Omar Abdel-Baqui reports at the Wall Street Journal:

KHIRBET AL-MA’ZAH, Syria—When Sunni Islamist rebels toppled Bashar al-Assad’s regime, many residents of this rural village were elated by the end of a half-century of oppression even though they belonged to the same Muslim sect as Syria’s deposed dictator.

The residents, members of the Alawite minority, now say their excitement has been replaced by fear. Masked men have terrorized the village, beating people, looting homes and using anti-Alawite slurs. Some community members have been missing for days after the attacks and are feared dead.

Khodr Ibrahim, a 22-year-old resident of the village, said he was playing videogames in a shop when he and his 24-year-old brother were pulled outside by armed men. They pointed their rifles at the Ibrahims, cursing their Alawite backgrounds, staging mock executions and striking the elder brother until several older women in the village persuaded the militants to stop, the family and other townspeople said.

“I thought for certain they would kill us,” Ibrahim said.

You may recall that is very much what I expected. Although Syria’s Alawites were not to blame for the Assads’ tyranny, they are being held to account. I will be greatly surprised if Syria stays together in the form it has been.

The wildfires in Southern California are in their sixth day. NBC News reports:

Fueled by powerful winds and dry conditions, a series of ferocious wildfires erupted Tuesday and roared across the Los Angeles area, destroying hundreds of homes and killing at least 16 people, including some who died trying to prevent the fires from engulfing their homes.

A Los Angeles County fire official said an untold number of significant injuries were linked to two of the fires, and a city official in Los Angeles described Tuesday night as “one of the most devastating and terrifying” that she had seen in her corner of the city.

I found this post by Keely Covello, “Why Los Angeles Is Burning”, interesting.

The historic fires in Southern California continue to spread, out of control. Austin Turner reports at KTLA:

LOS ANGELES (KTLA) – The Palisades Fire, the most destructive wildfire in Los Angeles history, continued to spread with limited containment on Friday.

According to a Cal Fire update issued at 1:57 a.m., the blaze had scorched 19,978 acres in the Pacific Palisades, Malibu and elsewhere in the Santa Monica Mountains. The fire erupted Tuesday morning and, fanned by hurricane-force Santa Ana winds, quickly ripped through residential and commercial areas.

More than 5,000 structures have been lost, many of them homes and businesses.

Damage is believed to be in the tens of billions of dollars.

Tens of thousand of people remain under evacuation orders or warnings. The evacuation order extended throughout the Pacific Palisades to the Pacific Ocean and included areas of Santa Monica, Malibu and Topanga. Residents and businesses in Calabasas remained under an evacuation warning on Friday.

It is my understanding that California Gov. Newsom has called out firefighting units of the state’s National Guard to assist in fighting the fires. I hope that governors of other states have offered similar resources and Gov. Newsome accepts since I see no way that the fire will not continue to spread without additional resources.

I note that partisans and ideologues continue to attempt to frame the fires in ways favorable to their points-of-view. I consider such moves ghoulish while the fires rage. There will be plenty of time for that later. I did, however, want to take note of a piece at American Prospect from Harold Meyerson asserting that the fires were completely predictable:

Mike Davis told us what would happen to those homes and, when the winds reached their apogee, as predictably they would, to the shops and homes and apartments on the flatlands, too. The Chumash and early-19th-century seagoers knew what would happen. Only we denied it.

I recommend you read this “open letter for Ukraine and Russia” by Keith D. Dickson and Yurij Holowinsky at Small Wars Journal. I think it’s a pretty good summary of the U. S. position. Here’s the meat of the piece:

• Ukraine has become the strategic bulwark of the West. Ukraine’s ultimate survival and regeneration is now a priority for the long-term security of Europe.
• Any cease-fire or peace arrangement will only be temporary. There will be another war in three to five years. Putin will use this time to rearm and correct mistakes. The West must understand that this period represents strategic breathing space to prepare Ukraine to fight and win against another Russian assault employing economic, informational, military (land, air, and missile forces), and cyber capabilities. This means significant investment in airpower, ballistic missile defense, a fully equipped, NATO standard heavy division, several light infantry brigades, and a robust special operations capability.
• There is no formal NATO membership in Ukraine’s future. Instead, Ukraine becomes for all intents and purposes, a shadow member without Article V guarantees, but with all the benefits of NATO training and interoperability.
• Zelensky will have to accept territory lost to Russia is permanent, but it allows for a definable zone of separation and allows Putin to declare his pyrrhic victory.
• The West must look carefully at the leaders who will emerge after Zelensky. Ukraine’s shaky political history over the past 20 years is an essential factor to consider in this assessment.
• The post-war truce will require strong and visionary leadership to prepare the country for the next war, while building close ties with the EU and NATO as a shadow member. How the Western leaders guide this transition will determine the future of peace in Europe.
• Putin must be made to realize that Russia is trapped in a war that requires a demonstratable victory. Yet, this victory ultimately has no benefit. Putin’s goal of defeating the Ukrainian armed forces in open combat and occupying any more Ukrainian territory is a strategic impossibility and will result in disaster.
• The 1994 Trilateral Statement is dead. The nuclear weapons that Ukraine turned over to Russia most likely now threaten its existence. The security assurances agreed upon by Russia, the U.S., and Great Britain became null and void when Russia seized Crimea and the Donbas. Ukraine could assert that because it once was a nuclear power, it can become one again. This possibility should not be ruled out.
• Sanctions must remain in place as a guarantee of good faith in any negotiated outcome. If Russia shows an actual interest in long-term peace, the sanctions can be selectively lifted.

I think it makes a better case for ongoing support for Ukraine than most of the other statements I’ve read recently. It also has some significant internal contradictions, e.g. on the one hand it concedes that Russia has won but on the other it asserts an unsatisfied need for Putin to realize a “demonstrable victory”.

We’ve been watching the coverage of the fires in Los Angeles. My heart goes out to those who’ve lost their homes and everything they own. I suspect that what’s unfolding is the greatest disaster in the city’s history.

There will be plenty of time for blame and recriminations later.

KTLA’s coverage has been excellent, it can be accessed via the Internet, and there’s a Roku app for it.

If anybody wonders why I keep harping on government corruption, keep in mind that I live in Chicago in the state of Illinois. Since 1960 Illinois has had 11 governors, six Democrats and five Republicans. Of those one Republican (20%) and three Democrats (a whopping 50%) have been convicted of charges relating to corruption. As I speak the longest-service speaker of a state legislature (and, coincidentally, chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party) is one trial for corruption. I doubt that anybody doubts that he’s corrupt but I have no idea whether he’ll be convicted or not.

Illinois Policy provides a rundown of corruption in Illinois.

And that’s just the stuff that’s against the law. Practices may be corrupt without being against the law. For example, present Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker is on tape discussing trading for a Senate seat with then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich. He didn’t report the conversation to the authorities. That’s not against the law but it is corrupt. Public employees unions contributing to political campaigns is a corrupt practice. “Pay-for-play” even if there is no quid pro quo is a corrupt practice. I could go on practically indefinitely.

Here’s IP’s conclusion:

Government corruption cost Illinoisans $550 million in lost economic activity every year, with a $9.9 billion total loss from 2000 to 2017. Chicago is even worse.

Chicago was ranked as the most corrupt metropolitan area in America for a fourth consecutive year in 2023. It led the nation with an average 41 corruption convictions per year from 1976 to 2021.

Whether in treasure or trust, corruption costs Illinois. Vigorous federal prosecution can help curb it, but not much will change until state leaders get serious about ethics reforms.

It’s not just ethics reforms. Failing to provide the necessary contributions to public employee pension funds is a corrupt practice.

While we’re on the subject what do you think the incoming Trump Administration and Congress will do about immigration? My guess is that other than half-hearted attempts at building the wall that Mr. Trump promised back in 2016, not much.

I think the obvious measures like universal mandatory E-Verify will be unpalatable to too many Republicans and doing house-to-house sweeps will be a bridge too far, especially without the cooperation of local officials which will not be forthcoming.

At the Wall Street Journal Jeremy Neufeld provides what strikes me as prudent advice. Don’t eliminate H-1B visas and don’t leave them as-is. Reform them.

A civil war has erupted among Donald Trump’s supporters over the H-1B program, America’s primary visa for skilled workers. Does putting “America First” mean ending the program, as Steve Bannon believes, or supporting it, as Elon Musk and Mr. Trump argue?

The debate stems from a fundamental flaw in the H-1B program: A randomized lottery is used to select which applications are reviewed. In effect this means the lottery determines who gets a visa.

Awarding visas by chance means that while the program can bring in world-class talent, including Mr. Musk, it also brings in thousands of middling workers. They compete with citizens for jobs and contribute less meaningfully to productivity and innovation. As constructed, then, the lottery doesn’t serve American interests and needs to be replaced.

The H-1B program is supposed to be reserved for workers in occupations requiring specialized knowledge, but that can include anything from biochemists earning hundreds of thousands to acupuncturists making less than the median household. This means that the country’s flagship skilled immigration program is seriously underdelivering, wasting scarce slots on low-paying jobs. Many are going to basic information-technology workers.

The problem isn’t the pool of talent; it’s how we choose from it. There are nearly four times as many H-1B applications every year as available slots. This disparity is worsened by companies that flood the system with applications for candidates meeting the bare minimum requirements for an H-1B. Companies that need top talent get crowded out. In 2022, 35% of all new H-1Bs went to companies dependent on them.

Here’s his proposal:

A more straightforward ranking by salary regardless of occupation would allow us to prioritize the sectors most likely to contribute to innovation. These rankings could also be adjusted by age to ensure we are retaining bright professionals at the beginning of their careers. A 24-year-old making $150,000 is generally preferable to a 63-year-old making $160,000.

These reforms would increase the average H-1B wage by 41%. This would translate into a $1.1 trillion boost to America’s gross domestic product over 10 years—nearly twice the effect of the 2020 plan. In other words, without increasing the number of slots, we could nearly double the value of the H-1B program.

I would add that IMO the biggest gap in the H-1B visa system is enforcement. Disney’s abuse of the system ten years ago was far from the only example of enormous abuse of the system.

The H-1B visa system was not intended to provide entry-level employees for big IT and financial firms but all to frequently that is what is happening. As Mr. Neufeld notes it is for “occupations requiring specialized knowledge”.

I wanted to bring this article at Washington Monthly to your attention. In it ten pundits each propose an idea to revitalize the Democrats’ outreach to the “working class”. Here are the ten ideas:

1. Impose price restrictions on healthcare to constrain prices to those paid by Medicare.
2. Constrain illegal immigration via employment (basically, E-Verify)
3. Provide more funding for institutions of higher education that graduate higher percentages of minority students.
4. Provide more benefits for the self-employed.
5. Re-regulate airlines, rail, and trucking to improve fairness.
6. Increase the number of federal employees and shrink the number of contractors.
7. Free college for the working class.
8. Block the involvement of big corporations in elder and child care.
9. Provide funding to supplement public schooling with tutoring.
10. Reorganize the administrative state.

My reactions to those proposals ranges from conditional support to extreme skepticism. The first proposal reminded of the very first lecture in Econ 101 in which the professor said “We don’t know how to create prosperity. We do know how to produce shortages.”

I also think that the emphasis on higher education is misplaced. In the countries with the highest percentages of college grads (Canada and Russia) just over half the population has college degrees. I doubt that can be improved on much. What about the other half of the population? I think the most effective way to help the “working class” is to ensure that they are able to work. In the United States that means a combination of reindustrialization and reducing immigration. Given the degree to which other countries subsidize their exports, restricting imports may be needed as well.