brainiac conspiracy

Awwwwwwww . . .

Some American workers really are ruthlessly exploited, now, aren't they?

---Vitelius

Gotta-Reads of the Day

Like most of you, I've watched the horror in Gaza over the past few days with equal measures disgust, sorrow, anger and exasperation. We've seen this movie too many times already, and we've never liked how it ends. I don't pretend for a moment to know how to resolve this seemingly endless conflict, but a pair of articles today---one from the always thoughtful Michael Lerner proposing some nuts-and-bolts solutions, the other from Ira Chernus on the effects of Zionism on the Israeli national psyche---both aim to transcend the usual self-righteous sloganeering and scapegoating to grasp a deeper understanding of the problems underlying the Israel-Palestine conundrum. Agree or not with their conclusions, they're both worth a look.

---Vitelius

An Unsung Hero

Paraphrasing Franklin, a bittersweet reminder today that most great leaders aren't really ahead of their times as much as most people in general are far behind theirs. Requiescat in pacem.

---Vitelius

Purging We Can Believe In

Looks like the new sheriff is finally riding into town, and we're starting to see some real change in the Washington bureaucracy. And some folks aren't terribly pleased at the shocking breach of protocol:

Despite keeping Defense Secretary Robert Gates in the Pentagon, President-elect Obama's transition team informed 90 Bush appointees their services will not be needed after Inauguration Day.

Scott Gration, a senior official on Obama's transition team, called and emailed several of President Bush's Pentagon appointees about 10 days ago to inform them they were being dismissed.

Those calls and emails were followed up by an email from Jim O'Beirne, the special assistant to the secretary of defense for White House liaisons, who expressed exasperation that Gration informed the employees directly instead of letting O'Beirne's office know first.

"With regard to the process, I am unable to provide an explanation," O'Beirne wrote on Tuesday in the email, which was obtained by The Hill. "I played no part in it, and I will not speculate why matters were handled as they were."

The Hill's correspondent doesn't provide a possible explanantion, either, but I think I can:

After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade.

Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance---but had applied for a White House job---was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.

Here's hoping that Jim O'Beirne gets to spend plenty of time with his wife and kids over the next four years. As far away from the corridors of power as possible.

---Vitelius