Budget me not

It's hard not to dispair when listening to the budget summaries. I'm reminded of a colleague who once remarked that it was "democracy run fucking mad".  That was from a man who later served as a Minster in the Hawke Government and I wonder what he would think about modern day politics.

Everyone is having a say and in the chatter and vested interest clamour one can conclude anything one wants to believe, probably based on how the budget impacts on them.  What did you get for Christmas (and is there a return policy)?

I particularly like the expert shock jocks who feast over the stuff as if they have some foresight denied the rest of us.  We are being taken as fools without the ability to rationalise of see the context of arguements let alone the net effect of such an important day each year in our nations heath. 

Maybe they are right?  What do you think when some smart advertising campaign suggest that the new drink is lemon flavoured?  I know my reaction; "no fucking lemon".  You can take much of the punditary the same way.

Joe Hockey was partially right when he used the word confused (the irony being that his contribution didn't clarify anything, but clouded the issue).  How, well having been so bold, predictably, to diride the Government's economic management credentials, he then refused to suggest what the coalition might do differently.  Except his hack line about cutting the public service.  So much for clarification in our political debate.

So what to do?

I look forward to one of our jounalised suggesting what a coalition government's budget would have looked like.  That might give us a point of comparison to better understand what the government has delivered.

Meanwhile, I'm off to look for fairies at the bottom of the garden

Gillard is Going Going Gone

Gillard is Gone

The explanations for the Prime Minister dismal polling could form the basis for an academic thesis and will no doubt be the subject of a future tell-all best seller. The truth that underpins the slide in popularity of the Labour Party and its leader are, however, much more simple.   It is a matter of trust.

Julie Gillard is a perfect example of a modern day Australian politician.  Scripted to the letter she most often comes over as robotic as R2D2 and with as much humanity.  No wonder the whole episode of “who is the real Julia” got started.  And it lingers, if now not a political tactic, in the back of most Australians minds.

She has had ample opportunity to correct the image and I can only conclude that her advisors can’t see it or that she refuses to take advice which would prove to be the circuit breaker she desperately needs: the change in direction that would reveal the real Julia.

The Four Corners program of 13 February provided another opportunity in a long list to make this change.  When asked the straight forward question, “Did you know a draft speech had been prepared for you as leader two weeks earlier in the event Rudd was dumped” she gave a carefully scripted reply that avoided the answer that was made obvious the more the interviewer persisted.  Like a school child caught in a lie she dug in, pouted, repeated herself (oh not that same line again) and finally refused to answer.

For many in modern day politics this is seen as clever, the sophistry of a superior mind.  The reality is that it is no better than the work of a juvenile intent covering up something that might harm them.  The irony is that a simple “yes I did” with an explanation would have been the first step in gaining some trust back.  Trust which is fundamental to the narrative she is trying to develop.  It requires an understanding that the truth will never hurt you; it’s the lie or the deception that will always bring you down.

What is the truth?  Something like this I expect.  Both Rudd and Gillard had aspirations to lead after Latham imploded.  Rudd had the numbers and Gillard shelved her ambitions for the top job and accepted the deputy role.   Rudd’s inability to manage his team, his micro-management of all matters was a time bomb waiting for its moment which came with flagging popularity.  Those who suffered under Rudds feudal style wanted him out.  The extent to which Gillard participated is unclear, but her ambitions to lead are not.  My guess is that she was a loyal deputy, but ready to be convinced a change was necessary.

The point here is that it was Rudd’s failings as a leader of a team, not as might be claimed by some that it was Gillard’s naked ambition to lead, that was the catalyst for the events that took place.  That should have been the story and Gillard could have told it without the need to eviscerate Rudd, as some in the party, smarting from his whip hand, no doubt wanted.

But no, we went the scripted clever political route and look where we have ended up!  It set the pattern that left no sense of who Julia Gillard really is, what she actually thinks, whether she can be trusted to tell the whole truth.

What a pity as I suspect that the truth of the Prime Minister as a person is much more flattering. 

As things stands, it is just a matter of time until she is gone.

Are we mad and is it Time for MAS; Mindanao Times 1 September

Through the Eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel

Are we MAD and is it time for MAS

Most readers will recall the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, so aptly abbreviated with the acronym MAD.

The central theory of deterrence during the Cold War, MAD postulated that the use of weapons of mass destruction did not result in victory but the total annihilation of opposing sides.

As neither the U.S. nor the USSR could survive a full scale nuclear war there would be no point in starting one. MAD was predicated on inaction. The threat of obliteration had to be credible and this was achieved by building stockpiles of nuclear warheads so large that no doubt was left about the result if things got started.

We all understood the gravity of the situation, the message was clear, the threat was self-evident.  You would have to be mad to start a conflict.  The doctrine worked, even though the peace it brought was uneasy.

Do you sense the same level of threat from climate change?   I suspect not.

For a majority of the world’s population it is a subject the beats softly in the background.  The talk of dire consequences and pending disasters fail to resonate or build a palpable sense of apprehension.

The grind of daily life and more immediate problems are numerous and serious enough to push threats to our climate to the back of a long queue.  Moreover, for every dire claim made about the climate there is a counterview and a counterclaim, and proposed action comes at a cost that we hesitate or refuse to pay.

No wonder most people simply turn off.  I suspect people’s apathy is as much as a case of overload, as it is lack of relevance. If you disagree on the apathy claim, there is a simple personal test: ask yourself if you have taken the time to study or even consider the scientific arguments?

                                                                                *******

Are there correlations between climate change and the doctrine of MAD?  Does MAD provide lessons which can benefit our understanding of this important global conundrum?

Maybe?

We would need to acknowledge that human annihilation, mass extinction or something near to that was more than possible, it was probable.  A credible stockpile of evidence would need to be built to support the threat. But unlike MAD, a plan of action would also be needed to show that sacrifices were justified: that, inaction in this case could be catastrophic.

On the first parallel we must ask is mass extinction possible?  Well there is no proof as far as the human species concerned.  There are compelling arguments that many species will become extinct.  It is suggested that 50% of current species won’t be here by the end of this century, consigned to history as a result of human activity.

Should the connection between plant and animal life break down and the food chain fail we can only guess what might happen.  The inverse relationship between the loss of land and unsustainable population growth on the one hand and food security on the other is clear enough. The empirical evidence is that pressures of this type increase the risk of conflict as nations fight to protect their national interest.

As for a stockpile of evidence to support assumptions and predictions, our scientists are endeavouring to understand the signals, readings, climate history and the sciences involved so as to extrapolate the impact of climate change.  

But they are dealing with inadequate data, and uncertain science.  For every chilling conclusion reached there is debate, conjecture and outright disagreement. There is plenty to read on the subject but it will not provide a conclusive answer.  It will, however, highlight the difficulties we face in attempting to predict what is coming.

So, is the supporting evidence sufficient to support the annihilation scenario?   To over simplify the evidence we seem to have reached a stage that says:

Human pollution is causing the planet to heat faster than would otherwise be the case.  We are starting to see the impact of these changes. We have strong evidence to suggest it will get worse unless we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our present scientific understanding of climate change is incomplete, but sufficient to take action. We don’t know what will happen to our species, but it is conceivable our very existence will come under threat.

Is that a credible threat?  Well it is certainly not overwhelming, and it does not equate with the threat from massive nuclear stockpiles accumulated during the cold war.  And that goes someway to explaining why a debate is raging.

So if the threat of annihilation can’t be made and our stockpile of information is incomplete what do we do? 

Well, we argue, disagree, complicate, obfuscate, rationalise and take tentative steps to reduce the risk defined by most of the world’s leading scientists. Our action plan seems to be a slow move away from a carbon intense world, and a dawning realization that our rapacious tendencies can’t continue indefinitely.

Does MAD have a resonance we can learn from? As I said earlier maybe.

We are capable of being mad.  That is, acting in a way which guarantees mutual assured destruction. Whether we can act in a way that guarantees mutually assured survival (MAS) is open to question.

 A theory of MAS would say that unless we find a way to cooperate at all levels of civilization to do something and soon, to protect life on this planet; all that will be left for us to do is pray.

Perhaps you think that will be enough.

PS.  This is my last article as I return to Australia in a few days.  The discipline of putting thoughts to paper has been valuable in organising my view of the Philippines and has been motivated by a desire to see the quality of life for Filipinos improve.  That hope remains strong and I will continue to watch developments from afar with your best interests at heart.

(Comment or contact Andrew at andrewengel.blogspot.com)

Everyone Loses

Through the eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel

Everyone Loses

There are significant variations in the role and accountability of politicians here in the Philippines and those in most democracies which are worth considering in the light of local economic condition generally.

Take, for example, the situation revealed last Friday with the revelation by Vice Mayor Duterte over the use of groundwater for the proposed coal fired power plant in Binaguao.

The fact that the Vice Mayor has expressed surprise at the advice from Abolitiz Power that 1500 cubic meters of groundwater will be required daily for the operations of the plant, at what amounts to the 11^th hour of the process, would bring a storm of critical comment in most democratic political environments.

The Press would be quick to react with a series of questions, starting with the most obvious one; why wasn’t this known before approval was given?  Political opponents would be swift to use this information as an example and proof of the council’s inefficiency and possibly worse, corruption.  Interests groups would ask what else wasn’t known and what was yet to be revealed.  And in the process, political support for the incumbent councillors would be damaged, possibly fatally.

The fact that Abolitiz has refused to comment on the decision to defer the land reclassification proposal to the press would be seen as a possible cover up, that by failing to be transparent and give its explanation, it had something to hide.  To suggest that it was a matter which needed to be explained to the Vice Mayor first promotes the view some sort of a deal is in the works and makes the political fallout that much worse.

Now, none of the criticisms need be true, but in politics perceptions are reality.

Except, I don’t sense any of the above dynamics, or at least very little of this, in what I see taking place here.  The press has reported the Vice Mayor’s decision to defer the approval of the reclassification and one sensational headline shouted the Vice Mayor “blinks” over the coal fire power plant.  But the press does not have opposing political opponents to quote and further fuel the critical comment and provide the oxygen to keep the issue alive.  Investigative journalism is not something that features in most broadsheets either so I don’t expect to see much from this perspective.  And I have questions about just how broad the readership of the dailies is and to what extent the public of Davao is aware of the latest controversy.

Having read blogs on the subject there does seem to be a general disinterest in the proposal and for all those who are critical of the decision there are just as many who take the view that it’s time to get on with the plant’s construction.  Most of the opinion appeared to be based on a superficial appreciation of the facts.

It follows that the political fallout for the councillors is not likely to be harmful.  That in turns means that the councillors can skate past the obstacle when in fact the apparent ham-fisted nature of the process should be causing red faces and heavy political criticism for all of them.

I sympathise when politicians have to handle controversial policy issues on which they have little or no expertise.  And let’s be honest, few if any of the councillors have thermodynamics on their resumes so it is perfectly understandable that they are no better equipped that most of the public to assess the technical nature of a proposal to build a coal fired power plant. 

And, that it is exactly why politicians need to get expert advice, to have due diligence done so that they can make informed decisions.  It is no more than a risk assessment, both to inform the politician but also to provide political protection against both reasonable and unfounded criticisms.  If they don’t then criticism is not only appropriate but essential.

That is unless the process is free of close and detailed scrutiny.  If there are no checks and balances in the process, if the councillors are free to make mistakes or fail to carry out due diligence without any political penalty, than sloppy administration of the process is permitted to flourish.  I just don’t see where this type of accountability can come from under the system in place in Davao and I can’t identify where check and balances exist particular if the public by and large do not care.

And here is the irony.  Everyone loses including Abolitiz Power as the process has failed to show the rigour needed to potentially gain the support for the power plant or to demonstrate that the cost benefits are too high to proceed. In the end no one knows with any certainty what the best policy is at this point in time.

The coal fired power plant will in all probability be built.  The suggestion that the process was flawed or corrupt will, however, linger and yet again the thought that the process is one which favours the powerful will be present, whether it is true or not. 

And that is a belief system that is wholly more damaging to the integrity of the political process with all its consequences than any decision to build the plant will ever be.  It is a view that an open and fully independent assessment process of a coal fired power plant would have avoided.

The admission that information is just now being revealed creates the impression that the process is an illusion of good governance, not the real deal.  For some reason most people seem willing to accept that this is way things are done here.

(Comment or contact Andrew at andrewengel.blogspot.com)

Can the Philippines grab the Opportunity? August 25

Through the eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel

Can the Philippines grab the Opportunity?

Living in the Philippines could, from one perspective, be described as living in the worst house on the best street.  The other houses have been updated or are undergoing renovation, but the Philippine house remains largely untouched and dilapidated.

As a metaphor for the emerging Asian economies, the picture of houses on a street goes some way towards describing today’s realities and where the Philippines sits in relation to its neighbors and the economic growth they are experiencing.

I say some way, because not all the Asian economies are booming and because there are good things happening here.  But too many impediments remain problematic, too many indicators are below where they should be, too many lag behind many other Asian countries, whose people are no smarter or hard working than Filipinos.

And while many of these indicators can be depressing, it is also true that sooner or later, investors are going to realize the opportunity the Philippines offers because of what has happened with the economic value of all the other houses.

It may come in the form of investors who can sense the opportunity for profitability; it may come from the owners themselves who realize that the status quo can be changed, or it may be a combination of both.  And it will come if impediments are cleared.

It would be a mistake to think it is not possible. Investors with literally billions of dollars are watching the Philippines waiting for signs of change and a move to address the obstacles that keep too many away and wary of putting capital into the Philippines in the quantities needed to kick start Asian style economic growth.

                                                            ********

The Philippines is at the center of the greatest shift in the global economic structure seen in recent history.  The days of European and US dominance and the lions share the world’s wealth they have traditionally taken are coming to an end.  No longer are the poor neighbor’s price takers.  Increasingly, Asia is a partner and beneficiary of global wealth production.  Moreover, Asian economies are capable of driving the world economy even when the rich countries of the developed world falter.

There is no longer any doubt that the economies of greater Asia are playing an increasingly important role in global economic prosperity.  Statistical indicators all point to growing prosperity of what are now being described as emerging economies.  From exports to the need for raw material, innovation and an increased domestic demand, it is now clear the quality of life in most Asian countries is improving.   And it has only just started with abundant capacity for further expansion.

It is no longer the case that Asian economies just offer cheap labor. As prosperity grows in these populous countries their domestic markets become opportunities in and of themselves and the first cousin of this growth is innovation.

The sheer size of these domestic markets, with over half the world’s population, and the amount of catch up available to get a slice of what the rich nations have long enjoyed, sets the pattern for years to come.

No longer can it be said that when the US catches a cold, the rest of the world gets pneumonia.   We can see that today with the problems in the US and Europe can cause for global growth being offset to some extent by China, India and other Asian countries.  While the structure is not yet completed and it is a period of transition, meaning many of the norms still operate, the building process is well underway.  A new global structure (what economist describe as structural, not cyclical change) is emerging, and it is one which will benefit Asia greatly.

When you think about it, the untapped potential of the world’s poor countries has been there for decades, waiting for the right set of conditions, the spark to get things started along the road to increased prosperity.  Small individual actions helped to pre-position these economies for the lift-off that has now seen not just China emerge as a global economic power house, but Asian economies generally prosper.

Sooner or later, it will happen here in the Philippines.

                                                            ********

The existing impediments in the Philippines are well known and extensively documented, not only by those who watch or govern the Philippines, but its citizens.  Ask any Filipino what these problems are and they list the same things.  Poverty, corruption, and lack of employment will always feature at the top of the list.  Foreign investors will talk of political stability, institutional concerns, inadequate infrastructure investment, red tape and corruption, as well as other subjects less spoken of that I will also leave aside.

Clearly, there is a culture of corruption in the Philippines which while oiling the process of redistribution is a key impediment to growth and shared prosperity.  Some would say it is the single greatest impediment.

For many it is both necessary to make ends meet and a simple reflection of what many of those in authority do or are forced by the system to do.  As it riddles the system from top to bottom it can be justified as unavoidable.  It can be used as an excuse that says everyone does it.  It provides a pretext for saying it can’t be changed. 

Few are comfortable with this system, and most would like to see it changed. A majority of people seem to despair feeling it can’t be altered and that it has become too ingrained.

Indeed it would be foolhardy to think corruption can be eliminated.  It occurs everywhere in the world.  But can the pervasiveness of corruption in the Philippines be changed? 

Absolutely! 

It starts with great leadership; it grows in small increments as demonstrable victories are obtained; it comes from systemic changes that make dishonesty too costly; it needs to happen at all levels of the social structure.  People need a reason to buy into the idea that it might be possible.  It comes with determination to write a brand new chapter based on what is possible.

It is not easy to change a belief system, but when the benefits are made obvious by the neighbors in the street, the gravitation pull ultimately becomes irresistible.

At least that is my hope.

The house may be seen to be full of termites by those who despair, but I prefer to see the inherent benefits in taking a positive view. That is a vision to be seen by just looking at the neighbors.  If they can do it, so can we.

That is a vision of change which gives a reason to believe.  Do you believe it is possible?

(See Andrew’s blog at andewengel.blogspot.com)

Ever tried to Catch a spinning Wheel with your Teeth: Aug 18

Through the Eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel

Ever tried to hold on to a Spinning Wheel, with your Teeth?

Can you imagine what you might do if one morning you woke to find you were the President of the Philippines.

Would you have an agenda to work on?  Would you have a vision for the future of the country?  Where would you start and what would be your priorities?  Who would be the first person you would call?

It’s a mental exercise you might consider doing.  Step back from the role of citizen, observer or commentator and put yourself in the hot seat.

I’m sure for many their first instinct would be to doubt their ability, their qualifications to do the job.  Immediately, the magnitude of the role would start to dawn, the subjective and narrow concerns each of us holds would be swamped by the concerns of the whole body politic…….. and 100 million Filipinos.

Does the burden seem a bit heavier now you are in office?

So you are concerned about education.  What are you going to do?  How about health, defence, foreign relations, economic growth, corruption, financial systems, the global economy, the constitution, separatism, framing a budget, selecting the heads of departments, regional issues, making speeches, answering questions on all subjects, picking a cabinet, the environment, power and energy, urban planning, infrastructure, population growth, agriculture, industry development, foreign investment, taxation, poverty alleviation, social welfare, culture, the arts and sport, dealing with vested interest, political strategy, tactics, vision, the law and the list goes on….and on.

How do you feel now?

Are you ready to go back to bed yet?

No, well let’s get on to personal qualities and traits

                                                                                                *********

Whatever your character, your personal failings, human weaknesses, you can expect that the people will have high expectations for you.

Were the position to be filled as a result of a job application we can surmise in thinking about people’s expectations that it would contain the following human qualities: honesty and unshakable integrity, selflessness, gallantry, intelligence, loyalty, vision, kindness, concern for others, knowledge, patience, strength, supreme communication skills, credibility, decency, a humanitarian, historian and citizen of the world.”

The Job ad could be headed, “Required: an extraordinary human being”. 

You will need to have the fortitude to remain confident in the face of criticism, but be open to better ideas, while keeping a firm eye on the political consequences of appearances. The job ahead will require a personality with the strength to act, the ability to organise, the certainty to know what is right and the arrogance to believe you are correct, all while harbouring doubts, not knowing anything for certain and showing humility. 

Hmmm, this is getting harder all the time.

There are serious messages underlying the question, in particular that the job is one that can only be done with the help of the majority.  It should remind us to be a little less certain in our criticisms, or at the very least more understanding.  Yes, criticism is valid, indeed essential, but it is not too much to ask for a touch of humility in the process, particularly when the job is being done with honest intent.

It is worth reflecting on not only the magnitude of the job but also the complexity it entails when we jump in and offer our arm chair expertise. 

To cherry pick that which concerns us, and let the rest pass by, is a luxury only the uninvolved get to enjoy.

The point I intend is that the job of running a country is beyond difficult, it is near impossible and no single human has the capacity to do it perfectly. 

                                                                                *********

In playing this question game with friends and family, another human trait has been most evident, and that is humour.  I have been left in fits of laughter as people confront the question.  Usually, they have nothing to say at first, struck dumb by the implications, a nervous laugh preceding a puckering of the brow. 

One friend spent the first few minutes just shaking his head in dismay as he tried to put it together in his mind, before finally saying the first thing he would do is have breakfast!  Typically Filipino wouldn’t you say, let’s eat first.  Here is a sample of some other responses:

I’d resign. I’d find out how much I was being paid, than I’d resign. I’d take a sick day. I’d call my mother.

Yep, as much as we might want to have the power of the Presidency, most of us would not take it even if it was handed to us on a golden platter. 

It would be a bit like the proverbial dog chasing a car wheel, catching it and then thinking, what the hell do I do now?  To complete the imagery, picture the dog spinning through 360 degrees at speed being belted each time it hit the ground.

The next time you comment, reflect for a moment what you would do if you woke up one morning and found………………..The more I think about it, the more I think I’ll just go back to bed.

(You can find Andrew’s article and comment on andrewengel.blogspot.com)

Nothing Like a Good Chat to Start a Day: 16 August

Through the Eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel

Nothing like a good chat to start the day.

I had coffee several weeks ago in Bislig with a very nice Filipino gentleman.

It was early morning but daily life was already in full swing.  The pulse of the waking dawn beat steadily in my consciousness and I was again reminded how much I love this time of the day.

We met at a small sari-sari store adjacent to the hotel where I was staying, arriving around 6 am, both in search of caffeine to get things moving and wash away the cobwebs.  A ritual I must admit is one of my many faults.

There was a small seating area out front, enclosed behind a high security fence that was completely out of proportion with the building, but in keeping with the environment, a rather narrow street with an assortment of ramshackle buildings that were equally fortified.

The congenial owner supplied us with several 3-1 satchels and hot water, an unhealthy start for our bodies made worse by the cigarettes we consumed.  We both agreed it was another habit we both needed to overcome. 

We settled, as easily as two barkadas sharing bar stools, into a discussion and the gentleman, perhaps 20 years younger, talked about life in general and Bislig in particular.  He was a wellspring of information, and knowledgeable about a wide range of subject matter. 

I felt totally at home, yet again being schooled on life in a way only available when you seek companionship and open yourself to insights. 

Regardless of the security measures everywhere I looked, I felt no sense of alarm.   The advice I received constantly from many friends and family about being careful and the risk foreigners run in Mindanao didn’t enter my mind.

Why would it, my companion and the shop owner were friendly and I never find Filipinos to be anything other than courteous and giving.  That is not to say the robbery doesn’t take place or people shouldn’t take precautions. 

But, life is full of dangers, and believe me, when I say I feel safer here than I do on a street in Los Angeles or Port Moresby.  In any case, I would not give up the chance to talk to people and live in some guarded compound, or seek to mediate in private like a Buddhist monk……….for all the tea in China.

I need to be with other people.  Singular self-reflection is something I am forced to do only when I can’t be with people, of before I sleep.  And even then I talk to myself.

What I hear from others in conversation is always sufficient to cause me to reflect, both in agreement and disagreement. It gives meaning to my own thoughts.  It stimulates my thinking.  It is the catalysis of my cognitive awakening which otherwise seems to be on some sort of permanent vacation.

My companion and I talked of the town and its history.  How its current circumstances were damaged by the closing of its paper mill and the cascading impact of the unemployment that followed.  I said I had noticed how the town seemed to me to have had better times and the closure of this important plant went some way to explaining what I had seen.

At the same time I said that the town was situated in a beautiful area, that I could see the money that had been spent on beatification of the foreshore, and how tourism was one industry that held the prospect of economic growth.

I explained how I had visited The Enchanted River and the Tinuyan Falls.  Both were breath-taking and I would recommend a visit to anyone.  These two natural gifts alone, it seemed to me, should be enough to form the basis on which a tourism industry could flourish. I assume locals are aware of the potential without me pointing it out, but I don’t have any specific details and my companion likewise, while agreeing, didn’t know either.

 I was fascinated by his insights more generally, and the degree to which he understood the dynamics at work in the town, how peopled coped, the work that was available, the good and the bad.

His own life choices were revealing.  He had worked overseas, but ultimately had come home, “even if I am poor and have to struggle”, to look after his children.  He just couldn’t subjugate his paternal feelings, or justify not being with his children.

As I sat there talking I realised that we were neither a Filipino nor Foreigner, just two people talking about life’s vagaries.  It didn’t matter that we had lived two very different lives, or the cultural disparities and diverse paths of our combined history.  I could have come from Mars for all that mattered.

We were talking the same language, we harboured the same aspirations, and we worried about the same type of things.  But more than that, we appeared to hold similar views on what was lacking and what was needed to make things better.  And, as is usually the case when the conversation turns philosophic, we ended up agreeing we had no idea how to go about making things better.

I left my companion after an hour or so, not feeling defeated by our failure to solve the world’s problems.

No, I left happy to have met him, to have shared a coffee and a few experiences.  I hope he felt the same way.  When I returned to the hotel I found my friends frantically searching for me, relieved I had not been ”grabbed”….I just smiled and explained I was just fine.

Is there a moral to all this?  Maybe something like: “coffee and cigarettes are bad for your health, but a conversation will always make you feel better.”

(Comment or write to Andrew at engelmint@hotmail.com)