George Handlery on the week that was. Obama as the sum of projected dreams. Intelligence is not wisdom. Are traits a program? What is privilege? The roots of unilateralism. Russia to help when the US fails. Gypsy law and the sharia. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the most corrupt of them all? The right to uncontrollable rage.

1. Europe is enthused by Obama. Accordingly, he is already elected in the hearts. Whether, it is uncertain how, from up-close he might sell for home use. Obama appeals to a romantic instinct articulated in the spirit of tales in which the poor girl gets the prince. (In the legend it is never the frog.) His ambivalent relationship to America, expressed by "mentor" Wright is, given the PC acceptability of US-bashing, adding a congenial element. Additionally, enough fantasies, hopes, and desires are projected on Obama to blur the original image. These sentiment create feel-good vibrations and generously legitimize ethnic-pride politics in a multi-ethnic society.

2. An "Obism": "X is not the person I knew". Warning flags are made to rise by such an admission after twenty years of exposure to a "mentor" and an intimate friend. If the disavowal is accepted as being entirely candid then Obama is a bad judge of character and of the consequences of ideas expressed to him. Such weakness is difficult to believe in the case of a visibly intelligent person. The blindness is hard to forgive even if one concedes that intelligence is not necessarily matched by wisdom.

3. The great danger to McCain is that he might let Obama run on his inherited traits and not on his record and his detailed programs for the future.

4. Being privileged means to be cheered while one airs complaints on the major networks about being an oppressed victim of whatever.

5. Anti-Americanism in Europe is developing its own self-defeating consequence. The detractors explain their stance by the provocation of nearly unilateral US actions. It could be added here that such moves were responses to security threats. There were reasons besides the American "obsession to dominate" for the unilateralism of the course steered. Largely, the US' natural allies were and remain by their own volition, unequipped, unprepared and unwilling to act in crisis situations. As a result, consensually countering perils preemptively remains difficult. Security and not being forced to fight when it is already late demand a will to defy challenges at any time, anywhere and in the context of any immediate tactical cause.

6. America's diplomatic isolation and the turbulence of the sub-prime crisis seem to have created an opportunity. This has encouraged those that hope that the stumble of the "hegemon" ends in his collapse. The seeming void has incited those who wish to replace him to come forward. In the spirit of the cold war, on June 7 Medvedev acted accordingly. He pointed out that the US' "aggressive financial policies" were a result of the exaggeration of America's "true capacities". Additionally, her incompetence caused "most people of the planet" to become poorer. The Kremlin can contribute to a solution. It is to begin with an international conference in Moscow; that platform could become permanent. He also observed that there is discontent with the US $. Given Russia's "responsibility", her Ruble could serve as a regional reserve currency. To those that have forgotten the little they knew about the Oligarchs, the old nomenclartura's political-economic power, the wobbly guarantees of property rights and the conflicts of joint ventures will be convinced.

7. Advanced societies are encountering problems filed under tolerance, minorities and immigration. Another term can be added. Tag it "co-habitation". Think of the problems with elements that refuse not only to assimilate but also to adjust, as conflicts of co-habitation. The term evokes the image of a pad shared by several parties. In such an arrangement, those that assert their right to disregard the standing house-rules are asked to leave. It is quite usual for the host to stay. Handling the problem by stressing the rights of the asocial might be fashionable but doing so also lubricates a slippery slope. With the Sharia's applicability being seriously discussed, we have a new beleaguering demand for accommodation directed at the majority. An EU parliamentarian's recent (June 7th) opinion is an indicator of demands to come. She found that the Gypsies in Italy do not feel at home in Romania and the successor states of Yugoslavia. These people need a (new) citizenship and should be given one along with diverse social services. Allegedly, the foundations of EU conformity are already in place. They live by and respect Gypsy law. The good news is that its notions purportedly do not contradict the EU's legal concepts.

8. A related dilemma might not be too far in the future. The code by which the lumpen element among the Gypsies operates and the principles of the Islamists among the Moslems are not compatible. What will happen once Sharia-based claims clash with the practices of Gypsy law? Let us say in some country whose regulations applying to the indigenous are primitively prejudiced. That being the case they might be unable to accommodate the legal autonomy of groups that claim a right to their conflicting ethnic justice.

9. Understandably, the sub-prime crisis, its consequences and how such a mess could happen, concerns the public. The writer had a conversation with a player in Swiss high finance. Given the astonishing losses of the UBS - the worlds leading wealth manager - this opinion is of interest. My partner regards the bank's personnel policies as deserving blame. Hiring, retention and promotion ignored commitment to the bank and to prudent standards. Short-term personal interests, respectively their corrupting effect, have determined the comportment of many. He agreed with the writer regarding the facilitation of tax cheating uncovered by the US' IRS. (The investigation involves billions.) Those implicated violated not only American but also Swiss law and the internal regulations of the bank.

10. Loosely applied selective information skews perceptions. In advanced countries the view that "socialism is no more corrupt than capitalism" is acceptable. Actually, here, too, physical distance and time conspire to create acceptance. The case appears to limp in the mind of those who actually lived in both systems. Indeed, at the first glimpse, abused laissez-faire's practice seems to be more corrupt than that of "socialism." Especially so if the judgment is made while living in a market economy. Indeed, the amounts misappropriated in capitalism are probably higher than the black economy's total worth in socialism. Where more wealth is generated more can be stolen. Corruption in a market economy involves staggering sums in outstanding cases. Socialist thievery, even if committed by the nomenclatura that is beyond the law, has lower pecuniary value expressed in absolute terms. On the other hand, in the collectivist context, the number of extralegal transactions is much higher than in a market economy. It started with favors to comrade X behind the counter where the ration cards could be exchanged for bread. Furthermore, the freedoms associated with the market make the discovery and publication of abuses likely. As a result, what is and what appears to be create misleading impressions.

11. The discussions surrounding the handing out of foreign aid provoke a revealing insight. Those who question some of the projects (such building schools lacking pupils on a nearly uninhabited island), their implementation and the sums thrown at the problem, are labeled. The critics are depicted as insensitive avaricious penny pinchers that, above all, lack decency. Actually, it is possible to extend aid that furthers development, does not waste money and does not fuel the corruption of local elites. However, this approach is not glamorous and it requires much more local knowledge than cash. Furthermore, it is not the first choice of local potentates and it is not to the taste of the aid-bureaucracies that have developed in the donor countries.

12. He is not getting it. Pakistan's Ambassador reacted to the destruction of Denmark's embassy in Islamabad. The incident answered the recent publication of a cartoon. The Danes pretended that it unmasked an Islamists impersonating Mohammed, while the radicals discovered in the drawing a depiction of the Prophet. (The Prophet is in the eyes of the beholder.) The diplomat showed less understanding for the working of democratic systems then for rhetoric and the West's inclination to blame itself. Therefore, he asked "I would like to know if your newspaper is satisfied with what it has done and what it has unleashed". This overlooks the implications of trivia such as the freedom of the press while it misunderstands the ability of governments to censure. It equally ignores the association that the relevant terms "reciprocity" and "double standard" bring to mind. However, the most revealing are two innuendoes created by the educated representative. One: the envoy regards the injured party as becoming responsible by having provoked the anger of its attackers. Two: the impression is created that bombing embassies is a natural and inevitable reaction to the publication of material that insults an easily offended party. This leaves one with a point to ponder that was raised in the Brussels Journal (08 06 05). If Jihadists feel that they may do anything once they have declared themselves to be affronted, then what about the idea's sequel? It happens to be that by the same logic non-Moslem societies enjoy the same rights to take offense and to retaliate. If these would care or dare to admit to abuses then they would find plenty of reasons for "uncontrollable" rage.