I & Me

By Raad Chalabi

This book is the twelfth in the Ramiz Alkhishins dialogue-based books by author Raad Chalabi.
In his newest book I & Me, author Raad Chalabi, through forty-eight stand-alone dialogue scenes, describes an ongoing debate between many different characters on various aspects of life. The author uses fictional dialogues in which one party defends one social norm or belief while another rejects it.
This book, as is the case with the authors all other books, takes you in an unstoppable journey down the slopes of randomness with individual choices as the only rudder. What your choices are and when you actually make them is what life is. Once you grasp that the starting point of your downward slope and its final base are not yours to alter, neither are the unpredictable events that confront you on the way down, you will then, and only then, understand how valuable that rudder is.
It makes no difference if you think that the base of the downward slope is your final destination to nothing or your gateway to everything. Either way, it is the individual choices that you make during your downward journey that will allow you to reach that base in the manner you wish.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris UK
• Release date: Apr 1, 2015
• ISBN: 9781499096101

Raad Chalabi

Ramiz Alkhishin, the author’s alter ego, is a grocer. He has a passion for a life that is as independent as possible from its surroundings. To him the trendy place to be in is the one to avoid, while the traditional road to follow is the one to bypass. You may have met him before in his books: Fortune Cookies, Sketches, The Bazaar, The Balcony, The Lobby, The Tango of Gossip, Why Me, The Smiling Owl, and the Whispering Molecules. In his newest book, The Broken Horoscope, the author, Raad Chalabi, through forty-four stand-alone fictional dialogues, each highlighting at least one true character he had met, hopes to demonstrate the futility of boxing the ever-changing human behaviour within the boundaries of twelve zodiac signs.

Book preview

1. Dream On

Wife: You look very pale and disturbed? Did you not sleep well?

Husband: I had a very disturbing dream.

Wife: What dream?

Husband: I was driving this topless large car in the middle of a very crowded street at high speed. I suddenly realise that I am no more in control of the car’s steering wheel.

Wife: You mean it does not turn?

Husband: The steering wheel turns all right, but its movement has no effect on the wheels of the car whatsoever. I continue to travel in the direction I was travelling as if the car is intentionally ignoring my commands. I then attempt to slow down by pressing my foot on the brake paddle. The car shows the same indifference to the action of my foot as it did to those of my left and right hands. All sorts of scary scenarios come streaming to my brain. The most disturbing of which is that I hit a pedestrian who happens to be crossing the road which results in me going to prison.

Wife: What would a pedestrian be doing in the middle of the road?

Husband: How would I know? It is what I imagined would happen in that dream.

Wife: So you actually did not dream that you hit a pedestrian, it is just that while you were dreaming that the car was out of control, you were scared that you may hit a pedestrian!

Husband: Yes.

Wife: That is all right then.

Husband: What do you mean it is all right?! May be if I did not wake up, I would have hit that pedestrian and ended up in prison.

Wife: But you did wake up and so the humiliation of me having to visit you in prison was avoided.

Husband (angry): Is that all you can think of? I tell you what, if I go to prison for bumping a pedestrian, there is no need for you to visit me there. The way you dress would make it a humiliating experience for me anyway.

Wife: What is wrong with how I dress?

Husband: You are thirty-eight years old, and you dress as if you are fifteen.

Wife: It is better than being forty years old, like you are, and dress as if you were seventy years old living in a war-torn country.

Husband: I am not surprised that you continue to view my classical attire as unappealing after all you have grown up accustomed to how your father dresses.

Wife: What is wrong with my father’s clothes?

Husband: Nothing if you are happy that they match his indifferent attitude to life.

Wife: He is fun-loving. Do you want everyone to be as morbid as your mother always is?

Husband: She had to bring up four children on her own. Are you surprised that she takes life very seriously?

Wife: I am surprised that your father stayed long enough to allow her to have the four children.

Husband: You have never liked my mother.

Wife: You know very well how hard I tried to get along with her. However, if she expects me to view life the way she does, which is mainly that it is a stepping stone between nothing and death, then there is no way on earth that I will ever see eye to eye with her on anything.

Husband: I suppose you consider your father’s attitude to life, which is best encapsulated by the motto ‘the less we do for others the happier we become’ a more acceptable behaviour!

Wife: My father has always honestly admitted that he is a selfish human being and that he is proud to be so whereas your mother keeps reminding us how she sacrificed her all for the wellbeing of her children.

Husband: Well, she did.

Wife: I am not saying she did not, all I am saying is that she either did it out of love to her offspring and then it is no sacrifice because true love by its nature is self-satisfying, or she did it out of a sense of duty, and she is seeking some payback. If it is the latter, then she should take it up with whoever charged her with that responsibility and not keep reminding those whom she exercised her duties towards how much she suffered on their behalf.

Husband: I think you are being too hard on her compared to how tolerant you seem to be towards your father who you admit all the time is immature and irresponsible.

Wife: I am tolerant of my father’s selfish behaviour because that is exactly what he says he is and that he therefore deserves nothing in return from those whom he never did anything for. I suppose if he was in your dream, then his attitude would be that he would not care that the steering wheel is not functioning and the breaks cannot be applied. He would accept that he can do nothing about neither and would therefore stand up and enjoy the blowing breeze in his face as the uncontrollable car somehow moves towards its destination. If and when he hits the unfortunate pedestrian you seem so concerned about, he would then explain that it was not his fault and hope that those who are there to give judgement would understand?

Husband: Are you saying that I worry too much?!

Wife: You would not be who you are if you did not.

Husband: Is that good or bad?

Wife: Such a qualification implies that you have choices in how you are.

Husband: We all have choices.

Wife: Do you know what your mother would do if she was in the car you dreamt about?

Husband: What do you think she would do?

Wife: She too will stand up like I said my father would.

Husband: No way. She is too responsible for that.

Wife: The difference would be whereas my father would just stand up to enjoy the breeze, your mother would do so in order to wave her hands and scream at her loudest voice to warn anyone who happen to be in front that the car is out of control.

Husband: I can see myself doing that.

Wife: Fine. Next time you get this dream, remember to do what your mother would have done.

Husband: Will you do what your father would do if you saw such a dream?

Wife: My dreams are very different. I doubt very much that I would encounter a dream that had already visited you.

Husband: What makes you think your dreams are superior to mine?!

Wife: Did I use the word superior?

Husband: You implied it.

Wife: I implied no such thing. All I said is that my dreams are different. Maybe you have a feeling that your dreams are inferior and that causes you to be so sensitive and imagine things that I have not said.

Husband: I am starting to feel that my dream of an uncontrollable car is starting to turn into reality.

Wife: What do you mean?

Husband: What started as a casual question as to why I had a bad night seems to have evolved, without any direction from me, into an aggressive dialogue between the two of us that seems to be taking us to a destination that neither of us desires!

Wife: Maybe it is advisable that in future we keep our dreams to ourselves.

Husband: I agree. I think it is enough that we share, by choice, our reality together, but to move from there and proceed to pester each other with our dreams is a bridge too far.

Wife: This reminds me of something my mother and father said to each other one day.

Husband: What was that?

Wife: My mother was as usual upset with my father for failing yet again to deliver on a promise, and in anger, she said to him, ‘You are a nothing. No one respects you, and nobody gives a damn as to what you say.’

Husband: What was your father’s reply?

Wife: He said, ‘I am my dreams, and no one can take away that from me.’

Husband: What is that supposed to mean?

Wife: I assume he meant that what really matters is what you think you are and not what others tell you who you are.

Husband: Do you buy this rubbish, namely that we are not what society defines us to be?

Wife: No, I don’t, but I suppose those to whom every dream they dream is a nightmare should.

Husband: Is that a dig at your father or my mother?

Wife: You mean the forever failing optimist or the always brooding pessimist?

Husband: Yes, if that is how you wish to describe them.

Wife: Well, put your mind at ease, it is a dig at neither. It is only my way of celebrating the wisdom of the colour grey.

2. Disputed Trust

Darlene: You act as if you do not trust my brother?

Reza: I do not even trust myself.

Darlene: Don’t be ridiculous, how can anyone not trust himself?!

Reza: You only find it ridiculous because you associate lack of trust with the concept of suspicion that the person you are entrusting something to may betray you out of premeditated ill intentions. However, I demonstrate every day my lack of trust of myself by using reminder notes so as not to forget what is important for me to do. I also do so by setting my alarm clock for fearing that my concern for my self-interest that would require me to wake up at a certain time may not be strong enough to overcome my desire to sleep.

Darlene: Which means what?

Reza: Which means that the consequences of misplaced trust have nothing to do with the ill intentions of those whom we wrongly trust with something that is critical to us. Failure to deliver on a promise need not to be done out of malice or caused by any devious intentions, because when it happens, then it is as painful whether it was intentional or not.

Darlene: I am still not sure what you mean.

Reza: A loyal friend on whom I am depending on some action can still fail to do so because he lost concentration out of boredom or is side-tracked from his tasked deed because of an emergency or he could be injured or one of his family members is in desperate need for his support which would force him to abandon what he was supposed to undertake for me. Whatever his reasons are, they cease to be relevant when I have to confront my sufferings as a consequence of my misplaced trust.

Darlene: Accidents of life or natural human failings could happen to anyone. If you include events outside the control of the person you are trusting, then the word ‘trust’ loses its meaning!

Reza: Once again, you are associating trust with the intentional actions of the person you are trusting. I view matters based on the consequences of that trust, not the good or bad intentions of the person I trusted.

Darlene: So what is your criterion for trusting someone if not your assumption that he will not betray you out of choice?

Reza: My criterion for trusting someone is based on where the issue I am trusting him with falls in a set of coloured concentric circles. The outer region inside my concentric circles is white in colour, the next region is blue, the one after that is red, and finally, the area around the centre is black. If what I am trusting the person with falls in the white area, then my choice of the person I intend to trust will be based on his track record of competence. If it is in the blue area, then my choice as to whom to trust will be based on his track record of competence plus his proven loyalty to me. If it is in the red area, then in addition to competence and loyalty, I must ensure that any betrayal or error of judgement is equally damaging to both of us.

Darlene: What about the black-coloured region?

Reza: That is the black hole in which no trust exists.

Darlene: How do you decide which of the four regions a particular issue of trust should reside?

Reza: It is a question of degree of damage. White is where I can afford to be betrayed, blue is where I hope not to be betrayed but can survive betrayal without irreversible consequences, red is where I am seriously damaged if I am betrayed, and black is where I cease to be who I am if I am betrayed.

Darlene: It sounds to me as if you start from the assumption that you will be betrayed and plan accordingly rather than the other way round.

Reza: Don’t you?!

Darlene: No I do not. I believe humans by nature are decent, although in some cases circumstance may cause them to behave in a manner not consistent with their decency. It is my natural instinct to trust rather than mistrust, which obviously is not the case with you. I have no concentric circles demarking trust criteria and neither do I have trust black holes. All I have is common sense and a love for life with all its complications. It is that which gives me the vibrant social life I enjoy, which you seem intent to be deprived of due to your weird concepts of mistrust.

Reza: You talk as if I intend to argue your belief with you or attempt to win you over to my way of thinking?! I assure you I have no such intentions, and if that is who you are, then I am all for you to remain so.

Darlene: We cannot both be right!

Reza: Why not?

Darlene: How can two opposing views be right?

Reza: It depends who the judge is.

Darlene: What does that mean?

Reza: If you were the judge, then you are right, and if I was, then I will be right. Since you and I each have the right to be who we are and neither has the right to cancel the other and since both our views have no direct impact on each other and are irrelevant to the world at large, then it is safe to conclude that both our views on the issue of trust should be able to coexist.

Darlene: I doubt that what you propose is possible. Coexistence between opposites on certain issues is a recipe for disaster.

Reza: That is a strange statement from someone who believes in goodwill among people. After all, compromise is what ensures that humans can live together in peace and harmony.

Darlene: It is not so strange when you view trust as a necessary evil that should be avoided whenever possible while I view mistrust in the same manner. To me, coexistence is what animals do, and I refuse to accept that it is what humans should aspire to do.

Reza: Do you think we all should share the same views and opinions?

Darlene: No, but when we differ, we should attempt to convince one another of the wisdom of what we believe in, whereas in your case, your attitude would be complete indifference to the fact that another human being has what you consider a ‘wrong’ opinion as long that his opinion on the issue does not affect you.

Reza: Once again, you start from the premise that what is good for me is necessarily good for others, and what is bad for them is necessarily bad for me.

Darlene: We must have shared values like the belief that people are in general trustworthy. How otherwise can we exist as a society if every stranger we meet, we assume he or she has the intention to harm us if given the chance to do so!

Reza: I think I have already addressed that point. Your argument differentiates between intentional harm and unintentional harm. To me, since the outcome is the same, then understanding someone’s motives and judging him based on such motives is irrelevant. I consider that the priority for every stranger I meet is his own interest, and if its protection demands my demise, then that is exactly what would happen. Since I do not know his circumstances and cannot predict how my interests affect his, it is fair of me to assume that I should mistrust every action he takes until I am able to accommodate him somewhere in my concentric circles of trust.

Darlene: Do you consider me a threat to you?

Reza: You reside in the blue section of my concentric circles.

Darlene: You can assume from now on that I am in the wilderness that is outside your concentric circles all together.

Reza: Why?

Darlene: Because I can only be where my brother is, and you seem to have classified him as someone who resides outsides the boundaries of your concentric circles.

Reza: If trusting you implies that I should trust those that you do, then that in my book is an impossibility.

Darlene: Why do you say that?

Reza: Because I do not subcontract my evaluation of someone’s trustworthiness to any third party, no matter how competent I think that third party is.

Darlene: Why not?

Reza: Because whenever I did so in the past, life slapped me on the face for being stupid.

Darlene: Not everyone shares your experience!

Reza: I have no issue that Mr Everyone ignores me and my opinions.

3. Election of an Orphan

Ameer: Frank’s father is dead!

Russell: Who told you?

Ameer: Our maths teacher did.

Russell: How did he die?

Ameer: Apparently, it was a heart attack. He was only forty-two years old.

Russell: Is Frank at school?

Ameer: No, of course not.

Russell: But the election for the chairmanship of the student council is today, and he is competing with me in that election for that post.

Ameer: I tell you his father has died, and you talk to me about a silly election for an irrelevant society in our school!

Russell: You did not think the election was silly yesterday when you were fighting hard for me to win votes.

Ameer: That was yesterday. When death knocks at the door, all other matters become irrelevant.

Russell: This is what I am worried about.

Ameer: What do you mean?

Russell: The school is bound to delay the elections until Frank is back and then he is guaranteed to win such an election due to the sympathy vote that will pour in his favour now that he and his sister are orphans.

Ameer: You are really a ruthless bastard.

Russell: Why is that news to you? I disliked the guy when his father was alive. Why should I suddenly like him now that his father is dead?

Ameer: Common decency and sympathy towards those who are suddenly confronted with an unexpected tragedy is something that everyone, including a cold and calculating machine like you, should possess.

Russell: I can peddle emotions like the best of them when circumstances demand it. I thought, though, that at this point in time, we are talking strategy.