Something “big” dropping this week ahead at Dept. State

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who is going to fund pride parades and trans days of visibility in other countries now if all this comes to pass?

So you needed to destroy the foreign service because you disagree with a few actions?

It’s part of the current plans of the R’s to destroy institutions that favor Democrats/progressive ideology/etc. Basically to destroy their “power base.” Dept. Of Education, Foreign Service, Peace Corps, parts of State, etc.

Pretty much this. All those institutions could have been neutral, but decided to essentially become part of team blue. In the short term that probably worked, but now what? People worry about church and state, but party and state have just as many problems.

This is such revisionist history. There are plenty of people who are republicans who went into the Peace Corps or teach. These are NON PARTISAN jobs. Just because MAGA wants to label them as lefitsts doesn't mean they are. The US has been a global leader for a century and Trump is dismantling all of the things that has made this country great and gaslighting his adherents into believing the opposite.

Are you implying there was some sort of Peace Corps to Heritage pipeline? Because there is for liberal orgs. You ever talk to someone at ED, or a FSO off hours? Maybe they aren't liberals by Takoma Park standards...

I guess you are admitting that modern conservative are soulless. Thanks for confirming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who is going to fund pride parades and trans days of visibility in other countries now if all this comes to pass?

So you needed to destroy the foreign service because you disagree with a few actions?

It’s part of the current plans of the R’s to destroy institutions that favor Democrats/progressive ideology/etc. Basically to destroy their “power base.” Dept. Of Education, Foreign Service, Peace Corps, parts of State, etc.

Pretty much this. All those institutions could have been neutral, but decided to essentially become part of team blue. In the short term that probably worked, but now what? People worry about church and state, but party and state have just as many problems.

This is such revisionist history. There are plenty of people who are republicans who went into the Peace Corps or teach. These are NON PARTISAN jobs. Just because MAGA wants to label them as lefitsts doesn't mean they are. The US has been a global leader for a century and Trump is dismantling all of the things that has made this country great and gaslighting his adherents into believing the opposite.

Are you implying there was some sort of Peace Corps to Heritage pipeline? Because there is for liberal orgs. You ever talk to someone at ED, or a FSO off hours? Maybe they aren't liberals by Takoma Park standards...

I guess you are admitting that modern conservative are soulless. Thanks for confirming.

Do you write fiction for a.living? You seem very skilled at.jumping to conclusions and making false, convoluted assumptions. Your posts are so entertaining!

[Anonymous]

Is ECA safe from cuts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the exam is wild. The best people.

+1 Clearly the subhumans willing to work for this administration can’t pass it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the exam is wild. The best people.

There have long been complaints about the exam. A republican-tied career ambassador told me that he found it impossible to get his best people through it and they were limited to other functions. In general, the selection process does seem to favor bland personalities.

Why would an ambassador’s best people suddenly be taking the foreign service exam?

And maybe there’s a reason why the adjective “diplomatic” is not synonymous with flamboyant, charismatic, etc?

Not everyone in the State Department is in the foreign service. There are even ambassadors, such as this one, that are part of the career service.

His beef was more with the oral portion than the written part. He said it favored milquetoast personalities who are mostly comfortable asking everyone else at the table to share their opinion. He's right that we do need to be at least a *little* assertive to get anything done. I'd be fired if I refused to take a position on anything.

The "assertiveness" is supposed to come from the politically appointed Ambassadors and the central State Department leadership. The FSO's carry out the agenda, which is usually related to trade mission and administrative functions that should be non-political.

You're dead wrong. We cannot have only one person per country effectuating America's goals. And you're also wrong that government workers make no policy decisions, in fact, its a huge aspect of their roles at State and everywhere else. Policy isnt considered partisan within the government.

Please explain again why the bar to become an FSO should be lowered.

Because smart competent people who want to walk the walk on public service strongly trend liberal. So, you need to go a couple tiers down to get a conservative cohort.

Right wingers do mission trips.

Mormans do mission trips. Sure there are other religious volunteer programs, but MAGAs generally do not do these things.

For the record, there are a lot of Mormons in the foreign service.

Anyone who has actually served overseas would know that political leanings at embassies runs the spectrum. Way more politically diverse than agencies like the EPA, etc. Maybe not a lot of true MAGAs but definitely conservatives.

[Anonymous]

They’re going to dismantle DoS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the exam is wild. The best people.

There have long been complaints about the exam. A republican-tied career ambassador told me that he found it impossible to get his best people through it and they were limited to other functions. In general, the selection process does seem to favor bland personalities.

Why would an ambassador’s best people suddenly be taking the foreign service exam?

And maybe there’s a reason why the adjective “diplomatic” is not synonymous with flamboyant, charismatic, etc?

Not everyone in the State Department is in the foreign service. There are even ambassadors, such as this one, that are part of the career service.

His beef was more with the oral portion than the written part. He said it favored milquetoast personalities who are mostly comfortable asking everyone else at the table to share their opinion. He's right that we do need to be at least a *little* assertive to get anything done. I'd be fired if I refused to take a position on anything.

The "assertiveness" is supposed to come from the politically appointed Ambassadors and the central State Department leadership. The FSO's carry out the agenda, which is usually related to trade mission and administrative functions that should be non-political.

You're dead wrong. We cannot have only one person per country effectuating America's goals. And you're also wrong that government workers make no policy decisions, in fact, its a huge aspect of their roles at State and everywhere else. Policy isnt considered partisan within the government.

Please explain again why the bar to become an FSO should be lowered.

Because smart competent people who want to walk the walk on public service strongly trend liberal. So, you need to go a couple tiers down to get a conservative cohort.

Right wingers do mission trips.

Mormans do mission trips. Sure there are other religious volunteer programs, but MAGAs generally do not do these things.

For the record, there are a lot of Mormons in the foreign service.

Anyone who has actually served overseas would know that political leanings at embassies runs the spectrum. Way more politically diverse than agencies like the EPA, etc. Maybe not a lot of true MAGAs but definitely conservatives.

Also, DS and OBO (both huge bureaus) tend to skew more conservative. DS especially…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the exam is wild. The best people.

There have long been complaints about the exam. A republican-tied career ambassador told me that he found it impossible to get his best people through it and they were limited to other functions. In general, the selection process does seem to favor bland personalities.

Why would an ambassador’s best people suddenly be taking the foreign service exam?

And maybe there’s a reason why the adjective “diplomatic” is not synonymous with flamboyant, charismatic, etc?

Not everyone in the State Department is in the foreign service. There are even ambassadors, such as this one, that are part of the career service.

His beef was more with the oral portion than the written part. He said it favored milquetoast personalities who are mostly comfortable asking everyone else at the table to share their opinion. He's right that we do need to be at least a *little* assertive to get anything done. I'd be fired if I refused to take a position on anything.

The "assertiveness" is supposed to come from the politically appointed Ambassadors and the central State Department leadership. The FSO's carry out the agenda, which is usually related to trade mission and administrative functions that should be non-political.

You're dead wrong. We cannot have only one person per country effectuating America's goals. And you're also wrong that government workers make no policy decisions, in fact, its a huge aspect of their roles at State and everywhere else. Policy isnt considered partisan within the government.

Please explain again why the bar to become an FSO should be lowered.

Because smart competent people who want to walk the walk on public service strongly trend liberal. So, you need to go a couple tiers down to get a conservative cohort.

Right wingers do mission trips.

Mormans do mission trips. Sure there are other religious volunteer programs, but MAGAs generally do not do these things.

For the record, there are a lot of Mormons in the foreign service.

Anyone who has actually served overseas would know that political leanings at embassies runs the spectrum. Way more politically diverse than agencies like the EPA, etc. Maybe not a lot of true MAGAs but definitely conservatives.

That doesn’t sound right because the claim is state was doing a lot of LGBTQ+ work but Mormons absolutely hate LGBTQ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is the Civil Service domestic side is going to take a major hit. Wonder how this will affect CA, OBO, and DS? What happens to the FS Specialists?

Article said they were going to use AI to write cables, so I guess you can say goodbye to the civil service. This is going to be a disaster.

Too bad for the American citizens on Africa — no more American citizen services since the embassies and consulates will be closed.

China has already stepped in and have been pouring China money and propaganda into that region of the world. America is ceding its influence to China.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the exam is wild. The best people.

There have long been complaints about the exam. A republican-tied career ambassador told me that he found it impossible to get his best people through it and they were limited to other functions. In general, the selection process does seem to favor bland personalities.

Because the GOP hates competency and intelligence. The FSO exam separates the wheat from the chaff in terms of weighing knowledge and temperment to ensure the career diplomats truly represent the best of our country and not partisan loyalty.

The exam is biased towards liberal world view.

By "liberal world view" do you mean a world view based on erudition and knowledge of a wide range of issues? And on cultural sensitivity/awareness? Yes, those are certainly not MAGA qualities so you may have something there.

In reality, they want to eliminate it so they can hire people based purely on loyalty to MAGA and the MAGA leader. This is a Project 25 priority.

Well the good thing about this is that trump has shown that the new administration can just die them all on January 22, 2029. Basically foreign service will be all political appointees with no knowledge base of the people or region. Sounds like a losing proposition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about folks living abroad with their families. Isn't that expensive?

Depends on the country. I'm from a FS family and grew up living mostly in countries that you would not consider visiting, let alone living in--you know, the type of "sh**hole" countries Trump likes to refer to.

PP here. Thanks for that info. I was thinking.of Asian areas

As if there are no Asian sh!!hole countries. Trump was referring to those places as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who is going to fund pride parades and trans days of visibility in other countries now if all this comes to pass?

So you needed to destroy the foreign service because you disagree with a few actions?

It’s part of the current plans of the R’s to destroy institutions that favor Democrats/progressive ideology/etc. Basically to destroy their “power base.” Dept. Of Education, Foreign Service, Peace Corps, parts of State, etc.

Pretty much this. All those institutions could have been neutral, but decided to essentially become part of team blue. In the short term that probably worked, but now what? People worry about church and state, but party and state have just as many problems.

This is such revisionist history. There are plenty of people who are republicans who went into the Peace Corps or teach. These are NON PARTISAN jobs. Just because MAGA wants to label them as lefitsts doesn't mean they are. The US has been a global leader for a century and Trump is dismantling all of the things that has made this country great and gaslighting his adherents into believing the opposite.

Are you implying there was some sort of Peace Corps to Heritage pipeline? Because there is for liberal orgs. You ever talk to someone at ED, or a FSO off hours? Maybe they aren't liberals by Takoma Park standards...

As if Heritage or Cato wouldn’t turn their nose up at Peace Corps volunteers and laugh as they toss those resumes in the trash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the exam is wild. The best people.

There have long been complaints about the exam. A republican-tied career ambassador told me that he found it impossible to get his best people through it and they were limited to other functions. In general, the selection process does seem to favor bland personalities.

Why would an ambassador’s best people suddenly be taking the foreign service exam?

And maybe there’s a reason why the adjective “diplomatic” is not synonymous with flamboyant, charismatic, etc?

Not everyone in the State Department is in the foreign service. There are even ambassadors, such as this one, that are part of the career service.

His beef was more with the oral portion than the written part. He said it favored milquetoast personalities who are mostly comfortable asking everyone else at the table to share their opinion. He's right that we do need to be at least a *little* assertive to get anything done. I'd be fired if I refused to take a position on anything.

The "assertiveness" is supposed to come from the politically appointed Ambassadors and the central State Department leadership. The FSO's carry out the agenda, which is usually related to trade mission and administrative functions that should be non-political.

You're dead wrong. We cannot have only one person per country effectuating America's goals. And you're also wrong that government workers make no policy decisions, in fact, its a huge aspect of their roles at State and everywhere else. Policy isnt considered partisan within the government.

Please explain again why the bar to become an FSO should be lowered.

Because smart competent people who want to walk the walk on public service strongly trend liberal. So, you need to go a couple tiers down to get a conservative cohort.

Right wingers do mission trips.

Mormans do mission trips. Sure there are other religious volunteer programs, but MAGAs generally do not do these things.

For the record, there are a lot of Mormons in the foreign service.

Anyone who has actually served overseas would know that political leanings at embassies runs the spectrum. Way more politically diverse than agencies like the EPA, etc. Maybe not a lot of true MAGAs but definitely conservatives.

That doesn’t sound right because the claim is state was doing a lot of LGBTQ+ work but Mormons absolutely hate LGBTQ.

NP here, and yes, there are a lot of Mormons in the foreign service. I knew a lot of them in Kyiv, and I'm in a different country now, and there are a lot here too. It's a "thing."

I don't know what you mean by "the claim is state was doing a lot of LGBTQ+ work"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DC who just graduated college is supposed to join the Peace Corps this fall. I'm somewhat nervous about that because I'm wondering how much support she's going to receive from our government - especially if there's an emergency.

Anyone care to comment?

They rarely take on a new grad and prefer applicants with work experience. Interesting.

Peace Corps is almost entirely new grads and has been for decades. Like 80% of all volunteers just graduated from college and immediately went into the peace corps.

cite, please.

use the google machine

So, no cite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliminating embassies and consulates in sub-Sahara Africa only. Is there any explanation for this other than straight-up racism?

Yes, MAGA doesn’t see the region as a strategic priority. Which is shortsighted because that’s where a lot of population growth will occur in the future.

Africans really need to control their population if they want any kind of economic development.

Interesting. Maga says that the USA’s population control is a threat to the future, as such, women need to leave the workforce and go back to having babies.