Breakfast at the Diner #Fiction by Richard Stanford

The morning crowd was thinning out.  Monty left with his usual fried egg sandwich on rye with a coffee, climbed into his taxi and drove into the blistering morning sunlight.  I remember it was scorching hot that day, the air so thick that walking through it was an effort.  Breathing meant leaving my shirt drenched in sweat like laundry hanging on the line in the rain. I will not mention the heat again. You must remember it as always there, unmoved by a more important event that no amount of heat could alter.

          Mrs.Thompsonin the two-seater at the back paid her bill, added a one dollar tip and slipped out quietly, walking along 2nd Avenue to open the library.  A coupleof long-haul truckers were sitting in the first booth next to the front door, talking loudly about the crackhead on highway 10 who cut them both off and almost got himself killed on his race to nowhere.  With that rant finished they went silent and stared out the window to their next thousand miles of black-top.  There was one new face three booths along: a young woman, maybe early-20’s, eyes blood-shot, a pale desperate face, nursing her coffee, staring down at the table.  She finished, spread some coins next to her cup and with her small suitcase marched across the front parking lot towards the bus terminal across the boulevard.  Carly had seen women like this many times before.  They were on the run.  She knew that look.

In other words, it was a normal morning for Morrison’s Diner. People never stayed long.  It was a pit stop along the way and most everyone was on the move. Strictly breakfast and lunch fare. Carly knew the menu byheart;not hard to remember eggs over easy, home fries, toast (brown or white), pancakes, club sandwich, chicken noodle soup, egg salad and burgers upside down and backwards. Oh yes, and coffee, two pots, always on the heater, each lasting about five minutes, two on a snowy day. This was Carly’s beat, 6AM to 3PM, breaks when you can. Morrison’s wasn’t a ‘greasy spoon’. The food was fast but it was good and the spoons were clean. Marlene made sure of that. And Morrie made certain that all the frying and boiling and steaming blended togethersmelled so damn good.

          Now when I writeabout Carly I’ll sometimes revert to the present tense because she is still very much alive. I’ve known her since her first day here about a year ago when she began serving me breakfast. She’s been a little flirtatious sometimes but it’s all been in fun.  She’s young enough to be my daughter but if I were younger I might have acted differently.While she was always cheerful it seemed to me that she was meant for something else.  There was a distracted look about her, always staring out the window if only for a moment or at the Coca-Cola clock over the serving counter, as if counting the minutes.

          An elderly couple came in and sat at one of the 4-seater tables near the swinging doors of the kitchen. Carly took their order for pancakeswith tea instead of coffee. Making her way along the row of booths she heard a wailing siren and through the windows saw a RCMP squad car speeding down the boulevard, emergency lights flashing.

          “Must be an accident out on the highway,” said Marlene sitting at the cash counter facing the front doors.

          Carly laid the order slip on the kitchen serving window where Morrie, the owner of Morrison’s, began whipping up the pancake batter.Carly prepped a pot of tea. Morrie never liked his first name, no one really knew it anyway, except his parents who took the secret to their graves. So Morrison became Morrie.Marlene ran the place and had hired Carly. Morrie agreed to the hire, he had learned over many years to agree to any decision of Marlene’s. Easier that way. All Morrie did was cook, the entire menu six days a week, cook, cook, cook, and all of it was delicious, and that’s why the cabbies and the truckers all come here, if only for a minute or two.

          It was approaching the quiet time before the noon hour rush.Forty minutes. Marlene took care of the take-out coffees, the cabbies, a farmer on his way to the bank.  Carly served the elderly couple their pancakes and tea. Another RCMP squad car wailed by.

          “Must be a pretty big one,” commented Marlene.

          That was possibly true, thought Carly, but how come there were no ambulances or at least a tow truck heading that way? Maybe the cops themselves didn’t know what to expect.But it must be an accident because Farnham was hardly a magnet for criminal activity except for the teenagers spray painting every concrete surface in sight.  Sure the town had a library, a bank, a town hall, the Legion club and Princess Street, the main drag, had exactly five stores. Morrison’s Diner stood outside the commercial centre, looking down on somber Princess Street.

          Carly took the fried egg sandwich that Morrie had made for her and went out the back door.  She walked across the lot to the picnic benchunder a maple tree.  She could hear them rustling in the branches. As soon as she bit into her sandwich down they flew, all four of them, lined up in a row, waiting to be served. Four chipping sparrows each with a bright red stripe on its heads. Animals have routines especially where food is involved so every day around this time Carly would scatter sunflowers seeds and toasted bread crumbs, spread them out in front of the sparrows and watch them peck up their snack, chatting softly to them about, “a whole lot of gibberish.” They would stay with her as she ate her sandwich, waiting for another crumb to fall.

          As she did every day at this time she now had ten whole minutes to think of what could have been.  I suppose many people think such thoughts at various times in their lives. I know I do. You know, the opportunities missed, utterly wrong decisions, or simply plain stupidity which brings us all to smacking our heads. Carly has had all of those. The high school she graduated from six years ago has as its motto carpe diem. It means seize the day.  Carly had yet to seize hers.

          After high school she went into communication studies at Duquette College, about three hundred miles from Farnham. By the time she graduated she had perfected a voice for on-air radio and television narration. She had impeccable diction, her unhurried, smooth delivery impressed her instructors who said she “has a career voice.”  That may have been true in college but it didn’t amount to a hill of beans in the real world.  Out on the job hunt to TV and radio stations she was told that voices like hers are “a dime a dozen.”  Her on-screen TV auditions didn’t fare any better. She was “unfinished” and “amateurish” in her presentation.  Her hair raised other problems: “Too red”, “too curly”, “too long”, “too Irish.”  Too Irish?  What does that mean?  Carly’s family were Hungarian Jews.  How had she gotten red hair from a family thick with coal-black hair?  I once told her that mutations are what drives evolution.

          “So I’m a mutant?” she said.

          “Yes, but that’s how evolution works.  Without it we’d still be living in caves and maybe not even that.”

          “So I can satisfy myself that I’m working my way up the evolutionary ladder?”

          “No, you simply have red hair.”

          Many times Carlytried to rationalize this job. At Duquette she was friends with a classmate who drove taxi during the summer holidays and he would regale Carly with stories of the people he’d picked up, everyone from prostitutes, to stoic bankers, to the lonely ones who simply wanted someone to talk to. “A taxi is like a psychiatrist’s couch on wheels. You’re in a city of a million people and it’s the loneliest place in the world.” After graduation he travelled to Europe and last she heard he was an art curator somewhere in France. And Carly was still driving her‘taxi’.

          The forty minutes were up. Carly stood up which was a sign for the sparrows that the snack and gibberish were over.  They fluttered up, circled around her, chirping. In a swift, abrupt motion they soared upwards and darted out across the corn field to whatever was next in their day. “See y’a tomorrow,” she said.

          Marlene was serving a customer at take-out when Carly came in at the same time a man walked along the aisle to the last booth next to the windows.  He was tall, wore sunglasses, a baseball cap and light windbreaker open at the front showing that he’d given up on his stomach muscles a long time ago. Why would anyone wear a windbreaker in weather like this? He carried a canvas travel bag which he carefully placed on the seat beside him.  Carly promptly arrived with a menu.

          “What can I get for you today, sir?”

          The man smiled at her, looked at the menu then glanced out the window at another RCMP car speeding by.  He looked back to her. “I’ll start with a coffee and then decide, if that’s okay.”

          “Of course,” she said.  She took several strides along the aisle then abruptly stopped. That voice. She’d heard that voice before. She looked back at him for an instant. He was looking out the window.

          At the service counter she prepped the coffee, milk and sugar, glancing back to the man.Now in profile, she knew.

Two minutes later he looked up from the menu as she set out the coffee array.

          “Have you decided, sir?”

          “Just a grilled cheese on brown, home fries, please. Thanks,” he said in a languid Dean Martin voice.

          She stopped herself before turning away and said, “I’m sorry, but are you Mr. Ingram?”

          He hesitated for a very long moment. Finally, “Yes,” he said as if admitting guilt. “And you are?”

          “I was one of your students, at Duquette.  I’m Carly Roth. You probably don’t remember me.”

          He removed his sunglasses, gazed back at her with tired gray eyes. “I’m sorry.  I don’t remember much of those times.”

          Carly excused herself, went to the kitchen counter and laid the order out for Morrie.

          “You all right, dearie?” said Marlene. She was good at this. She laid a soft touch on Carly’s shoulder. “That guy bother you?”

          “No, not at all. He was one of my college professors.”

When the grilled cheese was ready she walked down the booth aisle glancing out the window on the way. It was quiet out there. Marlene watched her as she placed the plate in front of Ingram. “Bonappetite.”

          “I do remember you,” he said, pointing his finger at her. “You’re the one with the velvet voice.”

          Carly does have that – a bass, smooth voice, like Lauren Bacall’s, not speaking words but gliding through them.

          “No, really,” said Ingram.“I remember telling you that many times.”

          Carly didn’t know what to do with herself, her hands, her face, she almost dropped right there. “I have some other customers. Sorry…” and off she went to serve the three women at the front booth.

          As Carly served them she flashed back to those years. CharlesIngram had encouraged all of his students and worked with Carly to develop her narration skills. Prior to becoming a teacher he had worked as a sports broadcaster with a few TV networks. Even while doing the play-by-play of a hockey game his voice was rich and matched the excitement on the ice. Now, seeing him sipping his coffee and watching the street she wondered why he looked like life had all butdrained out of him.

          “Would you like another coffee?”

          He nodded and she poured coffee into his cup with a steady hand.

          “What are you doing working here?” he asked.

          You should talk. I’m not exactly a beggar.

          “I’m sorry. It’s none of my business.”

          “No, I…I…I’m just trying to figure out how to answer the question. I tried, Mr. Ingram, I really did. My voice wasn’t enough. It’s as simple as that.”

          “Don’t you remember what I told the class the first day, my story?  No one threw me in front of a camera at first. That never happens. Hell, I started up at CUWS as a production assistant, a fancy name for a gopher. I swept the studio floor. Take your licks, learn about everything from the bottom to the top.”

          That sounded pretty good to Carly except how come it hasn’t seemed to work for him. She was about to work up the courage to ask him exactly thatwhen suddenly he said: “Now Carly, I want you to leave, right now. Go,” he said with the gravitas of a teacher. She looked down at him then at the canvas bag, the zipper pulled open showing it stuffed full of hundred dollar bills. She didn’t know what was happening behind her back. Ingram did. He had seen two RCMP squad cars screech to a stop at the front doors of the diner.Two officers went around the back, two came in, guns drawn pointing at Ingram.

          In a few moments the lives of Carly and Charles Ingram will dramatically change.  One life will be predictable, the other not so much. What I find interesting is that this will happen on a perfectly ordinary day, in a perfectly ordinary town, in a perfectly ordinary diner that no one, not even me, could have predicted.

          “Hands on the table!” barked one of the officers. Ingram obeyed.“Back away, ma’am!”

          Carly backed off. The other officer came up behind Carly and moved her to the side. Her back was against the window, the scorching rays of the sun burning into her back. She saw his arms as tense as steel. The officer facing Ingram crept closer, gun still poised. Carly thought if so much as a feather drops…“He doesn’t have a gun!” she shouted. The officer looked at her.  The gun stayed out but his arms relaxed just a little. The officer looked back to Ingram,“Okay, hands behind your back, step out, slowly!”  As soon as Ingram stood up the officer handcuffed him saying, “You’re under arrest for armed robbery and uttering threats…” then continued by reading him his rights. Before he was taken out Ingram turned to Carly and said, “Follow your voice.”  He was loaded into the back of a squad car and driven away.

          Ingram pleaded guilty to armed robbery and sentenced to eight years in a penitentiary.  Even the judge couldn’t believe who was standing in front of him, a man he’d listened to a hundred times at the sports desk.  Ingram had said to the tellers of the five banks he had robbed that there was a bomb wrapped around his chest and he would pull the cord if they didn’t hand over five thousand.  Evidently even faking that you have a weapon, a bomb, means you have one, thus “armed”. Call his bluff?  Would you risk it? Besides there was the voice, “a calm assured mellow,” as one teller put it.

          After hitting the City&District in Farnham that morning he decided to have some breakfast and wait. How did he get to that point in his life? I wanted to find out and managed to visit him a few times in prison. By letter somehow I gained his confidence and he put me on his visitors list, which was not a long one. He greeted me cordially in the visitors room. As soon as he spoke I could tell that his voice had lost its lustre. He still sounded like Dean Martin but it was a Martin with a hangover and a throat scorched by cigarettes. 

          “I’ve fought depression all my adult life even while I was doing TV sports,” he said. “It was all an illusion, I was an illusion, the hair, the make-up, the suit, all a big act. Inside…” He paused to look out the window through the bars. “I’d be on the road with the Blue Bombers or the Tigers and I’d do play-by-play, and it was great, everybody loved my work…and I’d go back to the hotel, fall into bed and cry all night.”

          Ingram said it got so bad he got fired from his teaching job at Duquette when he couldn’t face his students any longer.  Often he came in late or not at all.  When he was in class, he was a mess, couldn’t teach anymore. The spiral continued: his wife left him, exhausted from his mood swings; he burned through his savings then his unemployment insurance; he was broke. He had never been broke before, money always came easy to him, and that made him even more desperate.

          “But you didn’t rob those banks for the money, did you,” I said. “One doesn’t rob a bank then go to the local diner for breakfast.”

          “You figured that out?” Ingram said looking at me with a stern gaze.

          “Of course. Life gets too tough then you think, what the hell, three squares a day, a place to sleep, and all the time in the world.”

          “Yeah, all the time in the world to get a shiv in my back.  No, it wasn’t like that. I needed the money, I really did. But I didn’t want anyone to get hurt. The first banks I hit, they were easy. I’d say calmly to the teller to hand over whatever was in the till, and they did. I had a car then so I did make a getaway. But the last one, the one in Farnham, I’d pretty much had it.  I knew they would catch up to me, and I didn’t want anyone to get hurt, including myself. So I went to Morrison’s for my last meal as a free man.”

          When I reminded him that he would likely be released on good behaviour after two-thirds of his sentence he shook his head.“The whole idea terrifies me. I have no image to live up to out there. I have nothing left to protect. I erased my entire life.”

          It was two years later that I read in the newspaper that Charles Ingram had assaulted a prison guard. The details were sketchy - as are most reports from prison – but it appears that the assault was unprovoked, thatIngram walked up to the guard and slugged him. For that Ingram got three years added to his sentence.  The fear of being free.

          Now I haven’t forgotten about Carly. She is still frozen in place in the empty diner.Marlene and Morrie came out of hiding in the kitchen. Another police officer took photographs of the canvas money bag.Marlene approached Carly, “Are you all right, dearie? I’m closin’ up. Everyone’s really upset. Carly?”

          Carly nodded to Marlene then looked back out the windows. There must have been a million things going through her head. No one was hurt but guns were drawn and in those moments Carly’s life came into sharp focus. How did Ingram end up here in front of her? Was this her day?  I really don’t know the answer to those questions. What I do know is this.

          After about ten minutes of standing still, Carly went into the changing room and cleared out her locker.

          “Are you sure, dearie? Are you going to be all right?”

          “Yes, I’m going to be fine.”

          Marlene gave Carlyher wages for the week in cash along with a hug.  Morrie did the same along with an egg salad sandwich to go. Carly went out the back door of the diner and walked over to the maple tree and called out for her friends. They promptly flew down and chirped their way through the bread crumbs that Carly laid out. “You guys take care of yourselves.” Then she walked away, across the parking lot and out to the highway.  No one around here saw her again.

          Apparently she went to her 2-room apartment and cleared that out too. She didn’t leave a forwarding address with the landlady.

          Five years later I was travelling in the mid-West researching a story I was writing. I pulled into the small town of Alexandria and booked a room at the only hotel.  On the tourist information board in the lobby was poster announcing a summer-stock theatre company doing a production of A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen that very evening. I thought what the hell, it’s not as if there’s a lot to do here.  The desk clerk agreed and directed me to the theatre “just a piece that way.” It was a large white circus tent erected in a farmer’s field.  It seemed that the entire town had come out for the show because it was standing-room only. I found myself a corner at the back of the tent.

          It was an intimate setting, a theatre-in-the-round with a circular stage and the audience seated in a semi-circle around it. No matter where you were in the audience you were close to the stage and the performers, so when the principle character of Nora Helmer entered the stage there was no doubt it was Carly Roth.

          Now before you think that I’ve written a rags-to-Broadway story, keep in mind that summer-stock theatre is a training ground for all actors working their way up the ladder. I’d wager that half the male actors in this troupe are driving cab and the females are waiting tables. Carly isn’t doing that anymore.

I’m not an expert in the theatrical arts but I was captivated by Carly’s performance, maybe a little bit biased. She was utterly convincing. She became Nora, a wife struggling to free herself from the “doll’s house” of a marriage by asserting a mind of her own, renouncing unquestioning obedience to her husband, her red hair as flaming hot as the anger. Tough stuff for 19th century Europe and tougher still for 21st century Canada. And there was the voice, that deep, serene timbre I knew so well, the voice of experience went from “What would you like this morning?” to “My duty is to myself.” It is what she said to herself five years ago.

I didn’t go backstage to see her after the show. I figured she wouldn’t remember me and if she did maybe she’d rather forget. Outside there were a couple of equipment trucks parked at the back of the tent. Emblazoned in bright colours on the side panels: Beggar’s Workshop Travelling Theatre. Salaries must be wonderful.  And fringe benefits? Freedom. Freedom of the road, the freedom of creativity and imagination, exactly the duty Carly made for herself.

The End


© Richard Stanford – 2025


Don't miss Richard Stanford's latest eBook Searching For Henri ,
Download for free, HERE!


The age of weaponized cynicism by Yash Irwin

Perhaps it isn’t ideology that fuels the far-right’s steady climb across Europe. Perhaps it’s something colder, more corrosive; a cultivated, performative cynicism that seeps into public life like damp through old stone. Not hope, not vision, not even coherent policy but a relentless insistence that nothing matters except the self. That everything is rigged. That empathy is weakness. That decency is a con.

Across the continent, from France to Germany, from Italy to Hungary, far-right movements have mastered the art of emotional minimalism. They do not promise utopia. They promise revenge. They do not inspire; they validate resentment. And in a time of economic strain, cultural anxiety and digital echo chambers, resentment travels faster than reason.

Cynicism has always existed in politics. It is the defense mechanism of the disappointed citizen. But what we are witnessing now is different. It is not the weary skepticism of someone let down by institutions. It is a brand, sharp-edged, meme-ready, algorithm-friendly. It tells voters “You were foolish to believe in solidarity. You were naïve to think democracy was noble. You were tricked into caring.”

This message lands because many people feel betrayed. Financial crises left scars. Migration debates fractured communities. A pandemic exposed bureaucratic chaos and deep inequalities. In that vacuum of trust, far-right rhetoric offers a grim kind of clarity: nothing works because everyone lies. And if everyone lies, then why not choose the loudest liar? At least he admits the game.

There is a peculiar comfort in inhuman self-centeredness. It simplifies the moral universe. If the only duty is to oneself or to a narrowly defined “real” nation, then complexity disappears. The suffering of strangers becomes background noise. International cooperation becomes weakness. Climate responsibility becomes a hoax. The world shrinks to a mirror.

Narcissism, too, plays its role. Modern politics increasingly rewards spectacle over substance. Leaders who dominate the stage, who insult and provoke, who treat diplomacy as performance art, thrive in a media ecosystem addicted to outrage. They frame cruelty as authenticity. They brand empathy as hypocrisy. The more shocking the statement, the more airtime it earns.

But this dark cynicism does not merely critique elites; it hollows out the very idea of a shared society. It suggests that public service is inherently corrupt, that journalists are enemies, that courts are obstacles, that compromise is betrayal. When institutions are portrayed as irredeemable, dismantling them feels less like vandalism and more like renovation.

The far-right understands something crucial: despair is politically useful. A hopeful citizen demands solutions. A cynical one demands scapegoats. It is easier to point at migrants, minorities, or distant bureaucrats than to untangle decades of structural problems. Cynicism reduces politics to a morality play with villains and avengers.

Social media amplifies this mood. Algorithms reward anger, not nuance. Outrage binds communities faster than policy papers ever could. A snide comment travels further than a thoughtful proposal. In this environment, the far-right’s tone, sarcastic, confrontational, unapologetically dismissive, feels native to the platform. It is fluent in the language of mockery.

And yet, the irony is stark. Movements that rail against “elites” often elevate their own insulated inner circles. Parties that denounce corruption frequently centralize power. The rhetoric of “ordinary people” coexists with leadership styles that brook little dissent. Cynicism, it turns out, is not a philosophy; it is a tactic.

The deeper danger lies not in any single election result, but in the normalization of emotional detachment. When voters begin to believe that compassion is foolish and that cooperation is weakness, democracy itself becomes transactional. Rights are tolerated only if they serve the majority. Freedoms are conditional. Pluralism is suspect.

Europe has endured darker chapters than this. It has rebuilt from ruins before. But resilience requires more than economic recovery or border controls. It requires a cultural counterforce to cynicism, a reassertion that solidarity is not stupidity, that institutions can be reformed rather than razed, that caring about strangers is not a defect.

The far-right’s rise is not inevitable. It feeds on a narrative that nothing is worth defending except the self. The antidote is not blind optimism, but stubborn, grounded belief in shared responsibility. Cynicism may be seductive in its simplicity. But a continent cannot be governed on a smirk.


A tale of two democracies by Jemma Norman

There are moments when a democracy reveals its true character, not in speeches about freedom, nor in waving flags but in how it confronts power when power misbehaves. The arrest of Prince Andrew in the United Kingdom marks such a moment. It is not merely a legal development; it is a cultural one. It suggests that in Britain, even the most gilded titles can be pulled down into the fluorescent glare of a police station. Across the Atlantic, however, the United States continues to wrestle with the shadow of its own unfinished reckoning over the disturbing orbit of Jeffrey Epstein and those who moved within it, including a sitting president.

The contrast is jarring. In the UK, Prince Andrew, long dogged by allegations connected to Epstein, has faced public disgrace, the stripping of royal duties and now arrest. The monarchy, an institution built on centuries of inherited privilege, has not shielded him from scrutiny. That matters. The British system, often caricatured as archaic and deferential, has shown a capacity for institutional self-correction. Titles do not equal immunity. Proximity to the crown does not confer invincibility. When the law knocks, it knocks loudly enough to be heard even behind palace walls.

Meanwhile, in the United States, questions about Donald Trump’s relationship with Epstein remain politically radioactive but legally dormant. Photographs, social appearances, recorded compliments, none of it is secret. Yet the machinery of accountability stalls when it approaches the Oval Office. The American system prides itself on checks and balances, on the idea that no one is above the law. But ideals are only as strong as the will to enforce them. When scrutiny becomes selective, democracy begins to look less like a principle and more like a performance.

The American political landscape is hyper-partisan to the point of paralysis. Investigations are instantly reframed as witch hunts or deep-state conspiracies. Supporters close ranks. Opponents shout into the void. The result is not clarity but fatigue. In that fog, serious allegations lose their gravity. The public grows numb. Accountability becomes optional, contingent on party loyalty rather than moral seriousness.

Britain, for all its flaws, has demonstrated something different. The arrest of Prince Andrew does not mean the UK is perfect. It does not erase institutional inequities or media failures. But it sends a signal; the system is willing to test itself against its most uncomfortable truths. It is easier to prosecute the powerless. It is harder to confront those born into palaces. When a nation chooses the harder path, it strengthens its democratic core, even if it risks embarrassment on the world stage.

America once claimed that mantle of fearless self-examination. From Watergate to civil rights struggles, the U.S. cultivated an image of a nation capable of dragging its own sins into the open. Yet in the Epstein saga, that moral muscle appears strained. The unwillingness or inability, to fully interrogate connections between Epstein and powerful figures, including a president, undermines public trust. Transparency delayed is transparency denied.

This is not about partisan victory. It is about democratic credibility. When leaders evade meaningful scrutiny, citizens absorb the lesson. Power protects itself. Justice bends. Cynicism hardens. And once cynicism takes root, it is extraordinarily difficult to uproot.

The United Kingdom’s actions remind us that democracy is not a static label; it is a daily discipline. It demands courage from prosecutors, independence from institutions and resilience from the public. The United States now faces a test of its own. Will it match rhetoric with resolve? Or will it allow influence and office to obscure accountability?

In the end, democracy is not measured by how loudly a nation proclaims its values but by how consistently it applies them, especially to the powerful. On that measure, Britain has, at least for now, seized the moral high ground. The question is whether America intends to reclaim it.


fARTissimo #022 #cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

fARTissimo is what people do not see when they see a piece of expression
but what they project in what they think they see.

For more fARTissimo, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!


Gunboats in the age of drones by Mathew Walls

Gunboat diplomacy was once brutally simple, sail a fleet into someone’s harbor, angle the cannons toward the capital, and wait for compliance. From the mid-19th century through the dawn of the 20th, it was a favored instrument of empires. When Commodore Matthew Perry steamed into Tokyo Bay in 1853, Japan understood the message. When European powers blockaded ports from Latin America to China, the message was equally clear, power floats.

The question now is whether that logic still works in the 21st century, particularly in the simmering standoff between the United States and Iran.

At first glance, it seems like déjà vu. American aircraft carriers patrol strategic waterways. Iranian fast boats dart through the Strait of Hormuz. Each side stages its theater carefully: missile tests, naval drills, calibrated rhetoric. The setting has changed, satellites, drones, cyber capabilities but the instinct is familiar. Show strength. Signal resolve. Hope the other side blinks.

But modern gunboat diplomacy isn’t about cannons anymore. It’s about perception. In the 19th century, overwhelming force often produced immediate results because the imbalance was undeniable and alternatives were limited. Today, even so-called weaker states possess asymmetric tools that complicate the equation. Iran doesn’t need a blue-water navy to respond to pressure. It has missiles, proxies, cyber units and a deeply entrenched regional network. The United States, for all its unmatched military capacity, cannot simply anchor off a coast and expect political capitulation.

That’s because the battlefield is no longer just maritime it’s informational and psychological. When American warships sail through contested waters, they are not just projecting power; they are broadcasting an image to allies and adversaries alike. When Iran stages missile launches or naval exercises, it is doing the same. Each side performs for multiple audiences: domestic voters, regional partners, global markets. Oil prices react. Diplomats scramble. Social media amplifies.

In this environment, gunboat diplomacy risks becoming performance art, loud, expensive and ultimately inconclusive. The real danger lies in miscalculation. In the 19th century, a show of force might have been enough to compel a treaty. Today, a show of force might trigger an escalation spiral. A drone shot down, a patrol boat collision, a missile test misinterpreted any of these can ricochet across headlines and harden positions overnight. The line between signaling and provocation has grown razor thin.

There is also the question of legitimacy. Gunboat diplomacy once rested on imperial assumptions, might made right. In the 21st century, power still matters but it must be framed within international law, alliances, and public justification. The United States cannot simply coerce without calculating the diplomatic cost. Iran, meanwhile, thrives on portraying itself as resisting external intimidation. A visible show of American force may strengthen Tehran’s narrative more than weaken it.

And yet, the impulse persists. Why? Because deterrence still works. A visible military presence can prevent rash decisions. It can reassure allies in the Gulf. It can remind adversaries of red lines. The problem is that deterrence requires clarity and credibility. If red lines shift or rhetoric outruns intent, the gunboats become hollow symbols.

In the 21st century, coercion is less about forcing surrender and more about shaping choices. The United States might use naval deployments to constrain Iran’s room for maneuver, not to topple its government. Iran might harass shipping not to invite war but to increase bargaining leverage. Both sides are probing for advantage without crossing into full conflict.

But here is the uncomfortable truth; gunboat diplomacy in a nuclear-adjacent, cyber-saturated world is a high-stakes gamble. The more advanced the weapons, the faster the escalation ladder. A crisis that once took weeks to unfold can now erupt in hours.

If there is a lesson from history, it is not that shows of force always succeed. It is that they often work ...until they don’t. And when they fail, the consequences can be catastrophic.

The age of gunboats has not ended; it has evolved. Steel hulls are now backed by satellites and algorithms. Cannons have given way to precision missiles. But the central wager remains the same: that power, visibly displayed, will bend political will without triggering disaster.

Between Washington and Tehran, that wager is being tested in real time. The world can only hope that in this new era, the admirals understand that sometimes restraint is the most powerful show of force of all.


Arsenal of dependence by Thanos Kalamidas

It is one thing for Washington to promote its industries abroad but it is quite another to scold its allies for attempting to stand on their own feet. Yet that is precisely the posture the Pentagon has reportedly adopted in response to the European Union’s renewed push to “buy European” when it comes to defence procurement. The message from Washington sharpened under Secretary of ...War, Pete Hegseth and aligned with the political instincts of Donald Trump is unmistakable; Europe is free to spend more on defence so long as it spends that money in America.

This is not alliance management; it is mercantilism draped in a flag. For years, American officials have hectored European capitals about defence spending. NATO’s two-per-cent benchmark became both mantra and cudgel during the Trump years. Europeans were told they were freeloaders, complacent tenants in a security architecture financed by U.S. taxpayers. Fine. Europe has absorbed the criticism. Russia’s war in Ukraine jolted the continent into action. Budgets have risen. Factories are reopening. Joint procurement schemes are being designed to ensure interoperability and scale.

And now, when Brussels attempts to cultivate its own defence-industrial base, to reduce fragmentation, to build ammunition plants, to invest in next-generation systems, Washington signals retaliation if American firms are “strong-armed” out of contracts. The subtext is as clear as it is contradictory; spend more, but not like that.

This tension exposes a deeper American anxiety. For decades Europe’s military dependence has been a feature, not a bug, of the transatlantic relationship. It ensured influence. It guaranteed markets. It cemented a hierarchy. American defence giants thrived on European orders and European governments, in turn, accepted a degree of strategic dependency as the price of the American security umbrella.

But dependency is a fragile glue for alliances. It breeds resentment on one side and entitlement on the other. When European policymakers argue that relying excessively on U.S. systems, fighter jets, missile defences, drones, creates political vulnerability, they are not indulging in anti-American theatrics. They are responding to reality. The same political movement that demanded Europe “pay up” now warns of punishment if Europe diversifies its suppliers. That is not strategic coherence; it is strategic mood swing.

The irony is that a more capable European defence sector would strengthen, not weaken, the Atlantic partnership. A Europe able to produce more of its own munitions, armored vehicles, and air defences would shoulder a greater share of the burden in Ukraine and beyond. It would reduce pressure on American stockpiles. It would provide redundancy in a world where supply chains are brittle and geopolitics unforgiving.

Yet the current American rhetoric frames European industrial ambition as betrayal. The logic appears transactional; alliance solidarity is measured in purchase orders. “Make America Great Again” becomes less a slogan than a procurement directive.

This approach risks accelerating precisely what Washington fears. If European leaders conclude that American security guarantees are contingent on commercial loyalty, they will redouble efforts to insulate themselves. Strategic autonomy, once a French hobbyhorse, will become a continental consensus. Defence integration inside the EU will be pursued not as an abstract aspiration but as insurance against political volatility in Washington.

There is also a moral dimension. The United States has long championed free markets and competition. To threaten retaliation because European governments choose European suppliers is to abandon that rhetoric when it proves inconvenient. It suggests that “free trade” applies only when American firms win.

Allies are not subsidiaries. They are partners. Partnerships require respect for each side’s domestic politics and strategic calculations. Europe’s desire to rebuild its defence industry is not anti-American; it is pro-European. If Washington cannot distinguish between the two, it risks converting irritation into estrangement.

Great powers secure loyalty not by coercing customers but by cultivating trust. If the Pentagon insists on treating Europe’s rearmament as a zero-sum contest for market share, it may discover that the most enduring retaliation is not tariffs or procurement rules but the quiet, steady erosion of confidence across the Atlantic.


Pipeline politics and the strongman shuffle by Zakir Hall

When Budapest ordered the immediate halt of diesel deliveries to its war-torn neighbour Ukraine, it did more than squeeze a fuel line. It sent a message, one wrapped in grievance, theatrical outrage and the well-rehearsed language of “sovereignty.” The accusation that Kyiv had blocked Russian oil shipments as an act of “political blackmail” might sound like tit-for-tat brinkmanship. But in reality, it is another episode in Viktor Orbán’s long game, balancing on the fault line between the European Union and the Kremlin, while cultivating admirers in Washington who see in him a model of unapologetic strongman rule.

Hungary’s prime minister has turned strategic ambiguity into political currency. He speaks the language of Brussels when the subsidies flow and the language of Moscow when the pipelines matter. Diesel is not just diesel in this context; it is leverage. Energy, in Central Europe, is destiny. By cutting supplies to Ukraine, a country fighting for survival, Budapest signals that it is willing to weaponize geography and infrastructure to score political points.

Orbán frames such moves as defensive. Hungary, he insists, is protecting its national interests. Yet the pattern is difficult to ignore. Time and again, when European unity requires clarity, Budapest offers caveats. When sanctions against Russia demand resolve, Hungary demands exceptions. And when Ukraine needs solidarity, it receives lectures.

The rhetoric of “political blackmail” is particularly rich. Ukraine, under bombardment and existential threat, is accused of coercion for disrupting Russian oil flows, flows that finance the very war devastating its cities. It is a curious inversion: the invaded becomes the manipulator; the enabler of Russian energy transit becomes the aggrieved party. In this upside-down narrative, Hungary is cast as the sober realist amid reckless idealists.

But realism without moral compass becomes opportunism. Orbán has mastered the art of being indispensable yet unpredictable. Within the EU, he plays the spoiler, never quite crossing the line that would isolate Hungary completely, but always hovering near it. Within NATO, he maintains formal commitments while testing patience. And beyond Europe, he cultivates relationships with figures who share his scepticism of liberal internationalism.

It is here that the odd symmetry emerges. Orbán manages to attract both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump into his orbit of admiration. With Putin, the affinity is ideological and strategic: centralized authority, suspicion of Western liberal norms, a preference for transactional politics. With Trump, it is stylistic and cultural, a shared disdain for what they portray as globalist elites and progressive orthodoxies. That one man can appeal to both speaks less about ideological coherence and more about the gravitational pull of strongman politics in an era of uncertainty.

Energy disputes become theater in this broader performance. Cutting diesel deliveries is not merely a logistical manoeuvre; it is a signal to domestic audiences that Hungary bows to no one. It is also a reminder to Brussels that consensus cannot be taken for granted. In a union built on compromise, Orbán’s power lies in his readiness to disrupt it.

Yet disruption has consequences. Ukraine’s war is not an abstract geopolitical chess match. It is a human catastrophe unfolding on Europe’s doorstep. Every lever pulled for tactical advantage reverberates far beyond Budapest. When fuel supplies become bargaining chips, civilians feel the chill long before diplomats feel the sting.

Orbán would argue that Hungary’s first duty is to Hungarians. That is a defensible principle. But leadership is measured not only by the defence of national interest but by the willingness to recognize when those interests are intertwined with the fate of neighbours. In a continent scarred by division, solidarity is not charity; it is self-preservation.

The diesel may flow again. Accusations may soften into negotiations. But the episode underscores a deeper truth: Viktor Orbán thrives in the gray zones of crisis. As long as Europe remains fractured and global politics rewards defiance over cooperation, he will continue to navigate between East and West, pipeline in one hand veto in the other, confident that in the age of strongmen, ambiguity is power.


Berserk Alert! #090 #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!



Ma-Siri & Co #118 #Cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

Ma-Siri is a mother, a grandmother and a very active social life,
searching for the meaning of life among other things and her glasses.

For more Ma-Siri & Alexa, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!



The making of a candidate in Munich by Emma Schneider

When Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stepped onto the stage at the Munich Security Conference she did more than deliver remarks on transatlantic cooperation and democratic resilience. She walked into a rehearsal space, one with chandeliers, simultaneous translation headsets and the faint hum of geopolitical anxiety. Munich is not a rally in Queens. It is not a House Oversight hearing engineered for viral clips. It is a gathering of generals, ministers, intelligence chiefs and the sort of think-tank grandees who speak in acronyms. And in that room, Ocasio-Cortez looked less like a backbencher and more like a woman trying on the silhouette of a future commander-in-chief.

The mixed reaction from members of her own party was as predictable as it was revealing. Some Democrats praised her willingness to engage on foreign policy, an arena where progressives have long been caricatured as either naïve or reflexively anti-American. Others winced. They heard imprecision where they wanted doctrine, moral urgency where they preferred calibrated ambiguity. Beneath the polite applause and quiet side-eyes was a shared recognition, foreign affairs may be the last proving ground she has yet to conquer.

Ocasio-Cortez’s political brand was forged in domestic fire. She speaks fluently about inequality, climate justice, health care and the lived experience of working-class Americans. Her rhetoric is animated by moral clarity and a gift for translating structural critique into Instagram-ready prose. But foreign policy is a different dialect. It is less sermon, more chessboard. It requires comfort with tragedy, compromise and the disquieting fact that sometimes every option is bad.

In Munich, she attempted to bridge these worlds. She framed global security in terms of democratic accountability and economic fairness. She argued, in essence, that militarism divorced from social investment corrodes the very societies it claims to defend. It was a familiar thesis, delivered on unfamiliar terrain. The problem, if one is inclined to see it as such, is that global security elites are less persuaded by moral architecture than by force posture and alliance management. They want to know not only what you believe but what you would bomb, sanction or abandon.

This is the vulnerability her critics inside the Democratic Party sense. A presidential campaign is not a podcast. It is a gauntlet of hypotheticals, What would you do if Taiwan were blockaded? If NATO fractured? If Ukraine faltered? If Iran sprinted toward a bomb? The electorate, chastened by decades of war and wary of new entanglements, wants both restraint and resolve. It is an impossible balance and every aspirant must pretend it is achievable.

To be fair, no member of Congress arrives fully formed as a foreign-policy sage. Experience in international affairs is often acquired the way one learns to swim by being pushed in. Ocasio-Cortez has served on committees that brush up against defence and financial oversight; she has travelled abroad; she has spoken forcefully about human rights. But the presidency demands not merely positions, but posture. It demands that allies and adversaries alike believe you understand the gravity of command.

There is also a generational subtext to this moment. Ocasio-Cortez represents a cohort that came of age during the Iraq War’s unravelling and the Afghanistan debacle. For them, scepticism of intervention is not ideology; it is muscle memory. Munich, by contrast, is steeped in the language of deterrence and hard power. The friction between these sensibilities is not a flaw. It is the story of a party and perhaps a country, trying to reconcile its disillusionment with its obligations.

Some Democrats worry that her foray into this arena will hand opponents an easy line of attack: that she is fluent in hashtags but halting in statecraft. Republicans, should she ever mount a presidential bid, would not hesitate to frame her as untested, unserious or worse, reckless. The presidency is the only job in America where the résumé item “influencer” counts for nothing and the title “Commander-in-Chief” looms over every debate stage.

Yet there is another way to read Munich. Ocasio-Cortez did not need to be there. She is safe in her district. Her national profile is secure. By choosing to enter that room, she signalled ambition, not merely for higher office but for intellectual expansion. Politicians who aspire to the Oval Office eventually confront their weak spots. Some avoid them. Others lean in.

The Democratic Party’s ambivalence toward her appearance reveals as much about the party as it does about her. It is a coalition perpetually negotiating between idealism and pragmatism, between the activists who power primaries and the moderates who fret over general elections. Ocasio-Cortez embodies that tension. She is both a lightning rod and a lodestar.

If she does contemplate a presidential run, Munich will not be remembered for any single line she delivered. It will matter as a symbol, the moment she began to test whether her moral vocabulary can be translated into the idiom of global power. The question is not whether she can speak at such conferences. It is whether she can persuade Americans and the world, that she belongs at the head of the table.

For now, Munich was a glimpse, not a verdict. But in politics, glimpses have a way of hardening into expectations. And expectations, once formed, are the true currency of a campaign.


Overnight I turned into a museum #poem by Abigail George

 

What is this weakness inside of me?

Yes, I realise I am weak
I realise

I have my limitations
Self, ego

The road is a miracle
It’s dark

I can’t seem to find my way
The older men are nice

They are kind

The men who are
as old as my father

have intellectual discussions with me

The women ignore me
Their laughter tastes like English mustard

That’s all
Decay

That’s all
that’s left of me.

I wait
for the chops

to defrost
on the countertop

growing older
colder, more afraid

in this
a time of questioning

I read my future
Counting my past’s sorrows

Anxiety’s pre-history
Mad with erosion in my soul

I think I understand
your shy tenderness now

The beast
and roots and the powers

of wilderness in you
Poetry is experience

Vertigo taught me that
I think of all my teachers

while the meat turns into metaphor.

Breakfast at the Diner #Fiction by Richard Stanford

The morning crowd was thinning out.  Monty left with his usual fried egg sandwich on rye with a coffee, climbed into his taxi and drove int...