The invoice nobody needed or wanted by Thanos Kalamidas

History has a peculiar way of assigning blame. Not always fairly, not always accurately, but often with remarkable persistence. Long after generals retire, presidents leave office and governments rewrite their narratives, public memory tends to settle on a single face. A war becomes associated with one leader. A financial collapse becomes attached to one name. A strategic catastrophe acquires a human symbol.

War with Iran ended not in victory, deterrence or even stalemate, but in unmistakable failure. Furthermore, this failure produced something even more consequential than military embarrassment, a permanent shift in the economics of global trade. In this set-up, Iran emerges from the conflict with enough leverage over the Strait of Hormuz to impose new costs on the movement of energy through one of the most strategically important waterways on Earth. The result would not merely be a regional headache. It would be a global invoice.

Every barrel of oil passing through the strait would carry an added cost. Every economy dependent on imported energy would feel the impact. Shipping companies would pass expenses to manufacturers. Manufacturers would pass them to retailers. Retailers would pass them to consumers. A surcharge imposed in one narrow stretch of water would ripple outward through supply chains, grocery stores, transportation networks, and household budgets across continents.

The most remarkable aspect of such a development would not be the economics. Economies adapt. Markets adjust. Traders find new routes. The remarkable aspect would be the political question that inevitably follows: who pays?

Not who pays in the practical sense. The answer there is obvious, everyone. Citizens pay. Businesses pay. Governments pay. Entire societies absorb the cost. But public opinion rarely settles for abstract explanations. People want accountability. They want a name attached to consequences.

If the chain of events leading to this outcome could be traced directly to the decisions of a single administration, then the debate would become unavoidable. The world would not simply discuss military strategy. It would discuss responsibility.

Donald Trump has often presented himself as a businessman who understands costs better than politicians do. He has spoken the language of transactions, deals, winners and losers. That vocabulary works both ways. If leaders wish to claim ownership of successes, they should expect ownership of failures. The principle is not partisan. It is foundational.

The irony would be difficult to ignore. A leader who built much of his political identity around strength could find himself remembered primarily for creating weakness. A president who promised better deals could be associated with one of the worst strategic bargains of the century. A movement that celebrated disruption could discover that disruption has a price tag.

Of course, nations do not literally send invoices to former presidents. International politics does not operate like a courtroom where damages are calculated and judgements enforced against individuals. Yet democratic societies possess their own mechanisms for collecting debts. Reputation is one. Historical legacy is another. Political influence, credibility, and public standing can all be diminished by decisions whose consequences outlive the decision-maker.

The larger lesson extends beyond any one politician. Modern leaders often speak as though geopolitical risks are temporary and manageable. They treat complex regions like negotiating tables and centuries-old rivalries like business disputes awaiting resolution. Reality is less accommodating. Sometimes a single miscalculation reshapes entire systems. Sometimes the costs continue accumulating long after headlines fade.

In that sense, the true invoice would not be measured in dollars or barrels of oil. It would be measured in trust. Trust lost among allies. Trust weakened in institutions. Trust eroded in the judgement of those who promised they alone could fix everything.

And unlike energy prices, trust is not easily replenished. When history eventually totals the bill, the question will not be whether the world paid a price. The question will be whose name appears at the top of the receipt.

Torture’s long shadow by Flo Schofield

Every year, the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture arrives with speeches, statements and carefully commitments to human rights; yet behind the declarations lies an uncomfortable reality: torture has not disappeared. It has merely evolved, been rebranded, outsourced, hidden and in some cases openly justified by governments that claim to stand for freedom, security and the rule of law.

The most famous symbol of this contradiction remains Guantanamo Bay. More than two decades after becoming synonymous with indefinite detention and abusive interrogation practices, it still stands as a monument to the idea that some people can be placed outside the protections that democratic societies claim to cherish. The arguments used to defend such places are always familiar. Extraordinary threats require extraordinary measures. National security comes first. Dangerous individuals do not deserve ordinary rights. These justifications are repeated so often that they begin to sound normal.

They should never sound normal. Waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, psychological humiliation, and countless other methods have been dressed up with bureaucratic language designed to avoid the word “torture.” Governments learned long ago that public outrage can be softened if brutality is hidden behind legal memos and technical definitions. A prisoner choking on water does not care whether the act has been renamed an “enhanced interrogation technique.” Pain remains pain. Fear remains fear. Human dignity remains violated.

Nor is this problem limited to one country. Around the world, allegations of torture and abuse continue to emerge from prisons, military facilities, intelligence operations, and police stations. Israel faces persistent accusations regarding the treatment of detainees. Pakistan has long struggled with allegations of abuse in custody. Russia has repeatedly been criticized for reports of torture and mistreatment within its detention system. The details vary, but the underlying logic is often the same: authorities insist that exceptional circumstances require exceptional actions.

History repeatedly demonstrates where that logic leads. Torture is not simply a crime against an individual. It is an attack on truth itself. Under extreme suffering, people will often say whatever they believe their captors want to hear. False confessions become evidence. Fabricated stories become intelligence. Entire policies can be built upon information extracted through terror rather than facts. Torture corrupts institutions as much as it damages victims.

Perhaps the greatest danger is how quickly societies become accustomed to it. What begins as a temporary emergency measure gradually becomes an accepted feature of governance. Secret prisons become routine. Legal loopholes become permanent. Public concern fades. Citizens are encouraged to believe that torture happens only to others, somewhere far away, in the shadows.

But the shadows never stay contained. A state that grants itself the power to torture ultimately weakens the moral foundation on which its authority rests. The question is not whether the victim is popular, innocent, guilty, foreign, or feared. The question is whether human rights are universal or merely convenient slogans repeated on commemorative days.

The United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture should not be treated as an annual ritual of concern. It should be a reminder of a simple principle that remains surprisingly controversial in practice: torture is wrong, regardless of who commits it, who suffers it, or what excuse is offered in its defense.

The limits of gratitude by Edoardo Moretti

The decision to send Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko rather than President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to a major recovery forum in Poland has inevitably invited speculation. Officially, it appears to be a practical effort to prevent a diplomatic disagreement from overshadowing a conference devoted to reconstruction and investment. Unofficially, it serves as another reminder that the relationship between Ukraine and Poland has never been quite as simple as the popular wartime narrative suggests.

From the first days of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Poland emerged as Ukraine’s most enthusiastic advocate. Millions of refugees crossed the border. Polish households opened their doors. The Polish government became one of Kyiv’s loudest supporters within NATO and the European Union. In much of the Western press, the two countries were presented as partners united by a common threat and bound by a shared vision of European security.

Yet history has a way of refusing neat storylines. The assumption that Russian aggression erased every disagreement between Warsaw and Kyiv was always more hopeful than realistic. Beneath the remarkable solidarity of the past few years lies a relationship shaped by centuries of competing memories, territorial disputes, and unresolved historical wounds. These tensions did not disappear when Russian tanks crossed the border in February 2022. They merely became less visible.

The most difficult issue remains the legacy of the Second World War, particularly the massacres in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. For many Poles, these events are not distant historical footnotes but defining national traumas. For many Ukrainians, the figures associated with those events occupy a far more complicated place in national memory, often intertwined with narratives of resistance against Soviet domination. Neither side has found a language that fully satisfies the other.

History, however, is only one layer of the problem. Economic interests have repeatedly collided despite declarations of friendship. Disputes over grain exports exposed how quickly strategic solidarity can encounter domestic political realities. Polish farmers, concerned about competition, demanded protection. Ukrainian officials argued that wartime circumstances required flexibility and support. Both governments spoke the language of partnership while defending their own constituencies. Neither was willing to absorb significant political costs for the other.

This is not hypocrisy. It is politics. The romantic notion that nations permanently transcend their interests during moments of crisis rarely survives contact with reality. Poland sees itself as a frontline state carrying substantial burdens for regional security. Ukraine sees itself as a nation fighting for survival and expects understanding from its allies. Both perspectives contain truth. Both can also generate resentment.

The current diplomatic friction should therefore surprise no one. What is remarkable is not that disagreements exist, but that they remained relatively contained for as long as they did. The extraordinary cooperation of recent years was real. So too are the differences now resurfacing.

Relationships between neighboring nations are rarely defined by a single emotion. They are mixtures of gratitude, rivalry, admiration, frustration, memory, and self-interest. Ukraine and Poland exemplify this complexity. They need one another strategically, yet they continue to view parts of their shared past through fundamentally different lenses.

The recovery forum may proceed more smoothly without presidential-level tensions dominating headlines. But the gesture also acknowledges a deeper reality: alliances forged by necessity do not automatically erase history. They merely postpone the moment when history asks to be heard again.

Berserk Alert! #108 #Cartoon by Tony Zuvela

 

Tony Zuvela and his view of the world around us in a constant berserk alert!
For more Berserk Alert! HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

International Day Against Torture by Rene Wadlow

Torture has a bad name among the police and security agencies of most countries. Thus torture is usually called by other names.  Even violent husbands do not admit to torturing their wives.  Thus, when NGO representatives started to raise the issue of torture in the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in the early 1980s, the government representatives replied that it was a very rare practice, limited to a small number of countries and sometimes a “rogue” policeman or prison guard.  However, NGO representatives insisted that, in fact, it was widely used by a large number of countries including those that had democratic forms of government.

Getting torture to be recognized as a real problem and then having the Commission on Human Rights create the post of Special Rapporeteur on Torture owes much to the persistent efforts of Sean MacBride (1904-1988), at the time the former chairman of the Amnesty International Executive Committee (1961-1974) and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate (1974). MacBride had been the Foreign Minister of Ireland (1948-1951) and knew how governments work. He had earlier been a long-time leader of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), being the son of John MacBride, an executed leader of the 1916 Easter Rising – an attack on the Dublin Post Office. With his death John MacBride became an Irish hero of resistance.  Later Sean had spent time in prison accused of murder. He told me that he had never killed anyone but as the IRA Director of Intelligence he was held responsible for the murders carried out by men under his command.  Later, he also worked against the death penalty.

As examples of the current use of torture kept being presented by NGO representatives and as some victims of torture came to Geneva to testify, the Commission on Human Rights named a Special Rapporteur and also started to work on what became the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Treaty came into effect on 26 June 1987 and in 1997 the UN General Assembly designated 26 June as the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.

Human Rights treaties negotiated within the UN create what are known as “Treaty Bodies” ­ a group of persons who are considered to be “independent experts”. As the saying around Geneva goes, “some are more 'expert' than others, and some are more 'independent' than others.  Countries which have ratified a human rights convention should make a report every four or five years to the specific Treaty Body. For the Torture Treaty, it is every four years to the 10-person expert group. Many States are late, some very late, in meeting this obligation. There are 158 States which have ratified the Torture Convention but some 28 States have never bothered to file a report. States which have not ratified the treaty do not make reports.

NGO representatives provide the experts with information in advance and suggest questions that could usefully be asked. The State usually sends representatives to Geneva for the Treaty Body discussions as the permanent Ambassador  is rarely able to answer specific questions on police and prison conditions. At the end of the discussion between the representative of a State and the experts, the experts write “concluding observations” and make recommendations.

Unfortunately, the Convention is binding only on States.  However, increasingly non-governmental armed militias such as ISIS in Syria and Iraq carry out torture in a systematic way. The militia's actions can be mentioned but not examined by the Treaty Body.

While there is no sure approach to limiting the use of torture, much depends on the observations and actions of non-governmental organizations.  We need to increase our efforts, to strengthen the values which  prohibit torture, and watch closely how persons are treated by the police, prison guards and armed militias.

 ***********************

Rene Wadlow, President and a Representative to the United Nations, Geneva, of the Association of World Citizens

Aime Cesaire: (1913 - 2008) A Black Orpheus by Rene Wadlow

 

My negritude is not a stone,
            nor deafness flung out against the clamour
                        of the day
            my negritude is not a white speck of dead water
            on the dead eye of the earth
            my negritude is neither tower nor cathedral.
                                    Return to My Native Land 

Aimé Césaire, whose birth anniversary we note on 26 June, was a Matinique poet and political figure, a cultural bridge builder between the West Indies, Europe and Africa. A poet, teacher, and political figure, he had been mayor of the capital city, Fort-de-France for 56 years from 1945 to 2001, and a member of the French Parliament without a break from 1945 to 1993 — the French political system allowing a person to be a member of the national parliament and an elected local official at the same time.  First elected to Parliament as a member of the Communist Party, he had left the Party in 1956 when he felt that the Communist Party did not put anti-colonialism at the center of its efforts.

The Communist Party’s position was that colonialism would end by itself once the workers had come to power. Césaire went on to form a local political party which existed only in Martinique and was largely his political machine for creating municipal jobs.  Césaire faced a massive rural to urban migration on the 400,000 person West Indian department of France. One answer to unemployment was to create municipal posts largely paid for from the central government budget — a ready pool of steady political supporters.  Césaire also did much to develop cultural activities from his mayor’s office— encouraging theatre, music and handicrafts.

Aimé Césaire’s wider fame was due to his poetry and his plays, — all with political implications, but heavily influenced by images from the subconscious.  Thus it was that André Breton (1896-1966) writer and ideologue of the Surrealists saw in Césaire a kindred soul and became a champion of Césaire’s writing. Breton had been interested in African art and culture, by its sense of motion, color and myth.  Breton often projected his own ideas onto African culture seeing it as spontaneous and mystical when much African art is, in fact, conventional and material.  Nevertheless, Breton, who spent some of the Second World War years in Martinique, was able to interest many French writers and painters in African culture.  It was Breton who encouraged Jean Paul Sartre to do an early anthology of African and West Indian poetry –Black Orpheus- and to write an important introduction stressing the revolutionary character of the poems.

Aimé Césaire’s parents placed high value on education — his father was a civil servant who encouraged his children to read and to take school seriously.  Thus Césaire ranked first in his secondary school class and received a scholarship in 1931 to go to France to study at l’Ecole Normale Supériéure — a university-level institution which trains university professors and elite secondary school teachers.  He was in the same class with Léopold Sédar Senghor and Leon Damas from Senegal. They, along with Birago Diop also from Senegal, started a publication in Paris L’étudiant noir (The Black Student) as an expression of African culture.  One of Césaire’s style in poetry was to string together every cliché that the French used when speaking about Africa and turning these largely negative views into complements.  Thus he and Senghor took the most commonly used term for Blacks ,Nègre, which was not an insult but which incorporated all the clichés about Africans and West Indians and put a positive light upon the term.  Thus negritude became the term for a large group of French-speaking Africans and French-speaking West Indians – including Haiti – writers.  They stressed the positive aspects of African society but also the pain and agony in the experience of Black people, especially slavery and colonialism.

In 1938, just as he finished his university studies, Césaire took a few weeks vacation on the coast of Yugoslavia.  There he wrote in a burst of energy his Cahier d’un retour au pays natal (Notebook of the Return to My Native Land), his best known series of poems.  In 1939, he returned to Martinique having married another teacher from Martinique who was also trained in Paris.  Both started teaching at the major secondary school of Martinique and started being politically active.  However, by 1940, Martinique was under the control of the Vichy government of France and political activity was firmly discouraged.  Thus Césaire concentrated on his writing.  He met André Breton who spent the war years in the USA. Breton encouraged an interest in the history and culture of Haiti.  While Haiti is physically close to Martinique, Haitian history and culture is often overlooked — if not looked down upon — in Martinique.  Césaire wrote on the Haitian independence leader Toussaint L’Ouverture as a hero, and later a play in 1963 La Tragédie du roi Christophe largely influenced by the early years of the dictatorship of Francois Duvalier.

With the end of the Second World War, the French Communist Party had one third of the seats in the Parliament of the newly created Fourth Republic.  The French Communists were looking for potential candidates from Martinique where the Party was not particularly well structured.  They turned to young, educated persons who had a local base.  Césaire, with his Paris education and as a popular teacher at the major secondary school fitted that bill. He was elected the same year both to Parliament and to the town hall.  When in Paris, he took an active part in cultural life, especially with African students and young intellectuals.  In 1947, along with the Senegalese Alioune Diop and Senghor, he founded the journal Présence africaine which later became also a publisher of books and the leading voice of the negritude movement.

As the French Communist Party had a rule of tight party discipline, Césaire played no independent role in the French Parliament until he left the Party in 1956. However, his 1950 Discours sur le Colonialism, at the same time violent and satiric became the most widely read anti-colonial tract of the times, calling attention to the deep cultural roots of colonial attitudes.   After 1956, most of his efforts in Parliament were devoted to socio-economic development for Martinique. His strong anti-colonial efforts were made outside Parliament, especially in the cultural sphere.  Nevertheless, as a member of Parliament he could open doors that poets do not usually enter.

Césaire, who read English well, was interested in the writings of Langston Hughes whose poems were close in spirit and style.  He translated into French some of the poems of the Negro poet Sterling A. Brown.

In the 1960s, Césaire turned increasingly to writing plays, especially on the history of Haiti, as the earliest independent State of the West Indies. These were verse plays as the actors’ dialogue were nearly poems.  As the French African colonies became independent in the 1960s, he stressed that the end of colonialism was not enough but that colonial culture had to be replaced by a new culture, a culture of the universal, a culture of renewal.  “It is a universal, rich with all that is particular, rich with all the particulars that are, the deepening of each particular, the coexistence of them all.”

 **********************************

Rene Wadlow, President, Association of World Citizens

Ian Glim #011 #cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

A bewildered soul navigating global complexities armed
only with earnestness and a sharp, sarcastic wit.

For more Ian Glim, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

The art of deal with lies and threats by Marja Heikkinen

Someone should tell Donald Trump that the art of the deal is supposed to involve persuasion, leverage and strategy; not a steady diet of exaggeration, misinformation and threats that flirt with the language of catastrophe.

The mythology surrounding Trump often assumes that disruption itself is evidence of strength. But disruption is not a strategy. Chaos is not competence. Repeating falsehoods loudly enough does not transform them into facts, no matter how often political movements attempt to prove otherwise. A deal built on misinformation is not a deal at all. It is merely an attempt to manipulate reality until reality refuses to cooperate.

What is particularly troubling is the casual manner in which extreme rhetoric has become normalized. Threats that once would have generated bipartisan outrage are now absorbed into the daily political cycle, processed for a few hours, and then forgotten beneath the next controversy. Language matters. When powerful figures speak recklessly about violence, destruction, or the collective punishment of populations, those words do not float harmlessly into the air. They shape public attitudes. They lower moral barriers. They make the previously unthinkable seem acceptable.

The most successful negotiators in history understood something Trump often appears unwilling to acknowledge, sustainable agreements require trust. Not friendship, necessarily. Not affection. But trust. The other side must believe that facts matter that commitments mean something, and that today's agreement will still exist tomorrow. Threatening entire populations or indulging rhetoric that hints at devastation does not create trust. It creates fear, resentment, and instability.

There is also a deeper irony at work. Trump frequently presents himself as a champion of strength, yet strength is often confused with volume. Real strength is restraint. It is knowing when not to escalate. It is understanding that every conflict does not require a theatrical performance. The loudest person in the room is not automatically the strongest one. More often, the loudest person is simply demanding attention.

Politics has always contained exaggeration, ambition, and ego. Those qualities are hardly unique to Trump. What distinguishes the current moment is the degree to which factual accuracy and moral responsibility are sometimes treated as optional accessories rather than essential requirements. Leaders are not judged solely by the enemies they threaten. They are judged by the consequences of their words and the standards they establish for everyone else.

If Trump truly wishes to be remembered as a great dealmaker, he might consider a forgotten principle of negotiation: lasting victories do not come from intimidating the world into submission. They come from convincing people that cooperation is preferable to conflict. The art of the deal was never supposed to be the art of the threat.

The lock on the door by Mira Radulova

Hungary’s decision to amend its constitution and impose a cumulative eight-year limit on any prime minister’s time in office is more than a procedural adjustment. It is a statement about the lessons learned from an era dominated by Viktor Orbán.

The measure is plainly aimed at preventing Orbán, recently removed from office by voters, from engineering a political comeback. Critics will inevitably argue that such a constitutional change is undemocratic because it denies citizens the right to re-elect a leader they may one day wish to return. Yet that objection misunderstands the challenge posed by modern authoritarianism. The greatest threat to liberal democracy today rarely arrives through tanks in the streets or generals seizing broadcasting stations. More often, it comes through elections themselves.

Across the world, would-be strongmen have discovered that democratic systems can be manipulated from within. Once elected, they gradually weaken independent institutions, undermine the judiciary, intimidate the media, and reshape electoral rules in ways that make future defeats increasingly difficult. The ballot box remains, but the playing field becomes steadily less fair. Voters continue to cast ballots, yet meaningful political competition slowly erodes.

Orbán became one of the most prominent examples of this phenomenon. His supporters praised him as a defender of national sovereignty and traditional values. His opponents viewed him as a leader who concentrated power, weakened institutional checks and transformed Hungary into a model of illiberal governance. Whatever one’s ideological sympathies, it is difficult to deny that his long tenure demonstrated how durable political dominance can alter the character of a democratic system.

That reality explains why term limits have become a common constitutional safeguard. They are not expressions of distrust toward voters. Rather, they are expressions of distrust toward power itself. Democracies function best when no individual becomes indispensable. Regular leadership renewal prevents the state from becoming synonymous with a single personality and reduces the temptation to bend institutions toward personal political survival.

Of course, term limits are not a cure-all. A weak democracy can still be captured by successors, political allies or entrenched party machines. Constitutional rules alone cannot substitute for an independent judiciary, a free press and a vibrant civil society. Nevertheless, they can provide an important line of defence.

The Hungarian amendment may provoke controversy, but it reflects a broader democratic instinct: when a political system has experienced prolonged domination by one figure, citizens often seek mechanisms to ensure that such concentration of power cannot easily recur. That is not necessarily a rejection of democracy. It can be an attempt to preserve it.

In the end, democracies are judged not only by how they choose leaders but also by how effectively they prevent leaders from becoming permanent fixtures. Hungary has decided that one lesson of the Orbán era is that the door should remain open to political change but locked against endless return.

The end of the clock-watching office by Farida Iri

For more than a century the standard working day has been treated as if it were a law of nature. Employees were expected to arrive at roughly nine in the morning, leave around five in the evening, and somehow perform at their best within those carefully marked hours. Yet the modern economy is slowly confronting an uncomfortable truth: human beings are not machines, and productivity does not operate according to a universal timetable.

The traditional workday made sense in an industrial era when labour was tied to factories, assembly lines and physical supervision. If workers needed to be beside a machine, synchronized schedules were unavoidable. But much of today's economy depends not on repetitive physical tasks but on thinking, writing, designing, analysing and solving problems. These activities do not always flourish between nine and five. For many people, their sharpest hours arrive long before dawn or well after sunset.

Companies have spent years mistaking presence for performance. The employee visible at a desk at 9:01 a.m. was often considered more committed than the colleague who produced better results at midnight. Managers measured attendance because it was easy, not because it was meaningful. The result was a culture that rewarded conformity rather than output.

The growing acceptance of asynchronous work challenges that assumption. Instead of requiring everyone to operate simultaneously, asynchronous organizations focus on completed tasks, clear communication and measurable outcomes. Employees contribute when they are most effective, while digital tools ensure that work continues moving forward regardless of who is currently online.

This shift reflects a deeper recognition of biological reality. Some individuals naturally function best early in the morning. Others experience peak concentration during the evening. Forcing both groups into the same schedule creates a predictable waste of talent. The early riser spends late afternoons fighting fatigue. The night owl spends mornings battling mental fog. Neither is working at full capacity, despite technically following the rules.

Critics argue that flexibility risks creating chaos. Collaboration, after all, still matters. Teams cannot operate entirely in isolation. Yet the choice is not between rigid schedules and complete anarchy. Successful asynchronous organizations establish overlapping hours for essential meetings while allowing substantial freedom elsewhere. The goal is coordination without unnecessary uniformity.

There is also an economic argument. As competition for skilled workers intensifies, employers can no longer assume that talented people will accept outdated workplace structures. Flexibility has become a competitive advantage. Companies that accommodate different working styles gain access to a broader pool of talent while often reducing burnout and turnover.

The most surprising aspect of this transition is how long it took. The technology enabling asynchronous work has existed for years. What was missing was a willingness to abandon an old managerial instinct: the belief that work only counts when a supervisor can see it happening.

The future workplace may not eliminate schedules altogether. But it is increasingly abandoning the fiction that productivity occurs on a single universal clock. The smartest companies are discovering that when people are trusted to work when they are at their best, the results speak louder than any timesheet ever could.

Ant-sized Culinary #010 #Cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

In the bustling undergrowth of Picante Hill, Anton the culinary ant dons his oversized toque and delivers deliciously chaotic cooking wisdom, one tiny misadventure at a time.

For more Ant-sized Culinary HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---