We have a tradition in my culture that when somebody gives you a receptacle filled with food, you can’t give it back empty. You have to fill it with candy or cookies or something of the kind. So I’m curious: is there a tradition like that in the US?

I will be returning a small slow cooker that a friend gave me filled with a chili a while ago. I will put my favorite Lindt chocolates in it. Will I have to explain why I’m doing that? Or will people understand?

I just heard that BBC cast Benedict Cumberbatch as Richard III. This is so wrong. Cumberbatch is a talented actor but it’s clear that the production where he stars as Richard will be very anti-Ricardian. His look doesn’t lend itself to anything else. Imagine, instead, if Colin Firth were cast as Richard. That would be an entirely different interpretation of the story.

I’m experiencing an intense attack of provincialism that manifests itself in a fear of traveling to Montréal in August with N and the six-month-old baby. I used to be such a big city person, and now I’m afraid of traffic, crowds, and sounds. Beware of moving to the provinces, people. They will eat your soul.

In the NYTimes today there is an article by the president of the American Enterprise Institute who argues that we should stop trying to educate people and instead should shuffle them around. This, of course, is entirely disingenuous. Geographical mobility only works to the advantage of highly educated high-earners. Chasing minimum-wage employment around the continent is a waste of time because the psychological, emotional, social, and financial consequences of long-distance moving will never be off-set by whatever paltry sums can potentially be earned as a result of such a move.

I find it hard to believe that the author of the article is so stupid that he doesn’t realize how devastating long-distance moving is to people who don’t have $100K incomes. He is probably very well-aware of it but is simply being a jerk.

The title of the book is actually When the Music’s Over but my title is better because it lets you know straightaway what the book is about. Peter Robinson is the author of a popular mystery series set in the UK but lately his books have been running out of steam. So Robinson decided to compensate for the absence of any kind of mystery or of an interesting plot with a desperate attempt to milk the Rotherham child rape scandal.

The author tries very hard to ensure that not a single prurient detail of sexual abuse of British girls by men of Pakistani origins remains outside of his novel. At the same time, he is careful to hammer the message that the homegrown British pervs are even worse home as often as he can. As a result, the novel has a weird disjointed structure and ends up being quite boring. Or maybe my disillusionment with the genre makes it seem that way.

I didn’t like it, in short. I don’t appreciate people trying to exploit Rotherham to make a quick buck. It feels distasteful to me.

Bernie Sanders, by the way, has the exact same position on opioids as I do, costing him support of some strange and unstable people. 

Have you, folks, noticed that  when Obama’s constituency did not identify with or feel any interest in the Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine, the US did not get involved? And Budapest Agreements be damned?

But when Obama’s constituency did imagine an identification with and interest in the Arab Spring, the US did get involved militarily.

Of course, now nobody wants to accept responsibility for any of it. I guess it’s easier to believe that there is absolutely no connection between what voters want and where the US military goes. 

But there is. Every single time.

Washington DC is more expensive than NYC. Which is not surprising given that DC is a beautiful, amazing city and NYC is a weird, ugly hellhole. Sorry, New Yorkers.

And since we are on the subject of immaturity, am I tired or what of the inane bellyaching that Obama has deported many illegal immigrants. Yes, he’s been deporting like he’s getting paid to do it. Because you know what? He’s being paid to do it. It’s his job to give voters what they want. Have you not observed what enormous support there exists in this country for deportations? Has the immense popularity of a presidential candidate who is trouncing every opponent in sight because of his enthusiastic support for deportations escaped your notice? The people who oppose deportations are either not citizens or not willing to do anything to stop them other than engaging in vague mutterings on Facebook. Given this objective reality that nobody is in any hurry to change, can anybody explain to me why Obama should thwart the express wishes of citizens and end deportations? No, nobody can. Case closed.

And the same goes for “Hillary is too hawkish” brand of foolishness. When the so-called Arab Spring was taking place, I was the only person I know who was arguing right here on this blog that it had nothing to do with anybody’s desire to establish democracy and that we should all stay away from the whole thing until we can learn to analyze it on its own terms and not through the lens of the reductive America-centric vision. But everybody else was all “Rah-rah, Tahrir Square, rah-rah, a fight for freedom!” And the most eagerly rah-rahing folks were Democrats. So their representatives – Obama and Clinton – follow the voters’ mandate, get involved, the whole thing backfires, and what happens then? Do the rah-rahers say, “Yeah, we should stop opining on countries we don’t understand and go get educated about the world?” No, of course not. They get all pouty at Daddy Barack and Mommy Hillary for not anticipating their easily changing wishes better.

And it’s the same with Bush’s war in Iraq and the Congress that voted for it. The support for the war was very high in the months before it started. So the people’s representatives gave the idiot people what those people wanted. And when everything turned out the way it always turns out, what did our pouting friends do? Did they blame themselves at any point? No, of course, not. It’s Daddy Bush and the eternal Mommy Hillary that got blamed. Cute, eh?

It is beyond immature to believe that it’s perfectly OK to remain grievously ignorant about other countries and to blame the results of that ignorance on parental figures. 

And on the subject of infantile male voices, have you, folks, noticed how many trending songs are delivered by adult men imitating a childish lisp?

There is this hugely popular “Once I was 7 years old” by the Danish Lukas something. The lyrics and the music are okay but what’s with the obnoxious accent? I understand the fellow is Danish but Danes don’t speak English in voices of underdeveloped 3-year-olds.

And then there is the equally popular “My mamma don’t like you and she likes everyone.” I understand it’s Justin Bieber and infantility is his whole thing but, God, how annoying.

Music sucks.