Verizon Wireless evidently is a good place to work.
The lucky ones end up in television commercials.
The rest? Well, they work in buildings in complexes scattered around the country, doing whatever they do to make certain their subscribers have cell service no matter what the locale.
Some, I guess, peruse their customers accounts.
A few with authorization and others without it.
Barack Obama’s account drew particular interest.
In a statement (issued on November 20, 2008), Verizon Wireless President and CEO Lowell McAdam apologized to Obama and disclosed the breach, saying: "a number of Verizon Wireless employees have, without authorization, accessed and viewed President-elect Barack Obama's personal cell phone account."
He said the account has been inactive for several months and Obama had been using a simple voice flip-phone without email capabilities.
"All employees who have accessed the account _ whether authorized or not _ have been put on immediate leave, with pay," McAdam said. "Employees with legitimate business needs for access will be returned to their positions, while employees who have accessed the account improperly and without legitimate business justification will face appropriate disciplinary action."
The next day an unspecified number of employees were fired
Two observations:
1. The initial punishment for this transgression? McAdam was so outraged that he put the employees in question “on immediate leave, with pay.” So, what does one need to do at Verizon to be fired? In recent months, hundreds of thousands of breadwinners have been put on something called indefinite leave (lay-off) without pay simply for doing their jobs in companies that could not afford them anymore. Each of them could have used time off with pay.
2. When the terminations were announced, the company said it had launched an internal investigation as to whether Obama’s records had only been shared among employees or whether the information had been compromised outside of the company. Now, that’s reassuring. It’s OK to internally share the phone records of the soon-to-be most powerful person in the world?
Oh, and in case you are wondering, Verizon “alerted the appropriate federal law enforcement agencies.” That would be the U.S. Department of Justice, that rock-solid impartial enforcer of laws. The same U.S. Department of Justice that fired politically recalcitrant U.S. Attorneys and screened applicants for internships based on their political preferences.
Fortunately for McAdam, the Department’s phone number was on speed dial. For years, you see, Verizon had shared its customers’ files with the Department without a warrant. No fumbling around with that bulky telephone directory.
All right. So, perhaps Obama is at least partially to blame. After all, last summer he voted to afford telecommunications industry, including Verizon, with retroactive immunity for their illegal snooping and illegal wiretaps. And, when McCain and Palin called him a terrorist, millions of Americans took them seriously, right?
So, is it possible the CSR’s with the GED’s who peeked may have thought that they were just been doing their patriotic duty for GW?
And, McAdam? The man whom Verizon paid over $18.0 million in 2007? And, who helped lobby for immunity for snooping?
He’s still got a job.
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Polls and Crusading Liars
There’s an intriguing poll out there.
The University of Texas interviewed 600 Americans who call the Lone Star State home.
Barack Obama's religion has been the subject of much discussion in the media. Though Obama is a practicing Protestant, well-publicized emails and word of mouth campaigns inaccurately identifying him as a Muslim have been circulated since the early days of his candidacy. In order to gauge public awareness of Obama's religion, we asked respondents, "What do you believe Barack Obama's religion to be?" A plurality, 45.5%, chose the "Protestant" option, and 28 % couldn't say. Twenty percent, however, said that Obama is a Muslim.
http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu./11_1_2.html
No telling why so many must figure Barack to be a “Muslim.” Don’t suppose it's his name, do you?
The Bush bunch has worked hard to create a rich environment in which to pigeon-hole and then either hate or love, (mostly fear) one another. Wars have a way of doing that, you know.
It seems that too many Americans feel stereotypes are OK, again. It's a short-cut for those who spend more watching NASCAR and sharin' huntin' stories than they do with their kids. Ugly and hateful words, terms and expressions that went away with flat-top haircuts, and others with bell-bottom pants, are back and unfortunately have found a way into the public debate with reactionary, right-wing Republicans.
But, a Muslim as President? Not yet. But, Some day it will happen.
Speaking of names, shortly after his election, Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected (so far) to Congress, the religious right began a crusade to prevent him from being seated. Something about not placing his hand on the Bible, instead choosing the Quran, when he was to be sworn in.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53345
Fortunately, the crusade went no where and Congressman-elect Ellison (D - Minnesota) was sworn in as a member of the Class of 2007.
Actually, Mr. Ellison was not sworn in on the Quran and no incoming members of Congress place their hand on the Bible. Everyone is sworn in together during a private ceremony without any religious text. It’s only during a ceremonial photo-op that a book is brought out.
The Class of 2007 also includes two Buddhists, Hank Johnson (D- Georgia) and Mazie Hirono (D – Hawaii). They did not use a book at the public ceremony, as there is no book in Buddhism equivalent to the Bible or the Quran.
Was there a word of concern about them? Nope. [The crusaders were trying to understand the meaning of “ooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmm.”]
Jews? [I can hear the muttering of the crusaders, "You know, they only hold their hand on the Old Testmaent." Or, "they're OK. After all, I suppose, they aren't Muslims."]
Agnostics and atheists? [They were wily enough to cross the fingers on their left hand.]
So, why followers of Islam? In the article cited above, Judge Moore explains: “ . . . common sense alone dictates that in the midst of a war with Islamic terrorists we should not place someone in a position of great power who shares their doctrine.”
You know: Islam faith = Muslim followers = Islamic terrorists.
[And, for the record, in March 2008, another Muslim, Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana was elected to Congress. No word as to which, if any book, he used.]
Perhaps that’s one more reason McCain crusades to wage the wars against terrorism for 100 years: To keep Americans who worship Allah out of Congress, and presumably any other deliberative bodies, too.
The Crusades, seems there were five (some say more)of them (back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back, if you’re keeping score), began in 1096 and lasted continuously for almost exactly 200 years. 200!).
The Christians took the fight to whom? Muslims. Moslems. And, which country is waging a war in two countries that are predominantly Muslim?
[In case you don't know: The Shiites and Sunni (yes, the very the same sects who are at one another's throats these days in Iraq) were fighting between and among themselves during the Crusades even as they tried to ward off invaders from the West, 700 hundred years ago. And, they've have been at it ever since.]
Larry Craig - The Accidental Tourist
For far too long, Americans denied people of color and women the right to vote. In 2008, the R's are crusading to prevent people of color from voting through registration challenges. One by one, the challenges have been turned back by the courts. But, none of this is new.
The United States has a shameful and dismal history on civil rights, both at home and abroad. For the past eight years, George W, like the Christians in bygone days, has attempted to outsource our version of "human rights," while denying basic rights to Americans here at home. Unlike his wars abroad, the President and his adorers on the fringe right have relied on bipartisan 'support' to do so.
It's a sick message that spews from AM talk radio, pounding the airwaves daily with diatribes: We should discrimintate against someone in the workplace because of his/ her sexual preference and deny them basic rights heterosexual couples enjoy.
For years, the religious right demonized Barney Frank, the long-time, openly gay Congressman from Massachussetts (D). It took awhile, but Congress welcomed the “first open lesbian” to be elected, Tammy Baldwin (D – Wisconsin). In January, they will most likely be joined by Jared Polis, a Democrat running in Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District, where Democrats in the district outnumber Republicans by 32,000 voters.
[There are an awful lot of "D’s" by these names above each pigeon-hole.]
I wasn’t surprised when Larry Craig, a Republican from Idaho [the first “R” in the list], accidentally “outed” himself at the airport in the Twin Cities. I suppressed the cynic in me and hoped he would not resign, embrace his gay identity, and like other members of Congress before him, find his voice in supporting efforts to approve same sex marriage, outlawing workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, and eliminating the policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
No such luck. The apple farmer not only remained. So did his strident anti-gay positions.
Despite early, but cautious, optimism and the capable leadership of Frank and Baldwin, bills to ban workplace discrimination have not passed this Congress. This, despite the fact that more than 85 percent of the Fortune 500 companies include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies, as do 17 states and many local governments.
Same-sex couples still do not enjoy the same constitutional protections that opposite-sex couples enjoy.
And, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? Don’t ask.
Blame the Republicans? Others say elect Democrats who support gay rights first; then, work on the R’s.
Come January 2009, Democrats will hold larger Congressional majorities and, most likely, the Presidency. The question is: Can Congress approve any type of civil rights legislation with sizable majorities and have it signed into law? Or, will it be more of the same, high hopes?
As the song goes, "When troubles call, and your backs to the wall
There a lot to be learned, that wall could fall." It might someday, but not as long as names and stereotypes guide and cloud the thinking of so mnay members of Congress.
Homophobism is found in both parties, although it is more pervasive within the Republican party.
“There is a longstanding hypocrisy of anti-gay conservatives like Rick Santorum and Mel Martinez employing openly gay senior staff. While in D.C., seemingly anti-gay members of Congress work shoulder-to-shoulder with gays and lesbians and seek their counsel on policy matters. But when back home in their districts, they endorse all manner of anti-gay measures.”
McCain is a case in point. His chief of staff, Mark Buse, is openly gay. And, yet, McCain vigorously supports California’s Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage and, when he been present and voted, has opposed every pro-gay legislation contemplated by this Congress.
If Congressmen Ellison and carson actually have a “Muslim agenda” and can match the successes of their gay and lesbian Congressional counterparts, the religious right has very little to fear in the next Congress.
And, John, you don't have to keep up the expense of an Islamic war for cover.
The University of Texas interviewed 600 Americans who call the Lone Star State home.
Barack Obama's religion has been the subject of much discussion in the media. Though Obama is a practicing Protestant, well-publicized emails and word of mouth campaigns inaccurately identifying him as a Muslim have been circulated since the early days of his candidacy. In order to gauge public awareness of Obama's religion, we asked respondents, "What do you believe Barack Obama's religion to be?" A plurality, 45.5%, chose the "Protestant" option, and 28 % couldn't say. Twenty percent, however, said that Obama is a Muslim.
http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu./11_1_2.html
No telling why so many must figure Barack to be a “Muslim.” Don’t suppose it's his name, do you?
The Bush bunch has worked hard to create a rich environment in which to pigeon-hole and then either hate or love, (mostly fear) one another. Wars have a way of doing that, you know.
It seems that too many Americans feel stereotypes are OK, again. It's a short-cut for those who spend more watching NASCAR and sharin' huntin' stories than they do with their kids. Ugly and hateful words, terms and expressions that went away with flat-top haircuts, and others with bell-bottom pants, are back and unfortunately have found a way into the public debate with reactionary, right-wing Republicans.
But, a Muslim as President? Not yet. But, Some day it will happen.
Speaking of names, shortly after his election, Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected (so far) to Congress, the religious right began a crusade to prevent him from being seated. Something about not placing his hand on the Bible, instead choosing the Quran, when he was to be sworn in.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53345
Fortunately, the crusade went no where and Congressman-elect Ellison (D - Minnesota) was sworn in as a member of the Class of 2007.
Actually, Mr. Ellison was not sworn in on the Quran and no incoming members of Congress place their hand on the Bible. Everyone is sworn in together during a private ceremony without any religious text. It’s only during a ceremonial photo-op that a book is brought out.
The Class of 2007 also includes two Buddhists, Hank Johnson (D- Georgia) and Mazie Hirono (D – Hawaii). They did not use a book at the public ceremony, as there is no book in Buddhism equivalent to the Bible or the Quran.
Was there a word of concern about them? Nope. [The crusaders were trying to understand the meaning of “ooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmm.”]
Jews? [I can hear the muttering of the crusaders, "You know, they only hold their hand on the Old Testmaent." Or, "they're OK. After all, I suppose, they aren't Muslims."]
Agnostics and atheists? [They were wily enough to cross the fingers on their left hand.]
So, why followers of Islam? In the article cited above, Judge Moore explains: “ . . . common sense alone dictates that in the midst of a war with Islamic terrorists we should not place someone in a position of great power who shares their doctrine.”
You know: Islam faith = Muslim followers = Islamic terrorists.
[And, for the record, in March 2008, another Muslim, Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana was elected to Congress. No word as to which, if any book, he used.]
Perhaps that’s one more reason McCain crusades to wage the wars against terrorism for 100 years: To keep Americans who worship Allah out of Congress, and presumably any other deliberative bodies, too.
The Crusades, seems there were five (some say more)of them (back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back, if you’re keeping score), began in 1096 and lasted continuously for almost exactly 200 years. 200!).
The Christians took the fight to whom? Muslims. Moslems. And, which country is waging a war in two countries that are predominantly Muslim?
[In case you don't know: The Shiites and Sunni (yes, the very the same sects who are at one another's throats these days in Iraq) were fighting between and among themselves during the Crusades even as they tried to ward off invaders from the West, 700 hundred years ago. And, they've have been at it ever since.]
Larry Craig - The Accidental Tourist
For far too long, Americans denied people of color and women the right to vote. In 2008, the R's are crusading to prevent people of color from voting through registration challenges. One by one, the challenges have been turned back by the courts. But, none of this is new.
The United States has a shameful and dismal history on civil rights, both at home and abroad. For the past eight years, George W, like the Christians in bygone days, has attempted to outsource our version of "human rights," while denying basic rights to Americans here at home. Unlike his wars abroad, the President and his adorers on the fringe right have relied on bipartisan 'support' to do so.
It's a sick message that spews from AM talk radio, pounding the airwaves daily with diatribes: We should discrimintate against someone in the workplace because of his/ her sexual preference and deny them basic rights heterosexual couples enjoy.
For years, the religious right demonized Barney Frank, the long-time, openly gay Congressman from Massachussetts (D). It took awhile, but Congress welcomed the “first open lesbian” to be elected, Tammy Baldwin (D – Wisconsin). In January, they will most likely be joined by Jared Polis, a Democrat running in Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District, where Democrats in the district outnumber Republicans by 32,000 voters.
[There are an awful lot of "D’s" by these names above each pigeon-hole.]
I wasn’t surprised when Larry Craig, a Republican from Idaho [the first “R” in the list], accidentally “outed” himself at the airport in the Twin Cities. I suppressed the cynic in me and hoped he would not resign, embrace his gay identity, and like other members of Congress before him, find his voice in supporting efforts to approve same sex marriage, outlawing workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, and eliminating the policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
No such luck. The apple farmer not only remained. So did his strident anti-gay positions.
Despite early, but cautious, optimism and the capable leadership of Frank and Baldwin, bills to ban workplace discrimination have not passed this Congress. This, despite the fact that more than 85 percent of the Fortune 500 companies include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies, as do 17 states and many local governments.
Same-sex couples still do not enjoy the same constitutional protections that opposite-sex couples enjoy.
And, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? Don’t ask.
Blame the Republicans? Others say elect Democrats who support gay rights first; then, work on the R’s.
Come January 2009, Democrats will hold larger Congressional majorities and, most likely, the Presidency. The question is: Can Congress approve any type of civil rights legislation with sizable majorities and have it signed into law? Or, will it be more of the same, high hopes?
As the song goes, "When troubles call, and your backs to the wall
There a lot to be learned, that wall could fall." It might someday, but not as long as names and stereotypes guide and cloud the thinking of so mnay members of Congress.
Homophobism is found in both parties, although it is more pervasive within the Republican party.
“There is a longstanding hypocrisy of anti-gay conservatives like Rick Santorum and Mel Martinez employing openly gay senior staff. While in D.C., seemingly anti-gay members of Congress work shoulder-to-shoulder with gays and lesbians and seek their counsel on policy matters. But when back home in their districts, they endorse all manner of anti-gay measures.”
McCain is a case in point. His chief of staff, Mark Buse, is openly gay. And, yet, McCain vigorously supports California’s Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage and, when he been present and voted, has opposed every pro-gay legislation contemplated by this Congress.
If Congressmen Ellison and carson actually have a “Muslim agenda” and can match the successes of their gay and lesbian Congressional counterparts, the religious right has very little to fear in the next Congress.
And, John, you don't have to keep up the expense of an Islamic war for cover.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Mr. Schweitzer Goes to Washington
It seems unlikely, but, just what if Brian Schweitzer were to go to Washington, DC?
Stranger things have happened. Like Sarah Palin being picked to be #2.
The speculation is based on the long-known fact that Schweitzer will win with with around 62 percent of the vote and the increasing likelihood that Obama will win.
The dog days of October are upon us.
Schweitzer would probably not leave prior to the '09 session. After all, Obama is not sworn in until January 20, 2009. Between November 7 and January 20, Obama would most certainly name his top Cabinet posts before: State; Defense; Health and Human Services; Homeland Security. After the first of the year, it's anybody's guess.
Yes, like you, I have read the stories: Brian “ain’t gonna be nobody’s secretary.” But, there other positions called “director” and “commissioner.” If Schweitzer were to accept something other than cabinet level position, it would have to be something extraordinary. Ambassador? Brian Schweitzer? Nahhhhh.
OK. So, he misspoke and agrees to lower himself into “that cesspool” as he called Washington (DC) politics in his first year as Governor. It's interesting that Brian has not repeated that quote, evidently being sensitive to the Democratic Congressional majorities.
So, let's say Schweitzer is on the short lists for Agriculture, Energy and Interior.
Then what?
There would be loads of speculation, replete with fanfare and Brian Schweitzer in the middle. Can't you just hear the quotes and sound bites?
Two places outline the process of gubernatorial succession: The Montana Constitution and state law to implement the constitution.
The constitution actually does not say the lieutenant governor becomes governor when there is a vacancy.
Article VI, Section 2 says “ . . . the offices of governor and lieutenant governor are voted upon together in primary and general elections.”
Article VI deals with vacancies in (2) the office of lieutenant governor or (2) both the office of governor and office lieutenant governor simultaneously.
Article VI. Section 6. Vacancy in office. (1) If the office of lieutenant governor becomes vacant by his succession to the office of governor, or by his death, resignation, or disability as determined by law, the governor shall appoint a qualified person to serve in that office for the remainder of the term. If both the elected governor and the elected lieutenant governor become unable to serve in the office of governor, succession to the respective offices shall be as provided by law for the period until the next general election. Then, a governor and lieutenant governor shall be elected to fill the remainder of the original term.
Summary: If the office of lieutenant becomes vacant, the governor appoints the successor for the remainder of the term. If both offices are vacant simultaneously, state law kicks in.
Not just a good idea, it's the law.
2-16-511. Vacancy in office of governor and lieutenant governor. (1) If the offices of both the governor and the lieutenant governor become vacant, the president of the senate shall become governor and shall appoint a lieutenant governor. (2) If the president of the senate is unable to assume the office of governor, the speaker of the house shall become governor and a lieutenant governor shall be elected in accordance with the provision of 2-16-512.
While this is not going to happen in this eventuality, the law underscores the importance of the majority party in both the Senate and House if it ever were to occur. [Under a tragic series of events guys like Bob Keenan, Doug Mood and Scott Sales could have been governor. We can only shudder about whom they would have appointed as their #2.]
Scenarios
1. Schweitzer resigns; Bohlinger, a Republican, ascends; Bohlinger appoints his choice of lieutenant governor. [Are you kidding? Schweitzer is still in control, baby.]
2. Schweitzer resigns; Bohlinger, a Republican ascends and appoints his successor that is actually (but, unofficially) Schweitzer’s choice. ["]
3. Before Schweitzer resigns, Bohlinger, a Republican, ‘retires’ to spend more time with his bride; Schweitzer appoints his choice to succeed Bohlinger; after a cooling off period, Schweitzer resigns; the newly-appointed governor ascends and names his successor who is actually (but, not officially) Schweitzer’s choice. [" "!]
There are other variations, but you get the drift.
Regardless, Brian Schweitzer, the sly, coy one, doesn’t just ride off into the sunrise. [Riding east to DC and ‘into the sunset’ are not possible.] The only thing Schweitzer likes more than self-promotion is speculation that promotes Brian Schweitzer. Just as he has so far, he will play it for all it’s worth, even if he not a serious candidate.
So, then, who is #2 in a Bohlinger administration?
Stranger things have happened. Like Sarah Palin being picked to be #2.
The speculation is based on the long-known fact that Schweitzer will win with with around 62 percent of the vote and the increasing likelihood that Obama will win.
The dog days of October are upon us.
Schweitzer would probably not leave prior to the '09 session. After all, Obama is not sworn in until January 20, 2009. Between November 7 and January 20, Obama would most certainly name his top Cabinet posts before: State; Defense; Health and Human Services; Homeland Security. After the first of the year, it's anybody's guess.
Yes, like you, I have read the stories: Brian “ain’t gonna be nobody’s secretary.” But, there other positions called “director” and “commissioner.” If Schweitzer were to accept something other than cabinet level position, it would have to be something extraordinary. Ambassador? Brian Schweitzer? Nahhhhh.
OK. So, he misspoke and agrees to lower himself into “that cesspool” as he called Washington (DC) politics in his first year as Governor. It's interesting that Brian has not repeated that quote, evidently being sensitive to the Democratic Congressional majorities.
So, let's say Schweitzer is on the short lists for Agriculture, Energy and Interior.
Then what?
There would be loads of speculation, replete with fanfare and Brian Schweitzer in the middle. Can't you just hear the quotes and sound bites?
Two places outline the process of gubernatorial succession: The Montana Constitution and state law to implement the constitution.
The constitution actually does not say the lieutenant governor becomes governor when there is a vacancy.
Article VI, Section 2 says “ . . . the offices of governor and lieutenant governor are voted upon together in primary and general elections.”
Article VI deals with vacancies in (2) the office of lieutenant governor or (2) both the office of governor and office lieutenant governor simultaneously.
Article VI. Section 6. Vacancy in office. (1) If the office of lieutenant governor becomes vacant by his succession to the office of governor, or by his death, resignation, or disability as determined by law, the governor shall appoint a qualified person to serve in that office for the remainder of the term. If both the elected governor and the elected lieutenant governor become unable to serve in the office of governor, succession to the respective offices shall be as provided by law for the period until the next general election. Then, a governor and lieutenant governor shall be elected to fill the remainder of the original term.
Summary: If the office of lieutenant becomes vacant, the governor appoints the successor for the remainder of the term. If both offices are vacant simultaneously, state law kicks in.
Not just a good idea, it's the law.
2-16-511. Vacancy in office of governor and lieutenant governor. (1) If the offices of both the governor and the lieutenant governor become vacant, the president of the senate shall become governor and shall appoint a lieutenant governor. (2) If the president of the senate is unable to assume the office of governor, the speaker of the house shall become governor and a lieutenant governor shall be elected in accordance with the provision of 2-16-512.
While this is not going to happen in this eventuality, the law underscores the importance of the majority party in both the Senate and House if it ever were to occur. [Under a tragic series of events guys like Bob Keenan, Doug Mood and Scott Sales could have been governor. We can only shudder about whom they would have appointed as their #2.]
Scenarios
1. Schweitzer resigns; Bohlinger, a Republican, ascends; Bohlinger appoints his choice of lieutenant governor. [Are you kidding? Schweitzer is still in control, baby.]
2. Schweitzer resigns; Bohlinger, a Republican ascends and appoints his successor that is actually (but, unofficially) Schweitzer’s choice. ["]
3. Before Schweitzer resigns, Bohlinger, a Republican, ‘retires’ to spend more time with his bride; Schweitzer appoints his choice to succeed Bohlinger; after a cooling off period, Schweitzer resigns; the newly-appointed governor ascends and names his successor who is actually (but, not officially) Schweitzer’s choice. [" "!]
There are other variations, but you get the drift.
Regardless, Brian Schweitzer, the sly, coy one, doesn’t just ride off into the sunrise. [Riding east to DC and ‘into the sunset’ are not possible.] The only thing Schweitzer likes more than self-promotion is speculation that promotes Brian Schweitzer. Just as he has so far, he will play it for all it’s worth, even if he not a serious candidate.
So, then, who is #2 in a Bohlinger administration?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)