ASCLEPIADES

Salve, F. Not an expert here either. When I was talking about cosmic proportions, I was trying to be overtly ironic; my apologies if that wasn't the case. What precludes the elements of the atmosphere of any planet from reaching any other is called distance. The orbit of the International Space Station is on average at some mere 340 km from the sea level (Perigee:331.0 km; Apogee: 341.9 km); even so, that distance is more than enough for getting far more perfect vacuum conditions than those ever possible at any laboratory on Earth's surface. Minimun Earth-Venus distance is about 40,000,000 km. The Interplanetary medium space is called a vacuum for a good reason: average density is about 5 particles/cm3 near the Earth (less than 0.00 000 000 000 000 000 001 kg/m3) and decreases by an inverse square law farther from the Sun; "particles" basically means hydrogen atoms. Just for comparison purposes, Earth atmosphere's average density at sea level is 1.48 kg/m3; ...and one gram (a mole) of hydrogen has (by definition) aprox. 602 214 000 000 000 000 000 000 atoms (Avogadro's number).

Any link? You really have to check on your sources; your ideas about the cosmic proportions are simply absurd. Here comes a frequently quoted model for the Solar System, "The Earth as a Peppercorn": Sun-a standard bowling ball 8 inches wide. Venus & Earth-two peppercorns, diameter 0.08 inch Both peppercorns would be seven yards away at their closest point and some 33 yards away at their farthest. No wonder the statements of the scientific community on GW mean so little to you. You need not to worry; I can simply not imagine any feasible way Venus' atmosphere would be ever able to have the minimal effect over the climate on Earth. That's humans' job, after all.

I'm sorry, but I can see no fundamental difference regarding all these between the purportedly corrupt late Republican Roman society and any other human society I'm aware of, either Roman or barbarian, corrupt or incorrupt, ascendant or decadent.

.

I see. So a narrow definition of a word is fine when it suits you?

The core of the Liberatores' conspiracy were: some Patricii (Galba, the Casca brothers and -by adoption- MJ Brutus Caepio); and many ancient long-standing nobiles plebeian families (Brutus, Cassius, Caecilius, Minucius, Sextius) Trebonia gens had a four centuries-long tradition of plebeian Tribunes.

Do you actually suggest the Venusian gases are occasionally being dumped on Earth, across at least some 26 million miles (more than 3,000 times the Earth's diameter) of open space? And that such phenomenon contributes to the ongoing terrestrial global warming? Really?

Salve, DD. We agree; even so, bad publicity is better than no publicity at all. Do you remember the 1979 classic Walter Hill's film The Warriors? ("Come out to plaaay-hay!"); BTW, soon to be re-filmed by Tony Scott, with a tentative release date of 2010 and now set in LA instead of NYC. Maybe someone recalls some classical names within it (Cyrus, Cleon, Ajax). It was loosely based in a 1965 homonym novel by by Sol Yurick, itself loosely based on the Anabasis. In fact, one of the novel's main characters was constatly reading a comic book adaptation on Anabasis. Anyway, the film's plot line is much closer to Anabasis than the novel: the Warriors have to get home to Coney Island by travelling through territory controlled by hostile gangs.

Then why do thieves break into houses to steal tv's? Why are cars stolen? For profit. The availability of luxury is limited and if offered at a lower price away from the marketplace, there will always be those willing to pay for luxury in order to establish their own comfort and status on the cheap. In that respect, what is so different from Rome? Is the traffic in stolen luxury not evidence of corruption? Do not drug dealers live luxurious lives off the misery of their customers? You can't get much more corrupt than that. Or shall we include the deals done behind closed doors in politics. A gift, and the agreement is made. It seems very logical to me. I live in a town, and thus witness the effects of luxury-seeking first hand. If you want to call me simple-minded you're welcome to, but expect an arguement.

Mythology is not History. It's biologically implausible that we all come from a sole primordial couple. And of course, our common ancestors were not human.

I think there's an inherent contradiction between both statements; in any case, I can't disagree more with the first one. A rebel army is politics too; previous to the so-called Marian Reforms, dissident politicians simply lacked any loyal soldiers for imposing themselves over the State. That was the case for Spurius Cassius Vicellinus, Marcus Manlius Capitolinus and many other; even Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major himself was prosecuted and died in exile at Liternum.

Even if some Republican institutions came down to the princip

Salve, C. Maybe you will be able to explain a little bit more why: Anyway, I would be especially interested in your primary sources.

I agree with all you said except for the ubiquitousness(?) of it. It has probably been quite balmy on Mars in its past, and once the big chill set in life, if it exists there, probably has retreated to supportable conditions like (but not limited to) the heated water phenomenon in out ocean bottoms. Certain examples exist in Antarctica, but they have at least seasonal reprieves. On Mars below the surface would be a good opportunity for sustained life. Consider the amount of heat escaping from the core of the earth and how it heats subterranean chambers, or the amount of ambient heat just a few feet below the Earth's surface which increases linearly as one goes deeper. Actually, what Phoenix found was water ice, predicted at least since 2002 by the Mars Odyssey orbiter, as Vastitia Borealis is included in the Martian northern permafrost cap that presumably goes as south as 60

Salve, Amici. Writimg more than two and a half centuries after the Republican demise, the hellenized severean Senator Caludius Cassius Dio of Nicea didn't miss it at all and had his own well developed social explanation for its failure, presumably quite extended at his time. Here comes Romanae Historia, Liber XLIV, cp. I-II, on the Liberatores' conspiracy. "His slayers, to be sure, declared that they had shown themselves at once destroyers of Caesar and liberators of the people: but in reality they impiously plotted against him, and they threw the city into disorder when at last it possessed a stable government. Democracy, indeed, has a fair-appearing name and conveys the impression of bringing equal rights to all through equal laws, but its results are seen not to agree at all with its title. Monarchy, on the contrary, has an unpleasant sound, but is a most practical form of government to live under. For it is easier to find a single excellent man than many of them, and if even this seems to some a difficult feat, it is quite inevitable that the other alternative should be acknowledged to be impossible; for it does not belong to the majority of men to acquire virtue. And again, even though a base man should obtain supreme power, yet he is preferable to the masses of like character, as the history of the Greeks and barbarians and of the Romans themselves proves. For successes have always been greater and more frequent in the case both of cities and of individuals under kings than under popular rule, and disasters do not happen so frequently under monarchies as under mob-rule. Indeed, if ever there has been a prosperous democracy, it has in any case been at its best for only a brief period, so long, that is, as the people had neither the numbers nor the strength sufficient to cause insolence to spring up among them as the result of good fortune or jealousy as the result of ambition. But for a city, not only so large in itself, but also ruling the finest and the greatest part of the known world, holding sway over men of many and diverse natures, possessing many men of great wealth, occupied with every imaginable pursuit, enjoying every imaginable fortune, both individually and collectively,

Being pareidolia, isn't it supposed to be fake?

Salve, Amici. Mestrius Plutarchus took quite seriously the issue on the potential lunar pareidolia in his Platonic-like dialogue between his brother Lamprias and some scholars Concerning the Face Which Appears in the Orb of the Moon (cp. I-III) as a model for the Truth

Salve et gratiam habeo for such nice image, NN. It's almost *or*.

Salve, Amici. Herodotus of Halicarnassus reported some historical farts, like the notorious answer of the Egyptian rebel Amasis (future Ahmoses II; reigned 570-526 BC) for the ongoing Pharaoh Apries (Wahibe; regined 589-570 BC) during the XXVI Dynasty: Here comes Histories, liber II, cp. CLXII, sec. II-III: "And Amasis showed that this was not displeasing to him, for after being made king by the rebel Egyptians he prepared to march against Apries. When Apries heard of it, he sent against Amasis an esteemed Egyptian named Patarbemis, one of his own court, instructing him to take the rebel alive and bring him into his presence. When Patarbemis came and summoned Amasis, Amasis (who was on horseback) rose up and farted, telling the messenger to take that back to Apries". Anyway, my favorite comic story from Herodotus was on Amasis' son, the Pharaoh Psammetichus (Psamtik III; reigned 526-525 BC) (ibid, cp. XXX, sec. I-V): "From this city you make a journey by water equal in distance to that by which you came from Elephantine to the capital city of Ethiopia, and you come to the land of the Deserters. These Deserters are called Asmakh, which translates, in Greek, as

Civic virtues have been praised in almost any stable political system I'm aware of. Another universal parallel? Not offhand, but I can name a couple who included those phrases without ever really intending to adhere to them! Countries are integrated by people. You can find idealist, pragmatic and cynical people everywhere.

There are of course plenty of legal provisions, both past and ongoing; that's one of the main reasons it hasn't happened yet. I don't think you require an "expert" level to check it out. You're talking about the XXII Amendment of the United States Constitution (ratified on February 27, 1951) , which limits the president to serve two terms, ie. eight years (potentially up to ten; ie, having succeeded to the presidency of his predecessor with two years remaining in that term). Even if FDR has been the only president who had ever served more than eight years (he was elected for four terms, from which he served little more than twelve years), such possibility has been previously discussed regarding many other US presidents, like US Grant, the other Roosevelt and even George Washington himself. I think the term "Dynasties" as you use it is mostly a metaphor. Anyway, such "Dynasties" must include the Adams, beginning with no less than the second president. In fact, if you check it carefully, most US presidents have been family-related with other presidents one way or the other

What you mean should be better called "influence" than "parallel". As any other human institution, both Republics were the resultant of the evolution from their respective antecedents. For the Roman Republic, that would mean at least the Etruscan, Latin and Hellenic cities, maybe even Carthage. Rome has been (how can it not?) a huge influence in virtually all the European-derived political systems, from Tsarism to Communism, from Zionism to Protestantism. Not surprisingly, each of their leaders tend to find once and again "parallels" with their admired (and with their hated) Roman characters (obviously not the same people for all of them). Words like "Consul", "Senate", "Pontifex, "Dictator", "Aedil", "Tribune" have been used myriad of times by quite different political systems, most often than not ignoring the original versions. Must we remark the many notorious differences between the American and Roman republican systems? US has a three power strict division; the Roman Senate concentrated all of them . US presidents enjoy sole executive power; they are not consules in any meaningful way. The US legislative congress is bi-cameral, the Roman Senate wasn't. Vote is king in the US system; there's no real cursus honorum requirement. There's nothing in the US system analogous to such typical Roman magistrates like the Plebeian Tribunes, the Censors or even the Dictators. Church and State are completely dissociated in the US but hardly in the Roman system. Most US canvassing practices would have been considered ambitus on ancient Rome. All these are fundamental distinctions; and we can go on indefinitely.

The comparison between ancient and modern is popular in some circumstances, not others. When looking at snapshots of social history and organisation these comparisons are very popular, because its easy. For instance, I regularly read that one roman military unit or rank is equivalent to one of ours in the modern day. Such comparisons rely on coincidence, not in form or function, and for that reason, they are fundamentally flawed. However, human social dynamics have not changed at all. People organise themselves into communities because we're social animals, and we gain survival advantages from doing this. Now if you apply a microscope on such things you simply focus on the differences, but if you stand back back and take in a broader picture, there are similarities of cultural development. Societies are not static - they change with time and circumstance - and whilst these changes cannot be charted exactly there are certain developments that reoccur over time. The thing is, we look at ourselves as something apart from nature, which believe is wrong. We are animals (whether we like it or not) and therefore obey instinctive guidelines for behaviour honed by evolution. The organic quality of the universe manifests itself time and again in all manner of ways, and the trick is not to compare two isolated cultures but to compare them all and if you consider the generic progress and decline - the similarities emerge. Its as if cultures have a birth, growth, maturity, and death, with their 'lives' altered by the events surrounding them. This view isn't popular with some people, especially those with detailed knowledge of a particular culture or two, but social behaviour is part of humanity - its encoded by genetics, instinct, and educational inheritance- thus we ultimately tend to do the same things over and over. Specifically then, you will find some huge differences between the US and Rome. Generically, you will see underlying it are the same behavioural developments that are part of mankind. Caldrail, I Agree!! Damn you and your eloquence!! We agree.

Salve, S. You presented it as a parallel between US and the Roman Repubic.; that is misleading, if we agree that it is a characteristic of all humans; therefore, it doesn't made any more similar both Republics than the mere fact of being human. Even if not with exactly the same words, most if not all countries include equality and freedom among their stated goals. Can you name any exception?