The BBC has posted a sad story of a woman in Switzerland tried and convicted of being a witch. Apparently 1782 was a year during Europe’s “Age of Englightenment”, but the circumstances of Anna Goeldi’s death suggest that torture and capital punishment were tools of the elite to cover up their own indiscretions:

But today Walter Hauser, a local journalist, does not believe Anna died because isolated Glarus remained mired in medieval superstition.

Researching the original records of the case, he found something far more banal.

“Jakob Tschudi had an affair with Anna Goeldi,” he explains.

“When she was sacked, she threatened to reveal that. Adultery was a crime then. He stood to lose everything if he was found out.”

But at that time in Glarus, witchcraft was a crime.

Mr Hauser calls Anna’s trial and execution “judicial murder”.

“Educated people here did not believe in witchcraft in 1782,” he insists.

“Anna Goeldi was a threat to powerful people. They wanted her out of the way, accusing her of being a witch. It was a legal way to kill her.”

Tragic, but the most interesting part of the story is how people today are reportedly unable to take responsibility:

At the local high school, many students are uncomfortable about reviving this old story.

“I agree it was shocking, but that was Glarus then,” says one girl.

“It happened a long time ago,” says another.

“I don’t think people today should be held responsible for the past.”

It is a familiar argument. Switzerland used it for years as justification for not apologising for the way it turned away Jewish refugees during World War II.

Imagine if we managed security by saying people today should not be held responsible for the past. What constitutes the past and what level of injustice is dismissable? Weeks, months, years, decades…and who decides? I can not see why the students do not take the easy opportunity to make a positive decision on this and seek justice. What risk, what possible loss/burden, is there to them?

When astronauts launch, they never sit up straight. The gravitational forces are apparently better handled in a reclining position. Makes sense, right? So why do people think we should sit up straight? Where does that belief come from?

Oh, what I would do for an office that had a recliner with a monitor suspended above me, like the astronauts…

I always felt like reclining was a more comfortable position and was often scolded in school for my posture. The highlight of abuse came from Mrs. Hebert, a french teacher in high school, who asked me “are you retarded or something” when I slouched in my desk during her class.

Well, research has started to come forward to state the obvious: a reclining position is better for your health.

They told the Radiological Society of North America that the best position in which to sit at your desk is leaning slightly back, at about 135 degrees.

Experts said sitting was known to contribute to lower back pain.

Data from the British Chiropractic Association says 32% of the population spends more than 10 hours a day seated.

The cost to the economy of the incorrect ergonomics must be significant. How much more rested and ready would staff be if they were allowed to assume a more relaxed position?

Unbelievably, despite all the facts staring us in the face, the most common office furniture today threatens humans with a harmful position.

And what about airplanes? Why not start the flight in a reclining position? Would it really be that hard for people to get out of their chairs in an emergency?

Perhaps the reasons for the upright position are to do with “regal” or “monarchial” habits from western culture — it is more proper to be perpendicular, or even leaning forward, and easier to dethrone a king who sits upright.

One thing is certain, those who are not bound by the past traditions of others and left to establish their own are more inclined to recline.