - Aristotle's Yo-Yo