Month: May 2006

Did We Say ‘I Told You So’ Yet?

When the Bush administration started off its second term by focusing its domestic agenda on entitlement reform, primarily on Social Security, it warned that the fiscal stability of these entitlements was eroding at a faster rate than predicted and pointed out the need for reform now, rather than waiting for the coming collapse. Democrats pounded the administration for its “scare tactics” and insisted that the programs had plenty of stability. Now the administration has released new numbers indicating that the erosion has picked up a little speed:

The financial condition of Medicare and Social Security deteriorated in the last year, the Bush administration reported Monday, and it warned again that the programs were unsustainable in their current form.
Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund, a widely watched gauge of the program’s solvency, will run out of money in 2018, two years earlier than projected in last year’s report, the trustees said.
And the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted in 2040, one year earlier than projected last year, the trustees said. At that point, in 2040, Social Security tax collections would be adequate to pay only 74 percent of scheduled benefits.
Lawmakers said they would never allow the trust funds to run dry. But the insolvency dates are a vivid way of showing that the programs are unsustainable. To keep them solvent, Congress would need to trim benefits, raise taxes or take some combination of such steps.

The reaction from the Democrats followed the same principle as in 2005: refusing to acknowledge the problem. Harry Reid proclaimed the reports as proof of entitlement stability, saying that “despite White House scare tactics, Social Security remains sound for decades to come.” Max Baucus blamed the Bush administration for raising costs through the use of managed-care plans. And as before, none came forward to propose a reform that would address the looming fiscal disaster.
We can keep saying “I told you so” all the way until the system collapses under its own weight, following Europe to economic disaster, or we can continue to press for entitlement reform. The President took a courageous stand last year in demanding a national effort to address the Social Security problem. Some chastised him for taking that issue ahead of the much larger problem of Medicare, but it turned out that the Democrats were not prepared to work on even the lesser issue in any rational manner. Their party leadership still insists that no problem exists at all within either program. Porkbusting is a great idea, but at some point we have to address the far more destructive demographic time bomb in our federal budget.
We need leaders with courage and foresight in order to ensure that these government services do not trap us in massive financial burdens within the next generation. So far, those qualities do not appear abundant, especially among the Democrats.

Even The Law-Enforcement Model Gets Panned

A New York Times report shows that even a law-enforcement model for conducting the fight against terrorism will not satisfy some people. William Rashbaum reports on the testimony of a paid informer who reported conversations and activities at a Brooklyn mosque to New York detectives, which led to the unraveling of a plot to bomb the Herald Square subway station:

The paid police informer who is the central witness at the trial of a Pakistani immigrant charged with plotting to blow up the Herald Square subway station testified yesterday that he collected a wide range of information on his visits to two city mosques, from the tenor of the sermons to how many people attended the services.
The informer, Osama Eldawoody, 50, secretly recorded roughly two dozen conversations about the plot with the immigrant, Shahawar Matin Siraj, in the summer of 2004 — many of them incriminating. He was questioned by Mr. Siraj’s lawyer about the information he provided to the police on his frequent visits to mosques in Brooklyn and Staten Island. The visits occurred over roughly 13 months in 2003 and 2004, both before and after the informer met Mr. Siraj.
Regardless of the outcome of the trial for Mr. Siraj, 23, who faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted, Mr. Eldawoody’s testimony is shedding light on what seem to be new police tactics to uncover terrorist plots before they come to fruition. While a federal judge gave the police expanded powers in 2003, critics have nonetheless raised objections to the use of informers in places of worship, political events and other gatherings.

The use of informants for law-enforcement interception of conspiracies has a long and productive record. Informants infiltrate closed societies in order to alert police to violent activities. The FBI (finally) helped break the Klan through this method, and continue to do so with violent white-supremacist organizations, even those who form “churches” to spread their hate. No one seems to mind that application of law enforcement — and rightly so — but for some reason they find it objectionable when it gets applied to terrorism.
Like it or not, fair or not, the Islamofascists recruit and organize within mosques, and in order to use a law-enforcement model, the police and FBI have to penetrate them to find out whether any terror planning or support is occurring. They cannot plant bugs without a court order, and that requires some sort of probable cause, which once again requires some inside information. The only way to discover that is to have informers or undercover police at the mosques, talking to people and connecting into the social network.
In this case, it appears to have worked. Siraj wanted to bomb the subway station, or at least take part in the operation. Eldawoody caught him on tape discussing the plan to use backpack bombs to cause economic damage to New York, although Siraj demurred at killing people. This could not have been discovered any other way, leaving only the option of investigation after the attack occurred.
Rashbaum notes that critics oppose these kinds of tactics as an affront to religious freedom, although he doesn’t name the specific critics or explicitly give their arguments. This argument shows why even the law-enforcement approach will not get support among those who seem to want America to stop defending itself. The problem isn’t that the US wants to curtail religious freedom — it’s that our terrorist enemies use mosques as a cover for their plots. If the mosques want to avoid becoming the target of investigations, they should expel members who espouse violent jihad and report them to the authorities. When terrorists use mosques as their shield, the mosques become fair game for counterterrorism efforts.

Condoms And Catholics In The Age Of AIDS

The Vatican has undertaken a review of its teachings on condom use, as the conservative Pope Benedict reconciles the church’s mission to protect life within the age of AIDS. The Pope requested a report from theologians about the doctrinal implications of condom usage within marriage when one partner carries HIV or has developed full-blown AIDS:

Even at the Vatican, not all sacred beliefs are absolute: Thou shalt not kill, but war can be just. Now, behind the quiet walls, a clash is shaping up involving two poles of near certainty: the church’s long-held ban on condoms and its advocacy of human life.
The issue is AIDS. Church officials recently confirmed that Pope Benedict XVI had requested a report on whether it might be acceptable for Catholics to use condoms in one narrow circumstance: to protect life inside a marriage when one partner is infected with H.I.V. or is sick with AIDS.
Whatever the pope decides, church officials and other experts broadly agree that it is remarkable that so delicate an issue is being taken up. But they also agree that such an inquiry is logical, and particularly significant from this pope, who was Pope John Paul II’s strict enforcer of church doctrine.
“In some ways, maybe he has got the greatest capacity to do it because there is no doubt about his orthodoxy,” said the Rev. Jon Fuller, a Jesuit physician who runs an AIDS clinic at the Boston Medical Center.

Put another way, for those of us who follow politics, only Nixon can wear a rubber. An activist Pope would never have the standing in the Church to make this adjustment; a new teaching would, of course, be followed — but it would likely get reversed during a succeeding papacy. If a Pope such as Benedict, with his lifelong adherence to strict doctrine, makes this change, the new teaching will have much more impact.
In order to understand why this would be an issue at all — and why it isn’t really that much of a change — one has to know why the Church bans condoms at all. The Church has taught that the act of sexual intercourse has a natural purpose of procreation, the purpose for which God intended it. Therefore, when a married couple engages in sex, the pair must be open to procreation. Condoms and birth control in general frustrate this purpose, and turns the act into nothing more than an expression of lust with no sacramental quality at all. Therefore the Church bans their use.
Many certainly disagree with the Church, and for many reasons. Catholics have more or less decided to use this teaching as more of a guide than a rule since it was most prominently taught in 1968, with Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae. For some, conception could have severe complications for the woman, such as those with diabetes or some other life-threatening illness. Priests often (but not always) counseled such couples to pray about the decision to use birth control in marriage and follow their own consciences.
The spread of AIDS, especially in Africa where heterosexual transmission has caused the disease to race out of control, presents a clearer and more pressing example of the same dynamic. Regardless of whether one partner or the other has engaged in extramarital sex, the uninfected partner is a potential victim, and one which Humanae Vitae fails to protect. The implications for this policy are staggering. Teaching Africans that condom use is a sin creates conditions that kill people, and not just theoretically, and not just a few.
Given that the entire basis for the Church’s position on condoms is the protection of life, this is obviously a policy that requires immediate rethinking. Pope Benedict should restate the church teaching on condom use to acknowledge that the married couple themselves deserve protection from sexual transmission of deadly diseases and from the consequences of pregnancy when it puts the mother’s life in physical jeopardy. The fact that this Pope has agreed to review the policy shows a great deal of promise that a rational position may be at hand.
Addendum: Of course, this has no bearing on the use of condoms outside of marriage, but one has to put that Church doctrine in its proper context. Years ago, when I belonged to a young-adult group, our sponsoring priest held a wide-ranging Q&A with us, and one topic was premarital sex and birth control use. Father Walt told us that committing the sin of sex outside of marriage was by far the more damaging act. Refusing to wear a condom because of its supposedly sinful implications would be, at that point, rather laughable.

Saddam Produced Nerve Gas Detectors In 2000

Joseph Shahda has translated yet another of the captured Iraqi government documents, and this one shows that Saddam Hussein’s government produced banned nerve gas detectors in 2000. Shahda’s discovery shows that Saddam never intended on stopping his WMD programs nor planned on complying with UN resolutions that supposedly “contained” Saddam (via Power Line):

Beginning of Translation of page 5 of document CMPC-2003-016083
In the Name of God the Most Merciful The Most Compassionate
TOP SECRET
The Republic of Iraq
The Presidency of the Republic
The Military Industrialization Commission
Number 2/4/44
Date 13/1/2001
To: THE PRESIDENTIAL SECRETARIAT
Subject: Detection Equipment
Your top Secret letter number AA’/128 on 10/12/2000, we would like to show the following:
1. On 10/12/2000 a laboratory test was done on the new equipment and the results of the test was similar to the required quality compared with the Russian equipments
2. On the light of the above (1) a second equipment was received from the Ministry of Industry and Minerals and the total tests were done on it on 24/12/2000 using laboratory equipment to Chemical Detection Device (GSU-12) and with the presence of the Chemical Class representatives and the manufacturing party and its success was proven from the perspective of detection and reaction to NERVE AGENTS.
Please review… with regards
Signature
Abd AlTwab Abdallah AL Mulah Huwaish
The Minister of Military Industrialization
13/1/2001
End of translation of page 5.
Now on page 71 of the document there is a section that mentions that the production of “Nerve Gas Detectors” is PROHIBITED
Beginning of Partial Translation of page 71
Based on what is in the letter of the respected Presidential Secretariat (Top Secret) aa’/4 on 22/1/2001 followed by the Top Secret letter of (M.I.C) 2/4/44 on 13/1/2001 and after review of the technical report the commission recommend the following:
1. Consider it a work that reach level of Invention Works because it replace the need that occur to the Russian equipment that has an expired efficiency and that exist in the storages of the Chemical Class, and it is a PROHIBITED EQUIPMENT where the price of the effective material in it can reach 51,000 Dollars.

Nerve gas detectors normally have a defensive use, as Shahda notes in his introduction. However, the reason the UN banned Iraq from possessing this equipment is for its offensive uses. Units that deploy nerve gas have to ensure that it doesn’t blow back at their own troops. Any army that manufactured, stored, or transported such material would have to deploy these detectors in order to ensure that their own soldiers did not get exposed to the poison. Banning them from Iraq should have kept them from protecting themselves from their own WMD — and his clandestine desire to acquire them is a practical demonstration of his ambitions.
One has to wonder again why the American intelligence agencies that had these documents in their possession for so long never made the effort to investigate them. Perhaps the revelations coming from the work of Joseph Shahda will finally convince them to put more resources to the task.

Sun Still Setting In The West

It appears that the nationwide strike by illegal immigrants and their supporters caused some headaches but little immediate economic impact, as outside of Denver, Chicago, and Los Angeles most demonstrations attracted significantly fewer numbers than earlier rallies. Despite numbering in the tens of millions, the demonstrations only mustered a few hundred thousand opponents to the get-tough approach taken by the House, forcing local employers to shut down but hardly causing a blip in the routine for most Americans:

Police estimated 400,000 people marched through Chicago’s business district and tens of thousands more rallied in New York and Los Angeles, where police stopped giving estimates at 60,000 as the crowd kept growing.
An estimated 75,000 rallied in Denver, more than 15,000 in Houston and 30,000 more across Florida. Smaller rallies in cities from Pennsylvania and Connecticut to Arizona and South Dakota attracted hundreds not thousands.
In Los Angeles, protesters wearing white and waving U.S. flags sang the national anthem in English as traditional Mexican dancers wove through the crowd. In Chicago, illegal immigrants from Ireland and Poland marched alongside Hispanics as office workers on lunch breaks clapped. In Phoenix, protesters formed a human chain in front of Wal-Mart and Home Depot stores. A protest in Tijuana, Mexico blocked vehicle traffic heading to San Diego at the world’s busiest border crossing.

So far it appears that Chicago outdrew Los Angeles, where the protests closed down about a third of the small businesses in the area, according to the AP. However, in a story that will likely have immigration hardliners talking for days, the AP reports that twenty-five percent of the children in the Los Angeles School District failed to attend classes today. After all, LAUSD’s annual budget for its 746,000 students is over $13 billion, or about $17,000 per student. If the walkout caused 25% of the students to strike, that puts the annual educational cost for illegal immigrants at around $3.25 billion — just for Los Angeles.
You can bet that a lot of people will do precisely these kinds of calculations nationwide. How many students walked out in Chicago? In Houston? In Denver? One of the reasons why illegal immigrants existed in the shadows was to avoid this kind of exposure, but that’s no longer operative. Now that they have decided to make this kind of statement, the true costs of their residency will start coming into focus, as well as their production.
Not that the sacrifice will mean anything to the cause. One-day boycotts and walkouts rarely have any real economic impact, for one good reason: people will still return to shop tomorrow. The restaurants that closed yesterday may have the hardest time with a one-day strike as so much of their business depends on whim, but the groceries, clothing stores, and gas stations will recover with little ill effect. People will buy clothes, food, and gasoline when needed, and skipping a day will do almost nothing to overall production.
The political damage, however, may be quite extensive. The administration has attempted to quietly push a liberal reform package through Congress that delivers most of what the demonstrators demand. However, the spectacle of illegal immigrants demanding that Americans capitulate to their agenda only strengthens the opponents to the administration’s approach. Time Magazine explains:

Congressional strategists in both parties say the boycotts and work stoppages across the country Monday are likely to hurt chances of persuading conservative lawmakers to go along with an immigration bill this year. Key aides still hold out hope for sending one to President Bush’s desk before midterm elections, but were shaking their heads as they watched television coverage of small businesses that had to shut down and suburban work sites that were empty because of a national demonstration that proponents call a “Day Without Immigrants.”
The size of the pro-immigrant marches that swept the country earlier this spring — fueled primarily by Spanish-language radio stations, Catholic organizers and liberal activists — stunned lawmakers and caused several Senators who had been on the sidelines to begin working for some compromise that would both tighten borders and give some hope for illegal workers who are already in the United States. But a quick survey of Capitol Hill Monday showed that the new round of events, coordinated by unions and civil-rights groups on behalf of illegal immigrants, may be counterproductive.

The demonstrations actually created a rare point of agreement among legislators from both parties: the boycott made it harder to argue against tougher enforcement of immigration laws. Americans don’t particularly care for uninvited guests to dictate how the nation should define its borders, as Rassmussen notes; a majority of respondents disapprove of immigration protestors and over two-thirds oppose full amnesty, one of the key demands. When the public notes that the sun still set in the West after the boycott and rises in the east tomorrow, they will find these demonstrations even less persuasive.
Hot Air has ongoing field reports here.
UPDATE: For those disputing the notion that 25% of the students could be illegals, it’s worth noting that Hispanics comprise 72% of the district’s students. Also, the entire idea of the walkout was to demonstrate the impact and extent of illegal immigrants in our midst — and you can be sure that the boycott’s organizers will be heralding that number as proof of that impact. According to LAUSD guidelines, any absenteeism over 10% in a single day represents a mass absence that requires a special report to the Pupil Statistics Office. In 2004, the LAUSD found absenteeism such an issue that it required a special initiative to correct. The average absenteeism for that year was as follows:
Elementary Schools 95.33% attendance; 4.67% absent
Middle School 93.50% attendance; 6.5% absent
High School 89.93% attendance; 10.07% absent
That averages somewhere around 7% absenteeism, making today’s figures more than three times that total. Even if the 7% normal figure would have no children of illegals, that makes 18% of the district illegals — and those were just the ones who walked out. Eighteen percent of $13.4 billion still amounts to $2.4 billion, every year, and just in the LAUSD.

Another Reason To Thank Canada

One point I missed in my review of United 93 yesterday is one of the lesser-known complications of our actions in grounding air traffic on 9/11. In the movie as in real life, FAA operations manager makes the decision to ground all aircraft immediately, ordering every plane in American airspace to land at the nearest airport. Despite the fact that it will cost the airline industry billions (and later created a large federal bailout package), Sliney knows it’s the right action to take, and every plane in America was on the ground by 12:06 PM on 9/11.
One of the consequences of closing American airspace was the denial of landing rights to all inbound international flights. Sliney’s decision made it necessary for those flights to return home, or if that could not be safely done, then to find somewhere else to land besides the US. Sliney had no idea if terrorists had more attacks coming from foreign airliners, and his decision was undoubtedly correct, despite the potential risk for the inbound flights.
Guess where a number of those flights went? Canada granted permission for these inbound flights to land despite watching the terrorist attack on the United States. It’s not a widely-discussed part of the 9/11 story, but Canada took the risk of bringing those flights into their country without knowing whether the terrorists might strike at their nation as well. No one knew what other operations the terrorists had planned for that day; some could have decided to strike airports when planes taxied to their gates.
The Canadian action took courage and selflessness and it probably saved lives. It’s just another reason to be grateful for our northern neighbors despite our occasional political differences.
One more thought: After Sliney gave the order, all of the flights complied with the grounding. It’s not hard to imagine what would have happened to a flight that refused to do so. The movie doesn’t address it, but one has to suspect that the Air Force would have shot down any plane that tried to stay up.

When Gas Meets Hot Air

We can now file the $100 gasoline rebate idea into the political remainder bin, as no one appears to want to buy this pandering as policy. While the Democrats have been careful not to directly oppose it — they claim that it could form part of an overall response to high energy prices — the GOP’s base has busied itself ridiculing it, and rightly so:

The Senate Republican plan to mail $100 checks to voters to ease the burden of high gasoline prices is eliciting more scorn than gratitude from the very people it was intended to help.
Aides for several Republican senators reported a surge of calls and e-mail messages from constituents ridiculing the rebate as a paltry and transparent effort to pander to voters before the midterm elections in November.
“The conservatives think it is socialist bunk, and the liberals think it is conservative trickery,” said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, pointing out that the criticism was coming from across the ideological spectrum.
Angry constituents have asked, “Do you think we are prostitutes? Do you think you can buy us?” said another Republican senator’s aide, who was granted anonymity to openly discuss the feedback because the senator had supported the plan.

Heavens, no — if they thought we were prostitutes, they’d give us a lot more than $100, and at least the screwing would be honest. Just ask Randy “Duke” Cunningham.
This mess should never have made it off the desk of the political consultants who dreamed it up. The government does not indemnify consumers from normal variations in a commodities market, even when its own policies help to make the situation worse. Giving away $100 rebates only papers over the problem.
Even the structure of it made no sense. The government planned on basing its formula from income tax records, but consumers don’t pay for their gas through federal taxes, although we buy a lot of hot air that way. The rebates would not have applied for the lowest-income people, who have been hardest hit by high energy prices. While tax cuts rightly benefit those who pay income tax in the first place, everyone pays gasoline taxes, and everyone therefore should have been eligible for this rebate.
Brit Hume called this proposal “silly”. Rush Limbaugh demanded that lawmakers solve the problem instead of buying voters on the cheap. Trent Lott and Lisa Murkowski both appeared yesterday on television, denigrating the proposed rebate.
So who supports it? Bill Frist. And joining Frist is Senator Debbie Stabenow, who wants to up the payment to $500 while opposing one of the solutions to the problem: ANWR drilling.
This is one of the rare moments when the electorate shows maturity and insight. This rebate notion needs to get buried in committee, never to see the light of day. If Congress wants an equitable way to return cash to the pockets of consumers, suspend the federal tax on gasoline for a few weeks. That way it goes directly to the people who consume the product across all economic strata. They can use that time to create a rational process for increased production of domestic energy, including more drilling and more refineries, as well as expedited research into alternative energy production. Instead of buying us off, they can earn their pay.

Sino-Saudi Economic Ties Strengthening

An editorial by a Saudi economics professor in today’s Arab News points out the growing ties between the oil-rich Middle Eastern nation and the growing economic behemoth of the East, mainland China. Dr. Mohamed Ramady argues that while enetrgy will provide the Saudi entree to Beijing, the potential for Sino-Saudi relations goes much farther (via Newsbeat1):

Between the pomp and ceremony of state visits and senior level meetings of Saudi and Chinese officials, there is indeed much to be pleased about concerning the blossoming relations between the world’s major oil producer, Saudi Arabia, and the emerging manufacturing superpower, China. It is no coincidence that President Hu Jintao of China came to Saudi Arabia straight after his state visit to the US in late April. The earlier state visit to China by Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah had already set the stage for an emerging economic bond between the two nations.
Oil and energy issues have moved to the top of China’s agenda as it seeks to assert its role as a full great economic power, and assure itself of reliable energy partners to feed its unmatched economic growth.
But it is not on the energy front alone that Saudi-Sino relations are being built. During President Hu’s visit, a number of accords were signed in security, defense, health, trade and youth matters. There were discussions about establishing a Chinese strategic oil reserve in southeast China with Saudi supplies, which again makes eminent sense given the possibility of a breakdown of Iranian oil supplies to China. In other major developments, Saudi Aramco and Sinopec, China’s top refiner and petrochemical producer, signed memorandums of understanding to increase trade cooperation as well as reviewing Sinopec’s gas exploration activities in the Saudi Al-Rub Al-Khali (Empty Quarter). At the same time, Saudi Basic Industries Cop. (SABIC) discussed with their Chinese counterparts plans to establish a $9.3 billion refinery and petrochemical project in northeastern China. It is now obvious to the major petrochemical players of the world that, with both Saudi Arabia and China having acceded to the WTO, the only viable competitive route open to multinational companies is to enter Saudi Arabia as a major petrochemical producer. In this way they can ensure competitive supplies to their domestic markets, as well as feed China’s growing petrochemical needs from their Saudi Arabia operations.
However, it is the increasing economic and investment ties at the private sector level that is gathering pace between the two countries. The private sectors of Saudi Arabia and China have come of age. The Chinese, while operating under a benign centralized economy, to all intents and purposes are working on a free market basis. In mid-April, the Chinese government has started the legal process of establishing the conditions for private oil companies to engage in oil exploration, which until now has been monopolized by the three giant state owned companies — PetroChina Co. Ltd., the offshore oil producer CNOOC Ltd. and Sinopec. The Saudi private sector has now matured well enough to be able to source strategic investment partners of choice away from more traditional trading partners in the Western world. The opening up of such strategic sectors of the Chinese economy should provide opportunities for Saudi private sector companies to establish advanced technology, primarily offshore, oil exploration joint venture companies.

Ideally, this would work to the benefit of both nations and to the promotion of free enterprise. The cash-rich Saudis can invest some of their money away from their own oil fields and into Chinese operations. The Chinese can move farther down the path of free enterprise and away from central planning and control, allowing more of their citizens to create wealth and put pressure on Beijing for more economic and property rights. That could move China towards greater freedom, although it would take decades for that kind of evolutionary change to occur. The Saudi investments could help China find more of its own oil, putting less pressure on world markets — and perhaps make China’s reliance on Iran less of a problem.
The Saudi business contacts will not restrict themselves to oil, according to Ramady. He states that Saudi Arabia has untapped wealth in mining, an economic potential probably overlooked due to their focus on pumping oil. The Saudis hope to eventually garner Chinese interest in their mineral production. This would give the Saudis a fallback position if the West succeeds in either developing practical alternative energy production or start drilling their own oil, especially the US.
The Eastern turn of Saudi Arabia warrants cautious oversight, however. Saudi Arabia is still a nation built on radical Islam, and although its ruling class has been until now pro-Western, that appears to be changing. The Saudis may prefer to do business with the non-judgmental (to put it mildly) Chinese, who appear to have no problem funding genocidists in Southwest Asia and Africa. We need to ensure that these new economic ties do not encourage the Saudis to fling off the West and adopt the querolous tones of the Iranian mullahcracy.
UPDATE: Not everyone likes the “emerging Asian dragon”:

Militants in Nigeria’s volatile oil-producing region detonated a car bomb late Saturday and issued a warning that investors and officials from China would be “treated as thieves” and targeted in future attacks.
The threat came as Chinese President Hu Jintao returned home from a week-long tour of Africa in which he reached a series of deals securing access to oil and other resources to meet the needs of China’s booming economy. On Wednesday, Hu and Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo signed several major business deals, including one that offers China four oil exploration licenses, the Associated Press reported. …
In a second e-mail, the spokesman, who uses the pseudonym Jomo Gbomo, specifically criticized the Chinese, who last year took a $2.2 billion stake in an oil field in the Niger Delta. Nigeria is a major oil exporter and the fifth-largest supplier of oil to the United States.

Welcome to the free market. Lunatics, unfortunately, come with the territory.

How Big Will The Walkout Get?

Today’s planned boycott and walkout on behalf of illegal immigrants garnered plenty of press in the past week, but some question just how many will actually risk exposure and the loss of their jobs. The Washington Post notes the divisions within the ranks of immigration activists and their trepidation at the bedfellows that have hitched a ride on this issue:

Some local activists predicted that thousands of Washington area immigrants would participate in a national economic boycott today, but immigrant groups who have spoken out against the boycott said they fear that the immigration reform movement is being commandeered to promote political causes beyond immigration.
The public tug of war, which continued in the Washington area yesterday on Spanish-language radio, could result in more limited participation in the region than is expected in Dallas and Los Angeles, where the organizers of last month’s massive protests have been more unified in support of today’s boycott, which asks immigrants to refrain from buying goods and to stay home from work and school. …
The discord, Contreras said, is not over whether boycotting is a valid tactic. But with Congress just back from a recess after a contentious debate on the subject — and with a recent CNN poll showing that 77 percent of Americans favor allowing some illegal immigrants to apply for citizenship — he said most local activists feel it is best to wait to see how Congress reacts.
Some local Latino leaders said they worry about being associated with a Los Angeles-based group, Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER), that has been active in promotion of the boycott. They said they fear that the group’s broad-based opposition to Bush administration policies could hinder attempts to win allies for immigration reform on Capitol Hill.

The unabashed Stalinsts at ANSWER create a huge problem for the immigration-reform activists. The impression given by ANSWER’s inclusion is that the issue has become a Trojan horse for eliminating national sovereignty and the promotion of communism, much as their anti-war protests became. The last thing that the more reputable immigration groups need is another march on national TV with thousands of Che Guevara T-shirts in the fore.
The scheduling of the boycott also plays into this. It probably would have made more sense to protest on Friday, which is already a big cultural holiday in the American Southwest and a national holiday in Mexico: Cinco de Mayo. In fact, many of those protesting probably already made arrangements for celebrations and time off from work. Conducting a walkout would have not only been easier, but it would not have required the additional work break that this boycott now demands of them. However, May 1 hold special significance as a socialist holiday, which is why ANSWER selected it for this walkout.
The groups that had sponsored earlier demonstrations have their reservations about associating with the Socialists. As the Post notes, a number of the people involved have bad experiences with communists in Central America and came to the US to avoid them. Others do not want their cause confused with the radical-left agenda that ANSWER promotes. As a result, only one of the 47 organizations that backed earlier immigration demonstrations has officially endorsed the May Day Boycott. Not surprisingly, Mexicans Without Borders supports many of the same leftist agenda items as ANSWER — anti-war, opposed to national sovereignty, and anti-globalization.
Speaking of which, has anyone ever asked these dolts how they can oppose national sovereignty in the same breath as globalization?
This internal conflict will probably result in smaller turnouts than predicted, although the walkout will probably get some traction in Los Angeles, Phoenix, Dallas, and other major cities of the Southwest. The demonstrations will probably consist of those who could not work today anyway. Most of the rest will probably remain on the job, afraid of losing their economic lifeline and of getting discovered as illegals by their employers or the INS. Expect the media to magnify the crowd numbers, however.
If the walkout gets as big as ANSWER wants, they should be prepared for the backlash in Congress. This is one demonstration that has a large capacity for unintended consquences.