The left's irrational fear of American intervention

In Syria, as elsewhere, US military might is the best available means of preventing crimes against humanity

• 
• • Niall Ferguson
  • The Guardian, Friday 6 September 2013 16.15 BST

Protesters in Seattle pictured during a march against US intervention in Syria. Photograph: Rick Barry/Demotix/Corbis

Not for the first time, human rights violations by a Middle Eastern tyrant pose a dilemma for leftists on both sides of the Atlantic. (Editor's comment - not true the right is divided on this issue). On the one hand, they don't like reading about people being gassed. On the other, they are deeply reluctant to will the means to end the killing, for fear of acknowledging that western – meaning, in practice, American – military power can be a force for good. (For Ferguson it is an act of faith - Editor)

-----

Also read

We should have been traumatised into action by this war in 2011. And 2012. But now?

------

Ever since the 1990s, when the United States finally bestirred itself to end the post-Yugoslav violence in the Balkans, I have made three arguments that the left cannot abide. The first is that American military power is the best available means of preventing crimes against humanity. The second is that, unfortunately, the US is a reluctant "liberal empire" because of three deficits: of manpower, money and attention. And the third is that, when it retreats from global hegemony, we shall see more not less violence (yes due to the power vacuum created but did the hegemon maintains its power by non violent means?).

More recently, almost exactly year ago, I was lambasted for arguing that Barack Obama's principal weaknesses were a tendency to defer difficult decisions to Congress and a lack of coherent strategy in the Middle East. Events have confirmed the predictive power of all this analysis.

To the isolationists on both left and right, Obama's addiction to half- and quarter-measures is just fine – anything rather than risk "another Iraq". But such complacency (not to say callousness) understates the danger of the dynamics at work in the Middle East today. Just because the US is being led by the geopolitical equivalent of Hamlet doesn't mean stasis on the global stage. On the contrary, the less the US does, the more rapidly the region changes, as the various actors jostle for position in a post-American Middle East.

Syria today is in the process of being partitioned. Note that something similar has already happened in Iraq (How did this happen Niall?). What we are witnessing is not just the end of the Middle East of the 1970s. This could be the end of the Middle East of the 1920s. The borders of today, as is well known, can be traced back to the work of British and French diplomats during the first world war. The infamous Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 was the first of a series of steps that led to the breakup of the Ottoman empire and the creation of the states we know today as Syria and Iraq, as well as Jordan, Lebanon and Israel.

As we approach the centenary of the outbreak of the first world war, there is no obvious reason why these states should all survive in their present form.

It is tempting to think of this as a re-Ottomanisation process, as the region reverts to its pre-1914 borders. But it may be more accurate to see this as a second Yugoslavia, with sectarian conflict leading to "ethnic cleansing" and a permanent redrawing of the maps. In the case of Bosnia and Kosovo, it took another Democrat US president an agonisingly long time to face up to the need for intervention. But he eventually did. I would not be surprised to see a repeat performance if that president's wife should end up succeeding Obama in the White House. After all, there is strong evidence to suggest Obama agreed to the original chemical weapons "red line" only under pressure from Hillary Clinton's state department.

Yet the president may not be able to sustain his brand of minimalist interventionism until 2016. While all eyes are focused on chemical weapons in Syria, the mullahs in Iran continue with their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. The latest IAEA report on this subject makes for disturbing reading. I find it hard to believe that even the pusillanimous Obama would be able to ignore evidence that Tehran had crossed that red line, even if it was drawn by the Israeli prime minister rather than by him.

The Iranian factor is one of a number of key differences between the break up of Yugoslavia and the breakup of countries like Syria and Iraq.

The Middle East is not the Balkans. The population is larger, younger, poorer and less educated. The forces of radical Islam are far more powerful. It is impossible to identify a single "bad guy" in the way that Slobodan Milosevic became the west's bete noire. And there are multiple regional players – Iran, Turkey, the Saudis, as well as the Russians – with deep pockets and serious military capabilities. All in all, the end of pan-Arabism is a much scarier process than the end of pan-Slavism. And the longer the US dithers, the bigger the sectarian conflicts in the region are likely to become.

The proponents of non-intervention – or, indeed, of ineffectual intervention – need to face a simple reality. Inaction is a policy that also has consequences measurable in terms of human life. The assumption that there is nothing worse in the world than American empire is an article of leftwing faith (I agree and the left has to overcome this bias). It is not supported by the historical record.

Religion for Atheists

Alain de Botton for Atheism 2.0

Those guilty of malpractice or wasting public money must not escape punishment.

From the BBC to RBS, we have to find a way to stop this injustice

Those guilty of malpractice or wasting public money must not escape punishment, even if criminality can't be proved

• 
• • John Kampfner
  • The Guardian, Thursday 5 September 2013 20.30 BST

'Occasionally businessmen are punished – think Bernie Madoff – but his case is totemic because it is so rare.' Photograph: Mario Tama/Getty Images

What do the following recent news stories have in common? IT failings over the introduction of new welfare payments; the never-ending saga of BBC executives paying each other silly money; defence procurements coming in billions of pounds over budget; the recklessness of the bankers? Throw in dozens of other cases from the private and public sectors and there emerges a clear pattern: of decisions taken by individuals or groups that constitute failure or dereliction of duty but which go unpunished.

The word "punishment" is enticingly loaded. In international relations it is in vogue. Should Bashar al-Assad be punished if it is clear his government used chemical weapons? From the former Yugoslavia to Rwanda, attempts are made to punish world leaders and their henchmen. Occasionally, businessmen are punished too – think Bernie Madoff and his Ponzi schemes. He received 150 years in jail. But his case is totemic because it is so rare.

Where there is incontrovertible evidence of fraud, courts usually convict. The individual has a criminal record. It is hard, although not impossible, for that person's career and reputation to recover. Justice is done.

But far more difficult are the many cases in which senior public figures are culpable in decisions that have led to huge financial loss, in some cases ruining peoples' lives, but criminality cannot be proven. The bar for a trial is necessarily set high and can be insurmountable.

So what possible punishments are left? Summary dismissal is used against a shopfloor worker for nicking a few products from the assembly line, or a middle manager for sexual harassment. The weapon is almost never deployed against top executives. Part of the reason is financial – companies would rather pay them off than endure the publicity of a tribunal. The more pernicious reason is cultural: as a member of the board or senior executive you never know when you might bump into that person. Why leave yourself susceptible to a quiet act of revenge in the future when you don't have to?

It is only when the public bays for blood that extra measures are taken. The story of plain Fred Goodwin is brilliantly told in Iain Martin's new book, Making it Happen: Fred Goodwin, RBS and the Men Who Blew Up the British Economy. Aggressive, obsessed by the baubles of wealth, Fred the Shred is so determined for RBS to take over the banking world that he omits to find out what his wheeler-dealer teams are up to. At least as culpable are the board members who are quite happy to take the money for their non-exec non-labours and forget to ask questions.

Goodwin – friend of the royal family, prime ministers, chancellors and the Scottish political class – is stripped of his knighthood. He retains an enormous pension and is to be found polishing his vintage cars, the pantomime villain. It makes us feel better and the corporate and political worlds can "move on".

But the odd case of ritual humiliation is no substitute for better governance. That will not improve until proper systems of accountability for failure are introduced. In the private sector, when shareholders incur losses, it is up to them to complain – but almost invariably they don't, as institutional investors account for most holdings. Why would they want to rock the boat?

When public money is spent, the case for action is even clearer. It beggars belief that during the bank bailouts of 2007 to 2008, ministers did not – even as they took urgent decisions – do more to punish those whose hubristic decisions led to the crisis.

At the BBC, although the money lost has been tiny in comparison to the banks, the sense of injustice at the largesse shown by management towards its own is felt just as strongly. A few dozen people paid each other ridiculous sums as they moved from one job to another or began to enjoy lucrative early retirement. They did so believing (correctly) that they would get away with it, and convinced themselves they deserved it.

After inquiries by a Tory MP, the Crown Prosecution Service probed whether crimes had been committed and concluded that they hadn't. To prove criminal intent, if there had been, would have been too hard. To prove malpractice might have been easier, but there is no effective mechanism.

We need to devise a process whereby serious action can be taken against egregious acts of back-scratching, waste and lack of rigour in governance. It is surely a win-win for any political party with the courage and tenacity to introduce such a system. Some models already exist. Professional bodies for doctors, lawyers and accountants serve this purpose. Are they robust enough? A new public body could be created, perhaps including representatives of the CBI and TUC. Or if that's too cumbersome, maybe the Commons public accounts committee – which is good at haranguing and exposing but has little powers besides – could play a part.

Transparency is key. Legislation must be introduced to override confidentiality and data protection clauses in specific cases under investigation. Checks and balances would be needed to protect those who feel wrongfully accused. Those found to have played fast and loose with others' money could be put on a blacklist of public appointments for a specified number of years. There may be other ways too; but this is a debate which needs to be started.

Responsible executives, non-executives and civil servants have nothing to fear in exposing and punishing the bad apples. Bringing out the stocks serves little purpose. But, in order to begin the herculean task of improving confidence in public life, we need far smarter forms of redress.

LSD may not be bad for you, says study

Tony Paterson in The Independent 5 Sep 2013

The late acid guru Dr Timothy Leary would doubtless have claimed to have known it all along, but after conducting an exhaustive study on tens of thousands of Americans, a team of Norwegian scientists has concluded that LSD may actually be good for you.

Researchers Pal-Orjan Johansen and Teri Krebs from Norway’s University of Science and Technology in Trondheim examined American drug-use surveys carried out between 2001 and 2004 on over 130,000 US citizens, of which 22,000 had used a psychedelic drug such as LSD at least once in their lives.

The results may not amount to an appeal to “turn on, tune in and drop out”, but they appear to overturn the opinion long-held in parts of the medical establishment that LSD and other “mind-enhancing” drugs automatically result in debilitating flashbacks, uncontrollable paranoia attacks and a desire to leap off buildings.

In the science journal PLOS One, Mr Johansen and Mrs Krebs wrote: “There were no significant associations between lifetime use of any psychedelics, or use of LSD in the past year, and an increased rate of mental health problems. Rather, in several cases psychedelic use was associated with a lower rate of mental health problems.”

In an interview with Norway’s English-language news website, The Local, Mr Johansen said that expert studies which attempt to discover whether psychedelic drugs such as LSD, mescaline and the “magic mushroom” drug psilocybin are harmful had not demonstrated that they caused chronic health problems.

“Everything has some risk; psychedelics can elicit temporary feelings of anxiety and confusion, but accidents leading to serious injury are extremely rare,” Mrs Krebs told the website. “Over the past 50 years, tens of millions of people have used psychedelics and there is just not much evidence of long-term problems,” she added.

The scientists claimed the notion that LSD and other psychedelic substances damaged mental health stemmed from a small number of case reports on patients who were already suffering from some form of mental illness.

They added that both psychedelic drug use and the onset of mental illness tended to occur in late adolescence, which in the past had led researchers to wrongly attribute mental problems to LSD.

“Both mental illness and psychedelic drug use are prevalent in the population, which likely leads to many chance associations,” Mr Johansen said.

Both scientists concluded in a report published last year in the British Journal of Psychopharmacology that a single dose of LSD was a highly effective treatment for alcoholism. They recommended that the drug be used more often to help patients with a drink problem and argued that it was probably just as effective as current medications used to treat alcohol addiction.

Dr Leary – a champion of LSD who was simultaneously a cult figure for the late 1960s Hippie movement and branded the “most dangerous man in America” by President Nixon – came to similar conclusions in the 1950s while researching the drug at Harvard. He died in 1995.

The Trondheim researchers said their conclusions about LSD and alcoholism were based on surveys carried out in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. They said they had come across a total of six studies which met contemporary scientific standards. They established that 59 per cent of patients who had been given a dose of LSD had either stopped drinking completely or were drinking less than they were before taking the drug.

Strange trip: The acid story

 

1943 World’s first “acid trip” taken by Swiss chemist Dr Albert Hofmann who stumbled on LSD almost by accident while trying to discover beneficial properties of the ergot fungus, commonly found on rye plants, for the Sandoz chemical company. Hoffman’s first trip lasted two hours. His second last six hours and he reported experiencing “Alice in Wonderland” (pictured) fantasies.

 

1950s-1960s Harvard University psychology lecturer Dr Timothy Leary (above) carries out research on psylocybin from “magic mushrooms”. His findings are labelled subversive and he is expelled from Harvard. Branded “the most dangerous man in America” by Richard Nixon, Leary praises LSD (“turn on, tune in, drop out”) and becomes a founding father of the hippie movement. (Picture credit: Getty Images)

 

1960s-1970s By the late Sixties LSD, along with marijuana, has become a popular recreational drug for the anti-Vietnam war, counter-culture and flower power movements. LSD is referenced in songs such as “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” by the Beatles and “Purple Haze” by Jimi Hendrix (above, credit: Getty).

 

1980s-present LSD experiences something of a revival in the Rave scene where it continues to be taken along with Ecstasy and a battery of newer but still illegal mind-altering substances. 

We need a fair system for restructuring sovereign debt

If the debt vultures have their way, there will never be a fresh start for indebted countries - and no one will agree to restructuring

• 
• • Joseph Stiglitz
  • theguardian.com, Wednesday 4 September 2013 17.48 BST

If the debt vultures have their way, there will never be a fresh start for indebted countries - and no one will agree to restructuring. Photograph: Joe Petersburger/Getty Images/National Geographic Creative

A recent decision by a United States appeals court threatens to upend global sovereign debt markets. It may even lead to the US no longer being viewed as a good place to issue sovereign debt. At the very least, it renders non-viable all debt restructurings under the standard debt contracts. In the process, a basic principle of modern capitalism – that when debtors cannot pay back creditors, a fresh start is needed – has been overturned.

The trouble began a dozen years ago, when Argentina had no choice but to devalue its currency and default on its debt. Under the existing regime, the country had been on a rapid downward spiral of the kind that has now become familiar in Greece and elsewhere in Europe. Unemployment was soaring, and austerity, rather than restoring fiscal balance, simply exacerbated the economic downturn.

Devaluation and debt restructuring worked. In subsequent years, until the global financial crisis erupted in 2008, Argentina's annual GDP growth was 8% or higher, one of the fastest rates in the world.

Even former creditors benefited from this rebound. In a highly innovative move, Argentina exchanged old debt for new debt – at about 30 cents on the dollar or a little more – plus a GDP-indexed bond. The more Argentina grew, the more it paid to its former creditors.

Argentina's interests and those of its creditors were thus aligned: both wanted growth. It was the equivalent of a "Chapter 11" restructuring of American corporate debt, in which debt is swapped for equity, with bondholders becoming new shareholders.

Debt restructurings often entail conflicts among different claimants. That is why, for domestic debt disputes, countries have bankruptcy laws and courts. But there is no such mechanism to adjudicate international debt disputes.

Once upon a time, such contracts were enforced by armed intervention, as Mexico, Venezuela, Egypt, and a host of other countries learned at great cost in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. After the Argentine crisis, President George W. Bush's administration vetoed proposals to create a mechanism for sovereign-debt restructuring. As a result, there is not even the pretence of attempting fair and efficient restructurings.

Poor countries are typically at a huge disadvantage in bargaining with big multinational lenders, which are usually backed by powerful home-country governments. Often, debtor countries are squeezed so hard for payment that they are bankrupt again after a few years.

Economists applauded Argentina's attempt to avoid this outcome through a deep restructuring accompanied by the GDP-linked bonds. But a few "vulture" funds – most notoriously the hedge fund Elliott Management, headed by the billionaire Paul E. Singer – saw Argentina's travails as an opportunity to make huge profits at the expense of the Argentine people. They bought the old bonds at a fraction of their face value, and then used litigation to try to force Argentina to pay 100 cents on the dollar.

Americans have seen how financial firms put their own interests ahead of those of the country – and the world. The vulture funds have raised greed to a new level.

Their litigation strategy took advantage of a standard contractual clause (called pari passu) intended to ensure that all claimants are treated equally. Incredibly, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York decided that this meant that if Argentina paid in full what it owed those who had accepted debt restructuring, it had to pay in full what it owed to the vultures.

If this principle prevails, no one would ever accept debt restructuring. There would never be a fresh start – with all of the unpleasant consequences that this implies.

In debt crises, blame tends to fall on the debtors. They borrowed too much. But the creditors are equally to blame – they lent too much and imprudently. Indeed, lenders are supposed to be experts on risk management and assessment, and in that sense, the onus should be on them. The risk of default or debt restructuring induces creditors to be more careful in their lending decisions.

The repercussions of this miscarriage of justice may be felt for a long time. After all, what developing country with its citizens' long-term interests in mind will be prepared to issue bonds through the US financial system, when America's courts – as so many other parts of its political system – seem to allow financial interests to trump the public interest?

Countries would be well advised not to include pari passu clauses in future debt contracts, at least without specifying more fully what is intended. Such contracts should also include collective-action clauses, which make it impossible for vulture funds to hold up debt restructuring. When a sufficient proportion of creditors agree to a restructuring plan (in the case of Argentina, the holders of more than 90% of the country's debt did), the others can be forced to go along.

The fact that the International Monetary Fund, the US Department of Justice, and anti-poverty NGOs all joined in opposing the vulture funds is revealing. But so, too, is the court's decision, which evidently assigned little weight to their arguments.

For those in developing and emerging-market countries who harbor grievances against the advanced countries, there is now one more reason for discontent with a brand of globalization that has been managed to serve rich countries' interests (especially their financial sectors' interests).

In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the United Nations Commission of Experts on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System urged that we design an efficient and fair system for the restructuring of sovereign debt. The US court's tendentious, economically dangerous ruling shows why we need such a system now.

How to humiliate brands via social media

'Don't fly @BritishAirways'? 

For those with an axe to grind and a broadband account to exploit, here are a few ways to dot-complain on social media

• 
• • Arwa Mahdawi
  • theguardian.com, Wednesday 4 September 2013 13.40 BST

Hasan Syed, disgruntled with the way British Airways handled his father's lost luggage, paid $1,000 to promote a tweet that read "Don't fly @BritishAirways. Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters

As the first law of digita ldynamics states, much of the energy expended within the internet relates to a) porn; b) cats; or c) complaining. The irate customer service tweet or Facebook update is familiar to us all. But while we may be used to people venting their frustrations online, Hasan Syed has just taken the power of anti-social networking to giddy new heights. Disgruntled with the way British Airways handled his father's lost luggage, Syed paid $1,000 (£640) to promote a tweet that read "Don't fly @BritishAirways. Their customer service is horrendous." This has now been seen by tens of thousands of people and promptly picked up by media outlets around the world.

The fine art of complaining has come a long way thanks to technology. Back in the pre-digital day you had to sit down and write a strongly-worded letter if you wanted to call out brands behaving badly. Those wishing to take a more direct approach could go wave a placard or, as a friend of mine once did, superglue your hands to a multinational's revolving doors. Nowadays, however, you can make your voice heard without risking appendages or wasting a stamp. So, for those with an axe to grind and a broadband account to exploit, here are a few ways to dot-complain in the modern age.

1. Bashtag

Last year Starbucks attracted widespread ire after it avoided paying corporation tax in the UK. So, in one attempt to make people feel all warm and fuzzy about its brand again, Starbucks invited the twitterati to display happy holiday messages on a big screen outside London's Natural History Museum in London by using the #spreadthecheer hashtag. Visitors to the Museum were promptly treated to a number of tweets along the lines of "Hey #Starbucks, PAY YOUR FUCKING TAX #spreadthecheer".

Starbucks isn't the first victim of what is termed "bashtagging." Some bright spark at McDonald's once came up with the great idea of letting people share their heart(burn)warming experiences with the brand via a #McDStories hashtag campaign. Voila, tweets like: "One time I walked into McDonalds and I could smell Type 2 diabetes floating in the air and I threw up. #McDStories."

2. Game Google

Google isn't just a search engine, it's a reputation engine. Like it or not, in the eyes of many, you are what you are on Google. And, for several years, former Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum found that what he was on Google was a "frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." This, by the way, wasn't down to a series of questionable decisions by the OED, but the result of a carefully orchestrated campaign by columnist Dan Savage. After Santorum ludicrously compared homosexuality to bestiality in a media interview, Savage gamed Google's search algorithm so that the first result for Santorum that came up linked to a what the New Yorker described as the "unprintable definition" Savage had created to protest Santorum's homophobia.

3. Use your Wifi network name as a targeted billboard

If you live in an area full of upwardly pretentious types you may have noticed a trend of creative Wifi network naming. Instead of settling for LINKSYS53z, for example, a 21st century quipster might call their network PrettyFlyForaWifi. However, as well as using it as a vehicle for unoriginal puns, some people are harnessing their network names to passively-aggressively complain to their neighbours. There is one person in my building whose network is called YOURMUSICSUCKS, for example. I severely curtailed my moments of guilty One Direction pleasure after that appeared.

4. But, wait, the luggage?

While some casual bashtagging or Google-bombing may be cathartic, sometimes catharsis is the only payoff. However, it looks like Syed's $1,000 BA-bashing may have resulted in more than just a warm flush of vengeance. As well as providing fleeting fame, it also seems to have delivered his luggage. Early this morning Syed tweeted "I got what I wanted. I win." Revenge may be a dish best served cold but sometimes, it seems, a little digital degradation can make for a satisfying hors d'œuvre.

40 Days of Dating: would you go out with an old friend?

The experiment carried out by two single New Yorkers suggests one course of action for those struggling with relationships

• 
• • Hannah Slapper
  • theguardian.com, Tuesday 3 September 2013 13.50 BST

‘40 Days speaks to the many of us who have that friend in our lives who could have become a lover but things never quite worked out.' Photograph: Gen Nishino/Getty

Trying to find a significant other while living in a fast-paced city is a notoriously difficult process, especially as you try to balance all the other things you're expected to do as a young adult (find enough money to survive, carve out a career, etc). It's a struggle to get into the habit of dating, and even tougher to turn those dates into meaningful relationships.

We've read about many ways to deal with this problem, and have friends and family who fit into every category: singles in their mid- to late-30s, people in Skype-sustained long-distance relationships, serial internet dating players.

But on 20 March this year two New York-based designers, Jessica Walsh and Timothy Goodman, tried something new.

The pair had been friends for years and, on discovering they were single at the same time, decided to date each other for 40 days purely as an experiment.

There was a set of strict rules: they would see each other every day, visit a relationship counsellor once a week, and they would be totally exclusive. Every evening they would separately complete a questionnaire to document their feelings.

The 40 days came to an end on 28 April, but it was only in July that they started publishing the answers on their blog, 40 Days of Dating – capturing the attention of readers worldwide. Walsh and Goodman now have a combined Twitter fan base of more than 40,000, a Vimeo page with hundreds of thousands of views, and have signed up toHollywood talent agency to handle the onslaught of film offers they've received for their story.

So what is the magic that has made 40 Days become a viral hit? The main aspect that people appear to be attracted to is the "what if" scenario. It speaks to the many of us who have that friend in our lives who could have become a lover but things never quite worked out. Often that is for a very good reason, but for many people it's just a matter of bad timing. I overheard a group of women discussing the blog on the London underground, and they took great pleasure in exploring which of their platonic pals would qualify for "upgrading", as they called it. David Nicholls's novel, One Day, revolved around a similar concept: that person you've known for years who, if you just took the time to think about it, could potentially be your soul mate.

Walsh says some of her favourite feedback has come from readers inspired to make a move on a special someone who had been stuck in the "friend zone". Prior familiarity definitely caused issues for Walsh and Goodman during the first couple of weeks, as both parties struggled to adjust to a new attitude of togetherness.

At first, it looked unlikely they would fall for each other and both seemed to adopt a rather academic stance. They found it difficult to see each other in a romantic way, and the topic of sex was a real issue from the very start. With friends urging them to consummate their relationship in order to prove it as real, plus their combined tendency to overthink everything, it blew up into such a big deal that it basically became a barrier.

However, as they spent more time together and work through each other's issues, we could watch them get closer, they opened up, and suddenly it seemed all too possible that their foundation of friendship would provide a solid structure on which to build a relationship. Readers were thrilled when they revealed on day 24-25 that they had finally done the deed. It certainly was a turning point for the pair, although the emphasis has definitely been on the emotional rather than the physical. The blog paused at day 36 and resumes today. The same question haunts every fan's mind: are they still together? Did they fall in love?

All too often I've been given the advice that finding the one is effortless, and "you just know". After five years in my own, sometimes turbulent, relationship, I couldn't disagree more. I like the fact that 40 Days promotes taking the reins and being decisive: if you embrace compromise, and dedicate enough time and energy to getting to know your other half, learning what's important to them and sharing your own dreams and opinions honestly, then you have a real chance of creating something wonderful.

40 Days seems to propose a solution to the chronic loneliness of the young city dweller. It's never too late to redefine your connection with somebody. And given the blog's impact, it seems certain that many people will now be plucking up the courage to reach out to that one person they've always been curious about.