A US Political Ad That Appeals to Sane People?

This will never work.  Not in the past decade, nor probably in this one.  Americans seem to have far too much fun ranting illogically.  Still, together with the Pulitzer-winning PolitiFact (which brilliantly and responsibly concentrates its efforts in the regions richest in easy pickings:  Washington, Texas and Florida) perhaps it's an early sign of better things to come.  Perhaps even a safe place to send our puzzled and concerned foreign friends when they insist on gently laying the backs of their hands to our foreheads to check for fever or contagious rising national idiocy.

Say What?

It seems to be a contest:  who can get into the most trouble quickest via social media?  Neither ambassadors  nor reporters are immune to scolding and even firing for expressing opinions not held - or at least not spoken aloud at that moment - by their superiors.

Earlier this week, our beloved Diplopundit devoted an entry to patient dissection of the new 5 FAM 790.  Madam strongly recommends that any State employee or dependent who is even thinking of blogging or tweeting study this very carefully.  Especially the part about how "the Department encourages the responsible use of social media consistent with current laws, policies and guidance that govern information and information technology."  And how "Department organizations will not arbitrarily ban access to or the use of social media" despite the dozens of anecdotes that appear to contradict these very statements, from new A-100-ites to veteran spouses.

As Madam often insists, the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'  Still, the treatment of the spouse who was ordered to take down her personal blog in which she wrote that she did not love Oakwood still seems pretty harsh, as does the fate of the new FSO who was ordered to delete the personal blog in which she dared to admit to finding A-100 tiring.  Not to mention the blanket instruction to A-100-ites (officially denied but subject to dozens of first-hand confirmations) to not blog, period, lest they in their newbie ignorance make any statement that could in any way be construed as criticism of the Service or any of its processes.

Consider, on the other hand, the admission by Margot Carrington, the highly skilled and otherwise well-qualified principal officer in Fukuoka, that "Despite having worked six years at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, I initially encountered a bit of culture shock when I arrived in Fukuoka.  First, I had to contend with our local dialect of Hakataben and not knowing what yokinshatta (welcome) meant!"  Madam can't help but wonder if such a public-media admission of ill-preparedness by a lower ranking FSO might have been so quickly glossed over in favor of breathless admiration for her kabuki efforts - which, fortunately, the local population appeared to find flattering rather than offensive.  But then, this admission by the ranking US diplomat at post was published via Embassy Tokyo's DCM's official blog.  So it's all good.

Heat / Light / Children

Every consular officer knows how delicate the subject of adoption can be. Emotion runs extremely high; costs can be astonishing (spending tens of thousands of dollars for a child is routine); the complexity of the process can drive the most stable of adults to serious drink; and it's absolutely true that child-hungry would-be parents can fall frantically in love with a child they've never met and might do anything to get that child 'home.'

The internet is full of sad stories, desperate stories, joyous stories, untrue stories, hilarious stories, unfair stories ... very few thoughtful, well-balanced stories.  The New Yorker published one of the few such stories in May of this year. It is written by the adoptive father of a Haitian orphan whose processing - all done by the book in both Haiti and the US - was complicated by the January earthquake.  But he never lost his cool and the article, although long, is well worth reading by any consular officer.

The article includes a history of the whole international adoption phenomenon.  For example, the writer took the time to research the numbers:  in response to the often-asked question, "Why don't Americans adopt American children?" he wrote, "Since the seventies, the supply of healthy infants available through domestic adoption has contracted sharply... In 1970, a hundred and seventy-five thousand [U.S.] newborns were adopted; by 2002, that number had dropped to under seven thousand.  Most of the fifty thousand domestic U.S. adoptions each year are of older children in foster care." The article also, of course, includes his family's own compelling and ultimately successful story.

For more adoption-related numbers from a variety of reliable sources, check here.