You all recall me blogging back in March about the Alberto Gonzales-installed U.S. Attorney in Minneapolis right? Indian American Rachel Paulose, at only 33 years of age, was one of the loyal “Bushies” picked to replace the apparently disloyal outgoing attorney (Tom Heffelfinger) from that region. Right away news began to surface that Paulose’s staff couldn’t stand her reportedly imperious ways. Well now it seems that the largely ignored Office of Special Counsel is investigating formal complaints against Ms. Paulose [via Eric Black Ink]:
The federal Office of Special Counsel is investigating allegations that Rachel Paulose, U.S. attorney for Minnesota, mishandled classified information, decided to fire the subordinate who called it to her attention, retaliated against others in the office who crossed her, and made racist remarks about one employee.
Paulose did not return phone calls seeking her comment. Black Ink will publish any response that she makes.
The investigation has been under way since June. The Office of Special Counsel, which handles complaints about retaliation against whistleblowers and prohibited personnel practices by political appointees such as Paulose (that’s her at the podium in the photo at right), appears to be taking the allegations seriously. Investigators from two of its regional offices have been to Minnesota to interview witnesses and may be back for more. I could not find out when the OSC, an independent executive branch agency that is not part of the Justice Department, might complete the investigation. [Link]
<
p>It should be noted that this is an on-going investigation that is little more than he-said she-said right now. Here are a couple of the specific allegations being made, however:
*Paulose committed large and small acts of retaliation against others in the office whom she accused of disloyalty to her. In one instance, after changing the job assignment of one employee, Paulose allegedly said that she would make the woman so miserable that she would want to quit. In some instances, Paulose allegedly ordered those in charge of performing job evaluations to downgrade the reviews of those she considered disloyal, or turned down requests that they be allowed to perform work outside the office. The allegation is that Paulose took these actions against employees for reasons other than the quality of their work, but rather for offenses like advising her that some actions she was contemplating would exceed her legal authority.
*Paulose allegedly denigrated one employee of the office, using the terms “fat,” “black,” “lazy” and “ass…” [Link]
I don’t think using the four words above necessarily means you said anything wrong or that you are racist (as the allegations seem to imply). For example, I think it is perfectly acceptable to criticize a subordinate like this:
“When you sit in that black chair eating non-fat yogurt when you should be working as hard as a four-legged ass it makes me think you are a bit lazy.“
Can anyone else come up with a possible non-controversial sentence that Paulose might have uttered using those four words?
The outlook may not be favorable for Paulose. With Alberto out the knives will be coming out and Democrats will be applying some pressure to clean-up what they see as a crony-filled Justice Department.
Interesting post–but, as you say, given the high level of politicking here, let’s wait ’til more facts are in to pass final judgement–some of us may–uhh–know her or something. 😉
damn! this is one “fat” memo, girlfriend. you are “in the black” with me. why don’t you get your ass to cabo for a nice long lazy paid vaction.
It is clear from your work that you are sympathetic to the party that signified by the common ass, that panders to the black community as well as the lazy unionists and fat unkept artsy types, thus your application to work in my office is denied.
“This week, in “voluntary” bible study, we will explore one of the more fascinating contradictions regarding Palm Sunday, specifically the question of whether Jesus triumphantly entered Jerusalem via a black colt or an ass, by reinterpreting Matthew’s referencing of Zechariah. We were lazy last week, so this week, look forward to two fat hours of salvation!”
no. having sex with a fat ass intern does not make one the “first black president.” such thinking is intellectually lazy.
She’s a direct result of the far-right’s long term plan to religionize the Federal Government.
These comments are witty, & I can’t say I don’t appreciate them–but, just to emphasize, as Abhi was careful to point out–these are just allegations at this point–could well be true, but could well be a political attack….
She sounds like a biatch but fat black lazy ass or lazy black fat ass is racism?
It’s bitchy/mean but that just sounds like a descriptive string of bitch out terms. For example Bush is a monkey faced white moron and michael moore is a bloviating white fat ass. [deleted by admin] /macaca ftw
A black belt in karate, she could kick Bruce Lee’s fat ass on her lazy day.
she is desi, people. she was just saying that amitabh bachchan acted like an ass, rani mukherji was fat, and sanjay leela bhansali’s direction was lazy in black.
55Friday — special Tuesday edition.
Yeah, ‘cuz we desi “suck-ups” are intellectually incapable of understanding Adam Smith, Hayek, or nozick. WTF….
That apart, nobody should underestimate how impossibly difficult it can be to be brown, in your early 30s, thought of by The Man as a hotshot whiz, and manage a group of
oldermore mature, “more experienced”, foot-dragging backstabbers who think they’re too good to be reporting to you…. been there myself, and it’s no picnic.On topic: Anna and Sakshi covered both the wisecrack angles I was going for – Sunday School plus Kickboxing 🙂
Politics as usual. But we should all remember, AG Gonzales was a political appointee, they serve at the pleasure of the president. We all studied government, if this is a checks and balances violation, then the government will take care of itself. snark
chachaji, I agree, this perspective on the story hasn’t received a lot of attention. I am sure some people would have a problem, consciously or subconsciously, reporting to a young brown woman.
What Is It? (a version of What Am I?)
It’s black for browns. Thin or fat, you cannot see your own. It’s a lazy portmanteau. It ain’t your balls, it ain’t your ass.
I’m really getting tired of all these Desi NeoCons. Can we ship them all somewhere??
Uncalled for. Would you be happy if someone said
or
We’d be outraged. Let’s not be hypocrites. There are better ways to state your displeasure. Believe it or not, this blog is for everyone, even NeoCons, ex-cons, neo-soul fans.
.
Well i’m guessing you’re being self-referential and I’ll also assume that you came up in at least a somewhat merit-based system where quantitative analysis proved you to be the best candidate. Paulose is indeed a very smart, well educated and, for her age, accomplished person–one of many in the country. She did not, however, come to the Minn AG post by a merit-based selection process–she was picked from a pool of strongly ideological candidates by the white house. If she had gotten a degree from a less prestigious institution she might have been put in the humble post of officially selecting all political appointees (other than the US attys) but unofficially drawing up a hit list of US attorneys to be removed.
how many of the new appointees were atheistic, libertarian or democrat-registered? Surely there are just as many equally qualified candidates fitting those demographics–Paulose was chosen because had the right background, gave the correct answers and seemed to be someone who would enforce the Bush-prioritized list of crimes to prosecute.
I see nothing of your scenario in her situation. Those directly below here were right to fear change as it would be coming from someone who had prosecuted, up to that point, no cases of note.
so many typos today. i need coffee.
I’m really getting tired of all these Desi NeoCons. Can we ship them all somewhere??
I don’t think this is uncalled for, it’s hyperbole, however, it contains with it an underlying truth. it seems like the ultimate parastic relationship. Indian Neo-cons get promoted to high gov positions, a corrupt and pandering gov gets minority window dressing to “show” they’re not racist.
I’m really getting tired of all these Desis. Can we ship them all somewhere??
Not a parallel, this is a statement on essence of being, not behavior. If the Neo-cons don’t want to be castigated for their behavior, rather, a choice in behavior, so they’re free to stop being neo-cons.
whatever you say, the bush regime does have a penchant for selecting and promoting extremely reactionary minorities (per capita the administration probably contains one of the largest proportions of reactionary african americans, asian americans, latinos, and indian-americans of any administration in history).
HMF, if you want a partisan blog, go to Kos. This is a blog about the diaspora, not one party/ideology.
Believe it or not, there are people who read SM, who aren’t progressive! They deserve the same respect we show everyone else. Now get back on topic, please.
My comment is a bit OT and more relevant for a journalism blog, but I’d like to point out that Eric Black is a former Star Tribune reporter. Black was one of the fine journalists that took the company buy-out after the Star Tribune was sold to an investment group that decided it needed to save money by cutting the news force. Many of these journalists took amazing institutional knowledge like contacts and sources and history with them–and went on to form their own ventures.
I think it has got to be a bit embarassing for the Star Tribune to print an AP story that sources a former reporter’s BLOG as their source. (this morning, actually, they have another investigative reporter writing the story, still sourcing Black.)
I just thought this was of note, if nothing else then to prove the validity of the blog, which surely holds the same journalism ethics Black would’ve had had he been reporting this for the Strib. Changing face of not only the blogosphere, but journalism as well…indeed.
Scene in Blackadder II:
If the only criterion is that the sentence should not be racist, I submit this:
“Get your fat, lazy ass out of that black chair and do some work!”
Unless someone accuses me of racism towards the chair. (“Why was it necessary to mention the chair’s color? What are you implying here?”).
In that case I submit this:
“Get your fat, lazy ass out of that chair and do some work or else I will beat you up black and blue!”
Considering the indian community seems to have much less than 6 Degrees of Separation, do any of the readers here have any insight into this lady?
Anyone else want to speculate about Paulose’s sexuality and how she may have used it? I’ll ban and delete you, too.
May I remind you that Rachel Paulose’s friends and family might read this? That some of you may be her friends or family and rude comments affect more than this distant object of your hate? You don’t have to admire her, emulate her or praise her, but that doesn’t mean you are allowed to abuse her.
My comment was part hyperbole, but also true. Why is it that some of the worst republicans and neocons are desi (Dinesh, Ramesh, Bobby, Rachel…?)
How any desi can be a republican is beyond me. Look at all the damage caused by this administration over the past 7 years: an illegal invasion resulting in almost 1 million deaths, near-collapse of the economy, the destruction of an American city, the stripping away of our civil liberties and Constitution and so on….These policies affect all of us, desi/non-desi, neocon, liberal etc…
“clarence Thomas is not a ‘fat, lazy, black man controlled by scalia.’ Racism is not tolerated by this administration. Get your ass outa here.”
Statement (A)
Statement (B)
I’m a bit mystified by the purpose of this post, Abhi. Is (A) meant to suggest that you’re privy to the transcript of the OSC interviews, and that the interviewee accusing Paulose is overreacting to a mild rebuke that just happened to contain the words “black”, “fat”, “ass” and “lazy” ? Or do you just want us to sit back, play a parlour game (Statement (B)) and enjoy ourselves ?
Since your post isn’t filed under humour — and the issue is a serious one — I’m frankly mystified (and this isn’t a snark). Am I missing something ?
I dislike most of those people especially Dinesh. But I don’t think Ramesh and Bobby are among the worst. Ramesh Ponnuru came up with a hideous title for his book, but he has definitely had moments of reasonableness on National Review compared to white right wingers. Bobby Jindal – while his personality rubs me the wrong way , seems like he is one of the better Republicans in Louisiana. Dinesh – well, OK You got me with that one. Rachel – I do not know enough about her to comment, though I have my own assumptions which are not very complimentary of her.
we are over-achievers
Putting a 33 year old in charge of any U.S. Attny’s office was a terrible idea. It didn’t matter how smart she was or from what political party she came. The problem was that she had less than 10 years of experience as a lawyer, and being a U.S. Attny – even in the District of Minn. – requires a great deal more experience (both legal and in life generally) than 10 years. This reminds me of the 24 year old that was sent to open the Iraqi stock market. That went well.
I agree. The Bushies have hired a lot of unqualified people based on ideology. When I say unqualified, I do not mean dumb. They sent a lot of unqualified people to Iraq in areas where they had no experience in, but they met the ideology test. Same with Michael Brown. The blonde lady who worked with Gonzales(Forget her name) and who had to testify on the US Attorney firings was not the most qualified either. And on Maher’s show, he cited some stats regarding the number of people hired by the government from Pat Robertson’s law university which is definitely not among the top half of law universities.
Rachel probably has the academic qualifications- which is a step above many other Bush era appointees. But does she have the experience and mentality for that position? That’s the question. I do not have the answer. Keep in mind that despite the CEO of Pepsi being an Indian lady, I have seen a lack of respect for Indian women in the workplace when it comes to being led by them. But that is based on anecdotes I am familiar with – not some hard study.
You know, that term gets thrown around a lot — I’m not sure most of the throwers know what it means. Whataver I’ve read about Paulose makes it sound like she’s extremely partisan, and descriptions of her management style seem in keeping with other Republican political appointees I’m aware of, but I’ve never heard anything that suggests she’s a “neocon.”
filmnyc@28 In the beginning, the war had plenty of cheerleaders on all sides. Let’s never forget that.
Thank you, DTK and Shodansan.
Very true. Except, of course, Obama!
i wish i had the moral clarity of all those to whom it seems perfectly obvious that the best of all possible worlds was to sit back while the tyrant saddam was in power. i am far-left/liberal (i hate the term progressive, for the condescension implies about people who are not in that camp). it seems to me that there was a good reason for the war (even if it wasn’t the reason the administration went to war) and that can be separated from the actual way the war was conducted (which was obviously incompetent and callous). this opinion does not have anything to do with what i think of specific candidates who voted for the war (most, if not all, of them probably did it because they were afraid to do otherwise),
and now! all those people who are so easily able to say that the best thing for the us is to walk away, where the only calculus seems to be american lives/american taxpayer money (it seems illogical to me that tough love = americans leave the broken iraqis to fend for themselves is the best possible solution). the whole thing boggles my mind.
Not a ‘quantitative analysis’, but sure, some ‘objective’ measure. But all these things are more gut level, so don’t kid yourself, and indeed, putting someone in charge of other people should never be solely a ‘merit’ decision.
“I think you’re the right person for this and will support you no matter what (up to a point)” from your boss (and theirs) is necessary for you to be effective. You don’t get into positions where others report to you unless this is true anyway, and nobody should accept such a job unless they themselves see that it is there. So just on appearances, this is something that can be seen as ‘political’. And there will always be someone, even more when you’re brown, or different in some way (and single!) – whether they report to you or not, who will scrutinize everything you do, and everything you say, and how you say it, and even what you don’t say. They’ll read your simple request e.g. “Give me your best estimate of how long you think this will take to get done?” as “this person is a slave driver!” etc. Most of this is par for the course, and your boss will understand, of course, up to a point. That’s what being a boss sometimes means, unfortunately. All these things get magnified if by any chance you get nominated as the ‘change agent’ and are expected to ‘do some housecleaning’. 🙂 🙁
This is not a direct reference to the Rachel Paulose case, which has many more explicitly political angles. Just saying, based on my own experience…
filmnyc
whoa! i am not umreeki, but that’s pretty wild-ass. here’s a speech to ponder, from 09-2002.
since y’all are so busy – let me just pull out the juicy bits.
what the hell does that have to do with Rachel Paulose? Boggle your mind away on KOS!!!!
Do I need to expand on what “the Kos comment” meant?
It meant, this is not a partisan blog. Nothing more.
it has nothing to do with paulose. i was responding directly to comment number 38.
paulose seems to be a case of a super-religious partisan being appointed to a post, analogous to goodling. at least, that’s the prior bias i have based on what i have heard. she’s certainly not a neocon.
dravidian lurker, you were not out of order or THAT off topic.
I know I’m not the only one that reads this blog & knows Rachel…
We aren’t particularly close, but I’ve known their family for many years. I’m not familiar with how she is in the work setting, but I do know, personally, they are a wonderful family. Say what you will about her political or religious beliefs, but they were there for me family at a trying time in our life and I will be forever grateful to them.
From what I’ve observed of her, she’s very self aware. I don’t think she would make a mis-step as to make racist comments about a co-worker or subordinate. That’s all I will say.
“Do you think that wearing black makes me look less fat?I have been lazy and fear it shows in an increase in the size of my ass“
Note: I don’t know about Rachel but I say the above to my husband very often 🙂
To me, while this highlights an issue with the current government’s poor ability to appoint qualifed personnel, it’s a larger issue of poltical cronyism in general and is not segregated to the Republican party either. Both political parties have their ‘club’. This is what happens when one party (either Democrat or Republican) controls the legislative and executive branches. It has happened to the Democratic party as well as Republican party (national, state, and city governments). Atleast when competing parties are in Congress and the Presidency, they act as filters to the more extreme cases.
As a good friend of mine once said, members of both party seem to forget about the nuts/bolts type stuff that they were elected for, which can be described in two words – good governance.
Edit to add:
Bureaucracies are also very underhanded in how they like to fight off political appointees if it changes the status quo. Obviously the Jury is still out on this case and we, here, at the end of the information loop have limited visibility. However, from experience in gubment employee world, I wouldn’t underestimate subordinates either. Many agencies in government tend to be a dog eat dog world.