An Inside Look at State Department Staffing

Inside information from someone who's been there ^ | 10 November 2001 | A Foreign Service Candidate invited to Washington, D.C.

[Rubber Duckie]

An Inside Look at State Department Staffing

Author's Notes: After telling my story following to a few close friends and family, I was urged to publish it for a wider audience. At first, I resisted this notion because I didn't want to sound like I was crying "sour grapes". While I could easily be identified by the information given in this article, I have felt it better to pen this anonymously, not out of fear of retaliation, but because what I experienced and others whom I talked to leads me to believe my experience is more typical of State Department operating procedure rather than unique to my particular case. I would welcome comments by signing the guest book at the link directed at the end of this article or just leaving your comments on this forum.

In view of the events of September 11, I believe it is not only wise but also absolutely necessary for our diplomatic corps to start thinking about protecting American interests before engaging in politically correct public relations. Bringing a pit bull into a home to young children so they can experience interacting with an interesting animal is as foolish as routinely issuing visas to militant Islamists and other overseas visitors who harbor hostile feelings toward America. Likewise, forbidding your children to interact with a gentle guinea pig because you don't want to discriminate against or racially profile the pit bull is as foolish as confiscating knitting needles from grandmothers boarding airplanes because we have to "treat everybody equally." Of course people are not animals and many may find this analogy objectionable. But the average American can understand why the procedure to issue a young lady from Japan a visa to study English should be different from the procedure to issue a young man from the Saudi Arabia a visa to study flying. It is past time that our State Department understood the same thing.

Official information on State Department Recruiting

About this time last year, I took the Foreign Service qualifying test. I was told that the test was extremely difficult and only a small number of people passed and went on to the next step of screening interviews. What would motivate a businessperson in mid career to do such a foolish thing? Even if successful, the pay would be less than I'm making now. There is a good chance I would be assigned to some armpit country of the world such as Pakistan rather than a pleasant garden spot such as Japan where I am now. It didn't make sense either economically or from a career advancement viewpoint. However, an unmistakable force pushed me to try out. Even now, I can't say for sure what it was other than an inner feeling of loyalty and sense of duty.

Much of the information I had gotten both from people who've I'd known who worked in the Foreign Service as well as secondary sources indicated that a large number of mid-level people were quitting the foreign service for reasons ranging from better opportunities in the private sector to demoralization resulting from eight years of control by Clintonista party hacks who put their career advancement ahead of American interests.

Having lived over half my adult life in Japan (including the last 12 years), worked in business in a variety of fields where the State Department indicated need of my particular skills, and being encouraged by my wife -- 'You are always complaining about what goes on inside our government, why don't you try to help out from the inside?'-- I decided to register for the exam and spend $15 or so on the study guide. She also said this could well be my chance to move as, no matter how the election turned out, I wouldn't be working under a Clinton administration and a lot of cleaner uppers would be needed. While we hoped for a clean break with that sorry administration, I told her I wouldn't start a government career under his protegee, Al Gore, even if I passed the test and, further, unless I scored in the top 5%, I wouldn't pursue it either.

In mid-September the study guide arrived and I took to reading it on the train to and from work. Some of the questions required me to dust off some long unused facts stored in my brain since my college days, but most of it for a news and history junkie like myself was fairly easy. The first Saturday in November, I took the train to the nearest U.S. Consulate to take a daylong exam with 20 some other hopefuls. After checking our identification and letting us in, the exam was passed out in various parts--essays, profiles, multiple choice (fill in the oval) type questions on history, geography, economics, international issues and a very few quantative type questions which were amazingly light-weight. The only parts of the exam I was pressed to finish were the profile portion and essay portion, both of which I was probably too thorough and introspectively honest about. In fact, most of the exam was so lightweight that I left remembering the three questions out of hundreds that I may have missed. Two of them I still remembered long enough when I got home two hours later to look up.-- "Who designed the Vietnam Memorial?" and "What are the Maghreb States?"

So, I figured I had passed the test, but couldn't guarantee to my wife it was in the top 5%. During lunch and after the exam several examinees mentioned they had taken the test several times and were still looking to pass, so I figured I had probably done well enough to be close. While my wife was quite excited when I told her about the test, I tried to pour cold water on her enthusiasm. She always dreamed about having an 8 to 5 working husband who'd come home by 6:30 p.m. every evening, rather than one who considered 8 p.m. early. More than that, she thought I would be well motivated to help clean house in Washington and overseas. I reminded her it was a long shot and the presidential election could indicate the country was satisfied with the last eight years of scandal and ignoring traditional allies such as Japan to cultivate politically expedient regimes such as China. My words nearly proved prophetic in the 6 weeks which followed the election in which I predicted Bush would end up with the short straw because his people would play by the rules, so forget about me pursuing the opportunity even if I scored in the top 5%. At length, she made me promise that if Bush pulled it out and I scored in the top 5%, I would go for the interviews

In early February, the test results came showing I'd scored in the top 1% in the job knowledge portion of the test. There was also a form to fill out return answering whether to accept an oral exam on April 2, decline or reschedule. Well, since April is the start of the new fiscal year in Japan and not a good time for someone in business to be away from the office, I asked to reschedule in June, when I would take my daughter to attend summer school in the U.S. While my wife said they wouldn't like this and I should go in April, I reminded her all travel was on our nickel and it would be a worthwhile test of interest to see if they would reschedule. A couple of weeks passed and there was no word on my rescheduling request. I called the number they gave, only to get a recording that the scheduling person was away on vacation. 'How typical of Washington, ' I thought, 'to schedule a vacation to coincide with the season of your responsibilities.' But finally, after some persistent pursuit, we got a rescheduled date close to our request.

We went a couple days early both to get over jetlag and show my daughter around Washington. When the test date came, I got up early and went to the evaluation office not far from the Foggy Bottom Metro stop in plenty of time for the 7 a.m. strict deadline to report. After waiting around until about 6:59 a.m., we were finally allowed to go through the metal detector, have our identification checked and bags examined and get a badge for the day. We all raced for the office figuring 7 a.m. was not far off. As we walked in and had our names checked off, we were invited to sit down and help ourselves to coffee. By 7:30, the room filled with the dozen people to have the big interview. The secretary broke the silence by telling us we were the quietest group she ever had and we weren't competing against each other but against a standard, so we might as well get acquainted. We introduced ourselves--an interesting group but not particularly diverse. There were two ladies and ten white guys. While I'm technically a minority, I can pass for a white guy, so I've never played the race card. The ladies appeared to be both of Asian extraction (Chinese and India, I'd guess from the names). There were two veterans--one who'd come from Florida and one from Iowa who worked at the Pentagon. I'm technically also a partial cripple and might have claimed disability points, but I'd gotten in early enough to hide my cane in the closet and refused to claim it and there was also nobody with else a visible disability, so it didn't appear our group would get a lot of diversity points. There was even less diversity on educational background-- everyone was a college graduate and only three were from outside the northeast and non-Ivy League-- the two veterans and myself.

So for the 45 minutes or so before we were called into the first exam, we exchanged quite a bit of banter. While I was not one to flaunt my political opinions, it soon became clear from the cracks about the president's intelligence and whether Colin Powell could pass the same security clearance we were required to pass that most of the group were from the left end of the spectrum. The only ones who clearly didnft fit this mold were--surprise--the two veterans, myself and a gentleman from Connecticut.

What was billed as a grueling day of exams and oral evaluations turned out to be, for the most part, light and fluffy. For every 30 minutes of work such as role playing, interviews and such, there were at least 60 minutes of break, including a staggered 2.5 to 3 hour lunch period. The three conservatives and one moderate (from Connecticut) in the group ended up having our lunchtime coincide, so we shared a table. A salad, cottage cheese and a vegetable drink in the State Department cafeteria set me back eight bucks--about what I generally paid for a full restaurant meal in Japan. We kidded the vet from Florida in the group that he would probably get the "Veteran's quota" since he had experience working in PR with the military. We also remarked about how the four of us seemed not only the oldest in the group, but the most politically balanced. The guy from Connecticut laughed and said the rest of the group was pretty typical of the know-it-alls you find in the Ivy League. We asked him how he managed to keep his head screwed on straight coming out of such a background. He remarked it was probably just real world experience.

During the long breaks, I and most of the examinees took turns going over a large three ring file with laminated profiles of the various examiners. Again, we couldn't find much diversity--unless one counts M&M's style diversity (different colors outside, same content inside). What few examiners were not from Ivy League colleges, were either from those one tier removed in the northeast or former journalists who had worked in various foreign countries (more than a few of these likely naturalized citizens judging from their names and birthplaces). There was one--exactly one--examiner in the profile pages who had worked in private industry outside journalism--he had a brief stint in the Peace Corps (which was not uncommon on other profiles) and then a couple of years teaching English in Japan. The questions we got overwhelmingly reflected this jaded eye view of the world and, when my turn came, I did my best not to show any hostility though I did challenge some of their assumptions reflected in their standardized views that America's duty overseas was to promote the D's?democracy, development and diversity. I pointed out that among the countries in Asia which most consistently supported American interests, one (Singapore) was not particularly democratic and two (Japan and Korea) were not particularly diverse, smiling when I said it.

For the most part, though, I tried to maintain a low profile like most of the group, speaking out when we were supposed to defend our position in the various role plays and keeping quiet when it was someone else's turn to speak. The final test took place shortly after lunch where we were asked to write a memo based on our role playing earlier in the day--and where I found an important page of my notes (from which we were to prepare the memo) was missing. Of course, nobody knew anything about it, so I prepared the memo the best I could without it, figuring (rightly as it turned out) that most of the decisions were already made and this was merely a smokescreen.

After filling out an evaluation form on what we thought about the validity of their lightweight tests and softball interview questions, we were all thanked and told to go back to the big room to wait. The guy from Connecticut was upset saying he had "blown it." I told him to relax because most of the day was more than likely just window dressing to cover decisions the examiners had already made before lunch or even before the evaluation started. From what I could observe, everyone in the room who had made it to that point was intelligent and qualified to be there. It would all boil down to the personal preferences of the examiners. By now it was 3 p.m. and the examiners begin calling in people before we had waited 30 minutes, hardly a proper time to carefully check or evaluate much of anything.

The first three called in were myself, the vet from Iowa who worked at the Pentagon and the guy from Connecticut. We each went to individual rooms. I was handed my evaluation score that showed I had missed their 5.25-point requirement by 0.35 points. They tried to put a happy face on it telling me how few people made it to that point and how close I'd come. I suspect everyone in that room was within half a point either above or below that magic number given what had happened that day with long breaks, softball questions and little tests of much of anything beyond the superficial. With my daughter alone in the hotel and more of Washington to see, I wasn't in much of a mood to listen to their bulls*** and they offered little to justify their reasoning. I thanked them politely and asked whether it was worth trying the process in the future, more out of curiosity to their reaction than any interest. "Oh," they said, "some candidates try several times before they are accepted into the Foreign Service." "Screw it," I thought, "I'm not going to make a career out of trying to brownnose a bunch of petty little bureaucrats from Ivy League academia with such shallow real world experience that won't accept such experience as mine if it is offered to them on a silver platter."

On my way out, the vet from Iowa and I noticed the vet from Florida was still in the room and not in the second shift of people being blown off. We gave him the thumbs up sign as we walked out and headed to the Metro stop, comparing notes along the way. Our conclusion was mutual-- with such a homogeneous group of people representing U.S. interests overseas and selecting their successors, we would be unlikely to accomplish much even if we got in and even if the administration had changed for the better. We were better off staying in our respective real worlds of Defense and business and hoping that an occasional guy like our new friend from Florida could slip through the political correctness net on the veteran's quota to ensure that at least somebody in the State Department might represent America's interests instead of those of the Globalists with their own warped interpretation of the 3 D's.

Sign Guestbook View Guestbook

Home

[Quilla]

Wow! What an interesting narrative about our (suspected) sad state of affairs. I imagine that many left-leaners and clintonites are still in key positions in our government. Eight years of inundation must be difficult and time consuming to correct; but, I have faith this will eventually be rectified by the Bush Administration. Our President certainly has his hands full. Thank you for sharing this with us.

[Skywalk]

Thanks for the informative story, sir.

I remember thinking about the Foreign Service, and still do, at times, but your story gives me unfortunate insight into something I suspected long ago--those that claim to represent us, merely represent the same enemy lib/conservs fight here on American soil.

I registered for the test a few years ago, and couldn't get a ride out to Detroit(from Ann Arbor), so nothing then. The next year I waited and waited for a response, only to find out that a piece of what I thought was junk mail had my ticket for the exam room. I suppose that's my fault, but the envelope could have been more official in appearance.

I only saw practice questions, but they seemed fairly easy if one keeps up with the news at all. The thing that frightens me, is that we have Ivy League snobs, with all their prejudices, alleging to represent the US. If we can't clear out the stench of left-wing/liberal statism from the State Dept, it won't matter who's in the White House.

[Rubber Duckie]

Obviously, the test had some relavance as I would suspect that thousands take the test, but only hundreds get invited to the oral portion. In my case, 20 odd people at a U.S. consulate overseas narrowed down to an even dozen in D.C.

What bothered me was not only the superficiality of the questions at the dog and pony show but the fact that they seemed to have their minds made up before the evaluation was over. One would think the type of questions in the second stage would be more difficult than in the first stage, but not so.

With all due respect, there seems to be a handful of highly competent people who make it through the politically correct net, but I'd bet the biggest share of them do it on the veteran's quota.

[Skywalk]

I've been in interview rounds similar to that. They'll call you in because HR has to make everyone think it has "candidates" because 1)that sounds so much more official 2)they have to appear to give the organization input into the decision, despite the fact they have their choice in mind by that point.

What I also find entertaining is how those in the public sector create barriers to employment, when that is usually one of their complaints about the "dispossessed." So, they'll turn away teachers who KNOW chemistry well, because that person doesn't have a certificate, and despite the fact that there's no correlation between teaching ability and certification.

The State Department needs knowledgeable, intelligent and professional people with the needs of America foremost on their mind, but instead they'll take anyone with a degree who spouts the same CFR-type nonsense. I swear, the answer is so simple sometimes, and yet politicians and bureaucrats like to talk their way out of that solution 9 times out of 10.

[waxhaw]

I will vouch for everything you've written. I'm with the Dept. of Defense and have worked in our consulates/embassies in Munich, Athens, Caracas, Tegucigalpa and Mexico City during 2 to 3 years tours. I've done short-term work ("TDYs") in probably another six or seven embassies; I have met hundreds of State Department careerists. I could count on the fingers of one hand those State Department careerists who would be worth the powder it would take to blow them up - the vast, vast majority are not only liberal but EXTREMELY liberal. I wouldn't mind this too much if I saw some integrity mixed with their ideology, instead I have found the vast majority to be corrupt (spiritually and ethically); many believe themselves to be "above the law" and as far as plain ability goes I have found the vast majority to be either completly inept or incompetent. In my opinion, the only way to repair the State Dept. would be to fire EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE and start over. Very, very few in the State Dept. have what we think of as "real world" skills; most have come right from Academia (though there are some "direct hires" who were recruited from various major city "management teams", which means they come with major political connections). It is both disgusting and frightening to think that these people are representing (forget about defending) America.

[waxhaw]

I'll quickly pass on a very true anecdote which I think accurately reflects the all-to-common mindset of those in our State Dept. At the Marine Corps Ball two years ago, the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Jeffrey Davidow, felt it was necessary to APOLOGIZE to the Mexican guests at this ball for the words in the Marine Corp hymn... the part which goes "From the halls of Montezuma..." Davidow is a careerist and prior to his assignment here in Mexico he was Undersecretary of State for Latin America. This is the kind of people our nation has representing us. Unfortunately he was also our ambassador in Caracas while I was stationed there and I used to shake my head in dismay/wonder at his unbelievable policies. I long ago came to the conlusion that Davidow doesn't really work for American citizens but for the World Bank... and sure enough, a few months ago he told the Mexican government that the time has come for them to surrender their sovereignty and go the WB for a loan. (When Bush entered office I thought that Davidow's continuance here as ambassador would be an indicator of Bush's own agenda. Davidow is still ambassador and the globalist agenda continues.)

[Rubber Duckie]

I've known a handful of people who have worked in the Foreign Service. What is posted here is not only consistent with what I've been told, but also consistent in what I've experienced working abroad.

[Vigilanteman]

I'm just curious. WWhat percentage of state department employees do you actually think are representing American interests? I'd suspect it is pretty close to the veteran's quota.

[Uncle Bill]

FBI says State housing spies posing as reporters

Powell Shocker: Calls Palestinian Suicide Bombers 'Innocents'

Powell says U.S. won't brand Arafat a terrorist because he's useful to peace process

The State Department criticizes Israel for targeting suspected Palestinian terrorists for execution

The United States State Department believes the "17 or so dead sailors" on the U.S.S. Cole "does not compare to the 100+ Palestinians who have died in recent weeks" in Mideast violence, a stunning government memo reveals.

"the State Department has no position on rock throwing. It could be considered a philosophical question"

Israel and the US State Department

STATE DEPARTMENT ARABISTS STRIKE AGAIN

State Department Confusion over Liberty

Spy suspect 'a key player' at State Department

DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277
Note: Arms agency being absorbed by the State Department

Powell Praises Castro

Powell: Castro Has 'Done Some Good Things For His People'

Cuba, Once Again, Classified as State Sponsor of International Terrorism By State Department Report

Castro Praises Colin Powell

US Has Given 50,000 Visas Since 9-11 To New Visitors From the Middle East

U.S. Encourages Immigration From Terror-Sponsor States

Human Events
By Joseph A. D'Agostino
The Week of October 1, 2001

The U.S. State Department runs a quota system designed to encourage immigration from all seven countries on the department’s own terrorist watch list.

The "Diversity Immigrant Visa Program" has the goal of issuing highly prized permanent residence visas to 50,000 foreign nationals from countries that send relatively few immigrants to the United States. These visas are specifically designed to increase the diversity of the U.S. immigrant pool and are in addition to the employment- and family-based permanent visas that are granted each year.

All seven of the nations listed by the State Department as "state sponsors of international terrorism"—Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Sudan—are included in the program. "This was a program created by Congress," said a State Department official, and "1995 was the first year we had it."

Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which requires the State Department to run the program, was sponsored by Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.) in 1990 and signed into law by President George Bush.

Countries that have sent 50,000 or more immigrants to the United States in the last five years, such as Britain, Canada, mainland China, Colombia, El Salvador, Mexico, Pakistan, and the Philippines, are excluded from the program.

Applicants to the diversity program "still have to meet the same requirements as other applicants for permanent residence visas," a State Department official said. "Those requirements include copies of police records, interviews."

The application requirements, the official said, enable State to screen out dangerous people such as terrorists. "No one country may have more than 7% of the visas, but there is no minimum," she said. "No country is guaranteed to be able to have applicants approved under this program." Applicants enter a lottery each year, she said. Requirements include a high school diploma or a history of skilled work experience.

Thirteen million people filed applications for the 50,000 slots available next year. Of these, three million applications were ruled invalid. Of the ten million remaining, 1,703 people from Iran were awarded visas, 117 from Iraq, 67 from Syria, 26 from Libya, 757 from Cuba, none from North Korea, and 1,820 from Sudan.

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.), chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, had already introduced legislation to abolish the program before the September 11 attacks. Now he says he will include its abolition in the immigration reform package he plans to introduce after the House has passed the President’s anti-terrorism package. He said he expects that it will be difficult to get this reform package to the House floor.

Jack Martin, special projects director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), said he doubts that terrorists use the diversity immigrant visa program because obtaining permanent residence visas is such a long process that includes a more thorough background check than that involved in getting a temporary visa (for business, tourism, or study).

© Human Events, 2001

7,000 Men Recently Entered from Al Qaeda 'Watch' Countries - Between late October and December 1, the State Department granted nonimmigrant U.S. visas to at least 7,000 men from countries in which al Qaeda is active.

Let's repeat that. "After" the World Trade Center attack. "Between late October and December 1, the State Department granted nonimmigrant U.S. visas to at least 7,000 men from countries in which al Qaeda is active."

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) says it has no plans to round up the 250,000 to 300,000 illegal aliens that it admits are still in the country even though they have already been ordered deported by federal judges - October 22, 2001

Preparing for The Next Pearl Harbor Attack (re: Homeland Security)

POLICE STATE

---

DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH

While terrorists plotted, CIA officers were making "diversity quilts"

The Origins of Political Correctness
"We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious."

Joe McCarthy Was Right - Communists in the State Department

Sen. Joseph McCarthy Was Not Only Right, He Was an American Hero

[america-rules]

This is not just the State Dept but the entire Clinton federal Gov't complex.

About six years ago the military couldn't call Christmas Christmas and had to call it "holidays". Easter was changed to "spring Vacation" and Thanksgiving was called "Fall Harvest".

No freeking Bull !

It's back to normal now since Bush was elected but the State Dept. is probably still mostly Clinton's State Dept. so it will take years to weed them out !

[The Westerner]

What a great story and thread. Thanks for writing and posting it. Colin Powell seems to work well within this milieu. This article sheds light on his current jaunt around the MidEast. Its peculiar sidling up to dictators and defense of "oppressed" masses.

[OKCSubmariner]

The info in Uncle Bill's reply #13 is magnificient and spectacular. It explains the insane policies coming out of Powell and the State Department lately. Even William Safire and Rush Limbaugh have been recently getting very strong in their public complaints about twisted State Department policies.

[OKCSubmariner]

The info in Uncle Bill's reply #10 is magnificient and spectacular. It explains the insane policies coming out of Powell and the State Department lately. Even William Safire and Rush Limbaugh have been recently getting very strong in their public complaints about twisted State Department policies.

[Uncle Bill]

You've Got Mail
Source: NARA

"The number of Russian intelligence operatives working here officially in the United States has not gone down since the Cold War," - John Millis
NOTE: INSIGHT - The Strange Death of John Millis

Russian spies in U.S. up 40% -

State Department Saddamists
Insight Magazine

Russia Sends Arafat Backing for Palestinian State

Iraq: Russia Gets Priority for Oil

Spy suspect 'a key player' at State Department

Shortly before his arrest, Hanssen was moved to FBI headquarters from a post at the State Department’s Office of Foreign Missions (OFM).

What's known about the case so far is that Hanssen worked for the FBI for 27 years, most of that time in counterintelligence. The last four years he worked at the State Department, where an electronic "bug" was found in a conference room, enabling a Russian agent to monitor meetings from a car nearby.

Arafat Murdered U.S. Diplomats
"The evidence includes highly classified intercepts of Arafat’s verbal orders to the killers and has been suppressed for years by the State Department."

Fixing a Photo to Fit a Policy

Castro's Planes Fly Over U.S. Despite Terrorist Ties
"When presented with the above examples of Castro’s hate-America drive, all Secretary of State Colin Powell could say was that he was "not familiar” with most of them."

Chinese Germ Warfare Ignored by State Department

[Anthem]

What bothered me was not only the superficiality of the questions at the dog and pony show but the fact that they seemed to have their minds made up before the evaluation was over.

In situations like this, they are not so much qualifying applicants as they are disqualifying them. As you say, the applicants in the room were all more or less qualified, so what they are looking for is the answer or attitude that disqualifies an applicant. That's why the consideration interval was so short -- they just find a single (or maybe a second confirming) reason to reject rather than weighing reasons (evaluating strengths and weaknesses) to accept.

[vannrox]

"...Again, we couldn't find much diversity--unless one counts M&M's style diversity (different colors outside, same content inside)..."


"... What few examiners were not from Ivy League colleges, were either from those one tier removed in the northeast or former journalists who had worked in various foreign countries (more than a few of these likely naturalized citizens judging from their names and birthplaces). There was one--exactly one--examiner in the profile pages who had worked in private industry outside journalism--he had a brief stint in the Peace Corps (which was not uncommon on other profiles) and then a couple of years teaching English in Japan..."

[zog]

--and some folks here when thery comment that it appears outside strange groups are running the government- like the CFR/Trilats and this world bank IMF and etc. - get dismised. But then we get direct info like this and from the originating poster that confirms it more.

Thanks for the insight.

[EBUCK]

The interview process sounds similar to some corporate interviews I've been party to. Initial qualifications are set as a baseline "cut". Then up the chain to the oral part of the process. Which is used for the employer to get a feel about how a person interacts with others. I'd imagine the little "I pointed out that among the countries in Asia which most consistently supported American interests, one (Singapore) was not particularly democratic and two (Japan and Korea) were not particularly diverse, smiling when I said it." quip doomed him if he wasn't already. The oral part is always geared towards picking the best fit for the group that has the open position. I can tell you that the same kind of PC cream-o-croppin' goes on all the time and that the best qualified is usually the one with the strongest attitude. So the job ends up in a lesser, yet more amiable, candidate. Why would the State Dept be any different?

EBUCK