It can pay to pay a convenient enemy. All nukes are not alike. How to make capital out of trumped up charges and long sentences ending by mercy. The baddies of civilian casualties. Fulfillment, respect and those who cannot give it. How to conform to the commanded norms of originality.

1. Being cagey, for weeks I held this item spiked. The original and temporarily suppressed text follows.

"Guess what! In the eyes of this writer, this is still an unconfirmed report (April 24). Not unlike most countries, Hungary has her own non-democratic rightist fringe. It is, not accidentally, manipulatively overrated abroad in quality and quantity. Meanwhile, anything right of the ex-Communists is run under the 'Fascist' label. The real wrong right is getting dough from . . . What do you think? International capital? The Zionist conspiracy? Big Oil? All wrong. Allegedly, funding comes indirectly from the Socialist government. Why? Trying to keep in business, having right-wing extremists cast as a photogenic force brings advantages. Their activity can be — and is – exploited at home and abroad. Doing so legitimizes the corrupt and locally compromised plutocratic system that rules the country. Sounds fantastic. However, supporting a convenient enemy is not unusual."

I know this as a fact from Soviet times: the "Nazistic" Croatian Ustasha got money from Moscow.

2. Commentaries regarding the coming Iranian nuclear bomb like to tell us that it is unfair or, if you wish, "disproportionate," to be worried about it. After all, Israel, too, has the Bomb Iran is, according to its accusers, working on. This implied tit for tat tends to score. But discovering a parallel between a threatening future development and an existing condition that has caused no damage, does not necessarily legitimize the former's case. True, a Jewish (Israeli) bomb and a Muslim (Mullah) bomb are both "bombs." But that is where the equivalency ends. Unless, of course, you are conducting a search for the cop-out you will not find here.

To say the least, Israel happens to be a bit different from Iran. Acknowledging the difference does not hinge upon whether you like Jews, dislike them, or just do not care. Israel is a community that has been the object of repeated attacks. These were not just conflicts in the style conducted before the 20^th century. Significantly, the goal was not to get a limited, and diplomatically unachievable, concession. The straight-forward aim of the wars against Israel was its elimination. This translates into mass destruction like in "weapons of mass destruction." On this level, reactively, the Israeli nuke matches the nature of the threat. On this basis it is, even for forcibly retired altar boys, easy to conclude that the Israeli nukes are defensive in nature. As such, the nuclear devices represent last-ditch security for the eventuality of being dropped by the US. (Currently this is rather easy to foresee regardless of the 80% of the Jewish cast in favor of B.O's administration.)

Iran's bomb-to-be is not defensive. Just ask yourself, what threats to the survival of Iran as a nation are in sight? Therefore, this nuke's purpose is not to assure survival but rather the radical reorganization of the region in which Persia is located. No bouquet of differences, and therefore no consequence of the threat created by nuclear possession, could be greater.

3. Disturbing. There are some issues that should not be discussed in public. Therefore it is with regret that the writer takes notice of the airing of the item that follows. We were told on May 15 that the US is preparing its own reactive measures. This is just for the eventuality that the Taliban takes power or achieves partial control over Pakistan. As we, the concerned, all know, Pakistan is a nuclear power. She is also the first internally unstable member-state of the atomic club. Reacting accordingly, the report only states what we not only had reason to assume, but also hoped for in private silence. The US is considering scenarios to "secure" Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in case that country collapses politically. The open talk about this component of a "The World Goes Under" scenario will make the job more difficult than it would have been.

4. Roxanna Saberi's release. She is the Iranian-US dual citizen who got eight years for spying. Oh, yes, this happened in Iran, in case you did not know or guess. Subsequently, the case was reviewed. Instead of sticking to the standard "Mullah-Method," the review did not produce a death sentence. Saberi got a suspended sentence and was allowed to leave for the States. It is rather unlikely that, in case of misbehavior offensive to God or his much more alert local representatives, she will be locked up there. End of story. For Saberi. Not for everybody.

The case reveals a pattern. To get good will expressed in the form of otherwise unattainable concessions, you should go through the motions that follow. Chapter One. 1. Arrest on an as ridiculous-as-possible charge an obviously innocent person. (Espionage is recommended: everybody that asks any question regarding anything is guilty of it.) 2. Put on a big courtroom show while you have a knife between your teeth. 3. Declare the charge to be proven and, to conclude the show trial, hand down an extreme sentence. Now leaf to Chapter 2. So, we get to step No. 4. Declare that you are as merciful as you are just. (Try not to blush: wearing a beard will help.) 5. Encourage an appeal of the kind to which your own regular subjects have no access. 6. Find the innocent accused guilty. 7. Release him in the name of the Merciful. 8. Gather the thanks and bask in the rays created by those who will take your orchestration of events as being the proof of what they are seeking. As a result you will appear as reasonable. It will be alleged that your moderates are gaining influence. All that makes you into someone one "can do business with."

The lesson: In the world of the naïve, being first the very bad guy you really are, and then acting as though you would be a bit more civilized, has its easily earned rewards.

5. The civil war in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) is about over. According to the principle of some, war does not solve any problems. The mantra has certainly failed and combat has certainly settled this problem. For weeks now, the fate of the civilians under the control of the Tiger rebels commanded the attention of diverse international lobbies. The lot of the civilians has been used by the Tamil Tigers as their last card to derail politically the Ceylonese government's successful military operations. The case raises a fundamental question. Who is more "guilty?" Is it the party to a conflict that blasts undauntedly the enemy even if he sets up military positions among civilians? Or is the real criminal the side that exploits civilians by using them as a shield?

6. Satisfaction with one's lot and accomplishments, and the contentment derived from the feeling that our life achieved something that is higher than our own person, make us "happy." This is so because, upon reflection, a life with a meaning is a good life. All this means that not only peers but also the individual can attribute self-respect (the product of exploits) to an existence. Notice that many movements demand automatically extended public "respect" for their members simply because through birth they are the participants of something. In doing so they ignore that respect, and especially self-respect, must be earned. No government agency, even if anointed to do so, can give self-respect. At their best, all these can do is hand out money. (Most likely to the loudest professional victims of real or imagined evils who also happen to be the least deserving.)

7. While leafing through the Sunday paper's architecture section, my wife asked whether I have seen the "horrors" that are being praised. We live in an age that stresses originality (in itself this amounts to "a good thing"). It is also fashionable to assert that all those who might aspire to the distinction, are enabled to be original. The result is quite a bit of conceit and a tendency to drift into the cult of eccentricity. Often, especially in the case of performing artists, originality's silver-plated cast-iron version is achieved by for-money-available externalities. Such as unnatural hair-dos. And tattoos that would otherwise constitute rights violations. Let us not forget abnormal body enlargements. This is completed by piercings that, in a sane world, rate as cruel and unusual punishment.

When Van Gogh cut off his ear he did it without a plan to rise above the average and hardly to augment his reputation as an artist. Anyhow, with or without about two standard ears, as well as prior to and after the correction of what nature gave him, he could paint. His modern imitators are limited to replace talent with odd, if possible obnoxious and therefore noted behavior. This needs to be committed in public in amounts that might fill the gap between the aspiration of (exaggerated) claimed fame and (limited) actual ability.

8. Genocide, and policies imposing systematic disadvantage and persecution on undesirables, share a common cause. It all begins with those that are in the know regarding initial violations. For whatever reason, they do not blow the whistle while the inequity is still in its nascent state. Frequently, the excuse for tacit tolerance is that "it is not too bad." Complaints will only agitate the "extremists" who, while they over-react, happen to have a debatable, albeit slightly exaggerated, point. Such silence, in the face of initially non-lethal but systematic infractions, convince the principled aggressor that (secretly) the timid world is sharing his contempt for the victim. Therefore, the fanatical activist feels that he has the bashful approval of the wishy-washy. This creates the impression of being deputized to resort to radical measures against the sub-human vermin that the movement is programmatically committed to eradicate.