I was going to title this piece, waiting for Godot, to capture the sense of futility that is currently inflicting our nation. However Groundhog Day seems a more apt comparison. Because while Godot never comes, February 3 eventually does.

I am not one of those people who ascribe God like powers to the President, and therefore blaming him for all the ills of the nation. However his inactivity on the national stage since the inauguration has been disconcerting to say the least. We were not expecting bells and whistles and fancy 100 day plans, however a statement of intent would have been nice.

The President did respond forcefully to the Boko Haram bombings, which shows that he is keeping an oar in. However in a US or EU style press conference, he'd have been forced to answer questions about his plans for power, oil & gas, infrastructure, etc. I truly believe that the President was the right choice for the nation, however it would be nice if he started to show it.

According to the Buddhists, Groundhog Day is a movie about transcendence. Mr. Murray was able to move onto the next day because he fixed his flaws and achieved "nirvana". Taking that analogy further: you can liken all our issues are the flaws that have to be fixed before we can move on to the next day, you can liken most of what has gone on in the country until now as Bill Murray playing around with the newly found discovery of his daytrip.

I (and a lot of other people) am hoping that as a nation we have finally reached the point where Bill Murray decided to become a better person. Having said that, I still don't expect that the President will eventually succeed in taking us to February 3. After all that is the work of a lifetime. However I'm hoping that he will move us further along the path.

Having said all this, it would be a shame if the sense of optimism and hope generated by the election fades to the general feelings of despondency and despair that so easily comes to the fore in Nigeria. If that happens then we would really be waiting for Godot.

About two years ago I introduced the world to the retoasting phenomenon. Well saying I introduced the world to the phenomenon is like Chris Columbus introducing the world to America. But still.

Anyway flash forward a few years, and I now want to introduce you to the younger brother of retoasting: chipping in. While I was the one who recognized the retoasting phenomenon, I can not lay claim to the same in this case. One of my friends came up with in, in reference to a guy who occasionally hit on one of her friends friends.

Now retoasting is the active pursuit of a girl after the first attempt has failed. Chipping in, is the subtle alternative. As I covered in my post on the subject, retoasting generally sparks annoyance in babes. However babes seem to be more understanding of chipping in.

Chipping in works primarily because the guy is in the friend zone. Unlike in retoasting where the guy drifts away after the first failed attempt, chipping in requires that the guy and girl remain "friends".

So the proximity allows the guy to throw in a few toasts here and there. You know like a trial balloon. The reasoning is simple, the guy thinks this: We have been hanging out, and having fun etc, maybe she likes me now, so let's find out.

The girl thinks, I've got a friend that is cool to hang out with etc, I am not attracted to him. ignoring his toasts once a month or so is a small price to pay for maintaining the friendship.

The beauty of chipping in, is that it allows the guy to have hope that she may eventually gel, and allows the girl to enjoy an attentive guy with no real pressure to do anything: after all the question has been asked and answered. It's like a win win for everybody. In fact I would argue that practically every guy that ended up in the friend zone tries to chip in from time to time. I think it's practically impossible not to.

So the question, is why are girls not annoyed by chipping in? I believe that there are two reasons.

The first one is that they know the guy, and it is really hard to be annoyed with a guy who you are friends with, who happens to occasionally attempt to hit on you. In fact girls will be hard pressed to think of male friends that do not fit that bill.

The second reason is that, chipping in, is by definition an unstable equilibrium. It eventually unravels. Either the guy will meet a new girl and will fall away, or the girl will meet a new guy and push him away. He will fall away because the new girl won't want to feel like second choice. She will push him away, because the new guy won't want somebody slobbering over his girl.

So what say you? Is chipping in really less irritating than retoasting? Is chipping in the new normal, when it comes to the friend zone?

Laters.

PS. RIP to all who may have lost their lives in today's abuja bomb blasts. Well apart from the alleged suicide bomber: you can kindly rot in hell.