re: "Eat The Rich? Well-Funded, Nicely-Fed OWSers Won't Share Food With The (Other) Homeless"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ observed the social evolution of the OWS movement, which had just about reached the if-you-share-all-your-crayons-you-won't-have-any stage.

Money quote(s):

"Lessons of social evolution, part 8: Sharing of resources only works within a small group with some natural connection (such as familial bond) or other emotional/personal fondness for each other. Sharing of resources generally only works for a brief period of time -- the natural resentment towards Takers can only be briefly suppressed -- and usually during special occasions (such as communal feasts).

Being expected to share with individuals outside of one's kin group quickly produces resentment, and soon after, a codification of the principle of private property, which is, of course, the right to exclude others from the use of one's property as one deems fit.

A shorter form of this rule: People like visitors and/or strangers with their hands full, not with their hands out." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Read the whole thing.

10/27

re: "New Libyan Ruler Proposes More-Radical-Than-Expected Islamic Law"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ noted the fallability of experts and that social evolution doesn't happen overnight.

Money quote(s):

"Unexpectedly.

I am beginning to note our current cadre of putative "experts" is surprised by "unexpected" news that our non-experts actually expected (and predicted).

Perhaps "expertise" now means "idiocy.""

An "expert," as it was explained to me when I was just a wee street-agent-in-training, is either:

a. Someone from out-of-town with a briefcase; or

b. (etymology) "ex" (former or "has-been") + "spurt" (a drip under pressure).

"I've had mixed feelings about these uprisings. Some say that tearing down despots is a necessary step in the process of political maturation.

Others say that such despots will be replaced by vicious thugs worse than before.

Here's the thing: I think both are right. I think that democracy, for this part of the world, will only come after a long series of violent spasms and failures. I think one purge will give way to the next. I think one tyrant will replace the next, and then share his fate." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

&

"(T)he people of these lands are probably going to have to learn all the lessons of history that the West learned from ca. AD 1300 to the present. The Islamic world has been essentially frozen in the middle ages forever.

I suppose, if they were smart, they could skip over the long, violent process of discovering that a liberal (classic sense) democratic republic is the only system that really works, by studying our example, and applying the lessons our ancestors learned.

But of course they despise us, and despise democracy because they despise us, so they will endeavor to prove that "their" ways can work.

I think they will try virtually everything before attempting the model of the despised Western infidels." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Awhile back CAA attended a brown-bag presentation at Johns Hopkins' Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.

(This is not to brag, it was open to the public.)

The developing country under discussion that day was Congo (formerly Zaire) and academic superstar Francis Fukuyama was one of the speakers (although he disavowed any country-specific knowledge or experience of Congo).

The main speaker was an academic, Dr. Séverine Autesserre. From my notes:

"She noted the difficulties inherent with development and nation-building in a place like Congo due to the interconnectedness of the various mutually reinforcing political elements of nationhood: laws, representative institutions, and an independent judiciary. Perhaps her most crucial observation had to do with the unrealistic expectations of donor nations and international institutions regarding development in Congo and elsewhere. This was that nation-building in Europe and North America was a process which took centuries, five hundred or even a thousand years, to accomplish, uniting tribes and regional groups into a single nation. She deconstructed the European model of state development into three historical phases: state building to establish central institutions, development of a rule of law to limit the excesses of the state through equal protection and rights under the law, and finally institutionalizing of processes of accountability, so that state institutions and officials are accountable under the law to the people or their representatives."

(Bold typeface added for emphasis.)

Unexpectedly!

10/24

re: "Two American Tourists Kidnapped In Egypt"

Ace at Aces of Spades HQ noted the misadventure that can befall tourists in dangerous places.

Money quote(s):

"I hate to cast any aspersions on any victims of barbarity, but please, Americans, do not travel to politically unstable parts of the world." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Any American who's not a regular, experienced international traveler (and those who are, as well) would do well always and often by visiting, and reading, about their destinations before booking their reservations.

You see, the State Department and its minions abroad take great pains to prepare these exhaustive compilations of Country Specific Information for every country in the world. (And then they make sure to update them at least once a year!)

So do yourself a favor. An informed traveler is less likely to be one of our emergency customers abroad.

"2010 was a record year for tourism in Egypt. This year it's down half. And this incident won't help."

2/3

re: "Burned Korans & Riots & Feeding the Delusions of the Delusional"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ offered a helpful suggestion.

Money quote(s):

"If someone's having a panic attack, the worst possible thing to do, as someone trying to help, is to play into it. To pay too much attention. To act very concerned.

People do that, thinking it's helpful. In fact, in exacerbates the situation.

My point is this: To what extent have we played into and exacerbated this absurd Muslim psychopathy over the Koran?

And to what extent would it be defeated if we simply stopped playing into it, and actually routinized the destruction of Korans (or other shows of disrespect, or, more accurately, "refusing to treat the Muslim religion as the officially sanctified state religion of America")?

To what extent are we encouraging these little spells by playing along with them? By treating the Koran as scared, most of the time, to what extent are we writing our own tragic ending when some stupid book gets burned?

Isn't it dangerous to feed the delusions of the deluded? Isn't the right course of action to insist on a more grounded view of reality?

Shouldn't we set the default, routine, expected mode of behavior as "we are not a Muslim nation and furthermore are forbidden by the Constitution from treating one religion as sacrosanct"?"

&

"(O)ur current policy also seems to not help, and is furthermore repellent."

3/2

re: "Sexy Russian Spy Anna Chapman Arrested Because She Was Getting Too Close To Someone Inside "Obama's Inner Circle"?"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ provided a demonstration of how sometimes the best domestic U.S. news coverage comes from abroad.

Money quote(s):

"That's what a former FBI counterintelligence officer reveals.

The Independent (UK) highlights the six hundredth revelation that Iraqi informant "Curveball" lied. They bury the actual new news -- that the FBI felt it had to move quickly to arrest and deport Anna Chapman, for fear that someone close to Obama was about to snork her, and get caught in a "honey trap" (sex, followed by extortion for secrets/influence).

That someone "close" to Obama? A "sitting cabinet official," this FBI counterintelligence officer says." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

In counterintelligence, you want to find, neutralize, and exploit those hostile intelligence threats targeting you.

So while Ms. Chapman may have been identified some time prior to her arrest, she was probably under various sorts of surveillance in order to determine the extent of her own network and contacts.

That's the first sort of exploitation, by the way. But neutralizing the threat she, and her network, presented had to take precedence if she was infiltrating too close to our own inner circles.

4/2

re: "Perspective"

Dave In Texas at Ace of Spades HQ considered the dissimilarities.

Money quote(s):

"Consider the difference between your average life-coddled "occupy" whatever ninny, with his or her apparent dental care, privileges of upbringing, friggin clothes and iPhones (THANKS MOM!), and education, and the American Soldier.

Kurt Schlichter already did this for us."

American soldiers know about field sanitation, for one thing.

"It's kind of difficult for me to give a rat's ass about these incoherent ninnies who are occupying whatever, and down-twinkling, except to note that they are being pushed at us through the media, and the left, in order to advance the leftist agenda. So a little perspective doesn't hurt. Military service isn't for everyone. But working and supporting yourself, and your family if you have one, that kinda is for everyone. It's how life works." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

I get that there's frustration, about the economy, and anxiety, about the future, but CAA's resume and background didn't have a lot of free time available to spend doing non-income producing stuff for weeks on end.

Even when I was unemployed (and CAA has been, variously, "down-sized," "right-sized", and, my personal favorite, "re-engineered" at different times) I was generally looking for work full-time and working part-time jobs (hello restaurants!) to make my savings last a little longer.

"And another thing: John Adams put us some f'n knowledge, when he said,

"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."

That quote just can't get re-posted enough.

10/16

re: "For Rick Perry"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ had some commentary on the Republican primary candidacies.

Money quote(s):

"There are two main sorts of primary voters: Those who know too little, and those who know too much. As for the former -- there's not much I can do about them. They don't read this site, or probably too much of any political source.

Maybe they read Time. Bless their hearts." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

CAA is often asked, by persons preparing to take the Foreign Service Officer Test (FSOT; the computer-based exam that replaced the FSWE), for advice on how to prepare for it. Now, in olden times, when dinosaurs walked the Earth and the essay portion of the FSWE involved a "blue book" style handwritten essay, CAA took a fairly standard approach to get his brain right before test day.

A lot of the approach involved developing and maintaining a good situational awareness of current events, both domestic and international, and not just about politics. One of the specific suggestions for doing that is to read a weekly news magazine, such as TIME, Newsweek, or U.S. News & World Report.

Not so much anymore, at least as regards TIME. And I say that with sadness.

CAA grew up in a household where we got the Washington Post delivered in the morning, the Evening Star delivered in the afternoon, and every week the mailman would bring a TIME magazine, and I'd read it cover-to-cover.

It's just not the same magazine, although perhaps it never was.

"The online community consists mainly of the latter -- we know a lot about the candidates, and are each making complicated decisions about trade-offs between electability and agenda (and likelihood of advancing that agenda).

My belief is that we know so much that the secondary and tertiary level things we know are crowding out the primary things we know. That is, that we know a bunch of second- and third- order things and knowing so much is crowding out consideration of the top-level, major bullet-point, controlling facts."

Ace makes an interesting point here. People who are wonks and geeks about politics and elections tend to get fairly far down in the weeds about candidates, their positions, and their histories. To the point where we'll drop references in normal conversation that garner puzzled looks from those around us, since it may not have been covered in the broadcasts of American Idol, Dancing With The Hasbeens, Real Housewives, or other trash TV like the Daily Show or the current latenight successors to Johnny Carson.

While I may not be enthusiastic about the relative treatment of dogs by either the Republican front-runner versus the Democratic incumbent, in neither case will they be dispositive regarding my vote come election day.

"(B)iographical and character details. Much of the More Informed cohort of the party seems to be giving these factors short shrift. I would suggest to such folks that a certain type of candidate tends to prevail in elections, and that type of candidate tends to have a positive narrative in biographical and characterological traits."

I like the point Ace makes here. Consider Reagan in light of this, likewise Clinton (to a degree). Optimism sells.

"I can only say so often that the swing voters in the center of the country are among the least-informed voters on the planet. Every survey demonstrates that, despite their claims to be all about "the substance" and "the issues," they know less about the substance and the issues than partisans on either side of the aisle.

Being apolitical, they're not very interested in politics. Stands to reason. This means, then, that they don't read much about politics.

Their decision-making is very superficial."

See how Ace builds an argument here. Crafty.

"I would suggest that we should not get too hung up on fighting the last war, because the media will simply change the rules of engagement."

Well, duh.

"Barack Obama did not serve in the military. That is perhaps the most understated sentence in the history of communications, but since people are interested in drawing contrasts, consider that one."

This passage followed one contrasting the various service (and non-service) records of the various Republican candidates at the time in was written. It wasn't a stand-alone potshot at the president, although it certainly would serve as one.

"I cannot and will not say that brainpower is unimportant. I would however say that character matters too."

Yes.

None of the candidates, no matter what one may be influenced to think by the media, are particularly dumb. They may have worldviews and political perspectives far to the left or right of what you consider to be smart, but that doesn't mean they're dumb.

Presidential debates, public speeches, and the like are hard to do. Which is why most people don't do them. Most people don't like to do them. Some people make them look easier than others. This only means they're better at making speeches (or reading teleprompters, but I digress). I would submit that the particular set of talents and personality traits that help make a good public speaker or debater may or may not make a good president. Still, practice will help. Minor slip-ups in public speaking shouldn't be made too much of though.

"America, and especially the Republican party, has long favored elevating governors to the presidency. Governors are, after all, the presidents of single states. They have nearly the exact same duties and functions (including even maintaining and controlling the state national guards). They have similar executive powers and set the agendas for their respective legislatures. In the case of border states such as Texas, they even require some foreign policy making duties.No job in the world really prepares someone for the Presidency. But one job, more than any other, comes fairly close to doings so."

While the U.S. Senate is famous for housing one hundred politicians who earnestly believe they should be president, the fifty governor's mansions house the people who are most likely to be better chief executives. Or if not better, at least better tested, so the voters can examine a record of leadership in office rather than that of a legislator. Being the "chief legislator" is only a part of the president's job, and it's a part of every state governor's job as well.

"The stakes in this election are enormous. The next president may well appoint five justices the Supreme Court, essentially choosing our basic jurisprudence for the next 30 years. This will be the presidency in which we make fundamental decisions about debt, and spending, and entitlements. Decisions on those may decide our fiscal policy for the next 20 or 30 years, too.

But while those are the stakes of this election, the election will actually turn on... Jobs.

Unemployment is at 8.6%, with real unemployment around 16%. For the sake of comparison, unemployment during the Great Depression hit 25% at its high. We are not there yet, but we've consistently been at around 9% for years (with real unemployment higher).

Primary voters tend to be strongly ideological. We have very strongly held beliefs about abstract notions of government and "The Good." But general election voters -- especially those swing voters -- do not have strong opinions about such matters. Otherwise they would be partisans for one camp or another. They tend to be pragmatic, rather than abstract, thinkers. They do not have any prevailing theory of governance, which is what gives them the flexibility to vote for George W. Bush in 2004 and then an all-but-declared socialist four years later.

They care almost entirely about results, because they have no underlying theory that might explain away failures"

CAA is torn between deciding whether this should be considered a bug or a feature. I suppose it'll have to simply be accepted as something that simply is.

"If you think the unaffiliated, mostly apolitical voters in the center are going to be swayed by full-throated announcements of steadfast ideological commitment, you're guilty of universalizing from your own experience.

If they thought that way, they would not be independents. They would, like you, be declared partisans and ideologically-motivated voters.

Speeches are nice but facts are what change minds." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA)

Ace is describing a sort of cognitive bias, the version of "mirror-imaging" to which political geeks may fall prey.

"I will say this without fear of contradiction: A president can only really push 3-4 major initiatives in his first term, and 1-2 in his second. By the last half of his second term, he's a lame duck, and is chiefly clocking time and fighting off efforts to undo whatever he's done in the first six years."

&

"(T)hat impulse -- the idea that the first questions should always be "Wait, does the federal government need to do this? Is it even constitutional that they do this?" -- is the right impulse."

1/3

re: "Obama Has Been Hurt by the Media's Leniency"

rdbrewer at Ace of Spades HQ remembers a time when the media gave less deference to power.

Money quote(s):

"Remember the days when the press rudely shouted questions at Ronald Reagan during news conferences? I do. There were times when they seemed angry and wouldn't let him answer. Now they won't even hit-up Obama over something as serious as, say, Operation Fast and Furious where lives were lost and the trail of dirty deeds appears to lead all the way to the White House. When they do venture close to a topic not on the official White House approved topics list, they are sheepish, almost apologetic. Pathetic, primitive, in-group territoriality. I'd call it childish if it weren't so reptilian.

Republican administrations have to stay on their toes. Democrat administrations do not."

This actually seems to changing, or at least shifting a bit, as the presidential election campaigns (and politicking, to include class- and race-warfare smokescreens) begin to gain momentum.

Nonetheless, it doesn't seem to have penetrated into the White House press corps.

8/28

re: "Marines May Face Prosecution For Peeing On Corpses"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ considered the motivations.

Money quote(s):

"The real crime was the felony stupid of videotaping it.

A lot of people seem upset by this. I think it's upsetting that now these guys are probably going to get cashiered over a stupid act. But the act itself doesn't really upset me.

The whole point of a rule against corpse desecration is that you show respect and honor to the fallen one. But what if that fallen one had been trying to kill you not ten minutes before, and in fact you had killed him before he killed you?"

Hmm. Actually, I'm not sure about the precise rationale for non-desecration as part of the law of warfare, but assuming Ace's reasoning is correct (and upon reflection, it probably is) it's not a stand-alone value. It's part-and-parcel of a larger set of values having to do with an adversary being a lawful combatant who follows the same (or a quite similar) set of values known collectively as the laws of war.

Little things like wearing a uniform, not targeting peaceful civilians, taking surrenders, treating prisoners humanely, behaving with honor, &tc.

(None of which is stuff the Taliban are particularly noted for.)

"I'm not sure there's any other way you can feel about a terrorist dirtbag who was just trying to kill you and your friends -- so you're not naturally going to feel that you should treat the corpse with respect.

Your training and discipline should kick in to supplement that and keep you from doing this, but your natural moral sense isn't there. Because, seriously, the hell with this terrorist."

1/13

re: "The Miserable Failure's War in Libya May Result In Victory"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ doesn't buy into the whole responsibility-t0-protect schtick, he's a bit more Jacksonian and punitive.

Money quote(s):

"The Bush model of war -- go in heavy, attempt to win the war on the backs of American (and allied) soldiers, attempt to establish a monopoly on the use of violence, and then continue that monopoly on the use of violence by acting as the nation's law enforcement/army for five, six, ten years -- doesn't work, or at least does not work at costs the American public is willing to pay.

I see no point agitating for a Full War Model against Iran, for example -- to urge such a thing is futile. I do not believe the American public has the appetite for such an endeavor. (At least-- not unless Iran uses its soon-to-be-built nukes.)

We didn't use to take care of these countries in this fashion. We used to arm and train rebels within those countries (they've all got them), fund them, provide intelligence, spread some bribe money around, and, when necessary, bring in the sort of Word of God that our air and naval forces issue from the air or sea." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Using auxilliaries is hardly a concept revolutionary in warfare, it's an economy-of-force move that makes sense for a global power concerned (as we should be) unnecessary U.S. casualties and an extended logistics chain.

"Colin Powell's ludicrous statement -- "You break it, you buy it" -- is a formula for nonstop, decades-long nation-building of exactly the same type that George W. Bush campaigned against in 2000, albeit on a much longer and much bloodier scale than we saw in, say, Haiti.
Why do we "buy" it if we break it?

Broken societies reassemble themselves. In fact, they seem to do so more quickly than people expect, even when faced with great devastation.

There is no need for American troops to hand-hold them through this process.

If a country thwarts or threatens the US enough to invite a decapitating military strike, one that takes out the ruling regime and renders the state without any force to impose order -- they broke it themselves." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

And, if necessary, rinse and repeat. Sadly, we may be headed down this road whether we like it or not regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan....

"(W)hat there won't be in the model of warfare I am endorsing is a large body of American troops in the crossfire.

Yes, our troops are the best in the world, and not just the best at destroying the enemy -- they are the best at destroying the enemy while sparing noncombatants' lives. They are the most disciplined and most precise forces the world have ever seen, in addition to being the most lethal.

So yes, the presence of our troops can in fact spare any number of noncombatants in such a bloody civil war.

But... I have to say: Who gives a shit? How many foreign citizens in an country we've gone to war with do I need to save in fair exchange for one American soldier's life?" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Ace offers his own formulas for weighting that decision. It's a smarter way to evaluate strategic options than applying some sort of body count metric later on.

"These basket-case, broken, violent rogue countries have their own growing up to do. They have to go through their own spasms. They have to shed their own blood, and inflict their own massacres.

Yes, we can spare them some of this; but why should we? Someone is going to die in a war. I nominate foreign nationals.

American troops' heavy engagement is better for all parties in a war, except for the American troops themselves, and while they might be selfless enough to nobly volunteer for such missions, I'm a little too selfish to want to use them for such purposes any longer.

In some cases, we may need to fight a WWII style total war. Fine. In all other cases, we should go back to the 70s/80s model of backing indigenous fighters with the 90s/2000s addition of devastating airstrikes."

If we're not the world's policeman (as we claim not to be), then it might behoove us to be a bit more sparing in the application of our blood and treasure abroad.

"(T)he advantage of this style of warfare is that it is politically possible, which I no longer thing the Bush style is." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

The man has a point.

"We have a strong interest in disarming Iran.

Do we have that strong an interest in rebuilding it and pacifying it? No, I don't think we do."

It's a valid point of discussion, and should be discussed, rather than assuming that Iran is a likely candidate for the Grand Fenwick model.

8/18

re: "BREAKING: Government Backed Protesters Storm US Embassy Grounds In Damascus . UPDATE: US Says Embassy Grounds Cleared Of Attackers"

DrewM. at Ace of Spades HQ remarked on a purely-spontaneous-mob attack.

Money quote(s):

"I have to admit, I wasn't thrilled when Obama decided to send an ambassador to Syria after Bush had left the post vacant for a few years in protest of the Assad regimes behavior. Honestly though, I like the cut of Ambassador Ford's jib.

Ford took an unauthorized visit to the town of Hamma and then went on facebook (yes, sounds lame but that's where the anti-government activist types are) to call out the regime."

Credit where credit is due, even from consistent critics of the administration.

Damascus is one of those places (I'm sure you can think of at least one other, they tend to be police/counterintelligence states) where "spontaneous mobs" don't just assemble out of nowhere and overwhelm the ubiquitous host nation security forces that surround Western diplomatic missions.

Some years ago, OBO bureau (Overseas Buildings Operations) got tired of having to wait months to get replacement forced entry/ballistic (FE/BR) glazings for the mission's exterior doors and windows out to Damascus every time the Assad regime would be annoyed or bored enough to bus in a "spontaneous mob" to trash the place.

(The FE/BR glazings are quite robust and well up to prevent any "spontaneous mob" members from breaching through them into our buildings, but they can get pretty messed up in the attempts, which rather interferes with the whole transparency thing you expect from an actual window. Marvels of American technological know-how that they are, you can't exactly run down to the Tent Depot and walk out with a replacement. They have to be custom-built at one of a handful of manufacturing companies in the U.S.)

So rather than have to wait months for a set of replacements every time Assad's "spontaneous mob" would visit, OBO got approval (and funding) to simply procure, and store in Syria, a set of replacement window glazings. That way they just had to install them as soon as it was safe to do so and re-order the damaged part, so the next time there was a "spontaneous mob" attack, they'd be ready.

So far as I know, Damascus is the only place we've ever had to do that.

(An expensive hobby (for us), these "spontaneous mob" attacks seem to be.)



7/11

re: "Obama's Absolutely Unbelievable Press Conference"

DrewM. at Ace of Spades HQ had a laundry list of observations.

They included:

"First...who is defending Gadaffi? No one.

Second...Remember when Obama demanded that Democrats like himself stop criticizing Bush over Iraq lest it send something other than "a unified message" to Saddam or al Qaeda in Iraq?

And finally...standing up for the constitutional role of Congress in matters of war and peace is a "cause célèbre". This is how the President of the United States views the constitutional responsibilities of a co-equal branch of government."

Old news in terms of NATO's Libyan intervention, but the war-powers issue isn't going to go away. It transcends the current administration and the roots of the current Constitutional dilemna reach back beyond the Gulf of Tonkin all the way to the Korean War.

6/29

re "Are The French Backing Down On Military Action In Libya?"

DrewM. at Ace of Spades HQ made an interesting prediction.

Money quote(s):

"So after going to war (yes, that's what it is) because France badgered us into it, we might get left holding the bag? Who could have seen that coming?

I'd say that the odds are better than 50/50 that before this is all over France surrenders to Libya and cedes some territory to it."

Qadhaf senior: dead. Qadhafi juniors: dead or imprisoned. Still, this story has chapters more to go.


7/ 11

re: "Democrats, Who Spent Months Arguing for "Compromise," Now Insist Obama "Throw Down The Gauntlet" "

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ vented more spleen.

Money quote(s):

"Is this worth a post? I don't know. It's more of the same, isn't it? While they mau-mau Republicans to pray at the altar of compromise, they demand Obama fight, fight, fight.

Why, it's almost as if they are entirely lacking in principle or intellectual integrity and are just freelance political strategists in service of the DNC and Organizing for America, eh?

The point is so obvious (and so obviously true) it's a waste of time to even spend pixels on it.
But yes, the devotees of compromise are now promoting the slogan "If you're not with me, you're with the economic terrorists.""

9/6

re: "Alabama vs. Illegal Immigration [ArthurK]"

Open Blogger at Ace of Spades HQ watched a video about Alabama's new anti-illegal immigration law.

Money quote(s):

"I have a heart. But I still want them out of the country. Sometimes you gotta do stuff that makes you sad."

That is ofttimes the essence of immigration-related (including consular and visa) work. I don't want to work with consular officers who have no heart, I just want them to make their adjudicational decisions with all of their decisional faculties: heads, hearts, and gut.

Real life ain't bean-bag. You can't please everyone, after all; you're sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution (and laws) of a particular country.

"The question is always asked, "How are you going to remove 12 million undocumented?" Here's an answer - cut off the reasons they come here (jobs (via that online id check) schools)and they'll remove themselves."

Self-deportation works.

(10/1)

re: "Commanders Livid As Obama Orders Reduction of Iraq Troop Strength To... 3000"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ cut to the heart of the matter.

Money quote(s):

"How can 3000 men in a foreign country accomplish anything, even securing their own safety?

This seems, yet again, to be a purely political decision, made without regard to any security goal or even the affected troops' safety.

If you're hollowing out the force to the point where they are no longer tasked with anything except defending themselves from terrorist attacks, why are they there at all?"

Lipstick on a pig?

(9/6)

re: "Mickey Kaus: Perry's Positions on Immigration Are Even Worse Than I Thought"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ has his own ideas about immigration reform.

Money quote(s):

"I've long been in favor of a guest worker program. Liberals hate this idea because they want immigrant workers voting in elections, and also supporting the American social welfare system (because, being citizens, they'd be beneficiaries). The unions hate the idea because they don't like the idea of immigrants with legal status competing for jobs.

Many conservatives don't like the idea because they want illegal immigrants stopped, period."

Like a lot of consular officers who work hard and conscientiously in implementing lawful immigration programs, illegal immigration pretty much burns my shorts. (We are not amused!) There's an in-joke that plays on the predominently liberal flavor of our diplomatic corps: new foreign service officers are liberal, but after their first tour interviewing (and adjudicating) visa applicants they're still liberal, but not when it comes to immigration.

"(T)here is a fact on the ground that cannot easily be ignored that American agriculture relies, to a serious extent, on immigrant farm workers coming in to collect the harvests. There is a glib response to that -- "We'll just encourage Americans to take those jobs!" -- and I suppose that's possible, but the American public of 2011 is not the American public of, say, 1932. Whereas once American workers might take a bus to the heartland and work the fields for a season, American workers no longer feel they need to do that, as government unemployment programs don't require them to change jobs or to travel long distances for work. So, in the main, they don't." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

If things got bad enough (and here's hoping they don't), that lack of needful feeling could change drastically. But for now, with the modern welfare state (and the option of moving back home to your parent's house) American citizen labor is unlikely to be quite that mobile.

"(P)art of the reason there aren't any serious immigration reforms -- and I mean on the enforcement side, here -- is because neither side is particularly willing to confront the facts on the ground. Liberals demand an amnesty and citizenship to goose their vote share (and further drain our social welfare finances), which is a non-starter for conservatives. Business-oriented conservatives, however, block real immigration enforcement, because they feel those enforcement efforts don't take into account the fact that many businesses have come to rely on immigrant workers, and would be disrupted by any kind of crackdown that was more than superficial (which is what our current raids mostly are).

To me, the best solution is to permit guest-worker visas but only for those industries that have long relied on immigrant illegal workers (agriculture, mainly), with a smaller pool of visas for industries that have recently begun to rely on such workers (hotels, restaurants), and none at all for industries which are just recently beginning to indulge in illegal hiring.

Then start reducing the visas for the middle category (the hospitality industries), to begin ratcheting this practice down in a slow way, forcing them little by little to stop hiring illegals.
Such guest worker visas should only be generous for the one industry that seems to be historically dependent on seasonal workers (agriculture).

That is, less of a war on illegal immigration, and more of a containment and rollback model."

Ace seems considerably more in touch with public sentiment on this issue, in severe contrast to our elected/appointed leadership which seems bent on expanding categories of worker programs.

"I think our laws do not reflect the reality that immigrants pick crops, and there aren't a huge number of Americans ready and able to step in were they to stop. Businesses will hire them illegally because they have to, and then the political structure will turn a blind eye to all of this because they know it's necessary, and the situation continues, with no support on either side for any kind of actual governing law.

Because there is no majority for any scheme of law here, we've all collectively decided, essentially, to keep the old "law" in place and just ignore the fact it's being broken left and right."

(9/6)

re: "Osama bin Ladin's Courier Had Phone Numbers For Longtime Militant-Group Asset of Pakistani Intelligence"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ appreciated the gravity of this news.

Money quote(s):

"The bigger the problem gets, the more intractable it gets.

Pakistan is a country of some 130 million people, many of them terrorist maniacs, and not only has nukes, but acts as a nuclear Johnny Appleseed throughout the world."

This problem hasn't gotten any smaller since this was posted in June, as Adm. Mullen's recent remarks made clear.

re: "NYT: We Cannot Possibly Withdraw From a War Before It Is Won Or It Might Undermine US Credibility (No Seriously, Stop Laughing)"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ cherry-picked a great quote.

re: "SCOTUS to POTUS: You're Not Very Good At This Whole Law Thing, Are You?"

Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades HQ commented on a consular notification case.

Money quote(s):

"A child rapist/murderer and the President teamed up last week to ask the Supreme Court to stay the rapist/murderer's execution in Texas so that Congress could have time to consider legislation that would invalidate the murderer's conviction. (As if that would ever pass Congress.) They believe that international law was violated because the criminal was not advised of his right to contact the Mexican consulate when he was arrested. You see, the criminal is an alien."

Nice summary of the facts in order of their importance.

It's also difficult to notify the consulate of someone, and illegal alien for instance, who doesn't tell you (or denies) that they're not a U.S. citizen.

"(L)ast year, in a separate case, the Supreme Court ruled that, while international law is violated when an alien isn't advised of this treaty right to contact his consulate, domestic law is just honkey-dory with it because Congress never implemented the treaty. So that guy was executed. Since then, Congress has done nothing to implement the treaty."

Three. Co-Equal. Branches. Of. Government.

Got that part? None of the three branches possesses the divine right of kingship. They each have their roles and missions.