I think what Juliajms is saying is that it would be nice if Pres. Obama set a precedent. When you are elected on changing things in Washington, on a brighter, cleaner, more accountable way of running the country, then people start to call you out on it (and yes, I voted for him, but let's call a spade a spade).

My concern about this whole issue is not just that the system is up for sale (which is worrying enough) but that for decades since 1945, the US built up an elite core of military and diplomats who served abroad and understood the countries they served in. They provided brain capital, language skills and life experience that is truly impossible to replace. However, in the last 20 years, as Washington and the Federal government got bigger and bigger (staffed with "close personal friends" and money-providers), so the professional diplomatic core got eroded as the money got pulled from them. It's one reason why when 9/11 happened, there was nobody in either the CIA or the Pentagon who could speak Arabic or Farsi fluently at the time. It's also one reason behind the US embassy in Nairobi getting blown up, or the US Ambassador to Libya getting killed last year -- the funds to hire competent people with the right skills (including high-end security detail -- it's the private security companies that can afford to pay for the best) is not always there. And there is so much red tape that simple requests for these things are getting "lost in the mail."

The fact that no one could speak Arabic and Farsi is scary. You have more knowledge than I do on diplomats so I will ask the question. Are you asserting that the people who served in these positions prior to the last 20 years were not given the position because of money or their family connections? Not saying that they were not qualified, but are your ruling out connections in them getting the post?

I wonder about his chemistry with KKL...

It will really help if they are on fire together. It won't obliterate the other issues, but it'll at least be a plus.

I wonder about his chemistry with KKL...

I wouldn't worry about that. She has, at least up till now, had chemistry with everyone she's ever been put with.

He came back from one of the fashion capitals of the world looking like a hobo? I don't think so!

At first glance I thought this said "looking like a hobbit"!

The fact that no one could speak Arabic and Farsi is scary. You have more knowledge than I do on diplomats so I will ask the question. Are you asserting that the people who served in these positions prior to the last 20 years were not given the position because of money or their family connections? Not saying that they were not qualified, but are your ruling out connections in them getting the post?

I'm not connected in any way, but I grew up with parents who were sent to work abroad. My mom got to work with many US-France/US-UK committees promoting inter-country relations and understanding. It was clear that back then, the US government (from Truman right through to Bush #1) was willing to spend the money on this, not just fighting the Cold War but promoting good relations with allies, and hiring the best US citizens who were dedicated to public service.

US diplomats were smart, knowledgeable people who knew what they were dealing with because, at the time, the Soviets were sending equally capable, equally smart and experienced people all over the world. The US diplomats often served the country right out of college, sometimes in the military (Korea and later Vietnam for many -- where they learnt some hard lessons about descending on places where you do not know the language or people) through to stints in the real-world (like business or engineering) or in the CIA, then maybe back to university in the US for solid Masters degrees or PhDs, then into the diplomatic field. Some had lived abroad for most of their lives -- ex pats. The government paid for a lot, including university degrees. You pay for the best, and when the best are also loyal, you snap them up and do what you can to keep them.

Now, in answer to your question, can I say definitively that people without connections went on to ambassadorial posts? No. A lot of these diplomats surely went to the 'right' kind of schools, Harvard, Yale, Princeton. The connections were already there by college! And I'm sure there were some posts that were seen as good for a little light socializing, nothing more. Heck, Robert Sargent Shriver, who married Eunice Kennedy, was made Ambassador to France in 1968. Obviously there were connections at work here. However, he had started the Peace Corps and was involved in sending young Americans around the world to do good works, so he had a focus on policy abroad, and my mom (who got to meet him) was impressed by his outlook and attitude.

After WW2, the US was extremely worried about Soviet spies infiltrating US diplomacy or the State Department. That's why they wanted professionals with experience and loyalty in the corps. As the Cold War ended, though, it was thought that these Cold War-trained people were no longer needed and they started getting phased out. Those with special language skills were hit hard. In conjunction with that, that's when the tradition of giving out some (though not all!) ambassadorial posts to "special" friends picked up steam.

Edited December 4, 201311 yr by Cat

I wouldn't worry about that. She has, at least up till now, had chemistry with everyone she's ever been put with.

At first glance I thought this said "looking like a hobbit"!

Absolutely! It would be a bad time for her to stop having chemistry with her men lol

LMAO! Actually, that's not too far from the reality of the situation. I might have to start calling him that.

In other words, President Obama is not allowed to do what everyone else has done. The standards he must live up to must be higher than that for every other President that has come before him. LOL. I remember when I was idealistic about politics thinking that people should do what is right because it is right. When realistically that will never happen for many politicians (or citizens). President Obama can not change the character of other people. In order to get something, you have to give something. And that something is probably money or contracts for the people in the politicians state/district. Afterall, that is who he/she was elected (bought) to represent.

I totally agree that this is another sign that our system is for sale. Something again, that will never change because it was set up this way. Big money and the wealthy have always ruled these United States. It's called capitalism. And I don't foresee a future where this is not the case. The alternative is not something that goes well with our founding principles.

He set the standard for himself as I recall. Hope and change remember? No more business as usual in Washington? Those were all things he promised.

I think what Juliajms is saying is that it would be nice if Pres. Obama set a precedent. When you are elected on changing things in Washington, on a brighter, cleaner, more accountable way of running the country, then people start to call you out on it (and yes, I voted for Obama, twice, and without any qualms, but I don't like to put any President on a pedestal because they will always end up disappointing you).

Exactly. Thank you Cat. Considering he won't be running for office again, he really didn't have anything to lose, but instead it's just same old same old.

Edited December 4, 201311 yr by Juliajms

I wonder about his chemistry with KKL...

I can't remember anyone she didn't have chemistry with. Maybe Eric.

I can't remember anyone she didn't have chemistry with. Maybe Eric.

Even with J McC she had some. I remember some hardcore Brooke/Eric fans back in the day. Yes, I'm as surprised as you are.

I think that TK was a bad choice for this re-cast. An unknown actor or someone who has not been on the soaps in while would have been better. However, we'll see how it plays out.

As for Hungary, there is a lot going on there which would behoove Mrs. Bell to understand. Like the startling rise of fringe fascism. Not saying Hungarians are all fascists by any stretch, but diplomats should be aware of these political rumblings otherwise it is going to take everybody by surprise, and it could trigger a domino effect.

Exactly. This whole "second tier" country attitude is what gets us in trouble. Competent ambassadors are not just spokespeople. Working with their seasoned diplomatic staff, they promote our country's interests and identify political danger and unrest early. There is a lot of danger in this world and the reason it tends to come out of "nowhere" is because of poor diplomacy, not just poor intelligence. It worries me Caroline Kennedy being appointed ambassador to Japan when there increasing danger of military conflict with China. I think a seasoned diplomat with extensive experience in Asia would have been far better choice to take that position. I would like Obama to reward his supporters and fund raisers in other ways and leave diplomacy to trained diplomats.

Edited December 5, 201311 yr by Ann_SS

I'm not connected in any way, but I grew up with parents who were sent to work abroad. My mom got to work with many US-France/US-UK committees promoting inter-country relations and understanding. It was clear that back then, the US government (from Truman right through to Bush #1) was willing to spend the money on this, not just fighting the Cold War but promoting good relations with allies, and hiring the best US citizens who were dedicated to public service.

US diplomats were smart, knowledgeable people who knew what they were dealing with because, at the time, the Soviets were sending equally capable, equally smart and experienced people all over the world. The US diplomats often served the country right out of college, sometimes in the military (Korea and later Vietnam for many -- where they learnt some hard lessons about descending on places where you do not know the language or people) through to stints in the real-world (like business or engineering) or in the CIA, then maybe back to university in the US for solid Masters degrees or PhDs, then into the diplomatic field. Some had lived abroad for most of their lives -- ex pats. The government paid for a lot, including university degrees. You pay for the best, and when the best are also loyal, you snap them up and do what you can to keep them.

Now, in answer to your question, can I say definitively that people without connections went on to ambassadorial posts? No. A lot of these diplomats surely went to the 'right' kind of schools, Harvard, Yale, Princeton. The connections were already there by college! And I'm sure there were some posts that were seen as good for a little light socializing, nothing more. Heck, Robert Sargent Shriver, who married Eunice Kennedy, was made Ambassador to France in 1968. Obviously there were connections at work here. However, he had started the Peace Corps and was involved in sending young Americans around the world to do good works, so he had a focus on policy abroad, and my mom (who got to meet him) was impressed by his outlook and attitude.

After WW2, the US was extremely worried about Soviet spies infiltrating US diplomacy or the State Department. That's why they wanted professionals with experience and loyalty in the corps. As the Cold War ended, though, it was thought that these Cold War-trained people were no longer needed and they started getting phased out. Those with special language skills were hit hard. In conjunction with that, that's when the tradition of giving out some (though not all!) ambassadorial posts to "special" friends picked up steam.

Thanks for the quick education. Hhhmmm, so these people were trained/bred from an early age for these jobs. Like you said, before college. It seems that their was some sort of pipeline that just shut off being that qualified folks just disappeared. Or it could be as simple as their being no need for it anymore (because posts were given out as gifts for supporters) so young people didn't pursue the training or internships were no longer available. It's all very interesting.

New Ridge looks smelly.

This is the best thread ever.

I'm definitely looking forward to this trainwreck.

In other words, President Obama is not allowed to do what everyone else has done. The standards he must live up to must be higher than that for every other President that has come before him. LOL. I remember when I was idealistic about politics thinking that people should do what is right because it is right. When realistically that will never happen for many politicians (or citizens). President Obama can not change the character of other people. In order to get something, you have to give something. And that something is probably money or contracts for the people in the politicians state/district. Afterall, that is who he/she was elected (bought) to represent.

I totally agree that this is another sign that our system is for sale. Something again, that will never change because it was set up this way. Big money and the wealthy have always ruled these United States. It's called capitalism. And I don't foresee a future where this is not the case. The alternative is not something that goes well with our founding principles.

To be fair, the President has brought these questions (these particular questions, I mean) on himself, because he specifically said several times that he was going to change the way things are done in DC and he hasn't really delivered. This appointment (and others like it) is only one example of the same old, same old the President said he would change.

People may hate on Ronn Moss and laugh at his over the top hot mess acting but the guy WAS Ridge Forrester. He owned that role and made him his..,,,

This guy just looks like Kendall's other half from AMC randomly ended up at B&B. This is just too ridiculous for words and his accent is practically screaming at me. The only good thing bout that promo is his hair.

Edited December 5, 201311 yr by ThePrinceOfSunspear

Exactly. This whole "second tier" country attitude is what gets us in trouble. Competent ambassadors are not just spokespeople. Working with their seasoned diplomatic staff, they promote our country's interests and identify political danger and unrest early. There is a lot of danger in this world and the reason it tends to come out of "nowhere" is because of poor diplomacy, not just poor intelligence. It worries me Caroline Kennedy being appointed ambassador to Japan when there increasing danger of military conflict with China. I think a seasoned diplomat with extensive experience in Asia would have been far better choice to take that position. I would like Obama to reward his supporters and fund raisers in other ways and leave diplomacy to trained diplomats.

Not saying that giving these ambassor posts as token payback is a good idea but again, best qualification is not a requirement on how foreign affairs jobs are distributed. It mostly relies on your personal background (children, personal status, age) and your past history; the world is divided into several zones (relying on the dangerousness of the country there are 4 zones or sth like that; with a country like France listed as A whereas Afghanistan is D) and you are basically collecting credits like in college. For every two years in a D country you get awarded with like 7 years of stable work in a country of your choice. If you worked in an A country, you will have to move quite a lot in most cases because this doesn't get you many credits.

Language skills or cultural background is NOT a requirementeven with career diplomats, for enring into the state department surely but not so much afterwards. When you get assigned to a certain country, you start taking language and cultural background classes because the embassies and consulates general have local staff which remains in the building for 30/40+ years whereas diplomate employees only last 3-5 years at a certain embassy before either going back to the state department or to another country. So the actual braincells are always intact regardless of who is sent from the state department...