Tuesday

I had just walked out of work and was braving the late night Tuesday traffic in front of my office when I noticed him on the other side of the road. He was stumbling and furtively smoking a cigarette while considering crossing the road away from me. Being cursed with the ability to recognize people from afar, I noticed who he was and focused intently on something/anything to do with my ipod nano.

Apparently he was as gifted as I, as I noticed his stumbling was now circuitously finding itself going in my direction and away from the road he had seemed about to cross. Darn, there was no avoiding it; he had definitely caught my eye. I waited before pulling out a headphone, and even once I had, I left one in, in the hope that he might notice my complete lack of interest in anything that he divulged.

“What are you doing?” The poor sap was obviously drunk: he was being loud and talkative. Unfortunately, this is not a person is not usually excessively verbose, but I have noticed that he usually keeps his distance unless inebriated. Sack somehow emboldens him.

“Well, I’m just leaving work.” I listened to the radio in the other ear, ignoring the inevitable – and doubtless amusing – quip.

“Well, you certainly shouldn’t be doing that,” he chortled. I waved him away, hoping this might make the subtle point that I was trying to make. Nope, he bulldozed on, “lucky for you, I’ve been drinking for the both of us.”

Egads, this fool means to go for a drink with me. I started walking quickly. No dice. He kept up, apparently having a direction was curing his drunken wobble. Maybe if I walked in a zig-zag, I could lose him. Maybe even, I could trip him up. He seemed drunk enough - might believe he fell.

“So what are doing with your life?” Oh boy. I put the other headphone back in, listening to the dulcet tones of news broadcasting from another continent. Out of the corner of my eye I could see him going on – the odd word was filtering through, but not enough for me to actually hear. We got to a corner and he seemed to indicate he had a pearl of wisdom before we parted. Before he got a chance, I hammered him on the shoulder,

“It’s been emotional. Don’t forget to send me that report.” A swift smile and over the road I went.

“Say, suh.” What on earth was going on, this was a Tuesday wasn’t it? What did this sweating (the heat certainly did not justify it, and the scent of booze wafting off him belied the likely source of his glandular problem), wild-eyed, fellow want?

“Well, you don’t speak Spanish,” he noticed the book I was holding. Serves me right for carrying conversations starters around with me, I thought. “I have a problem. I am here seeing my mother. I’m from Naples, Florida.” He stumbled, but caught himself. “..Union Station…”

“OK, go straight down there,” I hinged around pointing him away (the wrong direction actually – seemed an appropriate punishment).

“No, no, no.” His hands shuffled before his face. He hitched his bag up. “I need a dollah thirty five.”

Great. A well dressed bum. The guilt kicked in, remembering previous moments when I had been equally inebriated and verbally assaulted passers-by searching for shrapnel to get home. Usually, I managed to finagle my way without it, but I was not entirely immune to his situation. I reached into my pocket and produced over twenty dollars in change, muttering something about “I only have a dollar.”

We both watched as I rifled through my modest wealth to give him less than he needed, before he wound off stumbling in the other wrong direction. I hoped he would fall or pester someone else, but he seemed to have found a second wind. I appeared to have been had.

The gym was almost closing, but I felt a compelling urge to force myself through wringer as some sort of self-immolation. Doubtless a Catholic left-over of some description. The devises in the gym would make Torquemada blush. A whole array of weights, pulleys, levers, handle bars, any of them an easy par with the gentle iron maiden.

I sat there grunting like some sort of pedophile in children’s changing room, as people around me demonstrated with each curl the total futility of my effort to try to make myself look marginally like any of the people that I saw on television, magazines, advertisements, the gym – in fact – anywhere, apparently I was the only sap who had not yet realized that unless one had perfect abs (what the hell were abs anyway), washboard stomach, bulging biceps, etc, then the chances were that you would die a slow and painful death. What the saps didn’t apparently realize was that they were already dying a slow and painful death. Their daily lives.

I kept grunting, grimly chuckling to myself, as the beast next to me effortlessly lifted double the amount of times double the amount of weights that I had barely been able to lift a moment ago.

“Ladies, and gentlemen, could Amanda Hugnkiss come to the front desk? Amanda Hugnkiss to the front desk please,” crackled the loudspeakers. I blurted out laughing, which suddenly threw me into a position somewhat like that which the Japanese used over bamboo shoots to extract information from Indian wind-talkers in the Second World War.

Adjusting myself I looked around for other bemused people. No-one had apparently noticed. I sighed. Was it really only Tuesday?

New format?

OK, so one final post for today. What do you think of the new format? I didn't like how big the writing was in the old one, but am welcome to be corrected. Welcome any thoughts.

Keeping US, Italy link afloat

At long last i sold my Italy piece. Hooray! This appeared in today's Boston Globe, with a picture no less. Enjoy!

Keeping US, Italy link afloat
By Raff April 14, 2006

FEW AMERICANS will have noticed this week that they have lost another reflexive European ally. Those few who have noted center-left leader Romano Prodi's extremely narrow and still contested victory in Italy will fear that we are about to watch as the election result in Italy, like Spain before it, equates to a chilling in a previously solid bilateral trans-Atlantic relationship.
But policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic have long suspected that Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's position in Italy was untenable. On the national stage, the billionaire TV-magnate's claims of success with the economy have been regularly undermined by facts on the ground, and on the international stage he brought Italy to war with him in Iraq against the wishes of roughly 70 percent of the populace.

Added to this, Berlusconi's personal troubles (his election campaign was shadowed by corruption investigations), and his oratorical gaffes (during the campaign he compared himself to Jesus and Napoleon, and swore celibacy until after polling day) made him a somewhat irregular ally. From Washington's perspective, Berlusconi was a staunch American supporter who vigorously led his nation to support America in Iraq and was rewarded with the honor of speaking before the joint houses of Congress. He was very vocal in both his support for President Bush's policies and his personal admiration of the man.

His opponent and victor, former president of the European Commission Romano Prodi, can seem the polar opposite both in style -- Prodi has the nickname ''Professore" while Berlusconi proudly sports the nickname ''Cavaliere" -- but also in substance, offering a platform on which he has made it clear that he will withdraw Italian troops from Iraq. The question is whether Prodi will be able to keep his more hard-line left-wing coalition partners in check and prevent them from hijacking the rhetoric of the Italian withdrawal and spinning it in the international press to reflect their anti-Americanism.

Berlusconi was always going to withdraw the troops anyway, but the difference is that Prodi's withdrawal will sever the main physical bond between US and Italian foreign policy, without Prodi having the political capital within his coalition to be able to find other pillars to sustain the wider Italian-American relationship. To US policy makers this scenario sounds a great deal like the one that played out when center-left Spanish leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero defeated pro-American leader Jose Maria Aznar, an election that heralded in the current situation where Prime Minister Zapatero and President Bush have yet to communicate with each other.

Luckily Italians were spared the atrocity that acted as a spark for Zapatero's victory; however, even without a bombing in Italy ahead of the elections the same end result is still nevertheless possible. Yet to allow Italian-American relations down this diplomatic path is neither necessary nor advisable. Not only would the United States lose another European ally, but Italy will find itself going against the grain of the gradual warming in trans-Atlantic relations championed by new German Chancellor Angela Merkel. This outcome could be avoided as long as both sides step back from the heated rhetoric that could follow an Italian withdrawal from Iraq in the wake of Prodi's victory.

On the Italian side, Prodi could emphasize his strategy of a ''phased" Italian withdrawal: one that envisages replacing a military force with a civilian presence concentrated on aiding Iraqi reconstruction. Washington would benefit from recognizing the fact that the United States can ill afford to lose another ally in Europe in such a manner. While Spain has remained a relatively fringe player in Europe, Italy has been a core member from the days of the European Coal and Steel Community.

There is little more that Washington can do at this point beyond being prepared to work hard to keep avenues open that may become more hostile. Prodi needs to be careful that he does not allow the latent anti-Americanism of Italy's far left to inculcate itself too deeply into Italian foreign policy and be sure that he handles the Italian withdrawal from Iraq with great care.

How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb

Given i am unsure that i really have a readership out there, i suspect this will go completely unread. I wrote the below piece mostly based on things that i have heard around about using the nuclear option on Iran, and intended it as a somewhat lighthearted explanation. I did offer it somewhere, but they had problems with it. So here it is. As reassurance that i am not completely hawkish, i do not subscribe to all that i have put here. I have also not bothered to hyperlink it (indolence mostly). Enjoy!

How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb

Last week's New Yorker article by self-proclaimed alternative post-9/11 historian Seymour Hersh seems to say that we have gone in a full circle and returned to the panicked Cold War years of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Yet this time there is a key difference, we are the only side to actually have nuclear weapons to protect ourselves from apocalyptic zealots, so can we therefore conclude that it is time to stop worrying and love the bomb?

During the Cold War years the two sides essentially built themselves into a stalemate. The U.S. won because it was able to throw more dollars at its defense industry and as a result was able to outspend the apparently not-so-mighty Soviet Empire.

Nowadays we have two very different sized powers facing off against each other. On the one hand, we have the mighty American empire, with a military expenditure circling the $518.1 billion mark, and on the other we have Iran, a nation slightly larger than Alaska with a military expenditure of $4.3 billion. Similar to the Cold War, the two sides are ideologically opposed, though during the Cold War the two ideologies were diametrically opposed (capitalism vs. communism), while today both Iran and the United States have functioning constitutions (of sorts) and demagogic leaders burning with a messianic fervor. Here, the ideological divide is painted by some as a religious one with Ahmadinejad having no qualms about attacking enemies on religious grounds, while President Bush instead practices policies that may lack overt trappings of Christianity, but is often pointed out as an underlying theme.

While some of President Ahmadinejad's rhetoric against Israel is undoubtedly politicking aimed at a local audience and to curry him favor amongst the global Muslim umma, few can doubt that President Ahmadinejad is serious when he talks of annihilating Israel and Jews in general, and specifically of punishing the United States.

On top of these very public proclamations about the Zionist/American menace, President Ahmadinejad subscribes to a particularly vitriolic brand of apocalyptic Islam: one that is eagerly awaiting the return of the Twelfth Imam who will bring with him the end of the world. One of President Ahmadinejad's first acts in office was to hand over $17 million in government funds to the shrine from where believers expect the Twelfth Imam to emerge from.

Such public rhetoric can lead one to question the sagacity of letting such a leader ever get his hands on a nuclear devise; yet there are in fact there are a number of valid reasons why Iran can feel justified in wanting a nuclear bomb. They have hostile Israel nearby armed with nukes, and to their East they border a nuclear Pakistan, a nation best known for exporting fundamentalists, being ruled by a military dictator, and being in the middle of a low level conflict with its nuclear neighbor India. Then, of course, there is the hegemonic American menace brandishing its massive conventional and nuclear arsenal.

The flip side to this is that if Iran was to go nuclear, this would spark a regional arms race, pushing Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia into a position of great unease that they would translate into pursuing their own nuclear program.

So with these doomsday scenarios in mind, and the current stalled state of negotiations with Iran, is it necessarily a good idea to completely remove certain military options from the table?

Thus far it does not seem that the vague threat that the Americans have brandished at Iran has actually had an effect. The Iranians continue to march towards the bomb, increasingly turning the issue into a nationalistic rallying point without any hint that they actually plan on hesitating before they reach their goal.

One reason for this is that they do not feel that the West and the United States has the guts to actually step up and use the military option. It is through this spectrum that one should read the stories about American planning for a military option against Iran – the Iranians do not actually feel threatened; and realistically speaking they will not feel threatened unless they really believe that there is a real military option that the United States would be able to act upon. It is a basic lesson of diplomacy that you do not bluff people with something unless you can really back it up with the goods.

Given the fact that we are constantly reminded of how hard it would be for any conventional military option to actually affect the Iranian nuclear program, then is it not maybe a sensible idea to keep the idea of bunker busting nukes on the table? These would not be the same bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but would be more constrained nuclear weapons. A parallel in scope could be drawn with depleted uranium shells that conventional U.S. forces have already used in the region.

Would an American strike of this scope win the U.S. any friends in the region? Absolutely not. It would most certainly not have the effect of inspiring the Iranian people to stand up and overthrow their government as the Neoconservatives would have you believe. It would make the U.S. incredibly unpopular in the Islamic world, and would likely win no friends or allies anywhere else. But is this any different or any improvement on the current situation?

A major strike could stop, or at least considerably delay, an Iranian bomb. A genuine and credible threat could have the effect of making the Iranians actually come back to the negotiating table. For evidence of this, there is always the possibility that the current elevated threat level is what is responsible for the Iranians agreeing to current bilateral discussions with the United States on Iraq.

There is an argument that the Russians and the Chinese could end up having a stabilizing effect, but their involvement thus far with North Korea has not stopped that nation going nuclear.

The only alternative to a hard military strike is that the Iranian people decide that they have had enough of their leaders and topple them (or vote in new ones – something that is often overlooked is that Iran has got a pretty democratic constitution when examined closely, and their parliament represents an accurate reflection of the ethnic and religious make up of the nation) of their own accord. The U.S. can try to help foster such a revolt, but must do so in a way that leaves no American fingerprints – any such evidence would wreck the credibility of the nascent movement.

This does not paint a pretty picture, but makes one wonder about how keen we should be to take any military option off the table. Just like in the Cold War, a nuclear bomb could be the trump card that keeps the enemy in check. And once again, we return to MAD, a blissful state where we stop worrying and learn to love the bomb.

Panda Clinton

Well I had what one could suppose is a particularly Washington Sunday (that was preceded by a rather anarchic Saturday night).

To start at the beginning (as is always best), I headed off at about 2:30 in the afternoon to go to the zoo here to see the famous Panda infant. For those of you not local, Washington has a long and distinguished tradition of bringing in Pandas and killing them (for those offended by such statements, this was something that was relayed to me by a seasoned Washingtonian). Tai-Shan (follow the earlier link to see him in action) is the latest such creature, and is so popular that you have to go online to reserve the tickets (can’t find a link for that – you’ll have to figure it out yourself) ahead of time. So I did, and I then joined the sweaty throngs massed at the zoo to see the little critter fall all over the place. It was admittedly cute, but I kept wondering if these creatures aren’t really on their way shuffling off the end of the genetic coil. I mean, they are unable to reproduce effectively, cannot digest the only food that they eat, and I cannot imagine that they are the smartest things around.

I tried to take some pictures with my fabulous new Razr phone – but they didn’t really turn out so good. Technology is not quite there yet.

Then, as I was walking away from the zoo (having been disappointed and finding that most of the other creatures were understandably in hiding in their metal cages. Truth be told I find zoos rather creepy places), I saw Lord and Lady Clinton strolling along. Truthfully, I recognized her before him. She was a lot shorter than I thought, and he was a lot older and shorter than I thought. So overall, they were short. Not quite midgets, but not the titans that one had been led to believe (or was that just metaphorically….). Amusingly, the person I was strolling along with didn’t actually notice them, and only noticed the rather tacky tracksuit that he was wearing. When she turned to comment, i pointed out who it was. Still, now I can say I have seen an American President in the flesh, and one that I liked too. Halleluiah! Still don’t think she has a chance of winning however in 2008. As an aside, in my searches for things to link them to in this posting, I came across this poster: wonder which way they voted.

Border Crossing

Here is a book i recently finished. I wouldn't go out of your way, but should it fall into your lap.

Border Crossing

Written by Pat Barker, of Regeneration fame, this is quite a different tale to the stories of deserters and poets that she spun for that trilogy. Here we watch as a child psychologist Tom is brought back into contact with a child murderer, Danny, he helped get sent to jail for killing the local “cat lady.” Years after the child’s release, the psychologist happens to save the boy (now a young man) from drowning near his home. But is it merely coincidence?

This was a very well written book that flowed lyrically, but lacked a real punch or story. It kind of drifted around, like the main character searching for the reality behind the child murderer, yet at the same time it all seems to be leading nowhere. The narrator wandered into a divorce and drifted around the United Kingdom tracking down people who had interacted with Tom at some point during his imprisonment. It is a cast straight out of any British pot boiled story, except they all have an erudite edge meaning that they are teachers, psychologists and coppers in the Inspector Morse sense of the word.

Survey says: the book never seemed to climax, and the fact that it was a very easy read that still took me weeks to read is an ominous sign. I also purchased it for a dollar or so, so I suppose that could be perceived as a bad sign (though I am usually pretty good about finding diamonds in the rough). Don’t go out of your way, but if you feel for a well written British story, why not?

Thank You For Smoking

Dear readers, i apologize for the extended delay. Nevertheless, the fact i have heard few complaints makes me wonder if you really exist anyway. Been busy at work, but watching moovies and books galore, so lots of reviews to come. Also, one serious thing, but we are going to see whether i find a real home for it first, before you get to see it. Here is a flick i went to see at the cinema last Friday. Enjoy!

Thank You For Smoking

Based on a book by Christopher Buckley that is sitting on my bookshelf unread after I persuaded a certain charming someone to buy it, this is a film (and book) about a tobacco lobbyist (Aaron Eckhart) who kind of finds his conscience and moves from lobbying specifically for the tobacco industry to being a general “consultant” in Washington. Along the way he bonds with his son and meets some quirky people in Hollywood.

Seeing this film in Washington was probably the right setting as I recognized most of the background (and DC ultimately is a very pretty city) and the fact that I work with insiders in the policy industry gave me that smug knowing feeling for most of the movie. However, his also meant that the audience was filled with other smug individuals with the same sense, including a seeming army of students who were both charmed by the scenery and enamoured by the fact that they too might one day get the opportunity to grow up and become like him. Considering what an amoral asshole the character is, this does not necessarily bode well for the next generation of Abramoff’s and DeLay’s, but I suppose it is a post-modern characteristic to see oneself as an amoral character occasionally. What makes me wonder is whether such post-modern blankness will foster and allow such amorality to grow to the point of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy that leaves the individual with a truly amoral core.

Enough of this philosophical theorising. I have very few gripes with the actual film; I enjoyed it through and through. It was fun, stylishly shot, and took a good dig at Katie Holmes. The character she plays is somewhat slight, but is one that is treated in a fabulously dismissive way in the film. This action was probably never intended as a slight, but it worked out well. Otherwise, Aaron Eckhart was good, Sam Elliot made an unnecessary cameo, Rob Lowe was very amusing (and his assistant alarming – apparently played by someone from The O.C. called Adam Brody), and Robert Duvall played a cliché (that actually delivered the line “tobacco takes care of it’s own,” in the same way that a mob boss might say it in a gangster movie. Argh). Still, it was entertaining, and thankfully did not turn out to have the horrendous ending that I had been led to believe it was going to have (by one of the very people I went to see it with – in fact, the most resistant one – and one who recently concocted a rather complex hoax in which he told me that buildings near our office are named after him (I suppose credulous me for believing him, but…). You know who you are – anyone else want to guess?). I won’t spoil it, but simply say that it does not turn out as sappy as it could have, or at times feels like, it is going to.

Survey says: definitely worth seeing. If not at the cinema then definitely on DVD/video, almost worth owning for the opening credits alone which are done in a fantastically cool way.