Pat, the Editor

27 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

Message Digest 
Volume 28 : Issue 25 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Re: President Obama keeps his Blackberry 
  Re: Presidential telephones  was Re: Why Obama's phone calls     will always  go through 
  Re: Presidential telephones  was Re: Why Obama's phone calls       will always  go through 
  Re: Lawsuit over website links in spotlight / Copyright   violation or  fair use to be decided 
  Re: President Obama keeps his Blackberry 

====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet.  All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote.  By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the


Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent.  Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.

We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime.   Geoffrey Welsh


See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.

Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:06:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: President Obama keeps his Blackberry 
Message-ID: <>

> You are, of course, right in being concerned about the President
> getting information only from a small circle of men with hidden
> agendas.

A basic critical skill of the President is 

(1) to put highly competent people around him who are absolutely loyal
    with no agendas, AND
(2) be willing to hear the facts, as unpleasant as they may be.

FDR was fortunate to have very loyal people and generally (though not
always) was open minded about things.  Eleanor was a mixed blessing
for FDR.  She was able to get out in the country and bring him
unfiltered information about conditions that he needed to have, this
was most valuable.  She also served as a test flagpole for new ideas;
she'd publicize an idea and if rejected by the public, he wouldn't
push it forward but blame it on her.  On the other hand, she received
tons of mail from individuals seeking help and was not afraid to
bother him or his staff with such issues, which they didn't have time

Truman's people were generally extremely loyal to him, but some
critics say that they were not of the highest caliber and also a
little greedy to enrich themselves.  But Truman was extremely open
minded and wanted to hear all points of view before making a decision.

Nixon's primary people were extremely loyal to him.  But Nixon wasn't
as open minded and had too many pre-conceived notions that his staff
only reinforced.

Nixon liked his friend Bebe Rebozo because Bebe never wanted anything
from Nixon and was loyal and confidential.  All presidents need
someone like that but it's very hard to find.

Unfortunately for Nixon, lower level units, such as inherited from
Johnson, despised Nixon and sabotaged him when possible from day one.
They leaked information that needed to stay confidential.  Nixon was
NOT paranoid, people WERE out to get him with a vengence from day
one.  All this contributed to Watergate.  How Nixon handled affairs
leading to Watergate was wrong and extremely well discussed in
history.  But not so well discussed is how Nixon was treated; and that
was just as wrong, and,  _bad for the country_ .

> For the leader of the free world, finding the truth is a deadly
> serious business . . .

What is "truth"?  Two people examining the exact same set of facts may
come up with completely different conclusions.

The President's time is limited and he must delegate a great deal of
work to subordinates.  He simply does not have the time to do his own
research and depends on his staff to filter and distill complex issues
down to essentials, but still include subtle nuances that could
influence the ultimate decision.

Today's technology is a powerful tool, but it is no substitute for
_thinking_.  I hope the new president's people don' t think all the
answers are in Google or problems solved via an e-mail.

All Presidents need an "S.O.B." to act as their gate keeper to
preserve time.   There is not time to see every cabinet officer,
member of Congress, or visiting governor who wants an audience.


Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:44:58 -0600
From: "Kenneth P. Stox" <>
Subject: Re: Presidential telephones  was Re: Why Obama's phone calls     will always  go through 
Message-ID: <0ZSel.691$>

Kenneth P. Stox wrote:
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>> Shrub's office: a Mickey Mouse phone, with the cord cut.
> Now that was funny! Thanks for making my day.
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> Actually, it's inaccurate: nobody ever cut the cord on Shrub.

Stop it! I'm going to hurt myself if you keep this up.

***** Moderator's Note *****

I wish, to the core of my soul, that it _was_ a laughing matter. 

America is still a Puritan country, where voters are unable (or
unwilling) to expend the mental energy needed to separate vice from
virtue, assuming always that the presence of one indicates the
abscence of the other. The more historians tell us that powerful men
have always lived by different rules, the more we cling, ever more
desperately, to a quant and simple minded notion that our president
should be expected to meet the same standard of behavior we expect of
a church pastor.

Shrub wasn't elected - he was annointed. Leaving aside how his brother
Gerrymandered the Florida ballots and left us with a comical image of
a cross-eyed Electoral Judge focusing on the last dangling chad in the
world, I'm sure there were other deals made that we'll never hear
about. If I live to be one hundred, nobody will ever convince me that
Shrub's father didn't make a deal with Diebold to hack the code in the
computerized voting machines in Ohio.

The 2000 election was not about issues: it was about presidential
infidelity. Even if philandering _were_ a measure of executive
competence, it is _not_ an excuse for an entire nation to put on
blinders: Americans allowed the Florida courts to coronate a daddy's
boy who would be hard-pressed to form a team of sled dogs.

Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator


Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:17:00 +1100
From: David Clayton <>
Subject: Re: Presidential telephones  was Re: Why Obama's phone calls       will always  go through 
Message-ID: <>

> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> ... Even if philandering _were_ a measure of executive competence,
> it is _not_ an excuse for an entire nation to put on blinders: Americans
> allowed the Florida courts to coronate a daddy's boy who would be
> hard-pressed to form a team of sled dogs.


But he ended up  behaving in the way those who put him there wanted him to
behave, so do you blame the puppet or the (mostly still hidden) puppeteers?

Regards, David.

David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.

***** Moderator's Note *****

Neither: Dubya got to be president, which was pretty remarkable for
someone with his background. If I were in his shoes, I'd have done the
same thing.  I don't blame the puppeteers, either: those pulling his
strings got wealth beyond the dreams of Crocius, advanced their view
of the world, and rolled back social programs which had been causing
them a shortage of cheap and stupid laborers.

Licoln was wrong, you see: it may not be possible to fool all the
people all the time, but it _is_ possible to fool enough of them to
get within a couple of percent of a victory, which seems to be all you
need when your brother is the Governor of the state that's involved.

We allowed it to happen: we knew it was all a circus, but we were
watching the trapeze artist while the clowns picked our pockets and
robbed us of our birthright.

We met the enemy: he was us.

Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator


Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 10:06:27 -0500
From: "MC" <>
Subject: Re: Lawsuit over website links in spotlight / Copyright   violation or  fair use to be decided 
Message-ID: <3a%el.1514$>


On the one hand, quoting the title and one sentence of a work has
always been considered fair use in other contexts.

On the other hand, much of the usefulness of a news story resides in
its title and first sentence.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  I rather hope fair
use wins.

***** Moderator's Note *****

It's not about fair use: it's about advertising revenue. In order to
read the title and the first sentence of a story, viewers must see the
ads that are on whatever page shows it to them, and as the market for
traditional newspapers collapses, publishers are scrambling for every
mil of online advertising money they can find.

Long story short: smalltown publishers want the Big Boys to share the
wealth. They want to be paid for every quote, no matter how short, so
that they can keep reporting on the mayor's middle name and the date
of birth of Paul Revere and all the other garbarge Pete Seeger
oh-so-presciently predicted.

After all, if the first line of the story made viewers want to click
on it and read the rest, there wouldn't be a problme.

Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator


Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:50:37 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul <>
Subject: Re: President Obama keeps his Blackberry 
Message-ID: <Xns9B9E8D0C15744Senex@>

"Geoffrey Welsh" <reply@newsgroup.please> wrote in

> David Clayton wrote:
>> Wouldn't less "insulation" from the outside world make a leader
>> more effective?
> Have you ever dialled the wrong speed dial or emailed the wrong
> person?  I've even had people leave messages for someone else on
> my answering machine even though my greeting stated my name
> clearly.  And, from the message, it was clear to me that the
> mistake was not enabled by a linguistic barrier. 
> The POTUS' confidentiality requirements are much higher than mine;
> I think it would be a good idea if his communications tools had
> extra precautions built-in against messages being misdirected. 
> I'm not certain that any existing device has such a feature, but
> it would be A Good Thing. 

Maybe if he starts getting calls from charities and political 
campaigns (!) he will fix the Do Not Call rules....



TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup

TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.

The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. 

Contact information:    Bill Horne
                        Telecom Digest
                        43 Deerfield Road
                        Sharon MA 02067-2301
                        bill at horne dot net

Subscribe: telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom

This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then.  Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!

URL information:

Anonymous FTP:
  (or use our mirror site:

RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest:
For syndication examples see

Copyright (C) 2008 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.



Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list. 

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the

End of The Telecom digest (5 messages)

Return to Archives**Older Issues