Dear Pack-out Diary,
This morning marks Day 2 of the pack-out, and I'm waiting for the call that the mover/packers are here to finish the job.
Before I get any further, I apologize in advance if I come across particularly caustic this morning as I didn't sleep well two nights ago - nervous about the pack-out, I presume - nor did I sleep well last night either - our alarm clock went off in our super-secret hidden bunker that will be our home for the next week. Mind you, we didn't set; rather the previous guests did. But I'll save my complaints for a later post, and to be fair, I'll wait a little longer than one night to give my impressions of this place.
Instead, I'll turn my Righteous Laser Beam of Justice (patent pending) toward yesterday's events as well as previous events that led to yesterday's results.
First, I liked our movers/packers, which is good because we spent 12 hours together. There were three of them, and one was very nice and helpful. The second was quiet, but he appeared to be working very hard. The third was a bit of schmuck, but he was helpful in the beginning in explaining to Natalie that she had about 2,000 pounds of stuff marked for UAB.
Second, I've heard several stories about over-aggressive packers that wrap up everything from garbage to cats quicker than the foreign service family can keep up with them. This definitely was not our experience. We began with the Post-its system, but after our UAB was ready, which happened quickly, it essentially morphed into a pile system. All of our storage stuff, which wasn't much, was piled on one of the couches going to storage. That, and large furniture items in the bedroom and living room were for storage. Everything else must go! And the bathroom was off limits for packing.
After several hours of packing and loading, Natalie and I started finding several items that had not been packed. Most of them were in the bedroom where the schmuck was working, but there were a few items all over the place. But we did get everything we wanted packed eventually.
Third, I raised a question before about pack-out privacy, which wasn't a problem for us, but many comments pointed out that these guys have seen everything during their careers so there isn't any judging. In fact, while talking with the guy working the kitchen, he said he often gets asked about the strangest things he packed. Well, we added something new to that list. That is all I'm going to say about said item; it was in the kitchen.
Fourth, during about the eighth hour of pack-out, I asked our kitchen guy how many pack-outs he does a week. They work five days a week, which is shocking considering they were in the midst of 12-hour day. He explained that they receive a worksheet every day they start a new job describing the estimated weight, number of workers and how many days the job is.
As I described earlier, the guy with the magic calculator estimated it was a two-day job. By the time that information filtered down to our three packers/movers, it morphed into a one-day job. Well, at some point during the day, they called to say one day was impossible. Typically in jobs like the one we had, they would arrive and pack one day, and move everything the next.
Finally, one of my continuing complaints is stupid acronyms. I've been a part of two pack-outs now, and during the pack-out, I've never heard anyone say "UAB" or "HHE." The movers don't use these expressions. I'm not entirely sure they even know what HHE means.
Why does the State Department instill this vocabulary into its employees when at the time it matters most - pack-out - the people packing stuff don't use these terms.
UAB = "air freight" or "air"
HHE = "ground freight," "sea" and/or "surface"
There are probably more terms the movers use, but these are the ones I've heard in two pack-outs. State, please stop using UAB and HHE! It only confuses things. If you must use acronyms, which I don't think you do in this case, let the movers pick them.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
EFM: Essentially, a Fraction of a Man
Reality can be harsh. And in the past couple of days, I've learned that for reimbursement purposes, the government doesn't think much of me. I've always had my suspicions - hell, it is kind of the basis of this blog - but I found out exactly how the government views Extra Filing Management (EFM) - 75%.
Beginning with the black-hole period between June 30 (pack-out) and July 9 (exodus day), we will be existing in a state of purgatory sans a home. During this time, the government will be boarding us (thanks, taxpayers!) based on a rate in which Natalie counts as a whole person, and I count as 75% of a person.
And as an extra slap in the face, on July 1, the government will be reducing this per-diem reimbursement significantly. So June 30 will be a good day for us financially, but the remaining week or so will be a little bit tighter.
This is as good of a time as any other, I suppose, to point out the errors in the government's per diem philosophy. It is so faulty, in fact, that the government actually agrees with me.
When we check out of our hotel and start driving on July 9, the reimbursement/per diem policy changes.
In D.C., we get a lump sum per diem that covers food and shelter, which is determined on the rate that Natalie is a whole person and I'm only 75% of her. This is known as the predeparture subsistence expenses allowance, which is a piece of the greater foreign transfer allowance.
But as soon as we started heading in the direction of Hermosillo, we get switched to a second reimbursement rate, or as I like to call it, the one that actually makes sense. This is supposed to be covered in the Department of State Standardized Regulations (DSSR) section 925, but it isn't done very well, if at all. I'm not too sure what I'm reading in that section as the one thing worse than the government's use of acronyms is its use of jargon.
Instead of charging taxpayers for unknown lodging expenses, we have to keep hotel receipts and get reimbursed for actual expenditures. And then we also get a food per diem in which Natalie is a whole person and I get to eat 75% of what she eats. Though, when it comes to eating, Natalie is more like 25% of a person and I'm more in the range of 100% to 125%.
Fortunately, I'm older than 12, or I wouldn't count as a person. And, in the same vein, it is beneficial that we don't have any children. Anyone older than 12 after the first 75% of a person only counts as 50% of a person.
Beginning with the black-hole period between June 30 (pack-out) and July 9 (exodus day), we will be existing in a state of purgatory sans a home. During this time, the government will be boarding us (thanks, taxpayers!) based on a rate in which Natalie counts as a whole person, and I count as 75% of a person.
And as an extra slap in the face, on July 1, the government will be reducing this per-diem reimbursement significantly. So June 30 will be a good day for us financially, but the remaining week or so will be a little bit tighter.
This is as good of a time as any other, I suppose, to point out the errors in the government's per diem philosophy. It is so faulty, in fact, that the government actually agrees with me.
When we check out of our hotel and start driving on July 9, the reimbursement/per diem policy changes.
In D.C., we get a lump sum per diem that covers food and shelter, which is determined on the rate that Natalie is a whole person and I'm only 75% of her. This is known as the predeparture subsistence expenses allowance, which is a piece of the greater foreign transfer allowance.
But as soon as we started heading in the direction of Hermosillo, we get switched to a second reimbursement rate, or as I like to call it, the one that actually makes sense. This is supposed to be covered in the Department of State Standardized Regulations (DSSR) section 925, but it isn't done very well, if at all. I'm not too sure what I'm reading in that section as the one thing worse than the government's use of acronyms is its use of jargon.
Instead of charging taxpayers for unknown lodging expenses, we have to keep hotel receipts and get reimbursed for actual expenditures. And then we also get a food per diem in which Natalie is a whole person and I get to eat 75% of what she eats. Though, when it comes to eating, Natalie is more like 25% of a person and I'm more in the range of 100% to 125%.
Fortunately, I'm older than 12, or I wouldn't count as a person. And, in the same vein, it is beneficial that we don't have any children. Anyone older than 12 after the first 75% of a person only counts as 50% of a person.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
EFM: Escalating Friction with Mexico
Does not a week go by in which the American-Mexican border situation worsen?
Last week, I mentioned that I've taken more interest in world affairs as a result of coming acquainted with the foreign service and its diplomats. Naturally, my interest in Mexico is more intense, and there is no shortage of news on that front.
In the latest incident, a U.S. border patrol agent shot a Mexican teen. Any guesses as to where on the border this took place? If you took the safe guess, Juarez (can't pronounce Juarez without "War"), you'd be right.
Closer to our future, temporary home, Arizona is pissing Mexico off (as well as East Coast Democrats) with the law about needing to carry documents proving your American citizenship, which only can lead to the harassment of the Latino population - illegal or otherwise. By the way, you have to love the way the Arizona legislature dressed this one up, as it is officially called the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act."
Now I'm not going to pretend to have the answers. In all honesty, I get the arguments the Arizonans are making. There is a border problem, and that state is on the front line. It is easy for Americans far from the border to point at the state and its leaders and call them racists. Though in a bizarre twist, about a dozen states not along the border are introducing similar legislation. (Really Ohio? What, are you trying to keep the Canadians out? Or is this about keeping Kentuckians out? Despite what you might think, Kentucky is part of the Union, and we will continue to cross the river.)
My own opinions are that current situation is like the healthcare bill. I know something has to be done because the current situation can't continue this way, but I also think the passed solutions not only won't improve the situation, but in all likelihood, it will only serve to make things worse.
And with regards to American-Mexican relations, I have a profound interest in how this develops. As tensions between the U.S. Southwest and northern Mexico continue to spiral out of control, and seemingly become more strained every day, spending a couple of years there is not incredibly enticing.
But then there is this article claiming that the four safest cities in the United States are San Diego, El Paso, Phoenix and Austin. Apparently, our recession has made us less desirable to potential illegal immigrants, or so a U.S. Border Patrol spokesman said.
Of course, the Border Patrol has a vested interest in showing it is doing its job. Just as the legislators have a vested interest in claiming a crisis to get more federal funds and pass racist laws under the guise of protecting the local populace.
That article concludes with this quote from Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
I certainly can agree with this, and I'm about to get an up-close look at the border as well as what it is like for those on the other side of it. Maybe in two years, I'll have the answer, which might be necessary because I'm fairly certain our government won't.
Last week, I mentioned that I've taken more interest in world affairs as a result of coming acquainted with the foreign service and its diplomats. Naturally, my interest in Mexico is more intense, and there is no shortage of news on that front.
In the latest incident, a U.S. border patrol agent shot a Mexican teen. Any guesses as to where on the border this took place? If you took the safe guess, Juarez (can't pronounce Juarez without "War"), you'd be right.
Closer to our future, temporary home, Arizona is pissing Mexico off (as well as East Coast Democrats) with the law about needing to carry documents proving your American citizenship, which only can lead to the harassment of the Latino population - illegal or otherwise. By the way, you have to love the way the Arizona legislature dressed this one up, as it is officially called the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act."
Now I'm not going to pretend to have the answers. In all honesty, I get the arguments the Arizonans are making. There is a border problem, and that state is on the front line. It is easy for Americans far from the border to point at the state and its leaders and call them racists. Though in a bizarre twist, about a dozen states not along the border are introducing similar legislation. (Really Ohio? What, are you trying to keep the Canadians out? Or is this about keeping Kentuckians out? Despite what you might think, Kentucky is part of the Union, and we will continue to cross the river.)
My own opinions are that current situation is like the healthcare bill. I know something has to be done because the current situation can't continue this way, but I also think the passed solutions not only won't improve the situation, but in all likelihood, it will only serve to make things worse.
And with regards to American-Mexican relations, I have a profound interest in how this develops. As tensions between the U.S. Southwest and northern Mexico continue to spiral out of control, and seemingly become more strained every day, spending a couple of years there is not incredibly enticing.
But then there is this article claiming that the four safest cities in the United States are San Diego, El Paso, Phoenix and Austin. Apparently, our recession has made us less desirable to potential illegal immigrants, or so a U.S. Border Patrol spokesman said.
Of course, the Border Patrol has a vested interest in showing it is doing its job. Just as the legislators have a vested interest in claiming a crisis to get more federal funds and pass racist laws under the guise of protecting the local populace.
That article concludes with this quote from Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
"Border security has become the most overused, and least understood, concept in the struggle over what to do about our broken immigration system," he said. "While an election year may not be the best time, the United States finally needs an honest debate over what it means to secure the country's borders."
I certainly can agree with this, and I'm about to get an up-close look at the border as well as what it is like for those on the other side of it. Maybe in two years, I'll have the answer, which might be necessary because I'm fairly certain our government won't.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
One Thing I Know (and a few thoughts)
Hand me a stone tablet; I have some information ready to be etched down.
On second thought, I've never used a chisel. The Internet will have to do.
We scheduled our pack-out day, and now I can lay claim to real knowledge as opposed to fool's knowledge. I know what day the movers are coming for our things.
Which, of course, could cause a problem. Because while we know when the contractors will bring the boxes, we don't know if Natalie will pass her Spanish exam on the first go around. We have a pretty good idea, but what we don't know.
It kind of makes me wonder who is writing the policies and guidelines of being a foreign service officer. I hope it is not the same people who are writing the policies and guidelines of foreign diplomacy.
By now, the world knows my disdain for the acronyms used during the moving process (I'm looking at you, UAB and HHE). Well, here is yet another aspect of moving that doesn't make any sense. Why do we need to schedule a pack-out day before we know when we are leaving (OK, we have a date, but it also is dependent on passing Spanish)? How does this make any sense?
I suppose "putting the cart before the horse" isn't considered a warning to proceed in logical order; rather, it is considered an instruction manual.
Anyway, I'm glad to have knocked out one practice run (at a friend's expense), so hopefully our turn will go smoothly...I think I just heard the collective foreign service community chuckle.
We do have the advantage of filling a car with the really, really important things, and we are in the process of adding a roof-top cargo container and rack on our compact sedan to compensate for the loss of our backseat for transporting Tiffy.
House Keeping Note:
When I first started this blog, I spent some time looking for other blogs to follow, and then added a few as they found me. In other words, I got lazy and content. While not necessarily one of my aims when I got started, I learned quickly that the foreign service has an extensive blogosphere, and it is a great way to learn from others and make contacts.
So I've added a lot of blogs to my follow list, and I figure that will continue to grow over the next few days. I'm mostly only adding and following other Entertaining, Functioning Manuscriptists (EFM-written blogs that get updated with some regularity...maybe an acronym was a bad idea there).
A special thanks to Life After Jerusalem for keeping such an extensive and well-organized list of bloggers. She provides a great tool for following other bloggers.
On second thought, I've never used a chisel. The Internet will have to do.
We scheduled our pack-out day, and now I can lay claim to real knowledge as opposed to fool's knowledge. I know what day the movers are coming for our things.
Which, of course, could cause a problem. Because while we know when the contractors will bring the boxes, we don't know if Natalie will pass her Spanish exam on the first go around. We have a pretty good idea, but what we don't know.
It kind of makes me wonder who is writing the policies and guidelines of being a foreign service officer. I hope it is not the same people who are writing the policies and guidelines of foreign diplomacy.
By now, the world knows my disdain for the acronyms used during the moving process (I'm looking at you, UAB and HHE). Well, here is yet another aspect of moving that doesn't make any sense. Why do we need to schedule a pack-out day before we know when we are leaving (OK, we have a date, but it also is dependent on passing Spanish)? How does this make any sense?
I suppose "putting the cart before the horse" isn't considered a warning to proceed in logical order; rather, it is considered an instruction manual.
Anyway, I'm glad to have knocked out one practice run (at a friend's expense), so hopefully our turn will go smoothly...I think I just heard the collective foreign service community chuckle.
We do have the advantage of filling a car with the really, really important things, and we are in the process of adding a roof-top cargo container and rack on our compact sedan to compensate for the loss of our backseat for transporting Tiffy.
House Keeping Note:
When I first started this blog, I spent some time looking for other blogs to follow, and then added a few as they found me. In other words, I got lazy and content. While not necessarily one of my aims when I got started, I learned quickly that the foreign service has an extensive blogosphere, and it is a great way to learn from others and make contacts.
So I've added a lot of blogs to my follow list, and I figure that will continue to grow over the next few days. I'm mostly only adding and following other Entertaining, Functioning Manuscriptists (EFM-written blogs that get updated with some regularity...maybe an acronym was a bad idea there).
A special thanks to Life After Jerusalem for keeping such an extensive and well-organized list of bloggers. She provides a great tool for following other bloggers.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Fool's Knowledge
With regards to the foreign service, as soon as I think I know something, I realize I'm way off base.
After making it onto the registrar (good job, honey!), initially we thought we'd be called off almost immediately because we heard rumors that due to the increased number of foreign service positions the Obama Administration was creating, there was virtually no waiting list.
Obviously this was not the case. So just as Natalie was deciding whether or not she wanted to try to improve her positioning by taking the oral exam again, we did get the call.
Then I started to share with friends and family all sorts of bad information about where we could wind up (I thought only embassies were in play. There are like 30 potential locations in Mexico, and only one has an embassy.) and how long until we got there.
Even as recently as this week, now that we've been on the inside for about nine months, I'm still learning that once I'm ready to claim I know something, we are wrong. The most recent example was that we were told by somebody who probably ought to know better that everyone being posted in Mexico who wants to take a car with them has to drive there.
That made a little bit of sense, because it seems it is cheaper for the government to pay for gas and hotel rooms than to pay to ship the car. But it stopped making sense about the time you realized that Merida, Mexico, is all the way at the bottom of the country and would be a very long drive. Yet if you get posted right across the border in Guatamala or Belize, then the government will pay to ship your car.
Of course, by now, I've come to accept that very little of what the government does makes sense, so I just accepted that this was another one of those examples that the government's procedures were flawed.
Turns out that there are only about a handful of border cities that the government won't ship a car to, and that Hermosillo isn't one of them. We're still going to drive there, but we were both surprised by this revalation.
It has made me re-assess what I know. What I know is this. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Hermosillo is in Mexico. Mexico borders the United States. We are suppose to live there.
There's also things I ought to know. But having been proven wrong about things I know on almost a daily basis since this process has begun, I don't like to share this information anymore. The biggie here is about when we are leaving. I think I know when we are supposed to move, but because it is dependent on Natalie passing her Spanish exam, and because this date changes more often than D.C. weather, I'm content to say I don't know.
And finally, there are the things I believe to be true, but these beliefs are based more on speculation than anything else.
The lesson is to take information at face value. Even if the information is coming from a reliable source, it could still be inaccurate. About the only thing you can bank on is that isn't a fact until it has already happened.
After making it onto the registrar (good job, honey!), initially we thought we'd be called off almost immediately because we heard rumors that due to the increased number of foreign service positions the Obama Administration was creating, there was virtually no waiting list.
Obviously this was not the case. So just as Natalie was deciding whether or not she wanted to try to improve her positioning by taking the oral exam again, we did get the call.
Then I started to share with friends and family all sorts of bad information about where we could wind up (I thought only embassies were in play. There are like 30 potential locations in Mexico, and only one has an embassy.) and how long until we got there.
Even as recently as this week, now that we've been on the inside for about nine months, I'm still learning that once I'm ready to claim I know something, we are wrong. The most recent example was that we were told by somebody who probably ought to know better that everyone being posted in Mexico who wants to take a car with them has to drive there.
That made a little bit of sense, because it seems it is cheaper for the government to pay for gas and hotel rooms than to pay to ship the car. But it stopped making sense about the time you realized that Merida, Mexico, is all the way at the bottom of the country and would be a very long drive. Yet if you get posted right across the border in Guatamala or Belize, then the government will pay to ship your car.
Of course, by now, I've come to accept that very little of what the government does makes sense, so I just accepted that this was another one of those examples that the government's procedures were flawed.
Turns out that there are only about a handful of border cities that the government won't ship a car to, and that Hermosillo isn't one of them. We're still going to drive there, but we were both surprised by this revalation.
It has made me re-assess what I know. What I know is this. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Hermosillo is in Mexico. Mexico borders the United States. We are suppose to live there.
There's also things I ought to know. But having been proven wrong about things I know on almost a daily basis since this process has begun, I don't like to share this information anymore. The biggie here is about when we are leaving. I think I know when we are supposed to move, but because it is dependent on Natalie passing her Spanish exam, and because this date changes more often than D.C. weather, I'm content to say I don't know.
And finally, there are the things I believe to be true, but these beliefs are based more on speculation than anything else.
The lesson is to take information at face value. Even if the information is coming from a reliable source, it could still be inaccurate. About the only thing you can bank on is that isn't a fact until it has already happened.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Home is Where...?
In the touchy-feely times of yesteryear, "Home is where the heart is." If that were true, I'd probably still be in southeast Ohio, but that is neither here nor there.
Because as far as the government is concerned, "Home is where you have domicile."
For many foreign service families, home is where you lived before you came to Virginia for training. Your children went to school in your home district; you still have many relatives there; and you might still own property there.
We are local hires, so one would probably assume that means Virginia or D.C. would be our home. But not so quick.
As of Aug. 1, assuming Natalie's successful completion of her Spanish test, we will be homeless - save for the home we'll occupy in Hermosillo, the one the government owns.
So it would appear we will be without a home. We're fine with that. Natalie's ancestors were gypsies anyway, I think. Uncle Sam won't care too much, because he'll still get our federal income tax. Oh, but wait, some state will be asking for a handout in the way of state income tax because we don't have any ties to Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington state or Wyoming.
I suppose to be fair, it isn't a complete freebie to our "domicile-hosting" state. After all, we will be able to vote in which ever state we choose. So let's round up the candidates.
Virginia:
This has been our home for the past three years
We have Virginia driver's licenses
Our car is registered here
We've been voting here
The company I'm most likely to do most of my work for is here
In all likelihood, during any D.C. tours, we'll probably come back here, too
That is a pretty strong argument for Virginia, though the first point has no bearing on the future, the next three can be easily switched to any other state in which we can establish residence, and the last two points are speculation.
Kentucky:
This is where we have the most familial ties
I was born here
For now, that is about the only thing keeping the Bluegrass State in the running, but that is more concrete than Virginia as we can establish residency here before moving to Mexico and then do the car and voting stuff in Kentucky.
Ohio:
This is where our second most of familial ties are
Natalie was born here
We got married here
Essentially the same key points as with Kentucky.
Washington, D.C.:
Natalie's employer is based here
We lived here for two years
We could live here during a D.C. tour
D.C. is much like Virginia, but just with weaker ties, but that could change in a few years.
The tricky thing about claiming a domicile is the issue of intent to live there. It is tricky for us because we don't have any intent to live anywhere other than where the government sends us. We don't intend to do a D.C. tour for at least four years, to ask us if we intend to live in either Virginia or D.C. (or <gasp> Maryland) now doesn't seem like a fair question.
Because choosing a domicile is essentially choosing which state we want to pay income taxes to, at least for our immediate purposes, it seems worthwhile to do another comparison exercise - comparing tax rates for our likely income bracket.
Washington, D.C.: 8%
Kentucky: 6%
Virginia: 5.75%
Ohio: 4.695% or 5.451% (the split occurs in our approximate income range)
So long to "My Old Kentucky Home" and I never liked living in D.C. anyway. Now we just need to decide if all that paperwork and legwork is worth "switching" our domicile from Virginia to Ohio, especially if we end up in the higher tax bracket.
Too bad we just can't build a little hut on the Texas-Mexico border and call that home. Who cares if our heart won't be in the hut, because "Home is where you pay your income taxes (if applicable)" anyway.
Because as far as the government is concerned, "Home is where you have domicile."
For many foreign service families, home is where you lived before you came to Virginia for training. Your children went to school in your home district; you still have many relatives there; and you might still own property there.
We are local hires, so one would probably assume that means Virginia or D.C. would be our home. But not so quick.
As of Aug. 1, assuming Natalie's successful completion of her Spanish test, we will be homeless - save for the home we'll occupy in Hermosillo, the one the government owns.
So it would appear we will be without a home. We're fine with that. Natalie's ancestors were gypsies anyway, I think. Uncle Sam won't care too much, because he'll still get our federal income tax. Oh, but wait, some state will be asking for a handout in the way of state income tax because we don't have any ties to Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington state or Wyoming.
I suppose to be fair, it isn't a complete freebie to our "domicile-hosting" state. After all, we will be able to vote in which ever state we choose. So let's round up the candidates.
Virginia:
This has been our home for the past three years
We have Virginia driver's licenses
Our car is registered here
We've been voting here
The company I'm most likely to do most of my work for is here
In all likelihood, during any D.C. tours, we'll probably come back here, too
That is a pretty strong argument for Virginia, though the first point has no bearing on the future, the next three can be easily switched to any other state in which we can establish residence, and the last two points are speculation.
Kentucky:
This is where we have the most familial ties
I was born here
For now, that is about the only thing keeping the Bluegrass State in the running, but that is more concrete than Virginia as we can establish residency here before moving to Mexico and then do the car and voting stuff in Kentucky.
Ohio:
This is where our second most of familial ties are
Natalie was born here
We got married here
Essentially the same key points as with Kentucky.
Washington, D.C.:
Natalie's employer is based here
We lived here for two years
We could live here during a D.C. tour
D.C. is much like Virginia, but just with weaker ties, but that could change in a few years.
The tricky thing about claiming a domicile is the issue of intent to live there. It is tricky for us because we don't have any intent to live anywhere other than where the government sends us. We don't intend to do a D.C. tour for at least four years, to ask us if we intend to live in either Virginia or D.C. (or <gasp> Maryland) now doesn't seem like a fair question.
Because choosing a domicile is essentially choosing which state we want to pay income taxes to, at least for our immediate purposes, it seems worthwhile to do another comparison exercise - comparing tax rates for our likely income bracket.
Washington, D.C.: 8%
Kentucky: 6%
Virginia: 5.75%
Ohio: 4.695% or 5.451% (the split occurs in our approximate income range)
So long to "My Old Kentucky Home" and I never liked living in D.C. anyway. Now we just need to decide if all that paperwork and legwork is worth "switching" our domicile from Virginia to Ohio, especially if we end up in the higher tax bracket.
Too bad we just can't build a little hut on the Texas-Mexico border and call that home. Who cares if our heart won't be in the hut, because "Home is where you pay your income taxes (if applicable)" anyway.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Cinco de Mayo and Thoughts about Holidays
Oh, you just have to love Americans. We are so good at hijacking other nation's holidays and turning them into American drinking holidays.
In the interest of full disclosure, I did have to search Cinco de Mayo on Wikipedia to get an explanation of what the holiday is about. All I knew is that it wasn't Mexican Independence Day, and it was about beating the French. (Seriously though, if every country had a holiday every time they beat the French, would we get any work done? Sorry, France, that was a cheap shot, but sometimes I just can't help myself. And I'm acutely aware of your role in the American War for Independence.)
(Another side note, and I'll move on. Americans not knowing why Cinco de Mayo is a holiday is one thing. But I'm always disturbed by the number of Americans who don't know why we celebrate July 4th. Yeah, they got the independence thing down, but you'd be surprised how many people think that is the day we beat the British or began the war with the British. And for any readers who think that, I'll spare you the embarrassment of looking it up and telling you it is the day 56 men signed the Declaration of Independence, which told Britain we think we are our own country. The war had already began and wouldn't end for another seven years.)
I won't rehash all that is on Wikipedia, because that is a pretty good explanation there, but the really short version is that Mexico wasn't paying its debts to other countries; France decided to invade to get its money; France lost the first battle of that war on May 5 at Puebla - a battle the French should have won; but the French rallied and marched to Mexico City; America told France to take a hike and they left. Thus, we drink on May 5.
I find it amusing that, according to Wikipedia, Cinco de Mayo is not really celebrated much in Mexico outside the city of Puebla. Until you reach the border. In the United States, Cinco de Mayo is akin to St. Patrick's Day.
Cinco de Mayo also is celebrated by the consulate office in Hermosillo. In fact, there isn't much they don't celebrate at that office. I counted 21 holidays in 2010. One of the dirty little secrets is that the consulate is closed on both American and Mexican holidays.
The benefit of moving to a Catholic country - state-recognized holy day holidays. We get Holy Thursday and Good Friday (the Thursday and Friday before Easter Sunday, for the non-Christians out there) and All Soul's Day (Day of the Dead) on top of Christmas.
The benefit of moving to a country that has fought many wars - battle-related holidays. There is Cinco de Mayo, the Anniversary of the Revolution and Mexican Independence Day. That is six extra holidays so far. Then add in the Mexican Labor Day, Constitution Day, Mother's Day and Benito Juarez's Birthday - the namesake of Ciudad Juarez...he must be rolling over in his grave - and that is 10 bonus Mexican holidays on top of three we share with Mexico - Christmas and New Year's Day and New Year's Eve - and the eight U.S. holidays (because the government shuts down for MLK Jr. Day, President's Day and Columbus Day while the rest of the country works) and that is 21 days off.
(Sorry, but another item caught my attention and deserves another side bar. Mexico doesn't celebrate Columbus Day. Instead, they have Dia de la Raza (Day of the Race), and this is the day observed by many South American and Central American countries. According to my favorite resource, Wikipedia, this day "is seen as a counter to Columbus Day. It is used to resist the arrival of Europeans to the Americas and is used to celebrate the native races." I guess it must have been on a weekend in 2010 or on the same day as Columbus Day because it was not listed on the consulate office's list of holidays.)
Of course, then there also are weekends, earned vacation time and sick days. Hmm...no wonder people get frusterated with government excesses.
Though, as Natalie is quick to point out, every day is a holiday for me. And I didn't even have to beat the French!
In the interest of full disclosure, I did have to search Cinco de Mayo on Wikipedia to get an explanation of what the holiday is about. All I knew is that it wasn't Mexican Independence Day, and it was about beating the French. (Seriously though, if every country had a holiday every time they beat the French, would we get any work done? Sorry, France, that was a cheap shot, but sometimes I just can't help myself. And I'm acutely aware of your role in the American War for Independence.)
(Another side note, and I'll move on. Americans not knowing why Cinco de Mayo is a holiday is one thing. But I'm always disturbed by the number of Americans who don't know why we celebrate July 4th. Yeah, they got the independence thing down, but you'd be surprised how many people think that is the day we beat the British or began the war with the British. And for any readers who think that, I'll spare you the embarrassment of looking it up and telling you it is the day 56 men signed the Declaration of Independence, which told Britain we think we are our own country. The war had already began and wouldn't end for another seven years.)
I won't rehash all that is on Wikipedia, because that is a pretty good explanation there, but the really short version is that Mexico wasn't paying its debts to other countries; France decided to invade to get its money; France lost the first battle of that war on May 5 at Puebla - a battle the French should have won; but the French rallied and marched to Mexico City; America told France to take a hike and they left. Thus, we drink on May 5.
I find it amusing that, according to Wikipedia, Cinco de Mayo is not really celebrated much in Mexico outside the city of Puebla. Until you reach the border. In the United States, Cinco de Mayo is akin to St. Patrick's Day.
Cinco de Mayo also is celebrated by the consulate office in Hermosillo. In fact, there isn't much they don't celebrate at that office. I counted 21 holidays in 2010. One of the dirty little secrets is that the consulate is closed on both American and Mexican holidays.
The benefit of moving to a Catholic country - state-recognized holy day holidays. We get Holy Thursday and Good Friday (the Thursday and Friday before Easter Sunday, for the non-Christians out there) and All Soul's Day (Day of the Dead) on top of Christmas.
The benefit of moving to a country that has fought many wars - battle-related holidays. There is Cinco de Mayo, the Anniversary of the Revolution and Mexican Independence Day. That is six extra holidays so far. Then add in the Mexican Labor Day, Constitution Day, Mother's Day and Benito Juarez's Birthday - the namesake of Ciudad Juarez...he must be rolling over in his grave - and that is 10 bonus Mexican holidays on top of three we share with Mexico - Christmas and New Year's Day and New Year's Eve - and the eight U.S. holidays (because the government shuts down for MLK Jr. Day, President's Day and Columbus Day while the rest of the country works) and that is 21 days off.
(Sorry, but another item caught my attention and deserves another side bar. Mexico doesn't celebrate Columbus Day. Instead, they have Dia de la Raza (Day of the Race), and this is the day observed by many South American and Central American countries. According to my favorite resource, Wikipedia, this day "is seen as a counter to Columbus Day. It is used to resist the arrival of Europeans to the Americas and is used to celebrate the native races." I guess it must have been on a weekend in 2010 or on the same day as Columbus Day because it was not listed on the consulate office's list of holidays.)
Of course, then there also are weekends, earned vacation time and sick days. Hmm...no wonder people get frusterated with government excesses.
Though, as Natalie is quick to point out, every day is a holiday for me. And I didn't even have to beat the French!
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Upon Further Review…Bordering on Dangerous
BOSTON - In the past, I only briefly addressed the State Department-issued travel advisory in Mexico as well as the Juarez murders. And I’ve yet to say anything about the most recent incident in Nuevo Laredo.
I probably haven’t been following these stories with as much vigor as I should, because, well, regardless, I’m moving to Mexico. I know there is an element of danger involved, so I’ll do my best to keep my guard. That seems to be all that I can do, so what use is it to read some of the scarier stuff happening?
Compounding the problem is that our government seems to sit idly on the sidelines. They are good at issuing travel advisories, and that is about it: “Recent violent attacks have prompted the U.S. Embassy to urge U.S. citizens to delay unnecessary travel to parts of Durango, Coahuila and Chihuahua states and advise U.S. citizens residing or traveling in those areas to exercise extreme caution.”
To me, this reads about the same as U.S. threat level of Orange for all flights. In other words, it doesn’t seem so bad. And considering we’ve been in the Orange zone for about a decade, travel advisories really don’t carry any meaning anymore (way to go, government!).
Let’s just take a closer look:
“U.S. citizens…should exercise caution in unfamiliar areas and be aware of their surroundings at all times.”
“All Americans should continue to be vigilant, take notice of their surroundings...”
Can you guess which warning is from the State Department about travel in Mexico, and which is from the Department of Homeland Security about the threat of terrorism in the States?
In my opinion, our government has been poor in keeping us informed about the threats of Mexico. You could learn more about the crime-related threats from visiting Wikipedia than from the travel advisories.
In doing my own research, I did find another good Web site called Prominix, which is where Wikipedia got a lot of its info. (Disclaimer: The Prominix report was financed by RRS y Asociados, a private consulting firm.)
It provides detailed maps (like the one I ripped from their report) displaying the frequency of violent crimes per Mexican state (per 100,000 people; so in the map I stole, the yellow Sonora means there were two to three property or violent crimes for every 100,000 people living in the state of Sonora in 2009…at least, that is the way I’m reading their data.)
The good news (mostly good, anyway), for Hermosillo at least, was this from the report’s conclusion:
(I assume the "We" in that quote refers to the people and/or government of Mexico>
(Oh, and as for the quiz, the first statement was about Mexico, and the second about terrorism. The “…” indicate a section of the statement I deleted.)
Even with this report of improving situation, I'll heed the government's advice to remain viligant and know my surroundings, or was that to exercise extreme caution in unfamiliar areas?
Because obviously, my own personal safety is my own responsibility. But a little more info would be nice.
I probably haven’t been following these stories with as much vigor as I should, because, well, regardless, I’m moving to Mexico. I know there is an element of danger involved, so I’ll do my best to keep my guard. That seems to be all that I can do, so what use is it to read some of the scarier stuff happening?
Compounding the problem is that our government seems to sit idly on the sidelines. They are good at issuing travel advisories, and that is about it: “Recent violent attacks have prompted the U.S. Embassy to urge U.S. citizens to delay unnecessary travel to parts of Durango, Coahuila and Chihuahua states and advise U.S. citizens residing or traveling in those areas to exercise extreme caution.”
To me, this reads about the same as U.S. threat level of Orange for all flights. In other words, it doesn’t seem so bad. And considering we’ve been in the Orange zone for about a decade, travel advisories really don’t carry any meaning anymore (way to go, government!).
Let’s just take a closer look:
“U.S. citizens…should exercise caution in unfamiliar areas and be aware of their surroundings at all times.”
“All Americans should continue to be vigilant, take notice of their surroundings...”
Can you guess which warning is from the State Department about travel in Mexico, and which is from the Department of Homeland Security about the threat of terrorism in the States?
In my opinion, our government has been poor in keeping us informed about the threats of Mexico. You could learn more about the crime-related threats from visiting Wikipedia than from the travel advisories.
In doing my own research, I did find another good Web site called Prominix, which is where Wikipedia got a lot of its info. (Disclaimer: The Prominix report was financed by RRS y Asociados, a private consulting firm.)
It provides detailed maps (like the one I ripped from their report) displaying the frequency of violent crimes per Mexican state (per 100,000 people; so in the map I stole, the yellow Sonora means there were two to three property or violent crimes for every 100,000 people living in the state of Sonora in 2009…at least, that is the way I’m reading their data.)
The good news (mostly good, anyway), for Hermosillo at least, was this from the report’s conclusion:
"We, have successfully reduced most crime rates (excluding homicide) in Sonora working with the system as a whole: community & government. Sonora is the best evaluated state in Mexico’s northern border and has become a success story. Crime reduction in the past year ranges from 10 to 69%."
(I assume the "We" in that quote refers to the people and/or government of Mexico>
(Oh, and as for the quiz, the first statement was about Mexico, and the second about terrorism. The “…” indicate a section of the statement I deleted.)
Even with this report of improving situation, I'll heed the government's advice to remain viligant and know my surroundings, or was that to exercise extreme caution in unfamiliar areas?
Because obviously, my own personal safety is my own responsibility. But a little more info would be nice.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Official Unofficial Acronym Chart 2.0
So about two months ago, I attempted to smooth out some of the Foreign Service's clunky acronyms by translating them into meaningful terms.
Since then, I realized a few typos, a few errors and a few omissions that needed to be added.
Before looking over the changes, let me explain my problems with the acronyms.
First, some of them are just nonsensical. I've already bemoaned the use of UAB and HHE as terms to denote two shipments of our things to post. Yes, I get it that it does make a difference what you send UAB and what you send HHE because of weight restrictions and when things arrive. But my complaint is that these terms seem arbitrary. Unaccompanied Air Baggage (UAB)? Isn't everything I receive at post after I get there unaccompanied? Househould Effects (HHE)? Aren't all of my possessions household effects? Hence my recommendation they just call them First Shipment and Second Shipment. At least that implies some semblance of approximate arrival time.
Secondly, despite what A Daring Adventurer might think, I tried to simplify these acronyms down to the nitty gritty. (ADA, thanks, as always, for the link.) In other words, while FSI stands for the Foreign Service Institute, what does the institute do for foreign service families. So instead of trying to remember what the institute provides, I figured I cut to the chase and oversimplify it in three or so words.
Finally, my last complaint about acronyms is that some oversimplify in three or so words. I rail against Eligible Family Member because it attempts to group all of us into a pretty little package. I like individualism too much to be fine with EFM.
So, without further ado, here is the newer, longer, (more offensive?) version of the Official Unofficial Chart of Foreign Service Acronyms. Version 2.0.
Since then, I realized a few typos, a few errors and a few omissions that needed to be added.
Before looking over the changes, let me explain my problems with the acronyms.
First, some of them are just nonsensical. I've already bemoaned the use of UAB and HHE as terms to denote two shipments of our things to post. Yes, I get it that it does make a difference what you send UAB and what you send HHE because of weight restrictions and when things arrive. But my complaint is that these terms seem arbitrary. Unaccompanied Air Baggage (UAB)? Isn't everything I receive at post after I get there unaccompanied? Househould Effects (HHE)? Aren't all of my possessions household effects? Hence my recommendation they just call them First Shipment and Second Shipment. At least that implies some semblance of approximate arrival time.
Secondly, despite what A Daring Adventurer might think, I tried to simplify these acronyms down to the nitty gritty. (ADA, thanks, as always, for the link.) In other words, while FSI stands for the Foreign Service Institute, what does the institute do for foreign service families. So instead of trying to remember what the institute provides, I figured I cut to the chase and oversimplify it in three or so words.
Finally, my last complaint about acronyms is that some oversimplify in three or so words. I rail against Eligible Family Member because it attempts to group all of us into a pretty little package. I like individualism too much to be fine with EFM.
So, without further ado, here is the newer, longer, (more offensive?) version of the Official Unofficial Chart of Foreign Service Acronyms. Version 2.0.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
An Ode to Telecommuting
Telecommuting is the best thing to happen to the Internet since e-mail, online dating and porn.
It behooves me that our government can waste so much time and money debating the irrelevant (or the relevant but it is obvious they will never make the right changes...I'm looking at you, healthcare bill and bailout bills) when they could be drafting legislation to promote telecommuting (maybe tax breaks for allowing a certain percentage of employees to work from home?).
To wit, telecommuting reduces our oil dependence by reducing rush hour traffic; allows for more free time for personal use; and saves money for everybody except for the people who rent out office space.
I know one of the arguments against telecommuting is that many people are too easily distracted at home to be productive. And for some people, this could be true. I'm not saying that telecommuting is for everybody.
But for the vast majority of people who spend eight hours or more in an office or cubicle everyday, transitioning to telecommuting would be smooth and result in no loss of productivity. Quite the contrary, I have experienced a morale boost from working at home and have been more productive.
I blame the Old Guard for stifling telecommuting. For example, my first high school journalism teacher taught us how to layout a page on pica-grid paper, complete with old fashioned cutting (with scissors) and pasting (with glue). You know, just in case that whole Internet thing didn't work out, we could still design a page for the Gutenberg press.
The Old Guard have failed to appreciate that the Internet makes gathering information and communicating easier and faster. As a result, eight hours is too much time to be in the office every day. Even the most industrious, busy-bodies out there can still find time to read EF'M or other blogs at the office.
I think it is only a matter of time before there are more Americans telecommuting from home than working in an office. Here's hoping for the rest of you, because I'm already living the dream.
It behooves me that our government can waste so much time and money debating the irrelevant (or the relevant but it is obvious they will never make the right changes...I'm looking at you, healthcare bill and bailout bills) when they could be drafting legislation to promote telecommuting (maybe tax breaks for allowing a certain percentage of employees to work from home?).
To wit, telecommuting reduces our oil dependence by reducing rush hour traffic; allows for more free time for personal use; and saves money for everybody except for the people who rent out office space.
I know one of the arguments against telecommuting is that many people are too easily distracted at home to be productive. And for some people, this could be true. I'm not saying that telecommuting is for everybody.
But for the vast majority of people who spend eight hours or more in an office or cubicle everyday, transitioning to telecommuting would be smooth and result in no loss of productivity. Quite the contrary, I have experienced a morale boost from working at home and have been more productive.
I blame the Old Guard for stifling telecommuting. For example, my first high school journalism teacher taught us how to layout a page on pica-grid paper, complete with old fashioned cutting (with scissors) and pasting (with glue). You know, just in case that whole Internet thing didn't work out, we could still design a page for the Gutenberg press.
The Old Guard have failed to appreciate that the Internet makes gathering information and communicating easier and faster. As a result, eight hours is too much time to be in the office every day. Even the most industrious, busy-bodies out there can still find time to read EF'M or other blogs at the office.
I think it is only a matter of time before there are more Americans telecommuting from home than working in an office. Here's hoping for the rest of you, because I'm already living the dream.
Monday, February 22, 2010
A Morbid Monday Thought
I have no idea why this morning I was thinking about my government-issued health exam, but sure enough, I am.
I suppose part of it may be that after something as terrible as the Haitian earthquake, I feel like I have made a mistake during the checkup.
As part of Natalie's background checks, we both also had to submit to a thorough medical exam with family medical history, life-style questionnaires, needles, x-rays and fluid samples (no venereal diseases for me, thank you very much and nearly ideal blood pressure to boot).
As I went into the waiting room to give blood (oh, so many waiting rooms), the lady at the desk asked me if I wanted to join the State Department's DNA program. Sure, why not, maybe I'll get a discount or something.
"Are you sure?" the lady asked me. Hmmmm...So I had to ask why the DNA program was.
"We keep your DNA on record and use it to identify your remains."
Well, maybe that spooked me momentarily because I decided I didn't want to join the program. In hindsight, I wish I would have, but I don't think I was ready to be thinking about a potentially horrific death that could come as a result of traveling abroad.
Maybe it is my youthful disillusions about immortality, but I honestly don't care too much about receiving a proper funeral. But I've come to realize that if something such as a natural disaster were to strike where ever the government sends us, giving the government another tool to locate me would bring loved ones some sense of closure. So I wish I had let the government keep a record of my DNA.
But as I told my parents, Natalie did join the program, so if her remains are found with somebody the government cannot identify, then it is probably me. I don't think they found that very amusing or comforting.
I suppose part of it may be that after something as terrible as the Haitian earthquake, I feel like I have made a mistake during the checkup.
As part of Natalie's background checks, we both also had to submit to a thorough medical exam with family medical history, life-style questionnaires, needles, x-rays and fluid samples (no venereal diseases for me, thank you very much and nearly ideal blood pressure to boot).
As I went into the waiting room to give blood (oh, so many waiting rooms), the lady at the desk asked me if I wanted to join the State Department's DNA program. Sure, why not, maybe I'll get a discount or something.
"Are you sure?" the lady asked me. Hmmmm...So I had to ask why the DNA program was.
"We keep your DNA on record and use it to identify your remains."
Well, maybe that spooked me momentarily because I decided I didn't want to join the program. In hindsight, I wish I would have, but I don't think I was ready to be thinking about a potentially horrific death that could come as a result of traveling abroad.
Maybe it is my youthful disillusions about immortality, but I honestly don't care too much about receiving a proper funeral. But I've come to realize that if something such as a natural disaster were to strike where ever the government sends us, giving the government another tool to locate me would bring loved ones some sense of closure. So I wish I had let the government keep a record of my DNA.
But as I told my parents, Natalie did join the program, so if her remains are found with somebody the government cannot identify, then it is probably me. I don't think they found that very amusing or comforting.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Why Blog?
Recently there have been a couple of threads in a private Yahoo! Group about what kind of information should or should not be included in a blog about life as an FSO (either a Frightened and Suspicious Oversea'er or Fearlessly Serving Overseas, depending on the FSO) or spouse.
Obviously, I lean toward including everything, including first names, with one exception. That is, I will not include the names of any other FSOs, EFMs, MOHs or another government acronym without getting permission. Everyone is entitled to privacy, until they start blogging in public.
There also were comments made about being discrete about what the government provides its foreign service employees and families courtesy of tax payers.
Once again, obviously I don't agree with this advice. American citizens ought to know how their tax dollars are being spent. I cannot see a single downside to sharing information about use of tax dollars, and I welcome anyone to dissuade me otherwise.
But at the heart of many of the postings in these threads was why people post blogs anyway.
Many indicated they were doing so in lieu of filling friends' and family mailboxes with e-mail updates. Because it was for their eyes only, they would slap a password on the blog to keep it out of the public's hands.
I did send my link to my friends and family with a similar message that I will not being doing the mass e-mail thing and if they really want to know what is going on, then stop by my blog.
But instead of limiting my drivel to people I know, I decided to open my experiences to others. And so far, I'm glad that I have.
For one, I've been able to interact (on a limited basis) with others in a similar position as myself. It is nice to know others have gone through this already and turned out somewhat normal.
Also, I know that some readers have been directed to this blog by searching for terms related to being an eligible family member. I can't imagine they walked away with much at this point, but I hope potential or recent EFMs will find this blog once I'm able to start sharing overseas experiences.
Pretty much the only EFM the uninitiated have to relate to, especially since there has been a recent movie, is Julia Child. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that many EFMs do not have a similar experience of becoming a wildly successful chef and live in Paris.
So the reason I blog, other than for vanity, is to try to be helpful. And I imagine that is why others blog publicly as well. Yes, we need to take some precautions when we are living abroad to not share too much personal information about where we live, and using a little tact (not that I do) doesn't hurt, but otherwise, type away bloggers!
Obviously, I lean toward including everything, including first names, with one exception. That is, I will not include the names of any other FSOs, EFMs, MOHs or another government acronym without getting permission. Everyone is entitled to privacy, until they start blogging in public.
There also were comments made about being discrete about what the government provides its foreign service employees and families courtesy of tax payers.
Once again, obviously I don't agree with this advice. American citizens ought to know how their tax dollars are being spent. I cannot see a single downside to sharing information about use of tax dollars, and I welcome anyone to dissuade me otherwise.
But at the heart of many of the postings in these threads was why people post blogs anyway.
Many indicated they were doing so in lieu of filling friends' and family mailboxes with e-mail updates. Because it was for their eyes only, they would slap a password on the blog to keep it out of the public's hands.
I did send my link to my friends and family with a similar message that I will not being doing the mass e-mail thing and if they really want to know what is going on, then stop by my blog.
But instead of limiting my drivel to people I know, I decided to open my experiences to others. And so far, I'm glad that I have.
For one, I've been able to interact (on a limited basis) with others in a similar position as myself. It is nice to know others have gone through this already and turned out somewhat normal.
Also, I know that some readers have been directed to this blog by searching for terms related to being an eligible family member. I can't imagine they walked away with much at this point, but I hope potential or recent EFMs will find this blog once I'm able to start sharing overseas experiences.
Pretty much the only EFM the uninitiated have to relate to, especially since there has been a recent movie, is Julia Child. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that many EFMs do not have a similar experience of becoming a wildly successful chef and live in Paris.
So the reason I blog, other than for vanity, is to try to be helpful. And I imagine that is why others blog publicly as well. Yes, we need to take some precautions when we are living abroad to not share too much personal information about where we live, and using a little tact (not that I do) doesn't hurt, but otherwise, type away bloggers!
Friday, February 12, 2010
FSI: Federally Supervised Instructions
There is a hierarchy within the Foreign Service Office, and clearly, I’m the low man on the totem pole.
It is more complex than this, but for my sake, here is a pretty basic breakdown. On the top are the Pickering Scholars; they’re like the Skulls and Crossbones secret society of the State Department Foreign Service branch.
Next in line come the outside-a-magical-50-mile-radius hires who inexplicably are bestowed gifts of exuberant per diems. Third place belongs to the locally hired who apparently don’t need money as badly as their not-locally-hired counterparts.
A distant, distant fourth are the Extra Filework for Management (EFMs) who do not have jobs. And there at the bottom, are the Employed For the Moment (another use of EFM) people like me.
I think I understand why we are at the bottom. It is because we don’t really need much from the FS office, and they really don’t have much to give us.
I caught a little glimpse of how little of importance I am to the FS office through the Federally Supervised Instructions (FSI; and yes, that is a downgrade from Free Studies Inside status on the Official Unofficial Chart of Acronyms).
Yesterday, until Snowstorm 5.0 rendered D.C. utterly useless, again, I was supposed to be at FSI attending a course entitled “Post Options for Employment and Training.”
But before I move forward with the story, let me paint the complete picture.
The class was advertised for those who need help finding employment and for those who already have employment and what they need to know about taking that job abroad with them. At the time I was signing up, I wasn’t sure which category I would fall under, but it seemed like a class I should attend.
The problem, however, is that this class was being offered in the middle of the work week, which makes it a little more difficult for those of us lucky enough to have jobs to attend.
And for the uninitiated, it is not like the FSI does not offer weekend courses. I know because I took one already on overseas protocol and etiquette, which is a whole different blog post of its own that I’m saving for a rainy (or snowy) day.
Seems to me that a course about employment for EFMs would be ideal for one of FSI’s weekend seminars, but I digress.
No big deal; I’ll lie. I asked about obtaining the lecture material because I couldn’t get off work. I received a response that they don’t have any material to send and if I can’t make the course this time to try again in the future as it is offered four times per year.
So that didn’t work, so I’ll just take the day off work to attend. Mother Nature had other plans, and as a result, evened up the score to Mother Nature 1, EF’M 1.
While there were announcements the Federal Government was closed on Thursday, I guess it was too much to send an e-mail to the enrolled to let us know the course also was cancelled. Are they re-scheduling the course? Do I have to wait until it is offered three months from now to try and take it again? No word from FSI.
And I learn a little more about my place on the bottom.
UPDATE
At 3:04 p.m. today (Friday), I finally received my notice that Thursday's "course offering has been canceled." Whew, what a relief, and only about a day and a half after the event.
It also is worth noting that by noon today, Natalie had already received information about the class being cancelled and for when it is being re-scheduled. My notice just said someone would be in touch with the re-scheduled date. I'll probably receive that notice the day after the course is over, too.
Oh well, this is what is to be expected when left to the hands of the government.
It is more complex than this, but for my sake, here is a pretty basic breakdown. On the top are the Pickering Scholars; they’re like the Skulls and Crossbones secret society of the State Department Foreign Service branch.
Next in line come the outside-a-magical-50-mile-radius hires who inexplicably are bestowed gifts of exuberant per diems. Third place belongs to the locally hired who apparently don’t need money as badly as their not-locally-hired counterparts.
A distant, distant fourth are the Extra Filework for Management (EFMs) who do not have jobs. And there at the bottom, are the Employed For the Moment (another use of EFM) people like me.
I think I understand why we are at the bottom. It is because we don’t really need much from the FS office, and they really don’t have much to give us.
I caught a little glimpse of how little of importance I am to the FS office through the Federally Supervised Instructions (FSI; and yes, that is a downgrade from Free Studies Inside status on the Official Unofficial Chart of Acronyms).
Yesterday, until Snowstorm 5.0 rendered D.C. utterly useless, again, I was supposed to be at FSI attending a course entitled “Post Options for Employment and Training.”
But before I move forward with the story, let me paint the complete picture.
The class was advertised for those who need help finding employment and for those who already have employment and what they need to know about taking that job abroad with them. At the time I was signing up, I wasn’t sure which category I would fall under, but it seemed like a class I should attend.
The problem, however, is that this class was being offered in the middle of the work week, which makes it a little more difficult for those of us lucky enough to have jobs to attend.
And for the uninitiated, it is not like the FSI does not offer weekend courses. I know because I took one already on overseas protocol and etiquette, which is a whole different blog post of its own that I’m saving for a rainy (or snowy) day.
Seems to me that a course about employment for EFMs would be ideal for one of FSI’s weekend seminars, but I digress.
No big deal; I’ll lie. I asked about obtaining the lecture material because I couldn’t get off work. I received a response that they don’t have any material to send and if I can’t make the course this time to try again in the future as it is offered four times per year.
So that didn’t work, so I’ll just take the day off work to attend. Mother Nature had other plans, and as a result, evened up the score to Mother Nature 1, EF’M 1.
While there were announcements the Federal Government was closed on Thursday, I guess it was too much to send an e-mail to the enrolled to let us know the course also was cancelled. Are they re-scheduling the course? Do I have to wait until it is offered three months from now to try and take it again? No word from FSI.
And I learn a little more about my place on the bottom.
UPDATE
At 3:04 p.m. today (Friday), I finally received my notice that Thursday's "course offering has been canceled." Whew, what a relief, and only about a day and a half after the event.
It also is worth noting that by noon today, Natalie had already received information about the class being cancelled and for when it is being re-scheduled. My notice just said someone would be in touch with the re-scheduled date. I'll probably receive that notice the day after the course is over, too.
Oh well, this is what is to be expected when left to the hands of the government.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The Official Unofficial Chart of Acronyms
The U.S. Government loves acronyms; there is no getting around it. As a D.C. area resident and a once-upon-a-time journalist, I'm a bit accustomed to these unsightly blocks of capital letters, but I understand they can be intimidating to others. (I think that is their intention so you will just gloss over what you're reading.) Therefore, I took it upon myself to translate a few acronyms that other FSO spouses might find useful.
A couple of user notes first. While the majority are listed in alphabetical order, a few are "coupled" because they are related. Also, the list of acronyms is too exhaustive for my list to be considered the end-all-be-all chart of what you need to know. For example, I'll probably need to put together a sequel to cover the acronyms you might find useful for moving alone.
It should also be noted that this is a reflection of how much fulfillment I get from my current job that I took the time to do this. So here is the Official, Unofficial Chart of Foreign Service Acronyms: (and please feel free to add any suggestions for lengthening, shortening or improving the chart. I'm not too proud to make changes and admit my own shortcomings.)
A couple of user notes first. While the majority are listed in alphabetical order, a few are "coupled" because they are related. Also, the list of acronyms is too exhaustive for my list to be considered the end-all-be-all chart of what you need to know. For example, I'll probably need to put together a sequel to cover the acronyms you might find useful for moving alone.
It should also be noted that this is a reflection of how much fulfillment I get from my current job that I took the time to do this. So here is the Official, Unofficial Chart of Foreign Service Acronyms: (and please feel free to add any suggestions for lengthening, shortening or improving the chart. I'm not too proud to make changes and admit my own shortcomings.)
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
An Open Letter to the U.S. Government
Dear U.S. Government,
I was quite distressed to learn that in addition to the unfortunate passing of Victoria DeLong, three “obviously, they’re not government employees” (according to Assistant Secretary Philip J. Crowley) also died in Haiti.
I don’t know anything about these people, in part because you haven’t released their identities. I hope this is because you still are contacting family members, but when this task is complete—if it isn’t already—then I urge you to let us learn more about the three “dependents” (Crowley again).
I don't know who these people were, but I feel a slight connection. They've been through what I'm going through, and some day, I'll experience what they've experienced as an American expatriate.
You shared the identity of Ms. DeLong, and The Washington Post wrote a wonderful article detailing her life as a foreign service officer.
It would be nice to share with the American public that while the FSOs are doing their jobs representing the United States in foreign countries, many of them do so with their families. Instead, you strung together this beautiful bit of prose: “Yeah, they’re part of the official – they were there in an official status as accompanying family members in Haiti…But they’re not – obviously, they’re not U.S. employees.”
Suddenly EF’M doesn’t seem so tongue-in-cheek. (This is Crowley below, and so far, I don't like him very much.)
Let’s be clear, Crowley, while we do not receive paychecks from the government, we are (or will be, as the case pertains to me) representing the United States as well.
In fact, the day after your impersonal references to the additional paperwork that travels with your FSOs, Hillary Clinton said, “We know that when we send someone to serve in a post overseas, the family serves, whether the family accompanies the officer or stays behind. We know that there is a family that is involved in most cases.”
Let’s up those are not just words, and a good place to start would be to tell the stories of the three Americans who died serving their country in Haiti.
UPDATE
I guess I misread one of Clinton's remarks, and the State Department did identify the three EFMs as Andrew Wyllie's wife Laurence and his two young sons Evan and Baptiste. The way the statement was worded, I thought he was employed with the United Nations, and while tragically losing his family, I worried there still were three more EFMs the government had not identified. Here is an article from The Newport Daily Express and another that shares some about the family. Regardless, I still was upset with Crowley's choice of words, which is why I decided to leave this post up.
I was quite distressed to learn that in addition to the unfortunate passing of Victoria DeLong, three “obviously, they’re not government employees” (according to Assistant Secretary Philip J. Crowley) also died in Haiti.
I don’t know anything about these people, in part because you haven’t released their identities. I hope this is because you still are contacting family members, but when this task is complete—if it isn’t already—then I urge you to let us learn more about the three “dependents” (Crowley again).
I don't know who these people were, but I feel a slight connection. They've been through what I'm going through, and some day, I'll experience what they've experienced as an American expatriate.
You shared the identity of Ms. DeLong, and The Washington Post wrote a wonderful article detailing her life as a foreign service officer.
It would be nice to share with the American public that while the FSOs are doing their jobs representing the United States in foreign countries, many of them do so with their families. Instead, you strung together this beautiful bit of prose: “Yeah, they’re part of the official – they were there in an official status as accompanying family members in Haiti…But they’re not – obviously, they’re not U.S. employees.”
Suddenly EF’M doesn’t seem so tongue-in-cheek. (This is Crowley below, and so far, I don't like him very much.)
Let’s be clear, Crowley, while we do not receive paychecks from the government, we are (or will be, as the case pertains to me) representing the United States as well.
In fact, the day after your impersonal references to the additional paperwork that travels with your FSOs, Hillary Clinton said, “We know that when we send someone to serve in a post overseas, the family serves, whether the family accompanies the officer or stays behind. We know that there is a family that is involved in most cases.”
Let’s up those are not just words, and a good place to start would be to tell the stories of the three Americans who died serving their country in Haiti.
UPDATE
I guess I misread one of Clinton's remarks, and the State Department did identify the three EFMs as Andrew Wyllie's wife Laurence and his two young sons Evan and Baptiste. The way the statement was worded, I thought he was employed with the United Nations, and while tragically losing his family, I worried there still were three more EFMs the government had not identified. Here is an article from The Newport Daily Express and another that shares some about the family. Regardless, I still was upset with Crowley's choice of words, which is why I decided to leave this post up.
Monday, January 25, 2010
AEFM?: Afterthought on Errors, Fallacies and Misstatements
So unlike several other foreign service office-related blogs, I never bothered to include a disclaimer stating that the government and I are not related, our views are different and so on and so forth.
I didn’t think it was particularly necessary as I am not a government employee, and my first posted concluded with me stating, in so many words, f*#$ the government.
But after posting for a couple of weeks, and as I have learned more about the FSO subculture, I’ve decided to add this small disclaimer: Sometimes, I’m wrong, just slightly off, or embellishing.
I was inspired to add this disclaimer after doing a little research and discovering I’m not technically an EFM because that acronym denotes a dependent status. Now, I imagine Natalie would argue that I am indeed more dependent on her than I ought to be, but as far as the government is concerned, I’m actually an Appointment Eligible Family Member (AEFM), because I could serve as a direct-hire employee for either a Family Member Appointment (FMA) or Temporary Appointment (TEMP) position. (Holy crap this just keeps spawning more acronyms!)
AEFM interferes with my blog title, and as I have no intention of ever working for the U.S. government (one my many mantras, to Natalie’s chagrin and possible embarrassment is: “I don’t work for the government; the government works for me.”), so therefore, I have no problem dropping the “A” and never mentioning it again.
So in conclusion, please don’t take my postings as any official government stance and please don’t hold me accountable for any inaccuracies. My writings are based on memories intended to be entertaining, and I don’t double check facts and figures.
I didn’t think it was particularly necessary as I am not a government employee, and my first posted concluded with me stating, in so many words, f*#$ the government.
But after posting for a couple of weeks, and as I have learned more about the FSO subculture, I’ve decided to add this small disclaimer: Sometimes, I’m wrong, just slightly off, or embellishing.
I was inspired to add this disclaimer after doing a little research and discovering I’m not technically an EFM because that acronym denotes a dependent status. Now, I imagine Natalie would argue that I am indeed more dependent on her than I ought to be, but as far as the government is concerned, I’m actually an Appointment Eligible Family Member (AEFM), because I could serve as a direct-hire employee for either a Family Member Appointment (FMA) or Temporary Appointment (TEMP) position. (Holy crap this just keeps spawning more acronyms!)
AEFM interferes with my blog title, and as I have no intention of ever working for the U.S. government (one my many mantras, to Natalie’s chagrin and possible embarrassment is: “I don’t work for the government; the government works for me.”), so therefore, I have no problem dropping the “A” and never mentioning it again.
So in conclusion, please don’t take my postings as any official government stance and please don’t hold me accountable for any inaccuracies. My writings are based on memories intended to be entertaining, and I don’t double check facts and figures.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
A Call-to-Arms for Spanish Assistance
Rosetta Stone. My Spanish lifeline, yet also my biggest hurdle.
For the uninitiated, part of the FSO training regimen involves necessary language training. So the government (thanks, taxpayers!) provides intensive language courses that essentially become the forever-studying-for-overseas' (FSO’s) fulltime job.
Kindly enough, the government (thanks again, taxpayers!) also opens the door to us, eagers-for-mastering (EFMs) a foreign language, if space permits. Of course, the other qualification is if the family’s economic situation permits.
But as I have to work 40-hour weeks to pay the bills, the government (really, taxpayers, you are outdoing yourselves!) provides an online version of the Rosetta Stone for spouses unable to give up their jobs and attend classes.
In the early going, I was a big fan. I still remain relatively impressed with the program, but it suffers from a huge drawback. No English. I hope I’m not giving away too many secrets, but the program works by using images and matching the images to the Spanish words. Up until my specific gripe, which is coming shortly, I’ve actually preferred this method because the pictures are more memorable than an English translation.
But the problem arises when the lessons get more complex, and they are trying to describe a verb that doesn’t really provide an action. The first encounter was the verb tener, “to have.” After a few images, I was able to piece that one together, but how do you illustrated someone having something?
Now, I’m only up to the second chapter, and I’ve reached a sticking point. The offending sentence: Yo quiero a mi padre. And several variations with third person subjects like: El nino quiere a su perro. And then the corresponding pictures show either a person hugging his/her father or a boy hugging his dog, etc.
As we all remember from Taco Bell commercials, when a chihuahua says “Yo quiero Taco Bell,” it means it wants Taco Bell. But we’ve never heard that dog utter “Yo quiero a Taco Bell.” What does that “a” mean? How does it affect the verb, querer?
The best of I’ve gathered is that it means “love,” but heaven forbid Rosetta Stone from providing a glossary of terms to address any confusion for their images’ inadequacies. So if anyone speaks Spanish, could you please help me with this translation?
For the uninitiated, part of the FSO training regimen involves necessary language training. So the government (thanks, taxpayers!) provides intensive language courses that essentially become the forever-studying-for-overseas' (FSO’s) fulltime job.
Kindly enough, the government (thanks again, taxpayers!) also opens the door to us, eagers-for-mastering (EFMs) a foreign language, if space permits. Of course, the other qualification is if the family’s economic situation permits.
But as I have to work 40-hour weeks to pay the bills, the government (really, taxpayers, you are outdoing yourselves!) provides an online version of the Rosetta Stone for spouses unable to give up their jobs and attend classes.
In the early going, I was a big fan. I still remain relatively impressed with the program, but it suffers from a huge drawback. No English. I hope I’m not giving away too many secrets, but the program works by using images and matching the images to the Spanish words. Up until my specific gripe, which is coming shortly, I’ve actually preferred this method because the pictures are more memorable than an English translation.
But the problem arises when the lessons get more complex, and they are trying to describe a verb that doesn’t really provide an action. The first encounter was the verb tener, “to have.” After a few images, I was able to piece that one together, but how do you illustrated someone having something?
Now, I’m only up to the second chapter, and I’ve reached a sticking point. The offending sentence: Yo quiero a mi padre. And several variations with third person subjects like: El nino quiere a su perro. And then the corresponding pictures show either a person hugging his/her father or a boy hugging his dog, etc.
As we all remember from Taco Bell commercials, when a chihuahua says “Yo quiero Taco Bell,” it means it wants Taco Bell. But we’ve never heard that dog utter “Yo quiero a Taco Bell.” What does that “a” mean? How does it affect the verb, querer?
The best of I’ve gathered is that it means “love,” but heaven forbid Rosetta Stone from providing a glossary of terms to address any confusion for their images’ inadequacies. So if anyone speaks Spanish, could you please help me with this translation?
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Beware Government Acronyms
First, a quick thank you and welcome to the inaugural posting of Ef’m.
Before I delve too much into the back story of why I’m here, let me quickly explain that I’m a late technology adapter. It wasn’t until 2005 that I finally signed off on this whole DVD thing (though I’m still not entirely sure it bests VHS cassettes considering the whole susceptibility to scratches aspect) and I remain strongly opposed to creating an online networking account (read as Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.). This is my first blog post, and I’ve been dragged in kicking and screaming to some degree.
Reminding you once again of my penchant as a late-adapter, this blog really is about a year and a half behind in events, so let’s get up to speed.
During the summer of 2008, my wife, Natalie, casually informed me she wants to apply to be a foreign service officer (FSO--the acronyms begin), which means we will be living all over the world, and it is a very long application process that could take years. I gave my blessing and file that thought away in my soon-to-be-dismissed section of my memory bank.
Long story short, she passes every test on her first go around (good job, honey!) and miraculously squeaks her way into the 148th A-100 class. For the uninitiated, an A-100 class is group of any number (seems to between 75 and 100 these days) of approved FSO applicants that will complete the six-week introductory training course before moving onto their specializations. There are several A-100 classes every year.
Somewhere in that process, Natalie becomes an FSO, and I became an eligible family member (EFM). Yuck! Where did the government get the right to turn me into an acronym—and a lame one at that?
Even FSO is a bit acrid, so I’ve re-acronized the government’s distasteful acronyms. These are a little more flexible and can change with the moods. Most often, FSO now means fervent significant other, but the “F” can be upgraded to favorable, fantastic, or fabulous; or it can be downgraded to fascist, fastidious, or when I’m really angry, fatuous.
But what to call myself and others in my position? This was more difficult, because it risks following into the same trap the government did—generalizing us into a group, and in essence, marginalizing us. So generically, I’m fine with efficient familial manager, but like with FSO, I’m sure Natalie will have different EFMs for me such as exhaustive, fat malcontent, or extremely flexible mainstay, depending on how supportive I’m being at the time.
The key, I suppose, is to not let the government dictate too much as to what we are supposed to be. Yeah, I understand for legal purposes, they need some generic terms to cover who gets to travel on the taxpayers’ dime (thanks taxpayers!), but I’m not some generic EFM. So, I say ef’m.
Before I delve too much into the back story of why I’m here, let me quickly explain that I’m a late technology adapter. It wasn’t until 2005 that I finally signed off on this whole DVD thing (though I’m still not entirely sure it bests VHS cassettes considering the whole susceptibility to scratches aspect) and I remain strongly opposed to creating an online networking account (read as Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.). This is my first blog post, and I’ve been dragged in kicking and screaming to some degree.
Reminding you once again of my penchant as a late-adapter, this blog really is about a year and a half behind in events, so let’s get up to speed.
During the summer of 2008, my wife, Natalie, casually informed me she wants to apply to be a foreign service officer (FSO--the acronyms begin), which means we will be living all over the world, and it is a very long application process that could take years. I gave my blessing and file that thought away in my soon-to-be-dismissed section of my memory bank.
Long story short, she passes every test on her first go around (good job, honey!) and miraculously squeaks her way into the 148th A-100 class. For the uninitiated, an A-100 class is group of any number (seems to between 75 and 100 these days) of approved FSO applicants that will complete the six-week introductory training course before moving onto their specializations. There are several A-100 classes every year.
Somewhere in that process, Natalie becomes an FSO, and I became an eligible family member (EFM). Yuck! Where did the government get the right to turn me into an acronym—and a lame one at that?
Even FSO is a bit acrid, so I’ve re-acronized the government’s distasteful acronyms. These are a little more flexible and can change with the moods. Most often, FSO now means fervent significant other, but the “F” can be upgraded to favorable, fantastic, or fabulous; or it can be downgraded to fascist, fastidious, or when I’m really angry, fatuous.
But what to call myself and others in my position? This was more difficult, because it risks following into the same trap the government did—generalizing us into a group, and in essence, marginalizing us. So generically, I’m fine with efficient familial manager, but like with FSO, I’m sure Natalie will have different EFMs for me such as exhaustive, fat malcontent, or extremely flexible mainstay, depending on how supportive I’m being at the time.
The key, I suppose, is to not let the government dictate too much as to what we are supposed to be. Yeah, I understand for legal purposes, they need some generic terms to cover who gets to travel on the taxpayers’ dime (thanks taxpayers!), but I’m not some generic EFM. So, I say ef’m.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
