Political Spaghetti

A brilliant piece of "journalism" from Grant Swank of the Post Chronicle. Quote (emphasis mine):

While various denominations spread AIDS/HIV with the homosexual push, Christ as personal Lord and Sanctifier is preached and held to in Africa. No wonder then that the African Anglicans protest the Anglican Communion worldwide in the latter's defense of homosexual activity. With the archbishop [sic] of Canterbury waffling in his understanding of Christian ethics regarding homosexual practice, believers by the thousands leave his Communion for the scripturally sound churches.

...The Holy Spirit moves where He is welcomed. ... The Holy Spirit then has been informed to leave those segments for the predominance of mortal-made religion in the name of the "Christian Church".

However, in Africa, the Holy Spirit is beseeched to defeat the unclean spirits and to ward off the apostasy so prevalent in theologically liberal churches elsewhere. The Holy Spirit then visits the imploring souls with His forgiveness and cleansing for a life of practical holiness.

Mr Swank, I want an interview with the Holy Spirit! Does He have a booker?

I didn't read the book, but I've seen the movie. To quote Anthony Lane of the New Yorker:

As far as I am qualified to judge, the film remains unswervingly loyal to the book, displaying an obedience that Silas [the albino Spanish monk devoted to Opus Dei-inspired self-flagellism] could not hope to match. I welcome this fidelity, because it allows us to propose a syllogism. The movie is baloney; the movie is an accurate representation of the book; therefore, the book is also baloney, although it takes even longer to consume.

What interests me far more than the literary merits of "The Da Vinci Code" is the response of church officials to the bouts of self-doubt and confusion that the book and movie have inspired. After seeing the movie with my wife and mother-in-law over the weekend, our conversation quickly turned to the 500-lb elephant in the room: is the Church afraid that the movie will infuse confusion into its followers' faith, leading them toward unorthodox theology; or that the movie will cause them to think critically about the means by which the gospel narrative was constructed?

In my view, arguments over whether the "dark con of man" portrayed in "The Da Vinci Code" deserves attention are beside the point. At issue is the historical foundations of the Church "orthodoxy." In my experience, the apologists for orthodoxy (and I'm talking about the general sort of "orthodoxy" practiced by church leaders as diverse as Pope Benedict XVI and Rick Warren) have been unsuccessful in convincing skeptics that the Bible constructed by the church fathers is anything more than Whig history. That's the problem: believing the Bible to be a text written by divine inspiration requires an a priori position in faith, doesn't it?

This circularity -- so plain to those outside Christianity -- is obscured by belief and faith to those within. My guess is that the Church is less concerned about a wave of "Grail cults" than it is of parishioners wondering if the account of the Grail as depicted in "The Da Vinci Code" is no less absurd than the biblical account itself. The movie (and I suppose the book) helps people to break the "circularity". If "The Da Vinci Code" depicts fictional events surrounding the life of Jesus, who's to say that the Gospels don't, either. Most people I know are unable to make the necessary distinctions.

They resort to authority.

Is it the novelty of the internet, or the unshackling of decades of repressed sexual desires?

I don't know, but "sex" is one of the most frequent words used in Google searches among Africans [emphasis mine]:

When it comes to using the Internet to look for sex, North Africans in particular seem to have found a new outlet for societal taboos. The sex search on Google is topped by Pakistan, but closely followed by Egypt. Moroccans even reach the top-ten list both in English (6th on "sex") and in French (2nd on "sexe"). Algerians top the search for "sexe", showing twice as much interest as the French and Tunisians. A quick look inside the booming cybercafés in North Africa confirms this obsession.

On a regional outlook, Mauritanians, Malians and Nigerians are the most sex-searching West Africans, followed by the Senegalese, while Ivorians and Gabonese already have found other uses for the Internet. In Southern Africa, Zambians and Malawians are searching twice as much for sex as Angolans and Mozambicans. Tanzanians however are even more interested in finding sex on the Internet, while Ethiopians and Somalis demonstrate a true obsession.

Even homosexuality, which is illegal in most Muslim and African countries, spurs much interest in Muslim Africa. While the search word "gay" is dominated by Latin Americans, it is mainly Filipinos and Saudi Arabians looking for "gay sex". The African "gay sex" list is topped by Kenyans, Tanzanians, Namibians, Zimbabweans and South Africans. In the francophone world, however, Algerians and Moroccans by far top the world's search for "la homosexualité". Algerians also by distance top the search for the "sexe gay", with the French and the Moroccans being somewhat more timid on the issue.

You can run, but you can't hide!

... try a dictator. Or, at least, that's my concern. According to Reuters:

Only about a quarter of Nigerians were satisfied with the way democracy works in Nigeria. This represents a significant decline from the level recorded in 2001 (57 percent) and 2003 (35 percent).

... I probably won't post again until Monday.

The Nigerian presidential elections, now set for April of 2007, will in all likelihood not include the current President Olusegun Obasanjo among the candidates.

But what will the race look like? Who's against whom, and what are their concerns? It's hard for an Oyinbo like me to make sense of it all.

I do know a few things. Most Nigerians seem to think the presidency should in fact rotate among the many different ethnic groups that comprise the Nigerian populace. Obasanjo is a Yoruba from the southwest. Therefore it is unlikely that another Yoruba will succeed Obasanjo. Sanni Abacha, the ruthless dictator that preceded Obasanjo came from the muslim North. The North feels that it is their turn again. But so does the South-South (or part of Nigeria immediately surrounding the oil-rich Delta region). The South-South has been $#@t upon for decades and most would say they're due. The predominantly ethnic Igbo of the Nigerian South-East is unlikely to gain the presidency, if only because of long-standing grievances among Northerners over the Biafran civil war (1960s) fought over whether the South-West should secede from Nigeria. Incidentally, it was a young, and soon to be very popular, Colonel Olusegun Obasanjo who accepted the surrender of the Biafrans in 1969(?).

Nigerians -- not unexpectedly -- do a much better job of describing the political landscape than I. From a very helpful article at Naijacommunity.net by Reuben Abati:

But where do we stand in relation to this as Nigerians, as ordinary Nigerians who are not looking for power on an ethnic basis but who are just interested in being citizens of a country that works? It is not difficult to know what ordinary Nigerians want. They want a country that is properly managed. They want a country where the human being can feel a sense of humanity. They want leaders who are motivated by a sense of the common good and an interest in history. They want a united country where a Yoruba man can woo a pretty Ijaw woman and not feel that he is doing something strange. They want to live like the people of London and New York where even the poorest of the poor do not have to worry about those details that give ordinary Nigerians the greatest anxiety. They want to live like human beings, and this includes those rude Nigerians who abuse others on the internet with their terrible, ill-mannered prose. Ordinarily, it should not matter where a leader comes from as long as he is a leader, but nations are not the same and societies must manage their own circumstances.

If you want to understand the upcoming struggle for the control of Nigeria's vast resources, and what it would mean for the average Joe and Jane, read it all.

This is an issue that deserves far greater attention. Not that there's much that we in the West can do about it at this point. But how we perceive the internal struggles in Nigeria will inform how we react to crises in the Niger Delta. For instance, if the North wins the presidency and continues to ignore South-South demands for social, political and environmental justice, the resulting violence in the Delta and drop in oil production could lead the West to either push Nigeria to pay heed to the demands of residents in the Delta, or perhaps send in the Navy, which is already stationed in Gulf of Guinea. Never underestimate the political power of an oil-crisis-induced bout of inflation.

We'll see. For now, start boning up.

Andrew Goddard, tutor in ethics at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, has published a warm embrace of the political middle on homosexuality in the Anglican Communion without sacrificing his moral position that homosexuality is a sin.

I think you'll be heartened to see how some in this now very muddled Christian denomination are working toward a middle that can simultaneously embrace both moral principles and a commitment to civil society.

However, it's necessary to make an important correction to his article. Goddard writes:

Some of the criticism of the Nigerian church's support for recently proposed state legislation is unfounded because there is no human right to same-sex marriage.

As I wrote in the comments section of this titus one nine post:

A careful read of the legislation (pdf) shows that it would ban more than gay marriage -- it would also ban constitutionally protected speech, press, assembly, and freedom of religion. The legislation goes beyond denying recognition of gay marriages to banning private ceremonies. Worse, it bans advocacy of gay marriage, or a defense of homosexuality, and it levies a punishment of 5 years' imprisonment.

Some within the Anglican Communion, such as Changing Attitude, might condemn the Church of Nigeria for endorsing a ban on gay marriage.

But the US State Department, nearly 20 human rights organizations, and 60 members of the EU Parliament have not criticized the ban on gay marriage, but the ban on far more basic civil rights: speech, press, assembly, and religion.

No one should be denied their right to speak out against what they perceive to be an injustice. About homosexuality, gay and lesbian Nigerians may be wrong or they may be right, but by its endorsement the Church of Nigeria has come dangerously close to letting ministry turn to persecution.

It seems to me that even the most even-handed, well-meaning conservative Anglicans still don't know what's in the Nigerian legislation. But thanks, Andrew, for advancing the argument in a very civil direction.

Cardinal Anthony Olubunmi Okogie, the Archbishop of Lagos, Nigeria, made this clear statement on the importance of integrity in a democracy:

Bishop Okogie, who spoke at the Holy Cross Cathedral during the inauguration of the Catholic Social Forum, said since the PDP wanted to elongate President Obasanjo’s tenure by supporting the third term agenda, the party had no moral right to present another candidate.

Okogie, who was represented by Revd Fr. Olaitan Julius said: "PDP believes that only President Obasanjo has the solutions to problems facing Nigeria. They should go and rest after Obasanjo’s tenure. Yes, those who want the present administration to stay longer in office should not bring forward anybody for election next year. A party like PDP should not present any candidate for election next year."

Yet he said this in early March:

You heard that a group of them (gays and lesbians) actually came out to flaunt their homosexuality and lesbian behaviours and are asking for official recognition [he refers to Davis MacIyalla's Changing Attitude Nigeria]. That cannot happen in Nigeria. Of course, it cannot happen in the Catholic Church. It’s an abomination. It cannot happen in this part of the world. No, it cannot happen.

I thank God that the secular society did not leave the matter in the hands of the church. It acted appropriately and the church knows what to do now. I am hopeful that as stipulated, the government gets serious with it because we know that in some parts, homosexuals exist. It has to stop.

Add Okogie to this long list of religious leaders who think democracy is important only when it serves their own interests. Apparently, imprisoning homosexuals is a great way to minister to their needs. Surely, other forms of excrutiation are more efficient? Maybe waterboarding?

(For the record, the legislation Okogie refers to is the "gay marriage ban" that would also imprison gay and lesbian Nigerians, or any other individual for that matter, who speaks out, assembles, or uses the press to advocate or defend homosexuality.)

Cardinal Okogie was discussed as a potential successor to Pope John Paul II, though Cardinal Arinze (also Nigerian) was seen as a more likely should the conclave have chosen an African.

It's a little scary -- in the wake of the failed 3rd-term campaign -- to see Nigerian generals organize as a political force prior to the 2007 elections. According to the Nigerian Tribune:

It was learnt that General [Ibrahim] Babangida [or IBB] was not only re-connecting his political machine with the presidency’s, but was also working to reunite the military wing of the political class which worked against the presidency on the constitutional amendment.

General Babangida is reported to have contacted General Theophilus Danjuma, General Abdulsalami Abubakar and other leading Generals on the need to close ranks so as to have a united front on who succeeds President Obasanjo.

Nigerian Tribune learnt that he had also reached out to ex-generals in government on the need to speed up reconciliation within the military establishment so as to control the direction of succession politics ahead of 2007.

But presidential supporters won't have it:

Further investigations showed that [IBB's] overtures were getting a cold reception from many loyalists of the president who believed it was General Babangida rather than Vice-President Atiku Abubakar who stopped the third term bid.

By confirming the split within the military establishment, Babangida was accused of emboldening the anti-third group, a situation the presidential loyalists saw as aiding the Senate rejection of the bill.

And in what has to be the least cautious language I've ever seen, a presidential aide said [emphasis mine], "no amount of such overtures can change the fact that IBB worked against us. So, what are these overtures about? ... If he wants the president to support him, he should just forget it. I think that game is up."

"Worked against us," huh? So members of the president's staff felt that the third-term campaign was "theirs"? I thought the president had taken no position.

(image from Biafra Nigeria World here)

Planned Parenthood has an interesting article on Dorothy Aken'Ova's work to provide comprehensive sex education to women in Northern Nigeria. The prevailing wisdom among Nigerian political and religious leaders is that such an effort is either a sacrilege or a waste of time:

The adult sex education courses at the community level — especially in rural areas — have been one of INCRESE's [International Centre for Reproductive Health and Sexual Rights] success stories. "There's an assumption that in the traditional north of Nigeria, people won't tolerate discussions about sex," Aken'Ova told the BBC in 2005. "But we found the community very open and willing to talk about many issues of sexuality, including sexual intercourse." Indeed, Aken'Ova finds that the rural communities deeply appreciate the knowledge she brings to discussions about sex and sexuality. "[The program] is making a difference in their daily living," she says.

Now, before you get too shocked, consider that the best way to reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, to improve the lives of women, and to keep a lid on population growth is to provide women with comprehensive sex education. Aken'Ova shows that this can be done, even in the "no man's land" of the traditional Muslim North.

[updated below]

Speaking of their president, the Obasanjo Solidarity Forum (OSF) called on the Nigerian Federal Assembly to return the money they were given to develop reforms to the Nigerian constitution. Those who have followed this blog know that the principle constitutional reform, that of allowing Obasanjo to run for a third-term, went down in flames just last week.

Ostensibly, the OSF's complaint is that anti-third-term forces in the Assembly had thrown out other important constitutional revisions along with the bathwater.

They had these elevated words for their leader (stop drinking your coffee, now!) [emphasis mine]:

In a cool, calculating and leisurely manner, Mr. President accepted the verdict of democracy as symbolised by what happened in the National Assembly. Once again, we of OSF have been proved right, that Chief Olusegun Obasanjo still remains the elder statesman he is reputed to be, more visionary than Mandela, greater than Clinton and more pacific than Bush.

Totally agreed, of course.

But I'm not so sure that Mr. President General Olusegun Obasanjo would be so "pacific" if he had a $400 billion a year defense budget, and special appropriations on the order of $9 billion a month for an overseas war.

UPDATE: From Tom Ashby at Reuters:

Obasanjo, a 69-year-old former military ruler, said last week he accepted the National Assembly's rejection of his tenure extension. He told the ruling People's Democratic Party (PDP) to heal the wounds of the divisive "third term campaign" and prepare for the 2007 polls.

But some lawmakers fear that the retired general might launch an offensive against those responsible for the defeat or even try to hold onto power by wrecking the elections.

"If there is any victimisation of people because they were against the third term, or if he refuses to fund the electoral authority, or if people feel the president wants to abort the process, impeachment proceedings will start straight away," said a senior PDP lawmaker, adding that a long list of charges had already been prepared.

"Visionary" or not, Obasanjo is still considered a serious threat to democracy in Nigeria. You might say, hey, these are just opposition lawmakers talking. But this "senior lawmaker" is not from an opposition party -- he's from Obasanjo's own PDP. Ashby goes on:

With the third term now ruled out, power is draining away from Obasanjo and many party members are calling for the removal of the party chairman. The 36 state governors, who fund and control the party machinery, have re-emerged as key players.

His party is in disarray, and he is being threatened with impeachment should he attempt what Nigerians routinely call "shenanigans."

I'm wondering -- will we see the reintroduction Obasanjo's super-repressive gay marriage bill (pdf)? Or perhaps it's already dead? The disapperance of that bill would get a lot of people (i.e., the Anglican Church of Nigeria, its primate Archbishop Peter Akinola, and his high-profile conservative western supporters) off the hook.

Gore's too hot too handle (even Andrew Sullivan is giving him more than the typical snark he reserves for the former veep), and HR Clinton is working hard to get a slice of the climate change pie.

Hillary picked the day before the release of Gore's "An Inconventient Truth" to make her first major policy address on climate change.

According to ABC News:

Gore's documentary, which rolls out across the country this week, is a movie that he said is meant as a wake-up call for Americans to become more energy efficient.

But, according to some political analysts, it also seems to have been a wake-up call for Clinton to get on the global warming bandwagon.

Two rather obvious observations. The HR Clinton fund-raising machine has revealed itself to be an utterly ungifted and plastic enterprise, so completely afraid of saying the wrong thing that it no longer says anything at all. If she weren't a woman, I would feel perfectly comfortable calling her a political whore. (For reference, former California governor Pete Wilson was the first politician I ever called a "political whore.")

Second, the response of plasto-politicians like HR Clinton shows just how powerful the "global warming bandwagon" has actually become. Sharon Begley, at the Wall Street Journal, wrote a short and compelling piece on how difficult it not is to remain a global warming nattering nabob. Yesterday's NYT op-ed by Gregg Easterbrook, a long-time global warming skeptic now convert, adds fuel to that fire. And no one seems to be able to poke serious holes in Gore's argument. RealClimate.org does the dirty work, comes up with a few trivial errors in the film, but not much else to complain about.

So the timing of Hillary's decision to give an "address" on climate change says two things. First, she's not worth anyone's vote for President, and second, the debate over global warming is over.

Now, if only The Competitive Enterprise Institute and their corporate sponsors would see the light.

(cartoon RJ Matson, 5/24 issue of Roll Call)

[update below]

I wasn't aware that Nigerian courts had ordered Royal Dutch Shell to compensate ethnic Ijaws in the Niger Delta, but they had. And Monday, Shell deliberately missed their deadline, choosing instead to withhold payment pending review by an appellate court.

The court had ordered Shell to pay $1.5 billion in compensation for "alleged environmental pollution." To the uninitiated reader, the word "alleged" used by the author of the BusinessWeek piece, is used only to keep Shell from writing an angry letter. The damage that has been done by Shell and other oil companies in full partnership with the Nigerian government whose revenues depend very strongly on mineral extraction, is monstrous and very, very real.

What's interesting about Shell's decision to withhold payment is that the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), whose violence and kidnappings are what led to a 20-25% reduction in Nigerian oil production since January of this year, is composed primarily of ethnic Ijaws. And, of course, MEND has responded to the missed payment with a pledge to step up attacks. The BBC reports that MEND is forming a coalition with three other militant groups to increase pressure on Shell. These groups include the Niger Delta People's Volunteer Force (NDPVF), the Coalition for Militant Action in the Niger Delta (COMA), and the Martyrs Brigade. According to GlobalSecurity.org, the Niger Delta People's Volunteer Force is led by Moujahid Dokubo-Asari (about whom I have written previously), who is now held by Nigerian authorities on charges of treason. COMA took responsibility, with MEND, for the April 19 explosion near an army barracks in which approximately ten died.

So, having promised at their most recent stockholders' meeting that compensation to aggrieved Niger Delta peoples for "alleged" environmental damage was their first priority, knowing full well that militant attacks would continue if they didn't offer serious compensation, having requested that the Nigerian court permit them to postpone their payment, having that request denied on Friday, and having planned to withhold payment anyway, Royal Dutch Shell sets up a situation in which they know their oil production capacity in the Niger Delta will continue to be in serious jeopardy.

So what on Earth is their incentive to miss the payment?

One very shady answer to that question should be considered. Crude oil prices are now high for three reasons: the inability of OPEC nations to generate excess production capacity, our invasion and occupation of Iraq, and political and social instability in historically peripheral oil producing nations, such as Nigeria and Venezuela.

This final factor -- instability -- has a non-linear effect. That is, as demand approaches current supply capacity, a small twitch in oil supply, say from militant attacks in the Delta, leads to a disproportionately large increase in the "risk premium" oil traders are willing to pay in the expectation that there could be a catastrophic drop in supply. As the definition of "catastrophic" narrows to ever smaller drops in supply, the "risk premium" begins to explode. The "risk premium," according to Conoco-Phillips CEO James Mulva, is currently around $20 per barrel (out of $72 at the end of Tuesday's trading).

Assuming demand is inelastic in the face of a change in price (hey, we need our oil, don't we?), then violence in the Delta will lead to an increase in crude prices that more than compensates for the drop in export capacity. Shell wins.

Earlier this month, I argued that high crude oil prices make the governments of consumer nations -- like the US or EU countries which have good reason to fear inflation -- more likely to want to smooth out social and political crises in places like Nigeria and Iran. I still think that's true -- but the oil companies have no such incentive. If a "crisis" can lead to exorbitantly high oil prices, then they sit pretty (I have yet to see an argument that oil companies have an incentive to keep oil prices at their historic lows). And if a government is led by former oil or oil services executives ... well, I guess to them nuclear saber-rattling with Iran seems like a really great idea.

By missing their payment, is Shell simply avoiding responsibility for environmental damage that is merely "alleged"? Or is Shell gaming the system?

UPDATE: John Robb at Global Guerrillas has an interesting take on Shell's decision to withhold payment. Indeed, his entire blog has a take on conflict that I have not yet been able to wrap my brain around -- it's worth checking out.

(Photo The New York Times)

From the Houston Chronicle:

Bentsen, however, could pull laurels even from the ashes, and he enhanced his standing as an astute politician in 1988 as the dogged Democratic vice-presidential running mate of Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis.

In the vice-presidential debate that year, Bentsen hammered Republican Sen. Dan Quayle, with an artful putdown that found its way into everyday speech.

When his younger opponent compared himself to President John F. Kennedy, Bentsen, his voice dripping with disdain, retorted: "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy."

More from the AP via the NYT.

[updated with Melanie Sloan's name spelled correctly]

Watch the right-wingnutosphere ignite -- the FBI's got their Democrat.

Never mind that he's the only congressional Democrat in either house under investigation by the FBI.

To their credit, Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government (CREW) -- the group that was way ahead of the curve in their calls for investigations into Tom Delay's misdeeds -- had already called for an investigation into Congressman William Jefferson's (D-La) possible bribe-taking.

Bad ethics must be stamped out, regardless of party affiliation.

Obasanjo claims the idea of his running for a third term as Nigerian president was not his. Sure, it wasn't.

[Disclaimer: I am a liberal.]

Sometimes liberals are idiots (a John Stuart Mill quote comes to mind). Today, liberal students at the New School University booed Senator John McCain as he gave their commencement address, unwittingly lending sympathy to a man who, by embracing Jerry Falwell, had his moderate credentials handed to him char-broiled and ready for eatin'.

Wake up, fellow travellers! To win an argument, first listen. From the NYT:

Some 1,200 students and faculty signed petitions asking the university president, former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, to rescind the invitation. Petitioners said McCain's support for the Iraq war and opposition to gay rights and legal abortion do not keep with the prevailing views on campus.

So what? He's an important figure -- like him or not, he not only has a right to speak his mind, but it is well within the character of a university to give multiple opinions a fair hearing.

I remember when GHWB gave a pre-commencement address at Stanford in 1994. Students booed, and I didn't get to hear what he had to say. Did I like Bush? Hell, no! Did I want to hear him? Yes. Stupid liberals.

Oh well.

(Image NYT)

Today, the founder of the Legion of Christ, Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, was disciplined by the Vatican for what Andrew Sullivan calls "a long and brutal history of sexual abuse and harassment of young seminarians in his care."

Sullivan goes on to call on Richard John Neuhaus, a long-time defender of Father Maciel, and member of the Institute on Religion and Democracy's (IRD) Board of Directors, to apologize for his "slander" against the journalists "who tried to unmask Maciel's crimes."

Although hardly comparable to Maciel, Archbishop Peter Akinola, who is also defended by the IRD, is nearly immune to attack because of the idolization he receives from within conservative Anglican circles and because the current threat of schism within the Anglican Communion makes the complaints of liberals too politically charged to be recognized -- even when Akinola endorses legislation that would put gay and lesbian Nigerians in jail over a theological disagreement.

Sometimes the truth is before us, and we just can't see.

In what is surely a critical step toward getting the Anglican Church of Nigeria to reconsider their support of the grotesque legislation before the Nigerian Federal Assembly, The Guardian's (UK) Peter Tatchell has started to turn the screws on the Church's titular head, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. Says Tatchell:

With the full blessing of the Anglican Church of Nigeria and its leader, Archbishop Peter Akinola, the Nigerian government has begun legislating one of the world's most repressive anti-gay laws.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, leader of the global Anglican communion, has declined to criticise this church-endorsed homophobic persecution. Instead he embraces Akinola and the Nigerian church, appeasing their prejudice in the name of Anglican unity.

For those of you out there who think that the "homophobia" Tatchell speaks of is simply the Nigerian Archbishop's desire to ban gay marriage, consider the following:

This [legislation] will criminalise gay organisations, gay churches, gay bars, gay blessings, gay safer sex education, gay newspapers, gay human rights advocacy and sympathetic advice and welfare support for vulnerable lesbians and gay men.

Newspaper, television, radio and internet discussions supportive of gay equality will become a criminal offence.

The catch-all nature of the new statute means, for example, that it will become a crime to attend a same-sex commitment ceremony, urge understanding and acceptance of lesbians and gays, impart information on HIV prevention to gay people or broadcast a radio interview with a gay person talking about his or her life.

Violations of the new legislation will be punished with an automatic five-year jail sentence.

We're waiting for Williams, and Archbishop Akinola's supporters in the US, to get some b@!!$ and recognize a civil rights tragedy when they see one.

Reuters has the full story. Summary and upshots:

1. As long as China and India continue to increase demand, we will be in a bull market.
2. (nonexistent) Spare capacity is to blame; look to stabilization in Iraq, Nigeria and Iran as the primary means of getting oil prices to settle down.
3. High gas prices in the US have led to a drop in demand (I actually consider this to be good news -- it's the first evidence yet that an American market will indeed respond to high prices at the pump).

Don't let last weeks "technical" sell-off fool you. The drop below $69 a barrel is temporary. Expect $100 per barrel in the not-too-distant future. Mark Mathias, chief executive of investment specialist Dawnay Day Quantum, says that "[t]he basic supply demand fundamentals point towards demand growing at a rate far in excess of supply growth." What he doesn't mention is that as spare capacity drops relative to demand, local political instability becomes an ever more important factor in the price of crude oil. So pay better attention to Nigeria, Condi! And stop saber-rattling in Iran! It only drives up crude oil prices, which feeds directly into Ahmedinejad's coffers.

I don't normally comment on the current political crisis within the Anglican Communion, but I have argued in the past that the threat of schism prevents conservative Anglicans from criticizing their favorite Nigerian Archbishop. So, any news about the form that such a schism might take or about when it might take place is of great interest to me.

The Telegraph (UK) reports today on Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan William's recommendation that the Anglican Communion be realigned along a two-track system:

The proposals, which have parallels with the idea of a two-speed European Union, could permit liberals from North America to push ahead with divisive reforms such as homosexual bishops without destroying the Church.

But they could also allow conservatives from Africa and Asia to form an influential inner core that would edge out the liberals from positions of power and reduce them to a second-class status.

... The idea will, however, be greeted with huge suspicion by liberals who will fear that it could be used to marginalise them and hand control to the conservative majority.

Conservatives, meanwhile, may see the plans as an attempt to buy their compliance at a time when they are demanding the expulsion of the liberal American Church for consecrating Anglicanism's first openly homosexual bishop.

To be honest, I don't understand this at all. Readers of TitusOneNine (hat tip) are equally perplexed.

My question is whether this will relieve enough of the pressure on conservatives to stay in lock step with Archbishop Akinola to allow them to criticize him for his endorsement of legislation that would put gay and lesbian Nigerians over a theological disagreement. I doubt it. But we'll see.

Rachel Zoll at the AP has written an interesting article on Episcopal Church blogs, their use, and their philosophical and ideological underpinnings.

Kendall Harmon's blog, TitusOneNine, is singled out. I have to admit, TitusOneNine is a great community forum. Kendall posts on just about everything, and one can get an excellent sense of what conservative Anglicans are thinking and why they're thinking it by checking out the comments on Kendall's posts.

Unfortunately, there's no forum with the same number of readers for the left. Not even close. While the AP piece singles out Jim Naughton's page, Blog of Daniel at the Episcopal Diocese of Washington's web site, most liberal religious opinion pertaining to the Episcopal Church is found outside purely Anglican circles, such as Political Cortex and Talk to Action. I look forward to the day that Blog of Danial matches TitusOneNine for readership.

But something Jim Naughton was quoted as saying in the AP article caught my attention:

The Internet and blogs do give megaphones to anonymous bigots, but they also allow you to organize more quickly and, in some instances, trade opinions across ideological lines.

I have to agree. I visit TitusOneNine frequently, and I sometimes post comments (such as the comments section in response to Zoll's article). The subsequent exchanges are almost always rewarding. Yet, I am often amazed at the commenters' lack of sensitivity to issues of civil liberties and the high level of suspiscion they have of those who criticize conservatives. There's definitely a spectrum, but I'm very happy that Kendall is willing to put in the effort to keep the site alive and thriving.

Nigeria will soon take up debate on a gay marriage ban, and we in the US are doing the same. Nothing wrong with open debate on the subject, right?

Right! But let's be clear. The Federal Marriage Amendment (or FMA), which was voted out of the Judiciary Committee today on a strictly party line vote, is a desperate attempt by a panicky GOP to provide disgruntled voters with a wedge issue for November elections. The FMA has no chance of being passed. It needs a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate -- it could pass in the House, but it doesn't have a chance of passing in the Senate -- and then needs to be ratified by 3/4 (or 38) of the state legislatures. If I sound snarky here, it is because the FMA has no chance of passing.

The FMA has other problems. It abrogates the rights of the states to decide how they want to proceed with civil arrangements, and it injects a level of government oversight of personal behavior not seen since Prohibition. The FMA is explicitly designed to deny "the blessings of liberty" to a particular group of American citizens, and prevents the states from making their own decisions about the ordering of civil society. It is also drastic. In the unlikely event that it passed, the growing tide of acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships and families would eventually be so great as to require that the amendment be repealed. And that day would come.

The situation in Nigeria is very different. Legislation (pdf) submitted by President Olusegun Obasanjo's executive council to the Federal Assembly prohibits the state from recognizing gay marriage -- but it also prevents gays and lesbians from celebrating marriage in private ceremonies and denies the right to speak out, assemble, or express opinions in the press in favor of gay marriage. The penalty? Five years in prison.

In the US, if the FMA passes, supporters of men and women who wish to enter same-sex marriages would still have certain remedies. They would have the right to speak out against the amendment. They could hold meetings. They could write articles in the press. And eventually they could rally support for repealment.

But if the Nigerian law were passed here, gay marriage be universally illegal -- and anyone who supported it would be put in jail.

Perhaps blinded by their allegiances, the response of conservative Anglican supporters of Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, who endorsed the legislation in early March, have been disappointing.

Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh (Anglican), and moderator of the traditionalist Anglican Communion Network, said:

[I]t should be noted that while the proposed law sounds harsh to American ears, the penalty for homosexual activities in those parts of Africa under Islamic Sharia law (such as the Sudan and portions of Northern Nigeria for that matter) is death. It is precisely the imposition of these much harsher Sharia laws that Archbishop Akinola and other Anglican leaders in Africa have resisted so strongly for many years with little publicity or support from the West.

It is jarring, to say the least, to see church leaders, who claim to champion the primacy of local understanding and culture, demanding that foreign sister churches give up their own local understanding and culture and be judged by an American understanding of individual rights. There is a word for the one-way imposition of values - colonialism.

Reverend Martyn Minns of Truro Parish, Fairfax, Virginia, who is probably on the short list for the episcopacy in a network of Anglican parishes that Archbishop Akinola has established in North America, said:

I do NOT believe that criminalization is an appropriate response to those who understand themselves to be homosexuals. Resolution 1.10 from the Lambeth Conference in 1998 is a good summary of my convictions on this contentious issue. While I “reject homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture” and sinful, I do believe that we are “to minister pastorally and sensitively to all persons irrespective of their sexual orientation”. Having said this I am very much aware that even in the Commonwealth of Virginia there are still laws that deal with various “Crimes against Nature” and in particular homosexual practice and adultery. The continued existence of these laws is a reflection of our own society’s struggle to find a way to support and protect heterosexual marriage while at the same time acknowledging the human rights of all persons.

Far be it from me to lecture Anglican clerics on their ecclesiastical missions, but could it be that these seemingly well-meaning and civic-minded men are willing to rationalize and stand aside as their Nigerian colleagues endorse a law that would put gay and lesbian Nigerians in prison? Do they believe that prison would bring gay and lesbian Nigerians closer to the Church? Maybe torture would be faster.

We are having a debate in the US about gay marriage, and rightly so. Nigerians should have that debate, too. Until we get our own house in order, we have no right to tell them that a ban on gay marriage per se is wrong.

But we in the US are very much within our rights to complain that a ban on speech, assembly and the press with a punishment of multiple years in a Nigerian prison is a step too far (image right from the BBC). Aside from preventing open and civil debate, a ban speech is a direct abrogation of the very democratic principles Archbishop Akinola and his president, Olusegun Obasanjo, have repeatedly professed. It also violates principles laid down by their own constitution.

Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) wrote the following to President Obasanjo regarding the legislation earlier this month (May 2):

I must tell you that I find this effort to persecute innocent people based on their sexual orientation not only morally indefensible but also profoundly undemocratic. I am deeply troubled by the hostility that is manifested by this legislation, including the denial of the basic democratic rights of free speech and association, which are not only core international human rights standards, but are also enshrined in your own country’s constitution.

... If this proposed legislation that so blatantly violates individual freedom and basic democratic rights to freedom of expression and association prevails, Nigeria would no longer in my view have any claim to genuine democratic rule. Also, given the degree of contempt and absolute intolerance towards gay people reflected in the measure, should I assume that if this becomes law, you would no longer want my support, as a member of Congress who is also gay, for any American proposals of assistance to your country?

I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject this inhumane and wholly undemocratic effort.

We are also very much within our rights to demand that our own church leaders stay away from calling for or acquiescing to bans on civil liberties. And for the readers of VirtueOnline obsessed with the "homofecalerotic" nature of the debate, forget gay marriage and "homosex" for a moment and consider that conservative Anglicans are faced with a very serious problem, one that they have not yet taken seriously. Are they willing to let their highly admired African leader ride roughshod over basic civil rights? Are they willing to support his clearly stated endorsement of a law that would put gay Nigerians (perhaps even gay Anglican Nigerians) in jail for what amounts to a theological disagreement? Are they willing to let the passage of this legislation damage their credibility?

Are they willing to let ministry turn to persecution?

If the answer to any of these questions is "yes", then as an American I would say that they deserve little else but our scorn. Why should I enter reasoned debate with someone who might someday decide that God has denied my right to speak?

I don't know if God told Robertson if gays and lesbians are to blame, but The Rev. Pat has jumped on the global warming bandwagon to tell those who have ears to hear in the viewing audience of the 700 Club that "if I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms."

Putting himself on the same level as the Ancient Greeks who saw lightning and invented Zeus, Robertson takes advantage of the growing certainty that global warming augments the probability of extreme weather occurrences to add God to the equation. Very clever!

But his "prophecy" lacks a Jeremiad. If I were his communications director, I'd have suggested: "If I heard the Lord right about 2006, unless we change our wicked and debauched ways and curtail our carbon emissions, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms."

With two black-eyes and his international reputation tarnished, Nigerian President Obasanjo now plays the committed democrat (BBC):

"The constitution must be held hallowed and sacred. And, on the basis of the constitution in hand, we must start to plan for the next elections," he said.

Mr Obasanjo has never publicly said he wanted to stand for re-election saying he would make his decision if the constitution was amended.

In his speech he hit out at the media for unfounded speculation on the subject.

"Many derogatory statements and unfounded allegations have been made about me and my position concerning the so-called third term... I was maligned, insulted and wrongly accused but I remained where I am and what I am and I remained focused," he said.

President Obasanjo said it was now time to heal the wounds caused by weeks of angry debate on the issue and he criticised both sides for using blackmail, intimidation and violence in their campaigns.

It should be an interesting presidential campaign -- and there's still an entire year before Nigerians go to the polls.

BusinessWeek has today's news:

Oil prices fell below $69 a barrel Wednesday after government data showed the domestic supply of gasoline rising for the third straight week amid stagnating demand.

... But oil prices are still about 40 percent higher than a year ago amid persistent market anxieties about the West's nuclear standoff with Iran, supply disruptions in Nigeria and the upcoming Gulf of Mexico hurricane season.

The reason: projected demand for the rest of 2006 has dropped, and OPEC has announced that supply will have increased by the end of the year. But if the last few months have taught us anything about oil markets, it's that nothing's for certain. Says Brad Foss of BusinessWeek [emphasis mine]:

OPEC also sought to dampen concerns about its surplus production capacity. When this excess capacity is tight, it makes oil traders extra jittery about any real or potential threats to supply. From the end of 2002 to the end of 2005, OPEC said its spare production capacity declined from 5 million barrels per day to 2 million barrels per day. But the cartel said that figure would rise to 3 million barrels per day, or 3.5 percent of global demand, by the end of this year, thanks to the combined effects of weakening demand growth and new projects coming on line.

Despite OPEC's claims, many analysts point out that the bulk of this excess capacity resides in Saudi Arabia and is not the high-quality crude oil that is preferred by refiners.

Moreover, the market remains fixated on geopolitical factors that are beyond the control of OPEC, such as violence in Nigeria and the diplomatic dispute between the West and Iran over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

More excess capacity would be good, of course. But who would want to significantly augment supply when it's a supplier's market? And will things really get worked out with Iran with Bush at the helm? Stay tuned.

(Image from PBS of an oil derrick in 1909 Persia)

Two new pieces of information following the collapse of Nigerian President Obasanjo's attempt to change the constitution to allow him a third four-year term.

First, he may be down, but he's not out. Tom Ashby at Reuters in Lagos has the following:

Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo has been wounded by the collapse of a campaign to extend his tenure, but analysts say it is too early to write him out of the script in next year's elections.

... Some analysts fear Obasanjo will now try to foment civil unrest or confusion around the 2007 elections as a pretext for declaring a state of emergency in order to stay in office.

"We have to be very careful about Obasanjo because he wants to hold on to power at all costs. He may create a crisis and use that to extend his rule," said Abubakar Mohammed, a political science lecturer at Ahmadu Bello University, whose book on Obasanjo's third term bid was banned by the secret police.

Such a move would not be unprecedented. After what observers said were the cleanest elections in Nigerian history in 1993, then-president Babangida annulled the results in an attempt to stay in office.

The political vacuum created by Obasanjo's failed 3rd-term attempt is ready to be filled by his vice-president, Atiku Abubakar, a Hausa-speaking Muslim, or former military dictator, Ibrahim Babangida, also a Muslim and "affectionately" known as IBB in the Nigerian Press. Any Nigerian President would be in control of billions in oil revenue. Read it all.

Second, Royal Dutch Shell announced at its recent stockholder meeting that it is now intent on restarting the oil extraction capacity lost to violence earlier this year. (One third of the 500,000 barrel per day capacity lost to violence was on Shell oil fields.)

Shell declared the following goals. Their first stated priority is to send "relief materials to affected communities and environmental cleanup. Once we are back in the field we will work to restore capacity as soon as possible." They have also stated their intention of stopping "gas flaring, a practice residents say leads to pollution and health problems."

Note to readers: gas flaring is the way in which oil companies get rid of excess vaporous gas from oil reservoirs during pumping. It is essentially illegal in the US. Shell has a bad history in the Niger Delta, and it is predominantly because of Shell's need for security and its subsequent collusion with the Nigerian government for that security that violence is the threat it is today. MEND, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, employs violence to meet their goals of regaining local control of oil fields. This is deplorable. However, if you know anything of the history of the Delta, their cause is most just.

Shell's goals are noble, but their history in the Delta suggests that they are not to be trusted.

The upshot is that in a world with very limited excess petroleum production capacity, even the slightest disturbance in Nigeria's rate of petroleum export can have a significant impact on crude oil prices. Issues of peace and justice in the Niger Delta aside, if Obasanjo is desperate enough, a "state of emergency" could be easily manufactured that would allow him stay in power.

Like Michael Klare says, at ThomasPaine.com:

[T]he continuing shift in the center of gravity of world oil production from global North to global South—combined with rising international demand and higher prices—will tend to enhance the perceived stakes in future struggles over the control of oil revenues, leading to more frequent and intense outbreaks of violence.

Expect more violence.

I've changed the photo I previously posted of Bill Strode, our dear friend and companion, who died yesterday morning. We're going to miss him.

In an oddly timed post -- possibly with the aim of throwing red meat to his not so civic-minded readers -- David Virtue has responded, again, to Bishop Chane's Washington Post op-ed decrying Archbishop Peter Akinola's endorsement of Nigeria's anti-gay legislation (pdf). (To those new to the legislation and its supporters, I've discussed it extensively in the last three months.)

But he just doesn't get it. As a practicing Christian, I'm sure Virtue recognizes that imprisoning those who don't agree with him is no way to save their souls. And yet, amidst all his "blasts" and "rips" and "homoerotics", we get this:

The ultra-liberal, pro-gay Washington bishop had written an op-ed article for the Washington POST and reposted in only two orthodox diocesan newspapers - Albany and Pittsburgh headlined; 'A Gospel of Intolerance': The "Gospel" according to John Chane in which he publicly berated and declaimed against the Nigerian Primate for taking a stand against same-sex marriages, accusing him of taking money from wealthy conservative foundations, fomenting schism leading to the formation of "his own purified [Anglican] communion" with himself at the head and much more.

Talk about a non-denial denial. I have yet to see him deal with the core issue -- if he argues for putting gay men and women in jail for speaking their mind, especially over a disagreement on theology, then he is letting ministry turn to persecution. Is he for the conversion of homosexuals or their extermination?

Either way, I find his position odious, but one I can live with, the other I cannot. None of us can. Especially gay Nigerians.

(Image from Virtue's website)

Keep these words of President Obasanjo in mind when the Nigerian Federal Assembly reintroduces his gay marriage ban (which, I have to keep saying, really just bans homosexuals from speech, assembly, and the press) [emphasis mine]:

[W]e can assure you of our unmediated commitment to moving Africa away from the past towards a new dawn of unity, harmony, love, tolerance, dialogue and democratic politics.

Mr. Obasanjo was speaking today in Paris at the "presentation of the 2005 Felix Houphouet-Boigny Peace Prize to President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal," after a near-death experience in his brand-new $70 million Boeing 737-800 presidential jet, and soon after his party's unsuccessful attempt to bribe Federal Assembly members to change the Nigerian constitution to allow him a third four-year term.

The Anglican Archbishop of South Africa, Njongonkulu Ndungane, has called for the Anglican Church to accept openly gay and partnered V. Gene Robinson, the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. Writes David Boaz (Guardian UK):

The Nigerian primate ... Archbishop Peter Akinola, condemned the consecration of Robinson as bishop, calling it a "satanic attack on the church of God." ... So what makes Ndungane different? He's the successor to Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu, one might recall. ... after [Ndungane] was released [from Robben Island] he decided to enter the church and took two degrees at King's College, London. The arguments of the struggle against apartheid came from western liberalism - the dignity of the individual, equal and inalienable rights, political liberty, moral autonomy, the rule of law, the pursuit of happiness.

While acceptance of Bishop Robinson is a decision for the Anglican Communion alone, my hope is that, barring acceptance, they can at least recognize the many gifts that "western liberalism" has brought to the developing world. Many Anglican conservatives would do well to heed the distinction between moral arguments that can be proved, and those that depend solely on religious texts or other authorities for their support. Failing that, they risk falling into the moral trap that Archbishop Peter Akinola already has -- by supporting legislation that would put openly gay Nigerians in prison for vocalizing their beliefs, he has let ministry turn to persecution.

Michael T. Klare has the scoop on ThomasPaine.com. The gist: today's high oil prices are due to increased dependence on suppliers in the Global South who suffer from political and social instability (and due to the possibility that we might invade Iran). The solution? Well, there is none to political instability (I disagree -- high oil prices make working for expensive social and economic change in troubled regions cost effective), and troops are not the answer. Klare says that the only way out is to start getting ourselves off fossil fuel.

Contrast Klare's piece with that of corporate yes-man Kenneth Green at AEI.

(updated below)

After much wrangling, bribery, and back-room dealmaking with state governors also interested in keeping their highly lucrative jobs, Nigerian President Olusegun Obsanjo's 3rd term bid is now dead. From Reuters via Business Day (South Africa):

The surprise move was greeted with dancing, shouts of joy and hugs among many senators, who had argued that the amendment was a threat to democracy in Africa’s biggest oil producing country.

"The Senate has said clearly and eloquently that we will discontinue further processes on this amendment bill," Senate President Ken Nnamani said after senators resoundingly voted against giving the bill a second reading.

The vote cut short the debate of the amendment in the upper house and took place after an unsuccessful attempt by third term supporters to postpone discussions for a week.

"The bill is dead. It cannot be brought again until the lifespan of this Senate terminates. That is victory for democracy," said Senator Abu Ibrahim of the opposition All Nigeria People’s Party in Katsina state.

So that's it, then. On to persecuting homosexuals.

UPDATE: Here's the story from the Washington Post Foreign Service.

Reuters reports on a new probe into Nigerian President Obasanjo's efforts to bribe Federal Assembly members in his efforts to change the constitution to allow him the chance at a third term:

The investigation comes days before a vote on the bill to amend the constitution in the Senate, which is likely to go against extending the presidential tenure to three terms.

"The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has commenced the investigation of recent allegations of bribery in the National Assembly," the agency said in a press statement.

Lawmakers were originally offered 50 million naira ($390,000) to support a third term for Obasanjo, opposition members said. A National Assembly source told Reuters on Sunday the offer had now been raised to 200 million naira ($1.6 million) and above for key opponents.

A presidency spokesman denied offering bribes.

"The president is not a bribe giver, neither does he condone any form of corruption," said Femi Fani Kayode.

Of course, Obasanjo need not have done the bribing himself. And given the way he has let his surrogates push for the consititutional change while he remained silent, I tend to doubt his spokesman.

Nigerian President Obasanjo's efforts to guarantee himself access to a third term are bursting into flames, and he has begun to turn his attention to what had at least partially occupied his time prior to the third-term debate: family values.

The Vanguard (Nigeria) reports [emphasis mine]:

President Olusegun Obasanjo yesterday challenged Nigerian women to strive and restore the nation’s core values within the family, at work, in the community, and nationally, arguing that failure to do so would impede national progress and growth.

Addressing the opening Ceremony of the Mothers Summit in Abuja, the President noted that the image problem ''we have is not unconnected to the breakdown of the family structure. Its attendant vices are cultism, exam malpractices, teenage pregnancy and truancy, among the many manifestations of deviant behaviour in our youth.

"The reality today is that the youth deviance index is unacceptably high and there is no indication that it will abate if urgent steps are not taken to correct it. Posterity will not forgive us if we allow things to go on in this manner. Time was, when patriotism, respect for one another, excellence, integrity, communality and hard work were the cornerstone of our value system.

" ... A study of our image problem reveals that factors such as long years of military rule, weak democratic institutions, poverty, and a breakdown of the family structure are largely responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves today. These resulted in the monetization of dignity, the contamination of long-cherished values, and the commercialization of morals."

"Youth deviance indices" aside, as in the US, poverty leads to the breakdown of families. So I'm not sure what progress Obasanjo expects to make without first treating the problem of poverty. The best he could do in the medium- to long-term would be to introduce a massive anti-corruption campaign so that funds from oil revenue could be better distributed to the deeply impoverished Nigerians on whose backs he and the Nigerian elite stand.

But don't expect an anti-corruption campaign from a guy whose party has distributed massive bribes for favorable voting on a third term. No, in a last gasp effort in the face of defeat, Obasanjo is revving up to appeal to the values voters, a strategy that helps him to generate cross-over appeal to both Nigerian Christians and Muslims.

The real issue here is the long-brewing, and now globally controversial legislation before the Nigerian Assembly that would ban speech, assembly, press, and religious expression in support or advocacy of homosexuality. Expect the bill to be introduced again, shortly.

Bill Strode, the multiple award-winning photographer, and dear, 10-year companion of my mother-in-law, died yesterday morning after a nine-month struggle with cancer.

We have few pictures of him -- he was always the one behind the camera. However, my wife and sister-in-law have managed to capture a couple over the years, and this one, with my mother-in-law at his house in Goshen, Kentucky, at Christmas last year, captures how I will always remember him: a warm, generous, and spirited man. We will all deeply miss him.

You can find his obituary at the Lexington Herald-Leader.

The Institute on Religion and Democracy faces two crises of conscience that I don't believe it is constitutionally capable of assessing on its own.

First, it is a front group for those in the US who wish to make Christianity a solely-owned subsidiary of the Republican party. Surely Christianity is the worse for it, and the Republican party is already dying from it. The last time the GOP ran a 50-state strategy for winning a presidential election was 1984 (and they would have succeeded had Mondale not won his home state). Today, the GOP is fully committed to a strategy that appeals to a once large and now increasingly self-aware sector of the population that wants fiscal discipline (and lower taxes -- see here for more), national security, good schools, and greater control over their health care and retirement, not to mention moral rectitude in our politicians and institutions. These interests have not changed, but the perception that the GOP can provide them has.

Second, the IRD has taken a one-sided stand against persecution of Christians -- but not against persecution. Anne Morse writes on Townhall.com of the IRD's decision to decline participation in "the 160-member Save Darfur Coalition because of its decision to include The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization with ties to terrorist groups including Hamas, which dreams of wiping Israel off the map." Well, Townhall and the IRD have other issues on their plate -- they want to fight Islamic terrorism, too (as do we all). But the involvement of CAIR, which the US government has not designated as a terrorist organization (unlike the Islamic American Relief Agency-USA, which the Save Darfur Coalition ejected), presents a moral conundrum for the IRD that apparently trumps the moral issue of stopping genocide:

When asked why Save Darfur did not also suspend the membership of CAIR, given its many links with terrorist groups, Crowley told me via email that "the Save Darfur Coalition relies on the federal government to determine whether a group supports terrorism or not." Noting the Coalition's suspension of Islamic American Relief Agency-USA, Crowley wrote, "We would take the same step if the government designated any [other] coalition member as a terrorist supporter"--an explanation [Andrew] Whitehead [founder of Anti-CAIR] calls "Beyond disingenuous. It is cowardly. Where is Save Darfur's sense of morality?"

Yeah, that's the problem, Andrew. But which morality are we talking about? The one that makes stopping genocide less important than the odious nature of the temporary alliance necessary to stop it? Faith McDonnell, of the IRD, says:

They have worrisome ties to terror groups, and in the past they have denied the existence of slavery in Southern Sudan. That's why we didn't join the Coalition, although we have cooperated with them in their effort to help the people of Darfur.

I don't get it -- the IRD has cooperated with CAIR in Darfur, but they won't add their name to the Coalition if CAIR is involved?

And it gets worse. As I've written before, it's not entirely clear that the IRD deserves to include the word "democracy" in their title. While championing the cause of persecuted Christians in countries like Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia and China, they have also taken the side of Anglican Primate Peter Akinola of Nigeria, who has endorsed legislation (which still has not passed!) that would strip speech, press, and religious advocacy from homosexual Nigerians, with prison sentences of up to 5 years. So much for supporting democratic institutions.

Now the liberal blogosphere has started to organize against them. As reported at Political Cortex today, Air American Radio will be presenting, in its syndicated radio show State of Belief, a program covering the takeover of mainline Christian churches in the US by the Republican Party. The program, to be aired on May 21, is produced in conjunction with Talk To Action, a community weblog aimed at defanging the creeping monster of politics in matters of faith.

Christianism has no place in American Democracy.

Jonathan Rauch, in the June issue of The Atlantic Monthly, discusses the counter-intuitive analysis of Cato chairman William A. Niskanen (subscription only):

To the naked eye, Starve the Beast looks suspiciously counterproductive. After all, spending (as a share of the gross domestic product, the standard way to measure it) went up, not down, after Reagan cut taxes in the early 1980s; it went down, not up, after the first President Bush and President Clinton raised taxes in the early 1990s; and it went up, not down, following the Bush tax cuts early in this decade.

Niskanen recently analyzed data from 1981 to 2005 and found his hunch strongly confirmed. When he performed a statistical regression that controlled for unemployment (which independently influences spending and taxes), he found, he says, "no sign that deficits have ever acted as a constraint on spending." To the contrary: judging by the last twenty-five years (plenty of time for a fair test), a tax cut of 1 percent of the GDP increases the rate of spending growth by about 0.15 percent of the GDP a year. A comparable tax hike reduces spending growth by the same amount.

The reason: Cutting taxes while leaving spending unchanged "reduces the apparent cost of government," giving taxpayers the appearance of being "on sale." Hence, people buy more or it. Niskanen figures that the sweet-spot -- the tax rate where government spending does not change -- is a tax rate of 19% (we are now at an effective rate of 17.8%, and government spending is increasing).

Note that the data Niskanen compares are the tax rate and the rate of increase in government spending. That is, if a fixed tax rate l is below the sweet-spot, government spending will increase at a fixed rate over time.

This is disastrous math for tax-and-borrow conservatives. As Niskanen says, "I would like to be proven wrong." And he might be. The lesson for Democrats: raising taxes and getting rid of pork are one and the same.

Go to the Atlantic's Post & Riposte for the online discussion of the article.

There are a lot of things wrong with last Monday's (5/8) essay by AEI's Kenneth P. Green on what to do about high gas prices -- such as his call for a permanent lifting of boutique fuel requirements instead of calling for homogeneously high standards -- but he prejudices the whole thing right off the bat when he tells the public to stop worrying, things aren't that bad [emphasis mine]:

Once again, high gasoline and oil prices are in the news. As of this writing, the national average gasoline price per gallon ($2.90 on April 23) is approaching a record high of $3.21 per gallon set in 1981 (adjusted for inflation). Oil futures are currently running at about $72.50 per barrel, considerably below the record high of $86.99 per barrel, also set in 1981. The public is upset, and politicians are scrambling to find ways to reduce the pain of high prices, or failing that, to publicly shoot the messenger by investigating, penalizing, or punitively taxing oil companies.

While he's correct that prices still haven't reached their inflation-adjusted 1981 records, he's disingenuous about today's very bullish market's very real effects. Two decades of low gas prices have led to a mass urbanite exodus into distant suburbs and neo-urban areas characterized by minimal, if present, manufacturing and commercial sectors. Relatively cheap money, and the nearly zero cost of driving long-distances have made it possible for large sectors of Americans to abandon proximity for the cheap and spacious comfort of the "exurbs."

I remember as a teenager in LA being impressed by the fact that people were willing to commute over an hour each way to downtown LA to live in cheap housing in Lancaster, the Palm Desert, or even the far reaches of Riverside County. Today, given the skyrocketing price of oil, I'm impressed that they will still live that far away.

It's true that the cost of gas is 10% less than it was in 1981, but the true cost is revealed only if we factor in the additional distance we are willing to travel. Kevin Naughton, in the May 1, 2006, edition of Newsweek notes [emphasis mine]:

[M]ore people than ever are willing to trade time in their car for the American Dream: big house, big yard. Nearly 10 million people now drive more than an hour to work, up 50 percent from 1990. The average commute today is 25 minutes, up 18 percent from two decades ago. What drives us to drive so far? Many are doing what California real-estate agents call "driving 'til you qualify." New-home prices have nearly tripled in the past 20 years and now average almost $300,000, according to the National Association of Home Builders. In places like southern California, each exit along the interstate saves you tens of thousands of dollars. That's why Chris Neelley, 43, lives in Lancaster, Calif., and drives 80 miles to L.A. every day. For $400,000 last year, he moved his family of five into a 3,000-square-foot home, twice the size of the place they used to have closer to the city.

For a very large number of Americans, gas is now more expensive than ever (the 18% increase in commuting time more than offsets the 10% still to go to match 1981's inflation adjusted gas prices). Cheap oil created these distance pseudo-metropolises. Expensive oil may destroy them. Wake up exurban Bush voters! Violence in Nigeria, the Iraq War, and our President's saber-rattling in Iran are kicking your @$$.

(Cartoon by Steve Nease, 2005, from Daryl Cagle's Professional Cartoonists Index)

Desperate to maintain his Presidency into a third term, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo has finally begun to make public declarations of his interest in doing so.

Up until now, Obasanjo has maintained complete silence on the issue, ostensibly waiting silently for Nigerian lawmakers to put forward a constitutional amendment that would grant him the right to run again. But a two-thirds majority would be required in both Nigerian houses to pass that amendment, and, thus far, whip counts indicate that both houses are at best evenly split.

On Thursday, seeing his case fall into crisis, the president made his first plea to lawmakers to pass the amendment (Reuters):

"He told them to find a way to get it through and save the project," a senior National Assembly source told Reuters, asking not to be named because of the delicacy of the matter.

"Everyone told him he doesn't have the votes."

The third term campaign has been unsurprisingly marred by large-scale bribery, adding Obasanjo to the growing list of Africa's "new leaders," whose campaign promises regarding democracy and the rule of law have largely turned to dust.

The US government has urged Obasanjo to turn away from his third-term pursuits, predicting major turmoil if he elected to another term, while Brits have taken the politically safe stance of supporting a change to the constitution only if it is free and fair.

A growing list of Nigerian religious leaders have denounced Obasanjo's third-term campaign. The latest is Primate Peter Akinola (Anglican Communion), who, on Saturday, was quoted in the Vanguard (Nigeria) as saying:

They are at it again. No clear political manifesto, clear vision or set goals have been announced. For goodness sake, what do we owe these shameless political opportunists? People who ordinarily ought to be languishing in jail. It is time we told them to go back to the farm or find something else to do. The current political climate portends enough danger for our nation’s future. Nigeria deserves better than these evil men can offer.

Akinola's statement is significant given his only other statement on the third-term campaign, given to the Guardian (Nigeria) [emphasis mine]:

For me, that's an illusion. People are talking about third term but has the President ever said he was going for third term? He has even denied it several times both at home and abroad.

The Constitution does not allow it. And he is not just a Nigerian leader but a world leader. So, you think he will want to tarnish his own image? He is a force to be reckoned with in the affairs of the world today. Those who are talking about it are gaining from it. There are many Nigerians who specialize in fomenting trouble. And they feed fat in chaos. To me it's a non-issue. He has denied it several times. If the man comes out and asks Nigerians to give him another chance, that is when I can comment. For now, I have no comment about third term. Other than to warn those orchestrating it to be careful.

Well, at least Akinola has kept his promise.

... the Wall Street Journal's science reporter does. Perhaps, finally, the voice of conservative conventional wisdom will come down off their faux-caution pedestal to give us well-meaning "paranoid scientists" the benefit of the doubt.

When reading Sharon Begley's short piece, pay special note to her use of the parlance of probability. This is the means by which climate scientists convince themselves and each other of the potentially disastrous climate change we may be facing. The chance of throwing a 7 in Craps is one in six, but the chance of throwing five in a row is almost one in ten thousand. Likewise, they argue, the climate change observed over the last century could have been due to natural variation, but it is extremely improbable that it was.

(hat tip Andrew Sullivan)

An explosion in a Nigerian pipeline today is said to have claimed as many as 200 lives. Oil theives have been blamed for the explosion, which is believed to have been an accident. The pipeline exploded while being tapped. Corpses were strewn along the beach, charred and unrecognizable, often with only smoking skeletons, grey with ash, remaining to mark their death:

"You can see the corpses. Some are burned to ash. Others are remnants ... We estimate 150 to 200 people died," Lagos State Police Commissioner Emmanuel Adebayo said at the scene.

Tapping pipelines, or "bunkering," is a common practice in Nigeria. It is also capital-intensive, requiring investment that only local and state government officials are believed capable of providing.

Most of the victims were probably members of a skilled petrol-theft gang, who know the location of vulnerable pipelines and hire local thugs or police to protect them while they siphon fuel at the dead of night, Saka-Shenayon [a Lagos State government official] said.

I should add -- only to demonstrate the financial incentive that should motivate our government to attention to conditions in Nigeria -- that the US oil market tightened up considerably following the news of the explosion, this despite today's lowered estimates of world petroleum demand by the International Energy Agency.

Forget what you've heard about a demand-driven market -- it's all about supply, and it's going to stay that way as long as we ignore Nigeria, continue to saber-rattle in Iran, continue to blow it in Iraq, and fail to normalize relationships in Venezuela.

As reported yesterday, three foreign oilworkers were kidnapped yesterday in Port Harcourt, two of them from the Italian oil gian ENI SPA. While MEND, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, has kidnapped oil workers in the past, they have not claimed responsibility for this abduction.

Today, those oil workers were released, unharmed. Authorities have not said whether a ransom was paid.

All it takes nowadays to drive crude oil futures up by a buck and a half is a minor kidnapping in Nigeria. Well, that and outages at a US oil refinery. The oil markets are now very sensitive to changes in supply, or even the most insignificant threats to that supply. Thus, the importance of a letter from Ahmadinejad (and its rebuff by Rice and Bush), and of the rising unrest in the Niger Delta over environmental and political justice, where production has already been cut by 25%.

Add to this the now rampant speculation about President Obasanjo's efforts to change the constitution to permit him a third term (Obasanjo and all other credible candidates are former generals), and ... well, let's just say that I'd start buying summer through winter delivery futures now.

A disclaimer: the President of Iran has shown himself, by words and deeds, to be at the very least a nutter.

Yet in his letter on Monday to President Bush, Ahmadinejad couched challenges to Bush's foreign policy in terms of the purportedly common ground shared by their monotheistic faiths, asking Bush to consider the following:

On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country [Iraq]. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with. ... You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can theses actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (peace be upon Him), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.

As much as I hate to admit it, many of the questions raised by Ahmadinejad are not unreasonable -- that said, they should be answerable by not only President Bush and his Administration, but by the Christian right, in general.

Enter religious conservatives (of the American sort).

Ahmadinejad's language is irresistibly close to that used by American liberals, isn't it? Clearly too much of a temptation for Mark Tooley, the Director of the United Methodist committee at the Institute on Religion and Democracy's (a front group for wealthy Republicans seeking to engineer a takeover of Christianity by political conservatives). In a column published today in the American Prospect, Tooley writes:

The head of the Islamic police state seems to ask Bush What Would Jesus Do, while answering emphatically that it is not what Bush is doing. No doubt the Iranian president would be delighted to know, or perhaps already knows, that many left-wing clerics in the U.S. have already been asking the identical question and drawing the identical conclusion. In fact, Ahmadinejad is late to the game. These U.S. prelates started asking even before the Iraq war.

Far from having a real point about Ahmadinejad's language, or about the logical basis of the moral arguments presented by religious American liberals, his column shows only that he, and people like him, are always willing to use the threat of terrorism and Islamism to bully liberalism.

Two months ago, the IRD was claiming that the threat of Islam in Nigeria made it necessary to support legislation that would ban speech, assembly, the press, and religion in advococy of homosexuality. In other words, if Islamists say so, we Christians have no choice but to sacrifice our principles to their desires.

Today, Tooley claims that by opposing a war of choice, religious American liberals are aligning themselves with Islamists with whom they have essentially nothing in common.

Hey, Tooley! You're being lazy. Which is it? And how about an answer to Andrew Sullivan's question yesterday:

Ahmadinejad is appealing to Bush on the basis of their shared faith in the coming Apocalypse. It seems to me a perfectly good question for journalists to ask the president if he does indeed share Ahmadinejad's belief that God controls all human events, that the world will soon come to an end, and that there seems to be an acceleration of change that suggests this might be coming soon. That's what Bush's pre-millennialist base believes. It's what Ahmadinejad believes. Does the president?

(Image of Ahmadinejad from Reuters)

Ian Bremmer in today's Slate showcases the growing importance of the world's marginal oil producers. In a tight market (there is only about 0.5 to 1.0 million barrels per day excess capacity, all of it in Saudi Arabia, in a world that consumes 85 million barrels per day), even the most peripheral production capacity can make a huge difference. Chad, which produces only 0.18 mbpd, used the threat of shutting it down to broker a deal with the IMF to double the money it funnels from oil revenues into its treasury.

The list of countries with similar production capacities is populated with names that seldom enter the American political consciousness: Ecuador, Angola, Ecuatorial Guinea, Yemen, Bahrain, and Azerbaijan. Each has their own peculiar form of local political conflict, and each runs the risk of losing control of production, threatening the stability of the oil markets.

We are paying for this added turbulence in the form of a risk premium, now about $20 out of the $70 or so we currently pay for a barrel of light, sweet crude. Ten years ago, OPEC has sufficient additional production capacity to cover the difference should one or even several of these countries stop production. Not so, today.

Oil supply is now globally vulnerable. And so we face a choice -- continue the policy of aggressively reining in countries that threaten our national security, waving our guns at the faintest sign of local disatisfaction at the US; or slog through the very difficult work of establishing stability where our interests are threatened, wagging our tongues instead.

The neocons tried aggression in Iraq just as China and India ramped up their demand, making themselves obsolete just as they got started. Let's not let them do the same in Iran. War is no longer just an inadvisable approach -- the tight oil market and the increasing smallness of the world makes it irrelevant.

An American executive working in Nigeria for a Houston-based drilling and oil services company was shot and killed today in a coordinated attack in a crowded Port Harcourt neighborhood.

MEND (the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta) -- which had just yesterday withdrawn or denied (no one is sure which) it's 3-month cease fire offer -- has threatened coordinated attacks against individuals and facilities associated with the Delta's oil fields.

Most claim that this is not MEND's style -- American's kidnapped in March by MEND not only said they were treated well, but even declared their sympathy for MEND's cause. A diplomat (the story does not say from where) claimed that "it looks like a targeted attack on that individual but my guess is that it was a private matter."

The story goes on:

The violence stems from deep-seated resentment by many inhabitants of the Delta, where impoverished villages stand close to multibillion-dollar oil facilities.

Many residents of the vast wetlands region feel cheated out of the riches being pumped from their tribal lands.

Read the story here.

I reported earlier on a very hopeful cease fire in the Niger Delta.

Never mind.

Republicans are right to be concerned that they have no "short-term fix" for high gas prices, especially given Bush's dirt-deep poll numbers for his handling of gas prices. To be fair, neither side has made much sense in recent weeks. Democrats want conservation, while Republicans want increased exploration, but neither will lower gas prices by November 2006, and Republicans need that to stay alive.

Far be it from me to offer the GOP a solution, but perhaps they're not seeing what's right in front of their noses. Between a fourth and a third of the current price of crude oil is directly attributable to political instability in oil exporting countries. Get rid of that instability, and watch gas prices fall.

Crude oil prices have exploded this year because of three factors: the reduction in production capacity in the Persian Gulf due to the Iraq War, increased demand from India and China alongside expanded demand from the rest of the industrialized world, and political and social disturbances in countries whose export capacity is at least of the same order of magnitude as the global excess petroleum production capacity (currently about 0.5 to 1.0 million barrels per day, or mbpd, all of it in the Persian Gulf).

If Iran lowers its production -- say, due to in response to threats from the US -- global excess petroleum production capacity will follow, driving crude oil prices into the $100 range, or above. Most of the increase will not be due to strict supply-demand considerations, but will instead be in anticipation of the negative effects of political instability on oil export. This is called the "risk premium", and according to James Mulva, CEO of Conoco-Phillips, it is currently about $20 per barrel.

Note to Congress: Want a "short-term fix"? Stabilize our relationships with oil exporting countries.

Oil markets are eager for positive news from Iran. Following what was called a "technical selloff," which brough crude oil prices to below $70 from above $75 per barrel a week ago, yesterday's unprecedented letter from Iranian President Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush led to further drop of $2 to $68.25 a barrel (see here, also). Yet, after the State Department dismissed the letter earlier today, prices rallied by over $2 to $70.69.

According to Wachovia economist Jason Schenker (WaPo), Rice's comment removed the "glimmer of hope that the Iran situation could come to a somewhat quiet resolution."

The only solution -- to this, and to Iran's nuclear ambitions -- is engagement. As Chuck Hagel (R-Nebr.) said in an editorial to the Financial Times on Monday (subscription required):

Allies of the US will support tough action against Iran only if they are confident America is serious about achieving a negotiated, diplomatic solution. The continued unwillingness of the US to engage Iran will make other states hesitate to support, and possibly oppose, these tougher measures.

Amen.

Andrew Sullivan, in his attempt to better define what he means by the term "christianism", has published as short definition in Time Magazine, but more important the most essentialist defense of civil debate in a world of religion I have yet seen.

I have become quite aware through responses to this blog since I started writing two months ago of a certain form of civil debate that slides too easily between religious and civil arguments. Its practitioners are seemingly unaware that this form of debate regularly, and sometimes rudely, ignores their listeners' own equally unprovable religious and cultural sensibilities.

By advancing arguments with unprovable premises (such as homosexuality is a behavior that can be abolished by the healing power of Christ), they immediately put themselves outside the realm of universally accepted discourse. By imposing their views in the form of civil laws, to which we cannot all consent, they force us to dissent not only from their civil argument, but also from their religious argument. We are put in the place of having to say, "No, if you believe that, and if you want to make it law, then your Gospel is wrong."

I want to live side by side with religion, but I can be excused for not wanting to feel, day in and day out, that it is on the verge of destroying civil society.

Despite the ease with which one might assign the moniker "terrorist" to the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, or MEND, their decision to call a 3-month cease fire in the hopes that the Nigerian government might actually have their best interests in mind, shows at the very least that they can be reasoned with.

ReliefWeb has the story. Quote:

Reje, who signed the statement on behalf of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), said the group had decided to give the government a chance to prove its commitment to peace and development in the region.

Reje said the MEND's decision to ceasefire for three months was not out of fear or cowardice, but to show its resolve to make things better for the region and its people.

According to the statement, the group has conveyed its ceasefire decision to the Rivers state government and the state government officials will meet with MEND leaders on Tuesday.

Given the current state of global oil markets, there is now a very strong incentive for partners of the Nigerian government to encourage them to enact those reforms -- including improvements to infrastructure (such as roads, for goodness' sake!); revenue sharing for residents of the delta States, out of which they would pay a tax to the Federal Government; and redress for decades of environmental damage.

Royal Dutch Shell, the UK government, the US government, and now China, not to mention the rest of the world, are all dependent on stability in Nigeria's output ($20 of the $70-75 we pay per barrel of crude is a risk premium, according to James Mulva, CEO of Conoco-Phillips). Before the Iraq War, Persian Gulf members of OPEC could loosen a tightened market, but no more. We now have a financial incentive to take international development seriously.

And, please, don't call MEND terrorists.

Haven't seen it yet? Check it out.

For more on why you can no longer get it at ifilm or YouTube, read about here.

I think, in his link to my last post, Andrew Sullivan may have given some readers the impression that I had written to talk about why we went into Iraq, or whether it was a good idea (I happen to think it wasn't a good idea, but that's beside the point).

The Iraq invasion figured into my discussion as the single most important medium-term factor leading to the last three years' precipitous drop in excess petroleum production capacity. With lowered excess capacity and OPEC no longer capable of providing additional supply, regional crises, caused by decades of neglect by local governments and by the oil industry, now contribute about a $20 political risk premium to the price of each barrel. My argument is that we can reasonably blame the oil companies for the $20 premium, since they have had no incentive act responsibly in many of the countries in which they operate.

Until now.

My post was intended to point out that in the absence of a powerful OPEC, local human rights and social and environmental justice acquire much tighter control of the price of crude, because even small drops in production in places like Nigeria will lead to bottlenecks in global oil supply.

Supply is now so tight, that local governments might now be incented to push oil companies for local remuneration and reconciliation. The name of the game is stability, at any cost, and at $70 a barrel, no cost is too high.

In March, the Primate of All Nigeria, Archbishop Peter J. Akinola (Anglican Communion), endorsed legislation before the Federal Assembly that would severely curtail the basic civil rights of gay and lesbian Nigerians. John Bryson Chane, the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington brought this issue to broad attention in a Washington Post op-ed. Conservative Anglican supporters of Archbishop Akinola have offered lukewarm support of their colleague, while nearly 20 human rights organizations denounced it, 60 members of the EU Parliament have called for it to be withdrawn, and the US State Department condemned its infringement of free speech, assembly, religion and the press.

Now, Anglican bishops in Canada have added their voices -- in protest:

In unusually strong language, the bishops said they "disassociate" themselves from the actions of the Church of Nigeria and called upon Anglicans around the world to listen to and respect the human rights of gay people.

I'm quite curious to see what the reaction from conservative Episcopalians / Anglicans in the US will be.

(updated below)

I've posted previously on effect that violence in the oil-rich Niger Delta of Nigeria is having on the price of gas at the pump. Violence in the Delta is not a new thing -- since the corporate predecessors of Shell and BP discovered oil in the town of Oloibiri in Bayelsa State in 1956, the environmental and social damage done to the region has been so severe that only the most alienated (or bought off) could fail to find sympathy. Spills are frequent, polluting the "creeks" that flow to and from the principal Niger River tributary, and the natural gas byproduct of extracting the high-quality light, sweet crude from the Delta is disposed of in permanent gas flares that scar the horizon, destroying not only crops and marketable trees, but also public health. And the locals get next to nothing for their trouble.

Nigeria is not the biggest oil producer in the world -- in 2004, it was ranked 8th amongst the world's leading oil producers (with 2.19 mbpd, or million barrels per day, versus Saudi Arabia's 8.73 mbpd). However, as of early September 2004, the capacity of the world's oil producing nations to exceed current demand had fallen precipitously to about 0.5-1.0 mbpd -- nearly all of it in the Persian Gulf -- which is much less than the export capacity of many, smaller exporting countries, like Venezuela or Nigeria. As such, even the slightest disturbance in oil supply in those countries can strangle the oil market.

Things were not always this way. According to an industry newsletter, WTRG Economics [emphasis mine]:

In mid 2002, there was over 6 million barrels per day of excess production capacity, but by mid 2003 the excess was below 2 million. During much of 2004 and 2005 the spare capacity to produce oil has been under one million barrels per day. A million barrels per day is not enough spare capacity to cover an interruption of supply from almost any OPEC producer. In a world that consumes over 80 million barrels per day of petroleum products that adds a significant risk premium to crude oil price and is largely responsible for prices in excess of $40 per barrel.

What happened just before mid 2003? Three things. A December, 2002, strike in Venezuela, called by political leaders in opposition to President Hugo Chavez, led millions to walk off the job, including workers at Venezuela's state-owned oil company PDVSA. Production plummeted, and it has never really recovered. It is still 0.9 mbpd below pre-strike levels. In the meantime, the US economy began to gain speed, increasing demand, while US inventories remained low (a problem that Hurricane Katrina did not solve). And we invaded Iraq.

The Iraq War's single most important economic impact (aside from a long-term total cost of as much as $2 trillion by some estimates) was to contribute to the drop in excess production capacity to below 2 mbpd (click on image to right). Since the Iraq War, export from the country has only declined. In January, the Iraqi Oil Minister, Bahr al-Uloum resigned after oil exports dropped 0.5 mbpd in just two months from a post-war average of 1.6 mbpd. He attributed this drop to bad weather and a shortage of electricity for pumping oil (thanks, President Bush). Ahmad Chalabi has taken his place. The war itself led to a 1.5 mbpd drop in production.

This might not have been a serious problem, except that starting in 2004 the world's two most populous nations, China and India, rapidly expanded their petroleum consumption rates.

With a tighter oil market, OPEC is no longer the force it once was. Prior to 2003, an increase in demand typically would prompt OPEC to raise their quotas -- their excess capacity made this possible. Today, raising quotas can do little to increase actual production, since most Persian Gulf states are at maximum production capacity. Suddenly, this buffer is gone, and world oil markets become strongly dependent upon small variations in supply in peripheral oil exporting nations. The strike in Venezuela elevated Hugo Chavez to "stardom" among international oil traders (Pat Robertson has publicly stated that assassinating him wouldn't be such a bad idea). In 2004, his country exported about 2.36 mbpd -- all he has to do is lower production by a few hundred thousand barrels per day, and crude prices get perky. But don't worry -- if he did that, Robertson might get his wish, and anyway with prices this high, Chavez has little incentive to cut production and let other countries rake in the profits.

So we have something of a trifecta: Iraq War, increased Asian demand, and the threat of local crises in peripheral oil-exporting countries due to OPEC's reduced capacity to keep production capacity well above demand.

That's why Bush's nuclear saber-rattling date with Iran, a country that exports even more oil than Venezuela, gives commodities markets a heavy dose of methamphetamines. Violence in the Niger Delta has the same effect. In March, as a result of militant violence, the kidnapping of several foreign oil workers, and the destruction of capital equipment, Nigerian oil production capacity dropped by over 25%. For a nation that exports most of its 2.51 mbpd oil production, this was a huge blow. A reduction of global capacity on the order of 0.5 mbpd cuts very close to strangling the excess that the Persian Gulf is able to supply.

This is not what we hear from the media or from Congress. The debate is so off base, in fact, that it borders on the surreal. According to Democrats, the oil companies are the problem, gouging consumers at the pump while reaping massive profits. Of course, this can't be the whole truth, not by a long shot. If the price of crude oil is rising, profits will naturally increase. Sure, it's a great time to be in the oil business, but not because of an active choice on their part to raise prices. In fact, they can't change prices except by changing production (something for which OPEC once regularly made the news when oversupply was a problem). Now, there's no room to lower production. The oil corporations are maxing out and riding high -- and presenting a convenient scapegoat.

That said, there could still be gouging (something the President has made the politically safe decision to investigate), but since both the price of gas at the pump and the price of crude oil have roughly doubled since 2003, gouging can't be the ultimate reason prices have risen as far as they have.

According to Republicans, the problem is that Clinton failed to allow oil exploration in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). There are several problems with this claim. If drilling had been authorized in the mid-90s, initial production would have only started a couple of years ago, maybe. And if it were authorized today, production wouldn't ramp up until 2014 at the earliest. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that ANWR could yield 600 million barrels per year, for a daily rate of less than 2 mbpd, or about 1/10th of US daily oil consumption, but the same agency says this rate might be only half as large. If we did drill in ANWR, the benefit would be to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (but only marginally), and to slightly increase global excess petroleum production capacity.

But in the face of increased Asian demand, this would buy us only a couple of years before excess capacity dropped to nothing. In fact, getting down to brass tacks, if we really wanted a temporary fix for our current oil supply problems, a better decision than drilling in ANWR, one that would avoid environmental damage and cost fewer lives, would have been not to invade Iraq (which led to a 1-2 mbpd drop in excess petroleum production capacity).

Senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) debated on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on Tuesday night the rather odd proposal by Senate Republicans to alleviate the crisis-of-the-pocketbook at the pump by delivering a $100 rebate to all American households. This was the most tangential and feckless debate ever to have graced the halls of Congress.

There are a number of long-term solutions to increased global demand that are frequently advanced that, of course, deserve our utmost attention: reducing our dependence on foreign oil (we are the biggest oil importer in the world) by incenting the development of alternative fuels, reducing our per capita demand by whatever means, and investing in forms of transportation that don't involve individuals driving an average of 30 miles per day, by themselves. At $75 per barrel, such investments will pay off a lot sooner than they would have just three years ago.

These are remedies that have been with us for years. What's changed? There was a time when we lived in a world with plenty of oil to go around. Not today. Once, we could avert our gaze from social and political crises in oil-exporting regions of the world, because OPEC was around to raise their quotas if supply dropped and crude prices got too high. Not today.

Now, barring the disappearance of India and China from the face of the Earth, the real crises are local and messy. So long as local problems persist, and so long as excess capacity remains as low as it is, expect to pay more at the pump. The secret to a fluid oil market 10 years ago was security and domination; today, the secret is stability, stability, stability. Indeed, the Iraq War, because of its timing, was perhaps exactly the wrong thing to do -- just as demand was increasing, we sent troops into the only part of the world with the capacity to generate excess production. In fact, I would bet that conflict anywhere in the world will now lead to a crisis in the oil markets on the same order as or worse than the current one.

War is no longer the answer. Neoconservativism was dead before it got out the door (the "door", in this case, being the invasion of Iraq).

I started off this post with violence in the Niger Delta for a reason. Today, even the smallest blip in oil production can send oil markets into the stratosphere. In this case, the "blip" is the direct result of oil exploration and extraction. The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), now in on-again, off-again talks with the Nigerian government, seeks local control of their mineral resources. This is not an unjust struggle. Most Nigerians live on less than a $1 a day, but of all Nigerians, those that live in the Delta must suffer not only poverty, but environmental degradation and contamination, as well. And they must live with the knowledge that the land that is ancestrally theirs is under the control of oil companies and a government that do not see their well-being as a high priority.

Over 80% of Nigeria's federal revenues come from mineral extraction, and not surprisingly Nigeria represents one of the most stratified societies and corrupt governments on Earth. MEND wants a piece of the pie for the Ijaw and Ogoni tribespeople they represent, and justly so. Referring to President Olusegun Obasanjo's effort to extend his administration into a third term, Nigeria's (and Africa's) first Nobel Laureate, Wole Soyinka, says:

One thing which became clear in my contact with those rebels is that they just do not trust this government. And I've said openly, publicly in Nigeria. And now that same region wants illegally, unconstitutionally to prolong its stay using and bribery, coercion, and blackmail to try and twist the constitution around. What do you think those who've been waiting decades and decades for a government that will finally tackle their problems with a sense of justice, what do you think they feel towards that? [see here for another post on Soyinka]

It is for this that the oil companies should be blamed. In their natural quest for profit maximization, they have tried as hard as possible to ignore local problems. As I said, this was possible when excess capacity was in the 6 mbpd range. But now, the need for oil that automatically blinded us and them to all other concerns, such as the economic justice we afford to people from whose land we extract our wealth, is biting us in the ass.

So what do we do? First, we immediately abandon the abjectly stupid ANWR / oil companies-gouging-us-at-the-pump debate and start thinking seriously about how we can help alleviate the local crises that will plague us from here on out. Normalize our relationship with Chavez, and push Obasanjo to advance meaningful reforms in the Delta, right now. Stability, stability, stability.

But don't get mad at the oil companies for gouging us at the pump -- even if they're doing it, it's not the real problem. Get mad at them, and our government, for ignoring real people, and for exacerbating the instabilities of Dutch Disease -- instabilities that, in the tighter oil market of today, many feel we must now manage with guns and threats. It is ironic that, in the absence of OPEC, the very saber-rattling that is meant to bring Iran in line instead has the effect of exagerating crude prices and raising revenue for Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Now, if you will allow me to put on my tin foil cap, consider that an Iraq War, subsequently high oil prices, and an administration that is closer to big oil than any in history, form a combination that might not serve the public good. Hey, I mean, one way to look at the War is that it was a good thing for big oil, whether we won or lost. If things had gone smoothly, big oil would have gained control of Iraq's oil fields. But by doing poorly, they have raked in record profits as excess oil production capacity dropped and OPEC became irrelevant.

The result: the tightest oil market ever -- and social justice is now in our best interest.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan was kind enough to link here, but I'm not entirely sure I agree with his desire to gouge us at the pumps to make us change our habits. While I want us to change our habits, according to James Mulva, the CEO of Conoco-Phillips, about $20 of the $75 currently paid per barrel for crude is a risk premium. That means that much of what we're paying at the pump -- what Sullivan thinks is needed to get us to change our habits -- is borne out of political instability and suffering elswhere. If this were purely a demand issue, then we would be paying $55 a barrel -- still a lot, but due only to increased demand in Asia and plateauing supply in the Gulf. I can't think of high gas prices as the deck is currently stacked as a "good" if they're due social injustice elsewhere.

Check out Mulva's interview with Jim Lehrer last night. He names three reasons gas prices are so high: increased Asian demand; local crises in Nigeria, Venezuela, and Iran; and limited refining capacity. No mention of Iraq, but then refining capacity is not a major factor in setting the price of crude since it does not affect production capacity. It's worth reading the transcript.

... if only the for the photo that they publish on the web today (at right). Bush does not look happy. And, I guess, depending on your political orientation, you'll find Colbert's riff either infuriating or exhilirating.

Jacques Steinberg writes:

Mark Smith, a reporter for The Associated Press who is president of the White House Correspondents' Association, acknowledges that he had not seen much of Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central before he booked him as the main entertainment for the association's annual black-tie dinner on Saturday night. But he says he knew enough about Mr. Colbert — "He not only skewers politicians, he skewers those of us in the media" — to expect that he would cause some good-natured discomfort among the 2,600 guests, many of them politicians and reporters.

What Mr. Smith did not anticipate, he said, was that Mr. Colbert's nearly 20-minute address would become one of the most hotly debated topics in the politically charged blogosphere. Mr. Colbert delivered his remarks in character as the Bill O'Reillyesque commentator he plays on "The Colbert Report," although this time his principal foil, President Bush, was just a few feet away.

Maybe Mark Smith regrets his decision, maybe he doesn't. But it was unbelievable political theater, and it will go down in history as a "turning point" in how the press defines its relationship to this administration: will they have the guts to speak truth to power, or not.

Read it.

(Image Mandel Ngan/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images)

What if Supreme Court decisions were written like doggie biscuits for cable news shows? Dahlia Liwthwick brainstorms at Slate.com:

VI.

Did Anna Nicole look good at oral argument?

While Ms. Smith neither testified nor spoke at oral argument, she did attend court, declined all interview requests, wept tastefully at the appropriate moments, and was the proximate cause of a near-media riot outside the courtroom as Access Hollywood battled Entertainment Tonight for the opportunity to more deeply explore the legal nuance of the federal courts' subject matter jurisdiction in state probate cases.

Read it all.

(updates below)

Colbert's bit as the closing speaker of the White House Correspondents dinner on Saturday night was performance art at its best, resurrecting the weird and uncomfortable glory of Andy Kaufman doing his immigrant's immitation of Jimmy Carter only to do a spot on riff on Elvis, or the unclean depths of "The Aristocrats."

Those in attendance laughed nervously, feeling the sweat on their brows as Colbert unloaded a steady barrage of sharp and, I must say, accurate barbs at our President. One diarist at DailyKos called it "playing to the back of the room," it being all the more courageous because "there actually wasn't a back of the room there." Indeed. I know that if I -- and I am no fan of the President -- had been present, I, too, would have had sweat beading on my brow, and would have switched my gaze nervously between the exhiliration of watching Colbert engage in the best kind of roast imaginable, and the horror of watching Bush and Laura take it in. It took courage even to watch.

It was a stunt, but a stunt of the highest order.

And of course, if there was anything to "get" about it, Bush and his staff failed or feigned to fail to do so. US News & World Report had this (emphasis mine):

Comedy Central star Stephen Colbert's biting routine at the White House Correspondents Association dinner won a rare silent protest from Bush aides and supporters Saturday when several independently left before he finished.

"Colbert crossed the line," said one top Bush aide, who rushed out of the hotel as soon as Colbert finished. Another said that the president was visibly angered by the sharp lines that kept coming.

"I've been there before, and I can see that he is [angry]," said a former top aide. "He's got that look that he's ready to blow."

I bet he did. But good for Colbert. This is a nation of laws, not of men, and while the office of the Presidency should retain a certain aura, that aura was surely blown by Bush's perfomance earlier in the evening with an impersonator. Colbert's performance was a inside-out criticism of the President and his policies, and if that crosses the line, then I'm in the wrong country.

UPDATE: Troy Patterson gets it just right at Slate.com:

You hire a good political satirist, you get good political satire, which is necessarily dangerous. So, when the Washington Post's "Reliable Source" column speaks of the "consensus" that the routine "fell flat" and New York Daily News gossip—and "Reliable Source" alumnus—Lloyd Grove writes that Colbert "bombed badly," they are offering meaningless reportage. Pop Dadaist that he is, Colbert wasn't bombing so much as freaking his audience out for his own enjoyment.

UPDATE II: And, of course, Markos at DailyKos also gets it exactly right:

Colbert, like many of us, is crashing the gate in DC . The natives, not used to getting more than Jay Leno-style good-natured ribbing, don't like it when one of their own gets a serious dose of reality. [NB: "crashing the gate" is a reference to Markos's and Jerome Armstrong's highly readable and recommended book -- buy it and read it, just so you know what's coming.]

From Voice of America:

Nigeria's Wole Soyinka, Africa's most acclaimed writer, says President Olusegun Obasanjo is illegally and unconstitutionally trying to lengthen his stay in power. He says President Obasanjo is using violence, bribery, coercion, and blackmail to twist the Nigerian constitution.

... He told a diverse audience [in Washington, DC] that the issue in the Niger Delta goes beyond oil. Soyinka read a passage from the book about the 1995 trial and execution of Ken Saro Wiwa, leader of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People.

"For most of us in the opposition, certainly for me, the state murder of Ken Saro Wiwa and his eight companions signaled the futility, indeed the death of dialogue," said Soyinka. "The trial of the Ogoni 9 right from the beginning was a proceeding that would be farcical but for its lethal implications."

Soyinka says he does not support the violence in the Niger Delta, but at the same time he's not surprised about what is going on in the oil-rich region.

"What is happening in the Delta is not strange. It was anticipated," he said. "Only those who take a very indifferent, alienated approach to real crisis, only they appear to be surprised. If you asked me I'm surprised at the new level of militancy in the Delta, the answer is clear: I am not surprised."

... "One thing which became clear in my contact with those rebels is that they just do not trust this government. And I've said openly, publicly in Nigeria. And now that same region wants illegally, unconstitutionally to prolong its stay using and bribery, coercion, and blackmail to try and twist the constitution around," he continued. "What do you think those who've been waiting decades and decades for a government that will finally tackle their problems with a sense of justice, what do you think they feel towards that?"

No kidding. Again, I really, really hope we can avoid dubbing the Niger Delta militants as terrorists in the same way that we've dubbed Islamic extremists in the mideast.

Sorry, I can't resist.

VirtueOnline, the eponymous website of conservative Anglican writer David Virtue, provides a unique insight into the deeply theocratic conservative thinking that exists among many Anglicans in the US. It was that site that provided the tip to this story.

Recently, John Danforth, former embassador to the UN, Senator from Missouri, and ordained Episcopal priest (and Republican), spoke to the Log Cabin Republicans on Saturday night:

Referring to the marriage amendment, he added that perhaps at some point in history there was a constitutional amendment proposed that was "sillier than this one, but I don't know of one."

... Danforth said he is opposed. "The basic concept of the Republican Party is to interpret the Constitution narrowly, not expansively, so that legislatures, and especially state legislatures, can work out over a period of time the social issues in our country," he said.

VirtueOnline posts the story, and gets comments like this:

The USA is a nation of laws - and laws are intended to govern behavior. The reason the civil rights laws were effective in the 1960s and up to today is they recognized that an inherent personal physical property was not a behavior - a woman is a woman, a black is a black, and a person born in Spain could not also be born in the USA at the same time. Danforth's comments are idiotic for if carried to their conclusion imply that no law should be passed to govern behavior.

Of course, we know what Danforth meant -- supervision of bedroom activities, or interference in benign social practices is not the government's job. Another comment (emphasis mine):

Everyone, over time, will get to see the difference between the carnival of sodomy that is Massachusetts and the relative child safety zone that is Missouri. Unfortunately, it means in practice that a generation or more of Massachusetts children become the victims of a perverted social experiment.

And another, just to make sure your ears ring while you read the rest of the post:

Danforth is primarily a politician, and he is championing the ECUSA [Episcopal Church U. S. A.] party line masquerading as a priest.

Is he also bisexual? One wonders.

Ouch.

But come to think of it, I lived in Massachusetts for 7 years, and I don't remember "carnivals of sodomy" or "perverted social experiments." I bet the difference over time will be pretty small. Except that more kids will be adopted who wouldn't have been otherwise, people will have a less hostile attitude toward homosexuals, and more gay and lesbian Bay Staters will be "locked" into monogamous relationships, so to speak. If only we could agree on terms for a wager, I'd be willing to put some money down.

I bother to cite all this to point out how a site devoted to conservative Anglicanism (and in some cases outright theocracy) very quickly slides into boilerplate social conservative arguments. This is what is most disturbing for me -- one can avoid dealing with religious arguments by making to social ones, and then avoid social arguments by making religious ones.

I have no problem with people expressing their political or social opinions as motivated by their religious beliefs, but if their arguments ultimately depend solely on what God thinks we should do, then they don't belong in the public arena where God's intentions are not always so clear cut (let alone rationally debatable!). Advance a sociological argument, and we'll debate it, but if you brandish the Bible, then don't expect (or demand) that people pay attention to you. (For example, demonstrate your claim that there is, on average and across all categories of human wellness, a marginal benefit to being a kid in a home run by a heterosexual couple than in one run by a homosexual couple. Hint: your answer will require statistics. You have 30 minutes to answer this question. Good luck.)

Visit the site if you want your blood to boil. Like I said, red meat.

And by the way, the Federal Marriage Amendment is an election year ploy.

(image of John Danforth from Log Cabin Republicans)

From the NYT:

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.

... Indeed, with regard to condoms, the only change apparently being considered is in the specific case of married couples. But any change would be unpopular with conservative Catholics, some of whom have expressed disappointment that Benedict has displayed a softer face now as defender of the faith than he did when he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the papal adviser.

A great deal of HIV transmission in Africa occurs between married couples. By opening the door to contraception, even if just between spouses, the RC Church would be doing a great service to HIV/AIDS prevention agencies around the world that currently must battle the Church's teaching against contraception in their efforts to fight the spread of the disease.

I mentioned this weekend that Jim Naughton's much anticipated articles on the conservative wing of the Episcopal Church and its financial backing are now available online. I think the articles are definitely worth the read. Like others, my interest was particularly peeked by the link of conservative Episcopalians to Howard Ahmanson -- I find his support of the Discovery Institute, which has done more to foul the waters of understanding between religion and science than any other organization, to be particularly disturbing.

I suspect that there are a couple of people who are interested to hear what I have to say about the articles -- especially given the content of this blog for the last two months -- but I want to avoid comment as much as possible. There is nothing wrong with unchecked political giving to a non-governmental organization. My interest is predominantly restricted to the endorsement by Nigerian Archbishop (Anglican Communion) Peter J. Akinola of legislation that would essentially criminalize homosexuality in Nigeria.

As such, the only comment I will advance is that I am concerned that the ideological support conservative Episcopalians have given to the Archbishop is coming home to roost. Akinola has set up a convocation of his province in North America (search for "CANA" in that link). As the ranks of religious liberals are threatened by poltically motivated giving from wealthy conservatives, religion will become an ever stronger force acting against the civil liberties we all cherish. It is in this that I find the words of Bishop Chane's February Washington Post op-ed particularly apt: "Should the institute succeed in "renewing" these churches, what we see in Nigeria today may well be on the agenda of the Christian right tomorrow."

Conservatives call this conspiracy theory -- I think they're using the current crisis in the Anglican Communion to avoid seeing that the most powerful Anglican in the world, a man recently named one of the 100 most influential people by Time, Archbishop Peter Akinola, has let ministry to homosexuals become persecution.

A labor umbrella organization covering some 60% of Nigeria's workers has called for Obasanjo's People's Democratic Party (PDP) to stop their push for a 3rd presidential term.

Reuters AlertNet:

The comment by the umbrella Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), which represents about 60 percent of the country's workers, came as Obasanjo faced growing pressure from the U.S. government, which urged him to respect constitutional term limits in order to strengthen democracy in Africa's most populous nation.

"Nigeria Labour Congress was the first organisation to issue a statement rejecting third term. We rejected it and we have not changed our position," NLC president Adams Oshiomhole said at this year's Workers Day rally in the capital Abuja.

Oshiomhole said what the world's eighth biggest oil exporter needs now is a visionary leader who can see beyond his tenure.

The NLC president said Nigerian workers would resist any attempt by the ruling People's Democratic Party (PDP) to rig the 2007 general elections and warned the authorities against muzzling opponents of the third term plan.

... Obasanjo has done nothing to stop the powerful campaign and he has repeatedly refused to give a clear answer on whether he intends to stay or go in 2007.

Essentially all but vested interests, the British House of Lords, and PDP State Governors have called for Obasanjo to back off. Stay tuned.

(Links to video: parts one, two, and three)

If you're an active member of the blogosphere, then this is nothing new. But in the interest of doing my part to make up for the complete lack of coverage the media that was afforded to this remarkable display of bravery just feet away from the leader of the free world, I'm linking to it, and I strongly suggest that anyone who hasn't seen part of the clip (at Crooks and Liars) or read the transcript, do so NOW.

This, from Editor & Publisher:

Colbert, who spoke in the guise of his talk-show character, who ostensibly supports the president strongly, urged Bush to ignore his low approval ratings, saying they were based on reality, "and reality has a well-known liberal bias."

He attacked those in the press who claim that the shake-up at the White House was merely re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. "This administration is soaring, not sinking," he said. "If anything, they are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg."

The nervous laughter among the reporters in attendance said it all.

Also, check out Peter Daou's criticism of the press for entirely missing Colbert's groundshaking riff in last weekend's news cycle. And thank Stephen Colbert, here.

According to the Guardian UK:

Militants [MEND] battling for more of Nigeria's oil revenue said they detonated a car bomb by remote control Saturday near a refinery in the country's southern delta region.

... Despite the oil riches, most of the southern delta region's people remain mired in deep poverty and the militants say they are fighting to change that.

President Olusegun Obasanjo says the militants are little more than thieves, involved in lucrative black-market dealings in stolen oil.

I believe the militants' side of the story almost completely, and I would bet that Obasanjo is at least fractionally correct that there are thieves among the militants. But the black market trade in Nigerian oil is very sophisticated and capital-heavy, and clearly requires the aid of local and state goverments to carry it out. If Obasanjo wants to blame someone for the black market, he should look to his governors -- and probably his own bank account.

According to the BBC, the US Embassy in Abuja has responded to repeated media requests by the Nigerian press to clarify its position on the current effort by supporters of the President and many State Governors to constitutionally extend term limits. The press release is not yet available at the US Embassy's web site, but the account of the Vanguard newspaper in Nigeria contains partial quotes:

As the debate on the constitution amendment gets underway in the National Assembly on Wednesday, the United States has expressed concern over "current efforts to amend Nigeria’s Constitution in order to allow the President and governors to run for third term."
The US embassy in a statement in Abuja believed "executive term limits should be respected in the interest of institutional democracy and organising political space."

The Embassy which said the statement was prompted by "continuing media inquiry regarding our position on the on-going process of amending the Nigerian Constitution" said: "The US respects the right of any country to amend its constitution through democratic, transparent and legal means. However, the US is concerned about the current efforts to amend Nigerian constitution in order to allow presidents and governors to run for third-term.

"Our view is very clear that executive term limits should be respected in the interest of institutional democracy and opening political space. This allows for new leaders to be groomed; and it supports the rule of law.

"We have consistently delivered this message to a number of countries facing the same issue. We understand President Obasanjo has not made any formal announcement of his plans after his second term expires in 2007."

It's true. Obasanjo has not made his plans public. And Nigerians have pointed out that even if term limits are constitutionally extended, he would still have to run again. But Nigeria does not have the same history of squeaky clean clean-elections that we do in the US (sarcasm). According to Human Rights Watch, Obasanjo's reelection in 2003 was marred by "widespread fraud and ballot-rigging. European Union election observers concluded that minimum standards for democratic elections were not met in a number of states."

Supporters of a 3rd term have argued that opponents of the plan would come to power only to squander Nigeria's $38 billion foreign reserves. (Clever argument: our opponents are even more corrupt that we are!)

The Federal Assembly debates the constitutional changes in the coming weeks. Stay tuned.