Mayank Chhaya Daily

Blair defends Iraq invasion, again

A screen grab of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair from USTREAM Live as seen on www.guardian.co.uk

I have been watching former British Prime Minister Tony Blair testify this morning before an inquiry into the circumstances that led to the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003. The inquiry is also known as the Chilcot Iraq Inquiry because the panel before which Blair is testifying is headed by Sir John Chilcot.

In so much as one can reach a broad conclusion about an event as complex and as historic and as full of backroom machinations as the invasion of Iraq, I think the way Blair is projecting it is that he was caught between an emphatic President George W. Bush and a skeptical President Jacques Chirac. Blair has been handling himself with consummate ease while insisting that the invasion came only after steadfastly exhausting all other peaceful options. He even said that had the invasion not taken place Iraq’s President Saddam Hussain "may have been" now competing with Iran to develop weapons of mass destruction.

I am not plugged into Britain’s politics and how personal equations play out there but purely going by what I have seen in the live streaming of the inquiry, it seems that Lord Lawrence Freedman, a war historian and member of the panel, and Blair are not very comfortable with each other. In simplistic terms Freedman is not buying what Blair is selling, namely that the UN weapons inspection process under Hans Blix would not have compelled Hussain to “cooperate” without the threat of military force. Freedman seemed to suggest that the UN process was “abruptly” stopped to make way for the military action.

Among the more interesting expressions that I heard from Blair was that the countries that supported UN security council resolution 1441 but not the United States felt “buyer’s remorse” eventually. His point being that they felt they should have supported America in general and President Bush in particular as he prepared to invade Iraq. It was in this context that he said that without that Hussain would have today been in competition with Iran.

One significant point that Blair made was that there were indeed doubts whether the war would be legal in the absence of a second resolution by the security council. However, considerations to avoid a “political catastrophe” over the subject won the day for Blair in favor of the invasion.

I know all this is too much to digest but whoever said the life of an unpaid blogger, underpaid journalist and rarely paid writer is an easy one?

Hu-man rights lost in translation

Presidents Hu Jintao and Barack Obama (White House photo by Pete Souza)

Technical difficulties in translation/interpretation caused a bit of trouble at yesterday’s joint news conference by visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao and President Barack Obama. And ironically, they cropped up during a question to President Hu about human rights.

Ben Feller of the Associated Press asked:

“President Obama, you’ve covered the broad scope of this relationship, but I’d like to follow up specifically on your comments about human rights.  Can you explain to the American people how the United States can be so allied with a country that is known for treating its people so poorly, for using censorship and force to repress its people?  Do you have any confidence that as a result of this visit that will change? 

And, President Hu, I’d like to give you a chance to respond to this issue of human rights.  How do you justify China’s record, and do you think that’s any of the business of the American people?”

Obama answered his part at some length saying this:

“China has a different political system than we do.  China is at a different stage of development than we are.  We come from very different cultures with very different histories.  But, as I’ve said before and I repeated to President Hu, we have some core views as Americans about the universality of certain rights --  freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly -- that we think are very important and that transcend cultures.

I have been very candid with President Hu about these issues.  Occasionally, they are a source of tension between our two governments.”

Hu did not seem to answer that question and reasons for that became clear later when Hans Nichols from Bloomberg asked him this:

“President Hu, first off, my colleague asked you a question about human rights, which you did not answer.  I was wondering if we could get an answer to that question.”

To which the Chinese leader said, “First, I would like to clarify, because of the technical translation and interpretation problem, I did not hear the question about the human rights.  What I know was that he was asking a question directed at President Obama.  As you raise this question, and I heard the question properly, certainly I’m in a position to answer that question.”

I am sure technical difficulties caused confusion in Hu’s mind as to who the question about human rights was meant for, although it is debatable whether he would have chosen to answer the question of his own volition had Nichols not reminded him.

The Chinese leader went to on to expand to say this:

“President Obama and I already met eight times.  Each time we met, we had an in-depth exchange of views in a candid manner on issues of shared interest and on issues toward each other’s concerns.  And on the issues we have covered, we also discussed human rights.

China is always committed to the protection and promotion of human rights.  And in the course of human rights, China has also made enormous progress, recognized widely in the world. 

China recognizes and also respects the universality of human rights.  And at the same time, we do believe that we also need to take into account the different and national circumstances when it comes to the universal value of human rights. 

China is a developing country with a huge population, and also a developing country in a crucial stage of reform.  In this context, China still faces many challenges in economic and social development.  And a lot still needs to be done in China, in terms of human rights. 

We will continue our efforts to improve the lives of the Chinese people, and we will continue our efforts to promote democracy and the rule of law in our country.  At the same time, we are also willing to continue to have exchanges and dialogue with other countries in terms of human rights, and we are also willing to learn from each other in terms of the good practices.

As President Obama rightly put it just now, though there are disagreements between China and the United States on the issue of human rights, China is willing to engage in dialogue and exchanges with the United States on the basis of mutual respect and the principle of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.  In this way, we’ll be able to further increase our mutual understanding, reduce our disagreements, and expand our common ground.”

It is six inches when aroused

Piers Morgan, left, with Howard Stern (http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/)

There is a MI5 plot to subvert America by mocking it. Piers Morgan and Ricky Gervais are the two main players of that British plot. It started with the Golden Globes where Gervais let himself go by mocking highly venerated individuals and institutions such as Charlie Sheen and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Now Morgan is bringing up the rear with his show. Is it any surprise that Gervais will appear Morgan’s show?

However, as always I have chosen to see the positive side to all this. I want to thank  Morgan and Howard Stern for filling major gaps in my knowledge base. For one, the shock jock told me last evening how big his penis is when he is aroused. It is six inches. When not erect it is like a raisin. (Their words not mine) And also, that the 57-year-old Stern does not need Viagra. Unfortunately, in the spirit of candor Morgan himself would not disclose how big he is. I await that profound knowledge in nervous anticipation. Short of fishing them out and banging them on the desk the two men did everything to get the ratings.

I also want to thank Morgan for ascertaining publicly that Stern’s curly locks are indeed real and that he does not dye his hair. Stern is willing to “swear on a stack of Bibles” that his hair is real. Stern is “virile” and his “pubic hair is not grey.” Morgan did not feel the need to empirically confirm the last two claims. What happened to journalism where every fact is vetted from many different angles?  CNN, “the most trusted name in news”, is slipping.

After metaphorically groping Stern’s groin, Morgan metaphorically groped his pocket to find out how wealthy he really is. The host asked if he was as wealthy as Oprah Winfrey, his inaugural guest. Stern said he is not. Oprah did not challenge the Forbes estimate that she is worth in excess of $2 billion, although she challenged that she has given away $300 million of her money. She said it is much more.

Do you even realize how important all this is people? The world needs to hear this and Morgan is doing his best to deliver it. That is my takeaway from it.

I am told by completely unreliable sources that Morgan wanted US President Barack Obama and China’s President Hu Jintao appear together on his show to settle all bilateral disputes on the basis of who the biggest dick is in town. No contest there. It not for nothing that China’s population is 1,331,460,000. India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would have phoned in to say, “Guys, some respect here as well.”

China and strategic ferment

It is not clear whether Pakistan will at all feature in their talks as President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao meet at the White House tomorrow. It is clear that it should.

Given the bilateral stress in US-China relations it is natural for Obama and Hu to mend their own fences first. However, China’s rise as a prospective superpower requires that it use its moderating influence over both the political and military establishments in Pakistan. At the very least Beijing should let Islamabad know that it is closely watching the unraveling in Pakistan and would not shy away from taking decisive steps to stop it.

China’s reluctance to get involved in Pakistan more openly has to do with two obvious factors, the U.S. and India. One is already there inside and the other is breathing down its neck. But current and historic suspicions and animus allow neither to be effective in changing the disastrous trajectory that Pakistan is set on. China, on the other hand, can still significantly alter developments in Pakistan if it chooses to.

Realistically, it is in China’s interests to let the U.S. remain stuck in the quagmire that is the Af-Pak theater and bleed financially. Beijing knows that as long as Washington is stretched in this region its effectiveness elsewhere is bound to be blunted. And Beijing is nothing if not realistic. That said, Pakistan offers China a great opportunity to establish itself as an internationally responsible global force.

So far China’s approach seems to be to let some amount of strategic ferment continue, be it the Af-Pak theater, Iran or North Korea because while it does not necessarily affect them directly, it keeps the U.S. seriously distracted. A distracted United States is a weakened United States seems to be the Chinese perspective.

One can say with a fair degree of certainty that Pakistan will not feature in any significant way tomorrow. It is particularly because while the U.S. is more concerned about China’s currency manipulation and its equivocation over Iran and North Korea, China is worried about the security of its hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in the US treasury bonds. It also wants the US to  acknowledge its stature as a global power more openly. So that’s that.

Japan needs a hard-on

 

A government commissioned study has found that young men and women in Japan are losing interest in sex. The findings are serious enough for Japan Family Planning Association chief Kunio Kitamura, who also participated in the survey, to say, "The sexless problem is connected to the low birthrate, and we need to take steps such as coming up with ways to improve communication between women and men, and rethinking work hours." 

In an unrelated development, I saw on a Japanese news show yesterday that a lot of young men are increasingly attracted to arm-wrestling. On reflection I wonder though if the two are really all that unrelated. I mean think about it. Young Japanese arms and hands are occupied elsewhere at a time when they should be working up erogenous zones. One can reasonably argue that perhaps arm-wrestling is a happy substitute for coitus because it requires no pre-coital courting and post-coital tenderness.

I heard terms like the tiger grip or the cobra moves while watching the news segment on arm-wrestling and told myself there is a way to incorporate the thrill of the sport in sex. Before I tell you how here are some of the findings. In the 16 to 19 age group, the percentage of young women who said they had no appetite for sex jumped from 46.9 percent in 2008 to 58.5 percent in 2010. The corresponding figure for young men in that age group more than doubled from 17.5 percent to 36.1 percent.

There was also a significant increase in “sexless” married couples with 40.8 percent of those surveyed saying they had no sex for more than a month. That figure was 31.9 percent in 2004. Many Japanese couples said sex is “just too much trouble.” I don’t know what that means but perhaps they refer to rigmarole of getting into the mood, removing clothes and going at it. Japan has been tracking this phenomenon of sexlessness since 2004 and confronting what has a serious impact on the Japanese society as a whole. In short, Japan desperately needs a hard-on.

Coming back to my solution to the problem, I say combine arm-wrestling with sex. Encourage young women to throw in a bit of arm-wrestling as part of the foreplay which could lead to other things. I am equally for arm-wrestling as part of the foreplay between two men as well but since the country is specifically worried about the low birthrate that may not be part of the solution. Watching some of Japan’s biggest arm-wrestlers tightening their tiger grip or making their cobra moves it appears that the question of the foreplay between two men is already getting addressed.

Mahabharat’s situational logic for Af-Pak

It is the job of the academic community to raise possibilities of the worst case scenarios in any given situation and then analyze what the consequences of letting them happen would be for the world. When it comes to Afghanistan/Pakistan region or Af-Pak as it has come to be known as, almost any scenario is one of the worst case scenarios these days.

The one that I find particularly striking comes from Harold A. Gould, Visiting Scholar in the Center for South Asian Studies, University of Virginia.

It is striking not just because it is clinically detached but strategically indifferent. Gould’s argument seems to be that when something is inevitable, it is best to let it play out. It reminds me of the often brutal situational logic that attends many conflicts in the Mahabharat.

His comments come in the context of rising fears over the very real possibility of Pakistan’s political disintegration. If what Gould is advocating turns out to be the case, then the Af-Pak theater can expect nothing short of a holocaust, which is indeed what he says the stakeholders should let happen if that’s what it will take.

Writing for the IANS today, Gould says this:

“Islamic fanaticism, conjoined with military authoritarianism, has ripped Pakistan to shreds and soon will provoke its political disintegration. What alternative is left for US, NATO and Indian strategic policy in the face of a Pakistani political meltdown?

In my opinion, the best option is what I would call strategic consolidation. That is, India, the US and its allies, must "step aside", let the holocaust happen, and try to contain in every way possible its spread beyond Pakistan's borders and the Pashtun region now dominated by the Taliban.

As the dimensions and ramifications of the "implosion" become apparent, the US, NATO and India can deploy their military and diplomatic resources in whatever manner they deem necessary and possible to contain, ameliorate and mediate the undoubtedly pervasive violence that will ensue and must run its course.”

Gould also quotes what Robert D. Blackwill, a former US Ambassador to India, argues.

“With regard to Afghan policy in the face of a Pakistani political meltdown, and an inevitable consequent upsurgence of Taliban militancy in the Pashtun region, former US ambassador to India (2001-3) Robert D. Blackwill has offered a highly imaginative interim solution.

The US, he says, should for the time being consolidate its forces and resources in the non-Pashtun portions of the country where Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazarras predominate and originally formed the core of the Northern Alliance which in concert with the US after 9/11 defeated the Taliban.

His observations concerning the interim realignment of forces in Afghanistan in the face of the worst-case scenario are highly pertinent.

"Washington should accept," he declares, "that the Taliban will inevitably control most of the Pashtun south and east and that the price of forestalling that outcome is far too high for the United States to continue paying."

Even prior to the impending collapse of Pakistan, or indeed if in the end it avoids this terminal fate, Blackwill rightly concludes that "the emergence of a clear division in Pakistan might provide just the sort of shock the Pakistani military apparently needs in order to appreciate the dangers of the game it has been playing for decades."

In short, there are no happy endings here. If you are an Afghani or a Pakistani, you are being told to accept the hand you have dealt yourselves and accept its outcome. I am not sure if any political figure, in this case President Barack Obama or even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, can willfully accept what increasingly seems like a fait accompli to some.

So far I think it would be a mistake to believe that one catastrophic dénouement of the kind being advocated here will happen and settle the bloody ferment. I see an open-ended and unresolved drama being played out for the time being.

Prakash Bal Joshi,an artist of understatement

Faceless Chill - Oil On Canvas 24 x 24 inches by Prakash Bal Joshi

Prakash Bal Joshi always had a ruminant face. Sitting in the press gallery of Maharashtra’s state assembly, watching the political theater play out below in the well of the house, Prakash would look bemused in a troubled sort of way. In retrospect I think he was more troubled by the lack of aesthetics in the way the legislators behaved than why they did so. I think he was looking at the scene as a painter and trying to make an artistic sense out of it.

That was in the 1980s when he was easily among the best political journalists in Bombay. Not that some twenty years later he has become any less of a political observer; it is just that he has emerged more as a quietly captivating painter and designer. He is also a writer of considerable literary merit. I have been meaning to write about him for quite sometime but am getting to do it only now.

When you look at Prakash’s paintings, single line drawings and sketches your reaction would likely be, “Hmm, I could do this.” I think that’s precisely the point because most couldn’t. His paintings reflect his personality in so much as they do not scream for attention. They are studiedly shorn of flamboyance. He also likes to experiment with monotones as exemplified the works above and below. “I am fascinated by the possibilities of what one can do with a single color,” Prakash told me last year when he had an exhibition in the US. “You would be surprised how much one can do with a single color and its variations,” he said.

Green Harmony, Oil On Canvas 30 x 24 inches by Prakash Bal Joshi

 

His Saraswati series, prompted by his fascination with rivers, is striking for its colors. The two examples here should illustrate what I mean.

Saraswati Flows,Oil On Canvas Dimensions : 48 x 36 inches by Prakash Bal Joshi

Symphonies of Change, Oil On Canvas Dimensions : 24 x 24 inches by Prakash Bal Joshi

 

Here is what I mean when I talk about people’s reaction while looking at Prakash’s works. Look at these two, for instance. You would want to start doing one yourself.

 

 

Another feeling you get while looking at his works is that he is far from exhausting his creative reservoir simply because he seems to preserve his creative energies while doing all that he does. He betrays no hurry to be prolific. That’s what I meant by his ruminant face.

Check out Prakash at http://www.prakashbaljoshi.com/gallery.html I am sure it will help you slow down a bit.

P.S.: Prakash and I often ate together at the state assembly canteen. We were partial towards the sheera with almonds sprinkled on it. I think it was its understated orange that attracted him.

The kite fliers of Ahmedabad

The kite by Mayank Chhaya

I don’t do nostalgia that well. Coming from me, it sounds bogus. But I am going to indulge myself anyway considering that today happens to be Uttarayan, the D-Day for the kite fliers of Gujarat in general and Ahmedabad in particular.

While residents of many other cities wannbe kite fliers in the league of those in Ahmedabad, there is really no comparison. Kite flying in Ahmedabad is an experience of near nirvanic bliss. When I was growing up learning to fly kites was a defining rite of passage. I got defined when I was nine.

In my extended family the ultimate test of one’s kite flying skills was to be able to fly a kite even while holding a firki (a string spool) and finally cutting a rival’s kite. I did all that without much fuss. So yes, I have been a bloody good kite flier. But then Ahmedabad is teeming with bloody good kite fliers.

Kite flying in Ahmedabad was and remains today an aerial war where victims are almost invariably anonymous. You never really know whose kite you are cutting because there are thousands in the sky. There are two broad ways to wage this war. One is to attack your adversary from below and the other is to swoop down from top. Once your kite gains a certain altitude because of the Uttarayan wind, the taut string becomes a potentially lethal weapon. It is laced with what is called the manjo or manja. In fact, making the manja is quite a process and there are manja makers who have become legends because of the sheer abrasiveness of their product. When I was growing up some of them in the walled city guarded their formula as zealously as the makers of Coca Cola.

The manja is a mixture of flour, industrial adhesive, aluminum oxide, zirconia alumina, powdered glass and various types of colors. The raw string is laced with the manja and allowed to dry for several hours, sometimes overnight. My mamas, maternal uncles, who grew up in the walled city had “undisclosed” sources of specially made string spools which would be delivered in the dark of the nigh away from the prying eyes of neighboring spies. A dozen or so firkis would be brought wrapped in newspapers as if they were some rare contraband.

Coming back to the two main ways to cut your rival’s kite, one of my uncles specialized in attacking from below. What it meant was that he would circle his kite around the rival’s, and at a precise point start pulling the string back with considerable hand coordination. That would rapidly raise his kite’s height again and the resultant contact of his string with the rival’s string would create a cutting edge. That’s where the quality of the manja would come into play. I do not remember a single occasion when this particular kite flier lost his. There were times when after cutting a dozen or so kites, he would cut his own string and let his kite go. Mahesh Mama, that was his name, was a kite flier whose prowess was discussed by us boys in whispered tones.

The other strategy is to swoop down and rapidly release the string as one makes contact with the rival. That rapid release causes friction and eventually cuts either your string or the rival’s. The second way of attacking was preferred by those not blessed with swift arms.

Kite flying began as early as 4 a.m. and went on till 1 p.m. when we would break for lunch. Even though we had protection on (that does not sound right), our fingers would have been slashed at several spots in the first ten minutes. That made eating an excruciatingly painful affair. It was literally rubbing salt and other spices in one’s wounds. At one point my throat was virtually slit because I came in the middle of Mahesh Mama’s ambush of a kite being flown by someone several streets away.

Mahesh Mama’s signature gig was to cut kites rising from nearby terraces even before they had gone up ten feet. That’s how good he was. Let’s just say he was a top gun among kite fliers. For some men in the neighborhood that was nothing short of public emasculation. And we would rub it in by banging on steel platters in a tribal ritual proclaiming triumph.

It was only fitting that such triumphs were celebrated with deliciously rich food. It was a tradition in my maternal grandparents’ family to hide money, coins really, in food. So one had to watch out for a pawali (a quarter) in the daal or 50 paise in the pooris. There was no FDA to enforce rules about choking hazards. Since it was expected that money would be hidden as an Uttarayan gift, we would eat carefully. It never exceeded 50 paise.

At its core flying kite is as much about liberation, as signified by a soaring kite, as it is about being tethered, as signified by the string. It is a great thrill.

Industrial love fest in Gujarat

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi (Pic www.narendramodi.in)

Objectively, one has to hand it to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi for making investment a near erotic experience. The Vibrant Gujarat 2011 Summit, which concludes today, seemed like a love fest if the glowing and deeply satisfied faces of ageing industrialists was any measure. I am patenting right here a new sex drug called ‘Invest’ and, quite appropriately, I will produce it in Gujarat.

Captains of industry (Oh, how I dislike that expression) are scrambling to outinvest one another in Gujarat. If A M Naik, the boss at Larsen and Toubro, commits Rs. 150 billion,the Ruia brothers of the Essar Group double it and promise twice that much. Then steps in Anil Ambani of Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group raises the stake saying his group will invest Rs. 500 billion. Finally, Gautam Adani of the Ahmedabad-based Adani Group trumps them all and says they are good for Rs. 800 billion. It seems the final total of investment commitments could easily top $400 billion. For a moment I thought these testosterone-fueled men were showing off who is the biggest.

With so much investment riding on Gujarat, I have to wonder what the rest of the states can do other than sulk on the sidelines.

In the midst of all these mind boggling figures stands an immaculately turned out Narendra Modi nearly projecting Gujarat as a country where other Indian states can also come and benefit from its enormous success. There is no one in Indian politics who does grandiosity and spectacle as well as Modi. In his mind Modi no longer considers Gujarat to be in competition domestically. His way of saying that Gujarat has left the rest behind is by pointing out that it is doing better than China in terms of annual growth.

Stroking Modi’s ambition into a giant vision are the who’s who of the country’s industrial big daddies. Other than a few ineffectual pockets of dissent it is hard to find anyone in Gujarat not professing undying love for Narendrabhai. The opposition Congress Party has been reduced to an embarrassingly enfeebled bystander in the state whose best dissent sounds nothing more than whining. They have consistently questioned all the gigantic claims of investment saying eventually nothing much comes into the state in real terms. Modi’s response is to hold even greater spectacles where even bigger commitments are made. His logic is simple: even if 30 to 50 percent of the committed investments materializes it is an impressive gain. In that he is thinking like an astute businessman.

I have lived in the US now for over 12 years and not once have I seen such an effusive assembly of capitalists that Modi manages to gather every year. Even if grudgingly, give him credit for making entrepreneurship one never ending festivity where wealth creators let their hair down and party.

P.S.: If you cannot decide whether I am really praising or merely mocking, I do not blame you. Why clarify? Keep it neither here nor there.

Pull the cuffs, tighten the tie; It’s news show time

If the audio is off, you could be misled into thinking that it is a commercial for a particularly exclusive Savile Row haberdasher. A man adjusts his cuffs which require no adjusting and fixes his tie that requires no fixing. He also folds his hands purposefully as if he is hand-modeling. And if you take away the text, it could also pass off as an audition for the next James Bond movie. In reality this is a promo for the brand new CNN show ‘Piers Morgan Tonight’ on CNN.

The show starts on January 17 and takes over the 9 p.m. slot vacated by Larry King. CNN is counting on Morgan’s edgy interview skills—it seems he is famous for making his guests cry—to turn around the sluggish ratings that plagued King. By the 78-year-old King’s standards Morgan is a picture of Dorian Gray at 45. There is a general rule (actually I just made it up) that TV hosts normally attract audiences half their age. So Morgan is expected to bring in those who normally salivate over Snooki in ‘Jersey Shore.’ I am, of course, being facetious.

Coming back to the promo, I am pretty sure Morgan is wearing a Savile Row, where Britain’s preferred haberdashers create their famous cut. It is hard to define that cut except saying that Savile Row suits become you. Or it could also be Dolce and Gabbana. But then who knows? It is certainly not the gunny sacks some Indian broadcasters wear.

A lot of buzz is being created about Morgan’s guest list. Word is out that Oprah Winfrey will be the first guest. Really? Oprah? The one who now owns her own network called the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN)? The one who is on every cover of her own magazine whose title is O? That Oprah? Really? That is some edgy stuff, Mr. Morgan. I saw one promo where Oprah helpfully tells Morgan ‘You are good.’ Check the video below out where Morgan says why in order to start his show with a bang he had to get Oprah.

Where do these media superstars get off committing airwave incest? If journalism were classical music, then television interviews would be just about at the level of ‘Sheila ki Jawani’ or ‘Munni Badnaam Hui.’ I am not saying there is no place for it. I am merely saying that that’s the place for it. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

P.S.: The genesis of today’s post lies in the fact that yesterday while dusting my chest of drawers where I store archaic words I found haberdasher. So I took it out, cleaned it and found a context to fit it in. Neat, wouldn’t you say?