office politics

you're a manager.

you supervise a group of subordinates.

when you were hired, the human resources department, eager to hire you, reduced your benefits package in order to qualify you for the position and bring you aboard. this move was fully explained in the company newsletter.

a subordinate insists that he can no longer do his job because, due to the aforementioned technicality in the firm's hiring policies, you shouldn't be a manager.

the h.r. dept. is happy with its decision. you are happy to work there. your subordinate is not.

who wins? who walks?

lawsuit challenges clinton eligibility a state department employee has filed a lawsuit today in federal court against newly sworn-in secretary of state hillary clinton claiming she is constitutionally ineligible to serve. judicial watch, a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it is pursuing the complaint in u.s. district court in washington, d.c, on behalf of u.s. foreign service officer and state department employee david c. rodearmel. rodearmel, a resident of virginia, maintains clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as secretary of state and that he cannot serve under her because doing so would go against the oath he took as a foreign service officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the constitution of the united states. ... the constitutional quandary arises from a clause that forbids members of the senate from being appointed to civil office, such as the secretary of state, if the "emoluments," or salary and benefits, of the office were increased during the senator's term. ... according to the lawsuit, the "emoluments" of the office of secretary of state increased as many as three times since clinton began her second, six-year senate term in january 2007. on jan. 1, 2007, the secretary of state's salary increased to $186,600. in 2008, it increased to $191,300, and on jan. 1, 2009, it increased again to $196,700. ... the lawsuit acknowledges that congress tried to shirk the constitutional exclusion with a "saxbe fix," reducing the clinton's salary to the level in effect before jan. 1, [2007] but it states that the legislation "does not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the u.s. secretary of state increased during defendant clinton's tenure in the u.s. senate. ..."

ianal, but i say you win and the subordinate walks (or just learns to suck it up). the subordinate is not in a position to contest the h.r. dept.'s efforts to comply with its own policies. that is between the h.r. dept. and you. nor can the subordinate demonstrate material harm from your hiring in itself. perhaps if the subordinate was in fact a rival for your position ...

save our diplomats!

... from dubya! please!

oaths, the constitution, and the u.s. embassy in iraq the bush administration is taking a hard line on dragooning civilian foreign service officers into serving in the war zone of iraq. the article contains a quote by ambassador ryan crocker which says that the fso's swear an oath to serve anywhere in the world. this is not true. they swear an oath to uphold the constitution. they sign a contract that allows them to be posted anywhere. there is a difference, and the two documents may actually be in contradiction. for instance, what if the government did something unconstitutional and wanted to send you to support that action ... ? another retired u.s. diplomat sent me this: i am also a retired foreign service officer, and strongly second the view of the anonymous fso (retired) whom you cited in your column today. the issue really is not the commitment to world-wide service undertaken by fsos. the decision by the bush administration to not only keep an embassy open in a war zone, but increase its size to make it one of the largest in the world, is simply testimony to the madness of the entire iraq "adventure," and the fraudulent nature of the expressed rationale for our being there. most of the staff in this "embassy" do not speak the language and cannot act effectively as diplomats, even if that were the purpose in sending them there. but that is not the purpose. ... the willingness of secretary rice, or dr. ferragamo as she is known on one satirical website, to continue supporting this war of occupation through this "embassy" and more broadly through her declaration of a new order known as "transformational diplomacy" simply confirms that she is not a "moderate" voice for diplomacy against the likes of dick cheney. diplomats do not "transform" other countries. they represent the interests of the u.s. to the governments and citizens of other, independent, countries. again, please write your congressional representatives and senators, and contact your local democratic and republican party organizations, and urge them in the strongest terms to close down the us embassy in iraq. it has no business being there. it is under constant mortar and rocket attack, cannot actually conduct diplomacy, and is a thinly veiled viceregal palace intended to perpetuate bush's neo-colonialism. to end the war, begin with what is possible. close the embassy. save our diplomats. by the way, [this] is the sort of news still coming out of iraq every day, with 3 more us troops killed. that's a "lull"? and, see phillip carter on the dark side of the 'good news' about iraq. the fact is that it is still one of the most violent places on earth and the decline in fighting comes in part in baghdad because the city has gone from being 50/50 sunni and shiite to being 75% shiite, with much of this change having come in 2007 under the nose of the surge troops from the us. diplomacy with iraq's neighbors can be done outside iraq better. diplomacy with iraqi politicians can still be pursued (most of them live outside the country anyway). save the diplomats. save the world.

if the shoe fits

(art @ david rees)

sunday funnies

george bush:

this moment of conflict in the middle east is painful and tragic, yet it is also a moment of opportunity for broader change in the region. transforming countries that have suffered decades of tyranny and violence is difficult, and it will take time to achieve. but the consequences will be profound — for our country and the world.

richard hass, bush's former state department policy director:

an opportunity? lord, spare me. i don't laugh a lot. that's the funniest thing i've heard in a long time. if this is an opportunity, what's iraq? a once-in-a-lifetime chance?