George Handlery on the week that was. Chimp rights. How blind is color blind? Obama Wright or wrong? The rule of law and criminal rights. The science of bogus facts. Direct democracy and bureaucratic regulation. Peace rockets and warmongering missiles. How to get a lot for nothing?
 
1. The European Court of Justice for the protection of human rights will examine the plea to grant recognition to a chimp as a person with corresponding rights. The litigant is not the chimp personally. If successful, this individual will get a guardian to represent his interests. In a future case one anticipates, institutionalized discrimination against chimps will be charged. Putting someone under tutelage because he is a chimp has implications. They are that all chimpanzees, regardless of their personal merits, are deemed to need a guardian. This is, indeed, a clear case of racial profiling.
 
2. More from the this-cannot-be-true file. A dentist in Hungary is dragged before a court. The crime: he failed to collect a 300 HUF ($2.00) registration fee from his patients. The Doc gave away what was his own as the state earmarked the sum for the treating physician. Between the misdemeanor and the trial, a referendum abolished the short-lived ordinance upon which the fee was based.
 
3. Observing America’s election campaign a question arises. Does the term “color blind” include the component of needing to be blind to faults?
 
4. Given the public’s disenchantment with the engagement in Iraq, Sen. Obama benefits from his refusal to vote for the intervention. Question marks emerge upon the examination of his now lucky opposition. Was, in terms of what he knew then, his vote justified? Was this opposition the result of wisdom, or did it come about by an application of Reverend Wright’s views of the US? Even with a smoking gun in Saddam’s hands, mentor Wright would have judged any action as unjustified. Criminal America has no right to defend herself from the wrath of the righteously angered. So, was Obama Wright or wrong, this is the question.
 
5. A government that is committed to maintaining an order designed to secure the greatest possible liberty of the governed can, nevertheless, lose its legitimacy. This happens not infrequently. It comes about when normal people are led to conclude that, in practice and to their detriment, the theory of freedom tolerates criminality. Nothing will discredit the intended rule of law more than the perception that the law protects the impostor more than his victims.
 
6. It appears that some of the organizations that are ideologically committed to green issues are willing to employ any means to further their cause. A research project and its uses serve as an example. Two studies using data developed in Vienna 2005-08 proved damage is caused to the cell structure through the rays of mobile phones. By now we have a confession of data manipulation to prove the project’s hypothesis. Nevertheless, some scientists that authored studies based on bogus facts (they represent institutions in Berlin, Munich and Vienna) are reluctant to revise their findings.
 

7. The EU is rather charitable in accepting members with shaky qualifications. A revealing contrast is the treatment of those that do not wish to join. Here the challenged bureaucracy’s generosity ends abruptly. Encircled Switzerland’s snub is especially galling to Brussels. On the 27th that country’s Minister of Justice – nominally from a right-of-center party but in reality a creation of the Left – visited Europe’s capital. At issue was the residency of the citizens of newly admitted Bulgaria and Romania in Switzerland under EU terms. The country’s largest party, the Swiss People’s Party SVP, does not wish to grant full EU privileges to these entities. To make its point, the SVP threatens with a referendum. The Minister, Ms Widmer-Schlumpf, who is for total cooperation, received welcome help in Brussels. A commissar in charge made things clear. Should the Swiss electorate vote to deny free immigration then all EU – Switzerland’s bilateral agreements will be nixed. The translation: this independent island in the middle of the EU will be strangulated. Characteristically, Ms Widmer insists that the message is “in no way” a threat. The ancient practice of direct government by the people and Brussels’ idea of regulation are clashing. There is a related example of the concern of the governors who fear their people. We find it in the studied Europe-wide non-submission of EU membership and constitution to the popular vote.
 
8. Meanwhile, on 28 May: Franco Frattini, an ex-EU Commissar, is thinking aloud. The trigger is the criminality that is associated with the Gypsies from Romania. For linguistic reasons, Italy draws many of these settlers. In self-defense, Italy might close herself to entrants from that country. Unlike Switzerland, Italy is a member of the EU.
 
9. May 23. At their meeting in Peking, Medvedev and Hu struck, as they claim, a major blow for world peace. They discovered that the planning and the setting-up of missile defense is a threat to peace. Such arrangements do not facilitate the maintenance of “stability” and of the “strategic balance”. Furthermore, developing the ability to shoot down “incomings” undermines the “trust between states”.
 
10. Once at home, Medvedev inspected an intercontinental rocket base. He must have liked what he saw, so more money was promised. Relax, in case you detect some inconsistency with the stance taken in the above item. The trusty Topols are not defensive missiles.
 
11. The passing of the baton from Castro the Original to Castro the Lesser initiates a campaign to lift sanctions imposed on Cuba. A few of the arguments are of doubtful quality. Removing sanctions bolsters the moderate course for which the Lesser is thirsting. Alternatively, could it be that the new Leader, eager to overcome sanctions, concluded that a moderation in the form might save the substance of his system? The main claim in favor of their lifting will be that sanctions do not work. This may or may not be true. What makes the shibboleth interesting is that the circles that now claim that sanctions are ineffective are the ones that, at the time of the Apartheid, demanded a total quarantine to bring that regime down. Apparently, the efficacy of sanctions depends on who is using them against whom.
 
12. We heard sighs of relief when Burma’s junta graciously allowed help into the country. There is a pattern to this. The instructions to follow give you the political equivalent of eating that famous cake and having it too. The easy steps are (1) Do something horrible and make a totally outrageous demand. (2) Face the protest and wait until your reluctance to budge creates desperation. Note that the more despicable your position the greater the nervousness. (3) Make your move once the perennially confused are at their wit’s end. Not knowing what to do, as they are unwilling to do the obvious, they will have Jimmy Carter dropping in to talk. Now you relieve tension by indicating that you might be willing to negotiate. (4) Suggest that you could be persuaded to backtrack on half of your demands. Ask a high price and demand commendations for being reasonable and for saving the peace. Some talk about a Nobel Prize might be added. (5) Conclude the operation. “Compromise” by taking only the half of what you offered to negotiate about. Indicate that due to your generosity you did not get what you should have had. (6) In response to your graciousness, you will be widely praised. You will also get international recognition. Furthermore, you will gain much more than what Western diplomacy would have conceded had you opened the game with a sane move.
 
13 Until now, if your raised the issue of the nuclearization of Iran, you were religiously intolerant, multiculturally insensitive and generally a hard-liner. Given these traits, you will be shocked to find out that, your status as a political skunk conferred by “backwards benders”, is wobbling. In the eyes of this crowd you are in danger of rehabilitation. This threat comes from being suddenly in better company than you used to be. On the 26th of May the UN‘s IAEA (the atomic energy agency) reported to the Security Council. The body found that Iran ignores the Council‘s appeals and continues its enrichment program. Accordingly, the effort‘s military goal is within the range of the probable. “Seriously concerned” about the concealment of Iran‘s activities, the IAEA is moving close to the position of the vast Zionist Neocon conspiracy.
 
14. Iran has responded (28 May) to the IAEA report. Tehran claims that it has fulfilled its obligations. It also considers the report to amount to the seal of approval it did not need to have to do what it sees as appropriate. With this, all questions are resolved. Therefore, Iran‘s activities are not any more an issue for the Agency and the Security Council. Here Larijani, a favorite moderate of the appeaser crowd, the newly elected President of Parliament, entered the picture. Larijani accused the IAEA of playing an unclean game. If that continues, Tehran might lower the level of its cooperation with that body.