The Vatican and the Great Wall
Why does the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) still hold an iron grip on power in the People's Republic of China (PRC) despite the wildly capitalistic reality of the PRC's economy? Why is the CCP secure in its imperium a decade and a half after the grandpappy of them all, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), went the way of the dodo? Because the CCP is wily, as in this case: hyperlink! Hmmm, who can we oppress the practice of Christianity in China yet largely deflect international criticism? I know, we'll co-opt "Catholicism" for our own purposes! Thus was born the Patriotic Chinese Catholic Association. To the bitter end, the CPSU believed that religion was the opiate of the people and thwarted, terrorized, and interdicted the Russian Orthodox Church accordingly. One would think that, given China's history on the subject, the CCP would be more sensitve to "opium" allusions, but loyal reds though Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaoqi, and Deng Xioaping were, a proper reading of the history of the PRC requires an understanding that the CCP was always Chinese first and foremost, and Communist a distant second. Thus, while the rigidly dogmatic CPSU is now a memory the more adroit CCP has found religion and lived to fight another day. I wonder what specifically it is about Falun Gong that boils the blood of the technocrats of the CCP when they have shown such great willingness to "accommodate" the Catholic Church? Huh.

The heretical sham of the Patriotic Chinese Catholic Association is quite ingenious, but the Chinese Communist Party, for all it's wiles and cleverness, would do well to remember that the Roman Catholic Church is not without cunning.

Also, the Bishop of Hong Kong is properly addressed not as "Cardinal Joseph Zen," as in the BBC article, but as Joseph Cardinal Zen. (Lousy anti-Catholic Brits.) Cardinal Zen's name is not quite as much fun as that of the late Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila, but it's close.

The Huddled Masses Yearning to Breathe Free
As a statist and a law and order type, I am absolutely opposed to giving all the illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. an automatic amnesty. But the idea of deporting 12,000,000 people is ludicrous. Surely, a symbolically substantial but not overly burdensome fine and a waiting period before becoming eligible for citizenship are viable solutions to the late unpleasantness. But as pro-immigrant as I am, yesterday's May Day "boycott" perturbed me greatly. The whole enterprise reeks of economic blackmail, and no one likes to be blackmailed. I cannot see any way these massive demonstrations don't play directly into the hands of the conservatives who support the most draconian immigration reforms.

Gay marriage is the right and moral way to go, but in 2004 Mayor Gavin Newsome of San Francisco undoubtedly aided President Bush's reelection (a good end achieved through less than ideal means). Massive demonstrations by illegal immigrants can only help enact the wrong kind of immigration reform.