#1
OPEC countries had not coughed up much for the UN World Food Program until they were publically humiliated) recently.
The Saudi contribution came two weeks after FOX revealed, based on WFP donor records, that Saudi Arabia had given nothing at all to the food agency this year, despite spiraling oil prices that had brought on the food crisis.
All of OPEC the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries had collectively given just $1.5 million, or about 1 minute and 10 seconds worth of OPEC's 2007 oil revenues, FOX disclosed.
Have a few minutes to spare? Go to "Google," type in the phrase "highly educated voters," hit "Search News." Go ahead. We'll wait . . . OK, what do you get? All sorts of stories about Obama voters, and how he attracts the "highly educated." . . .
. . . Every time you hear that phrase, "highly educated" substitute the phrase "attended a lame liberal college or university." That's what we are really talking about. Given the state of higher education in the world, including in our own beloved Republic, spending four years in a typical "liberal arts" institution generally qualifies you for . . . uh . . . well, not much, except, of course, to boast that you are "highly educated." And that just don't mean a whole hill of beans today. Let me explain.
A few years ago, more than I care to mention, I headed a large office at the State Department. I got tasked with hiring a couple of Presidential Management Interns (PMIs). These PMIs come from the elite of the elite student body at the elite of the elite universities. They get hired on a temporary basis and then, usually, get offered prestigious jobs in the government. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that whatever else I did, I had to hire women. So I began to pore over the resumes. My heart sank. I felt inadequate and so, so inferior to these kids. Their resumes, impeccably printed and organized, using dozens of words ending in "-ization," and listing prowess with a dazzling array of complex software programs, described accomplishments beyond my wildest dreams -- especially for when I was the applicants' age!
I thought I should resign and give up my job to one of the "brilliant" child wonders. Ah, naive me. I obviously had spent too much time overseas. I saw resumes as truthful documents actually written by the applicants, applicants, in this case, full of accomplishments and possessed of massive brains throbbing with energy and ideas. As I, however, kept reading, even slow-witted me began to notice oddities. They all began to look the same: the font, the format, the wording, the list of classes and even -- horrors! -- the "accomplishments." I noted this in passing to a cynical old friend (now, alas, departed) who worked in "human resources" (what a great phrase that). He laughed, "You dope! They get classes on how to write resumes! They have professors and computer programs that put these things together for them." (Remember, folks, computers were new things back then.) He said, "Just randomly pick a couple of women students, they're all the same, hire'em, and move on."
I could not do that. I stole a friend's idea and devised "The World War II Test." I invited the applicants for interviews. These PMI wannabes came off as slick and somewhat rude. I noted something among my subjects, a sense of entitlement, they all, to varying degrees, emitted a message along the lines of "Why are you bothering me with this silly interview? I am obviously brilliant. I have a degree from Columbia. I am not going to spend my whole life as you have in this stupid bureaucracy. I just need this to add to my resume. I am in a hurry." I hit them with the test, which consisted of about dozen questions about WWII and its aftermath. I recall a few,
Can you tell me how US troops got into Europe in the first place? When was WWII? (I would accept a variety of answers as long as the applicant could defend the dates as the true start and end of WWII.) What nations comprised the principal Allied and Axis powers? Who was Neville Chamberlain? What he did he do at Munich and with whom? Who was Mussolini? What did he do to Ethiopia? Who was Stalin? Who was Hirohito? What was D-Day? What President ordered the dropping of the atomic bombs and why? Can you name a result of the Conference at Yalta? What was the Berlin Airlift?
Of the 14 or 15 applicants I interviewed, only one got them all right -- the only male in the crowd, by the way. None, zero, zip of the rest got even ONE right. Not a single one. A very irritated applicant asked me, "Do we really need to know this old stuff?" I noted that we worked with NATO and Europe, hence, it was important to know the background that led to the creation of NATO and the then just-concluded Cold War. She stared at me and said, "What does World War II have to do with NATO, the Cold War and Europe?" I promptly offered the job to the male -- oh, the cries from "Human Resources" -- who turned it down for a more lucrative one in the private sector. In the best Foreign Service tradition, I stalled hiring anybody else, let my two-year assignment run out, and left my poor successor to get stuck with one of the clueless ones.
Back to our story. I wonder how many of the "highly educated voters" could pass that WWII test? Or the Vietnam War Test? Or the Cold War test? Or know much about American history? Or understand the economy? And worst of all, the odds are they can't fire a gun, either. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
05/23/2008 09:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Also I wonder how many of those "highly educated" could integrate x2dx. Am I the only one who is irritated that what passes for highly educated refers exclsuively to litterary subjects, that you can be crass ignorant about basic physics or maths and still pass for educated?
#5
Funny because my friends and I had a girlfriend test we'd play on each others girlfriends back in the days right out of college and it wasn't all that different. Name three countries that fought in WW2 and whos team they fought for. Most thought the Soviets were the enemy although a couple got Vietnam vs the US.
For some reason history is something that has far more attraction to men so our test was unfair and mostly for laughs but the Diplomad has a point if you are going to consider yourself brilliant it does seem like something you should know to fill out the mental skillset and absolutely if you're going into politics or international business or any number of other jobs.
#6
Worse yet is the assumption that, since someone went to 'Columbia' (or any of the other name-brand institutions) they *have* to be good.
An unwarranted assumption, to be sure. But despite the fact that Mr. Lotp and I teach at a rather highly ranked, well-regarded school, when he spent a year on sabbatical at one of the better Ivies he *did* report a quality difference in the students, on average, compared to ours.
#8
Although I could once, I certainly no longer can integrate x2dx, JFM. Most American students never get further than basic algebra and geometry, because being able to do bookkeeping is more important in the lives they end up with.
Most Germans don't know much in the way of history, either, although they can probably spit out more facts that they don't understand. People go to university to specialize these days, not to get a comprehensive education. No doubt most of the Diplomad's applicants were political science majors. I'm not sure what a degree in that field teaches.
#9
Good point lotp. My sister was a teacher who would, at times, teach at American schools overseas (Abu Daubi for example) and her experience was that most American students overseas are much more 'ready' and 'prepared' to learn as opposed to a Public School in the USA.
I am curious. What do you think of the quality of education actually delivered? Just wondering....
#10
A related but critical matter is the make-believe and silliness regarding current world events that fill many of these "highly educated" heads, of all ages. They read the NYT and listen to NPR - and thus have their sometimes outlandish misunderstandings of the world reinforced on a daily basis. They are entertained at movies and on The Daily Show as some of these core bigotries and areas of ignorance are mined for laughs.
Their world-view can be thrown into disarray with the simplest questions, as they are not in the habit of thinking at all, much less critically or rigorously, and especially about cherished bigotries and assumptions.
In this sense Obama IS the perfect candidate for them. Hugh Hewitt finally started calling him a lightweight (and acting, in his odd characteristic way, that this was some sort of new info or insight) this week on his radio show. Obama is "highly educated" - and he displays not the slightest understanding of any topic under the sun, from economics to history to national security to, especially, his area of alleged expertise and training, US constitutional law (where his pronouncements are astonishing in their absurdity, and horrifying in that they are not uncommon from the clueless of his persuasion).
I remain mildly hopeful that generational change (i.e., passing of the Worst Generation, a large portion of the Vietnam War era folks) will help things get back to more sensible territory. But the borrowed trouble, the self-inflicted wounds of the nonsense that's been drubbed into young heads throughout the educational complex for a few decades now, will impose costs in the areas of wealth creation, rule of law, human rights, and development of human potential for years to come.
#12
Worse yet is the assumption that, since someone went to 'Columbia' (or any of the other name-brand institutions) they *have* to be good.
Fifteen years ago I nearly goaded a Columbia MBA into a bar fight by describing his MBA as 'marginally better' than my UMass-Boston MBA. I haven't seen a gasket blown like that in a while.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/23/2008 18:12 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I remember a very sharp high school history teacher. He had a gift for motivation, and often had his students on the edge of their chairs, desperate to hear the climax of his lesson before the bell went off--and he teased them mercilessly about it.
Some days, at the next opportunity after class, there was a mad dash to the library to find out the answer to the cliffhanger.
But they were rewarded for it. In the last few days before finals, he gave "special" classes on "secret" history. Students would bring tape recorders to class, even though it was not testable stuff.
Those classes were almost confidential, in that the stuff was not only not taught in high school, but most of it wasn't even taught in college.
He was the only teacher I've ever heard of who provided a bibliography to students on request, and some would actually would hang on to it for years, punching their way through it.
#16
CF, the students are not the issue overseas so much as the parents. Not many dummies get selected to go overseas for the government or companies. So it shouldn't be surprising their children are bright. I believe I learned a lot more at the dinner table than in class.
#17
What do you think of the quality of education actually delivered?
My only insight into that, beyond the general news article/scholarly publications bit, has to do with the course outline for the one standard course Mr. Lotp taught there before offering his visiting professor special course. The content of that standard course was rigorous and useful, both. FWIW
#18
lotp: An unwarranted assumption, to be sure. But despite the fact that Mr. Lotp and I teach at a rather highly ranked, well-regarded school, when he spent a year on sabbatical at one of the better Ivies he *did* report a quality difference in the students, on average, compared to ours.
lotp, fyi:
I never did finished my Degree... duh... so forgive as Ima kinda slo..
Then as to the quality difference between the students at Ivies and yourns, whose smarty-pantz quality was greator, yourns or dem students at the Ivies?
<:|~
#19
Ours are a bit more practically oriented. Theirs are very intellectually curious, self-motivated and able and motivated to delve into new material on their own to a greater degree.
#20
Parents? I have an"obsessive" interets in history. When I took my sons to Tombstone, AZ, they didn't know any of the history. I played the "Wyatt Earp" and "Tombstone" DVD's for them and they said "we were there?"
My Lil Dumbasses.....next time they were there, they knew, and they cared.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/23/2008 19:36 Comments ||
Top||
#23
the trick is in relating history to their current lives. When I show them the Anasazi ruins where an entire society disappeared? I say "this is your life , without an education"
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/23/2008 19:41 Comments ||
Top||
#24
If you educate a stupid person who has no common sense, do you end up with a wise, intelligent person, or an educated stupid person with no common sense?
Posted by: no mo uro ||
05/23/2008 19:52 Comments ||
Top||
#25
The artivcle certainly explains a lto abotu State Dept and its penchant for brie, snooty parties and rampant ignorant condescending liberalism.
#1
Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) has been a fairly undistinguished member of the House of Representatives for nearly a quarter of a century. He is a career member of the Financial Services Committee who has made little or no name for himself since his first electoral victory, and has maintained incumbency through the funneling of pork back to his district.
In short, he's like 95% of the people down there...
When the House of Representatives takes up arms against $4 gas by voting 324-84 to sue OPEC, you know that election-year discourse has entered the realm of the surreal. Another unmistakable sign is when a presidential candidate makes a gaffe, then, realizing it is too egregious to take back without suffering humiliation, decides to make it a centerpiece of his foreign policy.
Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chávez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."
After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.
Should the president ever meet with enemies? Sometimes, but only after minimal American objectives -- i.e., preconditions -- have been met. The Shanghai communique was largely written long before Richard Nixon ever touched down in China. Yet Obama thinks Nixon to China confirms the wisdom of his willingness to undertake a worldwide freshman-year tyrants tour.
Most of the time you don't negotiate with enemy leaders because there is nothing to negotiate. Does Obama imagine that North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela are insufficiently informed about American requirements for improved relations?
There are always contacts through back channels or intermediaries. Iran, for example, has engaged in five years of talks with our closest European allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to say nothing of the hundreds of official U.S. statements outlining exactly what we would give them in return for suspending uranium enrichment.
Obama pretends that while he is for such "engagement," the cowboy Republicans oppose it. Another absurdity. No one is debating the need for contacts. The debate is over the stupidity of elevating rogue states and their tyrants, easing their isolation, and increasing their leverage by granting them unconditional meetings with the president of the world's superpower.
Obama cited Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as presidents who met with enemies. Does he know no history? Neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever met with any of the leaders of the Axis powers. Obama must be referring to the pictures he's seen of Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, and Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. Does he not know that at that time Stalin was a wartime ally?
During the subsequent Cold War, Truman never met with Stalin. Nor Mao. Nor Kim Il Sung. Truman was no fool.
Obama cites John Kennedy meeting Nikita Khrushchev as another example of what he wants to emulate. Really? That Vienna summit of a young, inexperienced, untested American president was disastrous, emboldening Khrushchev to push Kennedy on Berlin -- and then nearly fatally in Cuba, leading almost directly to the Cuban missile crisis. Is that the precedent Obama aspires to follow?
A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs' isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements -- undermining the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he would employ against Iran.
As every seasoned diplomat knows, the danger of a summit is that it creates enormous pressure for results. And results require mutual concessions. That is why conditions and concessions are worked out in advance, not on the scene.
What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?
Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of unconditional presidential negotiations -- and then having compounded the problem by elevating it to a principle -- Obama keeps trying to explain. On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet standards Iran and others "don't pose a serious threat to us." (On the contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was not.) The next day in Billings, Mont.: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."
That's the very next day, mind you. Such rhetorical flailing has done more than create an intellectual mess. It has given rise to a new political phenomenon: the metastatic gaffe. The one begets another, begets another, begets . . .
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/23/2008 06:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
As he often does, Dr. Krauthammer nails it here. Several friends and I have been marveling at precisely this pattern for some time - making a ridiculous statement, and then instead of muddying the waters and backing off, doubling-down and making it policy. A depressing reminder of what an idiotic, unprofessional media we have today - Obama wouldn't have made it past his first primary or public utterance if there were a real press. And of course it's also a discouraging reminder of just how ignorant and unsophisticated so many voters are, especially the "highly educated" ones ....
. . . Hillary Clinton complained again this week that sexism has been a major dynamic in her unsuccessful bid for political dominance. . . . One wants to be sympathetic to Mrs. Clinton at this point, if for no other reason than to show one's range. But her last weeks have been, and her next weeks will likely be, one long exercise in summoning further denunciations. It is something new in politics, the How Else Can I Offend You Tour. And I suppose it is aimed not at voters -- you don't persuade anyone by complaining in this way, you only reinforce what your supporters already think -- but at history, at the way history will tell the story of the reasons for her loss.
So, to address the charge that sexism did her in:
It is insulting, because it asserts that those who supported someone else this year were driven by low prejudice and mindless bias.
It is manipulative, because it asserts that if you want to be understood, both within the community and in the larger brotherhood of man, to be wholly without bias and prejudice, you must support Mrs. Clinton.
It is not true. Tough hill-country men voted for her, men so backward they'd give the lady a chair in the union hall. Tough Catholic men in the outer suburbs voted for her, men so backward they'd call a woman a lady. And all of them so naturally courteous that they'd realize, in offering the chair or addressing the lady, that they might have given offense, and awkwardly joke at themselves to take away the sting. These are great men. And Hillary got her share, more than her share, of their votes. She should be a guy and say thanks.
It is prissy. Mrs. Clinton's supporters are now complaining about the Hillary nutcrackers sold at every airport shop. Boo hoo. If Golda Meir, a woman of not only proclaimed but actual toughness, heard about Golda nutcrackers, she would have bought them by the case and given them away as party favors.
It is sissy. It is blame-gaming, whining, a way of not taking responsibility, of not seeing your flaws and addressing them. You want to say "Girl, butch up, you are playing in the leagues, they get bruised in the leagues, they break each other's bones, they like to hit you low and hear the crack, it's like that for the boys and for the girls."
And because the charge of sexism is all of the above, it is, ultimately, undermining of the position of women. Or rather it would be if its source were not someone broadly understood by friend and foe alike to be willing to say anything to gain advantage. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
05/23/2008 06:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You can call her sissy, just don't call her sweetie.
Gaza is becoming a symbol. We rightly emphasize Israel's need to put an end to the daily, ever-widening, shelling of our civilians; indeed, it is obvious that Israel will eventually have to take military action - no country could act otherwise - to silence the guns and missile-launchers.
Another aspect is equally significant and concerns the attitude of Hamas's rulers to the mounting tension: On the one hand, they are negotiating - with Egypt, not with the illegitimate Zionist entity - on a temporary cessation of hostilities. On the other hand, they authorize extending the range of their missile attacks, knowing full well that this will hasten the day in which Israel, under any government, will have to order its army to march into Gaza and strip Hamas of its power.
Such is the Hamas policy: not only an endless blood-letting war against the Zionist entity, but also a readiness to lose their hold over Gaza as part of this war. This signifies a readiness not only to sacrifice the lives of men, women and children, but also a readiness to sacrifice the very regime they established not long ago through a violent coup. In other words, it is a process of political suicide writ large: The shahid is not only the individual, but the regime itself.
THIS MAY sound like an extreme conclusion but, as Ari Bar Yossef, retired lieutenant-colonel and administrator of the Knesset's Security Committee, writes in the army journal Ma'arachot, such cases of Islamist national suicide are not uncommon. He cites three such examples of Arab-Muslim regimes irrationally sacrificing their very existence, overriding their instinct of self-preservation, to fight the perceived enemy to the bitter end.
The first case is that of Saddam Hussein, who in 2003 could have avoided war and conquest by allowing UN inspectors to search for (the apparently non-existent) weapons of mass destruction wherever they wanted. Yet Iraq's ruler opted for war, knowing full well that he would have to face the might of the US.
The second case is that of Yasser Arafat in 2000, who after the failure of the Camp David and Taba talks had two options: continue talking to Israel - under the leadership of Ehud Barak, this country's most moderate and flexible government ever - or resort to violence. He chose the latter, with the result that all progress toward Palestinian independence was blocked. The ensuing loss of life, on both sides, testified to Arafat's preference for suicide over compromise.
The third case is that of the Taliban. Post-9/11, their leadership had two options: to enter into negotiations with the US, with a view to extraditing Osama bin Laden, or to risk war and destruction. The choice they made was obvious: Better to die fighting than to give up an inch.
IN ALL three cases, the conclusion is plain: prolonged war, death, destruction and national suicide are preferable to peaceful solutions of conflicts: Dying is preferable to negotiating with infidels. The same conclusion, of course, is applicable to the Palestinians voting for Hamas and its suicidal path, and to Iran's decision to confront the Security Council in its insistence on acquiring nuclear weapons.
These cases, while unprecedented in the annals of history, should not be that surprising. If you glorify individual suicide, if death is the key to a happy afterlife, if war itself is sanctified, why not extend these ideas from the individual to the collective? To the regime itself ? Suicide is the path to both individual and national salvation.
Luckily, not all Arab or Muslim regimes are like that. The vast majority of Arabs seek life, liberty and happiness. But when it comes to the hated Israel, madness rules, and not only the Iranians. It is a fact that Iran's explicit aim "to wipe Israel off the map" and its implicit threat to use nuclear weapons for this purpose are supported by many Palestinians - even though they too would be "wiped off" in the process.
Suicide in the struggle against Israel has acquired a degree of legitimacy the West cannot even fathom.
This unpalatable conclusion must be confronted. On the one hand, it should drive us to increase our efforts to reach some sort of modus vivendi with the PLO to decrease the impact of the fanatics (despite the fact that any such compromise will be rejected by Iran and its cohorts); while on the other hand, Israel, as well as the West, should be prepared for a long, irrational and costly war, unlike any other fought in the past.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/23/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
#1
I thought the headline was in reference to Americans voting for democrats. Rat baiting instead. nevermind.
#3
Remember that Israel, too, has a streak of wanting to commit national suicide as well.
I am reminded of the old western, where a soldier has another soldier as his prisoner, stranded out in the desert. The first soldier has a gun, and the prisoner tells him that when he goes to sleep after days of being awake, he, the prisoner, will take his gun and shoot him. But the guard refuses to shoot the prisoner, because it is his "duty" to bring him in to face trial.
Israel is damned by much of the world as a nasty criminal for protecting themselves from the Paleos. So what are they afraid of?, being doubly damned for driving the threat away for good?
MIDDLE EAST OIL: Defying the experts
By Roger Howard, International Herald Tribune
At a time of rapid price increases, our natural resources seem ever more precious and their future more uncertain. In particular, the arguments of advocates of "peak oil," who assert that global oil production has now climaxed and will start to decline, appear increasingly plausible. Frankly, finding 2 experts who agree on oil reserves is impossible.
Fortunately, however, a coming centenary puts their claims into a timely and fitting perspective. Almost 100 years ago - on May 26, 1908 - British geologists, working in a remote Persian wilderness, first discovered oil in the Middle East... May 26 is the day. I didn't see it coming. Happy 100th Birthday, ME Oil!
Skeptical though we should be about all such claims and statistics, there are several reasons why they should allow us to take heart about the future of oil. If in the years ahead there is a serious shortage of crude - leading to even more dramatic price rises than those of recent years - it is more likely to occur because of a disproportionate increase in demand rather than any diminution of supply.
To some extent, this is simply because there are still many areas of great promise that, for one reason or another, have remained largely unexplored. For example, whole areas of Russia and Iraq, particularly the latter country's vast desert regions, have been completely untouched by the latest sophisticated drilling techniques.
But the fundamental, underlying cause for optimism is the rate at which technology and scientific skills are advancing, thereby allowing existing reserves to be kept on tap for longer than anyone ever predicted and for new sources to be discovered in places where, not long ago, they were considered unreachable.
Of course, such relative optimism is no excuse for complacency. In an age of dramatic population growth and rapid industrialization in the developing world, every finite resource is necessarily precious. We must all urge our governments to sponsor scientific research into the development of more environmentally friendly fuels to replace those that are oil-based.
But let's take heart: The great pioneers who discovered Middle East oil a century ago would have been the first not to take expert opinion as the gospel truth.
Roger Howard is the author, most recently, of "The Oil Hunters: Exploration and Espionage in the Middle East 1880-1939"
#5
I consult Oil Industry site - Platts, etc - and I conclude that actual oil reserves are unknown but I suspect they are higher than we believe. Companies like Shell have proven that they will produce falsified data, in order to write-down assets, for tax purposes. Don't sell your SUVs.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Of the 14 or 15 applicants I interviewed, only one got them all right -- the only male in the crowd, by the way. None, zero, zip of the rest got even ONE right. Not a single one. A very irritated applicant asked me, "Do we really need to know this old stuff?" I noted that we worked with NATO and Europe, hence, it was important to know the background that led to the creation of NATO and the then just-concluded Cold War. She stared at me and said, "What does World War II have to do with NATO, the Cold War and Europe?" I promptly offered the job to the male -- oh, the cries from "Human Resources" -- who turned it down for a more lucrative one in the private sector. In the best Foreign Service tradition, I stalled hiring anybody else, let my two-year assignment run out, and left my poor successor to get stuck with one of the clueless ones.
