Some of the bits in the mosaic of our time are overlooked because we look for boulders. This column presents underrated issues that might deserve attention.
 
1. It is safe to predict that American conservatives are destined to develop a liking for McCain. Here a reason. Moscow Times (26 March) tells why a McCain presidency is to be rejected. He represents the “US’ hatred for Russia.” Furthermore, there is no evidence that “he would be willing to alter any important US policy at Europe’s request.” Another posting opines that ultimately his enemies might look back at Bush with “nostalgia.” McCain is found guilty abroad for being a committed conservative.
 
2. Outside America Obama is frequently defined as a “black Kennedy.” The liking of Kennedy has a basis that amounts to a bad reason. Kennedy died before the generational credit extended to him could wear off. This left him a beneficiary of irrational projections. Additionally, his early death came about before the price of his policies became obvious.
 
3. It is to be expected that Obama’s endorsers praise his virtues. One of these natural advantages seems to be that being “black” he could achieve much abroad. Do we know why he is not described as “white”? This use of his background raises issues. The original promise associated with the candidate has been that he is “above” race. Those who now talk about the advantages of race are the ones who insist that race makes no difference. Lest we forget, those who used to make race the axis around which their world turned used to be called “racists.”
 
4. More about the election. Hillary claims she should be elected because of her experience. Was it go beyond standing erect on the crumbling walls of the beleaguered fortress to save Bill from paying the price of a mischief?
 
5. Two images. One is Hillary taking that pre-dawn call. The other one shows her strolling in Tuzla from the plane to be greeted by the obligatory girl with flowers. That is the scene when, according to the original telling, bullets were flying around her like mosquitoes. Now, put the two pictures and the text together. A question arises. What might happen once someone, who when awake confuses a reception’s flashing cameras with a firefight, is awakened by the call that the world is about to go under?
 
6. The best way to defeat an army representing a democratic society is through the votes of the confused citizens.
 
7. Backing down can be sold as successful diplomacy defusing a confrontation. Regardless of the grateful voter’s short term reaction, running away makes the likelihood grow that ultimately a conflict comes your way that cannot be avoided.
 
8. In Vienna, an exhibition showing the works of Mr. Hrdlicka, who is an Austrian cult-artist, has opened. One of the highlights is a homoerotic Last Supper with copulating Apostles. The reaction is muted as no one wants to appear to be an old-fashioned reactionary clericalist. In itself, this silence is telling. The matter gains in interest if one remembers that the controversy regarding the Wilders film and the Mohammed cartoons are parallel events. So is the muted outrage evoked by events in Tibet. One of the insights pertains to the subject of moral outrage. Moral positions are frequently not determined by the unadulterated facts of the case. The secretly raised question before protesting loudly is who commits the outrage. Corresponding to his power and the likelihood that it will be used to retaliate, the openly expressed moral objection is muted. Whatever one might think of this, the practitioners deserve to be praised for being “flexible.”
 
9. The big guns are puking barrages at Geert Wilders’ Fitna. The charge that it insults religious-cultural sensibilities is worth an observation. The crazier and the more dangerous a group, the faster will it be insulted. The real issue here is not how outraged someone chooses to be at the push of a button but our freedom. It would seem that the criticism is not aimed primarily at Wilders’ arguments. Nor can it be the material he assembled. Since long, its components have been posted. Much rather it is the credibly threatened and understandably feared violence that causes the “moderation” and the attempt to censure the documentary. (Wilders is unlikely to stab you or burn your car.)
 
10. The reaction to “Fitna” is an excellent argument that supports the claim that the unmasking criticism of fundamentalist Islam is warranted.
 
11. Is it racism when an idea and the comportment it advocates or tolerates, is admitted to be in close correlation with an ethnic group? Correspondingly, is it in the classical sense liberal, to excuse or to deny the advocacy of violence and the inclination to commit crimes, in case these tendencies correlate with identifiable groups?
 
12 A “softest” line to handle Tibet is emerging. It is known that Peking is irrationally irritable if criticized. When it reaches this stage, incalculable reactions are feared. Therefore, in the interest of global harmony, the irritating issue should be avoided. However, the premises upon which the conclusion rests support a contradictory course. It is exactly this agreed upon inclination that warrants suspicion of China. The time is now to draw red lines to contain the penchant to use aggressive policies of this still educable nascent superpower.
 
13. More about talking ourselves out of a problem that demands action. Tibet might make it difficult to make the Chinese “look good” in the “not to worry” sense of the word. However, “solving” the problem by inaction remains possible. One only needs to make the Tibetans “look bad.” This slowly emerging line runs this way: everybody expects China to be assertive. So the use of force to prevent the change they did not initiate is simply “Beijing’s way.” Clubbing the natives is, therefore, consistent with China’s nasty practice and ideology. Now to the Tibetans who are known as being nice. As seen on TV, they have resorted to burning cars and were caught kicking when dragged away. Therefore, they have betrayed the principle to which they are committed. In the end, both parties can be declared to have been violent while only China remained true to herself. In time all this can be given a cherry topping by pointing out the brutality of Western colonizers (now critical of China’s Tibet policy) in the 19th century. Case closed. (Who is next?)
 
14 On paper, hardly any organ is more likely to investigate human rights abuses than the UN’s Human Rights Council. The inclination to even hear a case apparently correlates with the power and the brazenness of the parties concerned. On 27 March the Tibetan exile government’s representative requested to be heard by the Council. The delegate was denied the privilege of speaking. Knowing the institution, the non-surprise elicited is stunning.
 
15. These days the Human Rights Council crept into the news in a further way. This organization has an advisory board. New positions had to be filled. By a nearly unanimous vote – mainly from Third-World states – a professor, J. Ziegler got the nod. He is less known for his science than for being a vocal leftist activist colporting the moment’s intellectual fashions. He is also a notorious friend of leftist and anti-Western dictatorships. One of Ziegler’s descriptive achievements is the funding of the “Gadhafi Human Rights Prize.” (Therefore, the HRC’s refusal to hear a case of potential genocide is hardly unexpected.) The same day Ziegler is interviewed. He strongly protests the libelous charge sketched above. In doing so, he inadvertently revealed his real position. Behind his desk, he sat just under a large Che Guevara picture.
 
16. Apparently, the energy the HRC saved on Tibet was injected into another issue. True to form, the Wilders film was pronounced anathema, as was the bad-mouthing of religion. Notably, the singular and not the plural was meant. Logical, as there are non-progressive religions, such as Tibetan Buddhism and Christianity. Their telltale sign: they do not regard political democracies and their economic order as enemies.
 
17. Wobbly thinking. Some draw analogies between building Christian churches in Turkey and the construction of mosques in Europe. Inconveniently, those petitioning for minarets miss the analogy and do not feel that there is an obligation to exchange privileges. Therefore, they are asking for something they are unwilling to grant to others. Actually, under scrutiny, the analogy appears to rest on a dubious fundament. The Christians in Turkey are indigenous conquered people. The Muslims in Western Europe are recent immigrants.
 
18. More analogy. Fox reports (28 March) on a radical Muslim website that operates from the USA. Obligingly it even reveals how to access it. It is enlightening if a comparison is attempted with the Geert Wilders case. His initial posting on Islam got blocked under his government’s pressure. What happens to those that operate anti-American websites in the US? Has any website – let us say one that shows decapitations or pleads that 9/11 was a CIA plot of the vast Zionist conspiracy – been blocked in a country dominated by Islamists?