Richard Marquez testifying for LANL in 2004.
Pinky and The Brain in LANL-THE-REST-OF-THE-STORY
asks who this man (clearly not Anastasio is)...
AP - Fri Apr 20, 11:27 AM ET
Michael Anastasio appears before the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee in Washington Friday, April 20, 2007, on mismanagement at Los Alamos National Laboratory. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)
commentary on LANL-THE-REST-OF-THE-STORY suggests (strongly) that Marquez left LANL under questionable circumstances that he has been (repeatedly?) accused of sexual misconduct and perhaps even of something involving a minor.
The Doctor does not respect false accusations but if there is evidence of this kind of misconduct, it should come out (in public). Speak up folks if you *really* know anything.
- Doc Strange
15 comments:
I worked with the guy when he was with the DOE in Albuquerque. The sexual harassment rumor is hard fact. Not once, not twice, more along the lines of eight or nine different instances. Serious stuff. Previous marriage ended because of it. Didn't matter though. Higher ups kept it under wraps. Perhaps he knew too much. In reality though, our superiors really didn't care. So long as it didn't become too public. At DOE we all knew about it. We all heard about it. It happened so often with this guy it was difficult not to. He retired from the DOE after higher ups decided to ship him off to HQ. He then landed on his feet inside the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Within the DOE he’d been an ally of the University of California, and now it was time for payback. So they took him in, and they’ve been taking care of him ever since. Still doubt it? Submit a Freedom of Information Act request to the DOE. You'd be suprised.
Thanks! This is exactly what We were asking for... first-hand knowledge and a thread to pull on.
We have no experience with FOIA requests to DOE but it sounds like it might be enlightening. It is not clear exactly what should be asked for in the request.
"All documents relating to allegations of sexual harassment against Richard Marquez" ?
How broad can such a request be and get a reasonable response?
Doc,
Have a look here:
http://www.usoge.gov/pages/about_oge/foiaguide.html
I always wondered about the DOE security clearance process and whether workplace abuses like the one discussed here ever impacted the DOE's assessment of individual character and reliability. But now, knowing that even admitted drug users can get a security clearance at Los Alamos, nothing surprises me. The American taxpayer keeps taking it were the Sun don't shine and their elected reps, once again, keep pretending they don't notice.
"Thanks! This is exactly what We were asking for... first-hand knowledge and a thread to pull on."
Huh? All you have is an anonymous poster making an accusation unsupported by facts. This is no better than anything anyone else has said thus far. GMAFB.
Oh, yeah. I just remembered something. I worked with [insert your favorite figure here] when [she/he] was at [insert favorite place here] and [she/he]liked to kill puppies and eat them. Seriously! Everyone knew about it too! It was a big cover up because it was so tasteless and embarrassing. Just seek a FOIA and you will see for yourself. I was going to meet with Tommy Hook to give him information about this one night, but he just kind of disappeared. I wonder what happened to him? I guess he was another victim of the vast conspiracy. Those bastards!
I'm not defending Marquez. I have no idea what he might or might not have done. I am pointing out that you have learned precisely nothing here and you are potentially further libeling someone. About par for the course on the LANL blogs I guess. Nice work, everyone!
6:13 PM GMAFB
A first-hand account (albeit anonymously posted) and a thread to pull on (documentation to be sought and possibly retrieved)...
That is a huge step beyond "I heard a rumor once..." or "what about that girl up around ..."
If we can sort through the process of FOIA and get something worth reporting (including nothing) then we'll post it, take a position based on the new information.
This is a "discussion" of the rumors ... I am biased not to like/trust upper LANL management, I am biased to trust/believe the accuser in a sexual harassment case... that is me... this is my blog. Go figure.
While a lot of the commentary on the "LANL Blogs" is way up for question (the nature of anonymous commentary on a blog), what precisely do you have to take LTRS, LTCS, and LTROS to task for? They mostly consist of a running posting of relevant published articles... a "scrapbook" of sorts.
Our blog is clearly laced with satire and opinion... you can have your opinions about that all day, and more power to you...
Who are you (keep your name to yourself, but what do you believe, what do you think, what do you care about?) and what is your problem?
Do you have issues with LANL? With those who question the abuses handed down and around by management, media, congress, etc? Or just with people having a "public" discussion about things that matter to them?
Speak up, don't mumble "par for the course for LANL blogs." What is your real beef?
7:07 AM
Few if any of our problems stem from the fact that the DOE has (and has used) their discretion to give clearances to former drug users.
We don't know the numbers but given the demographics, We'd bet over half of the middle-age crowd at LANL experimented with drugs in their youth (none inhaled though, we are sure) and many if not all of them disclosed this at the time of their clearance investigations. Big deal...
Jessica Q. is a troubling case... and worth asking hard questions about... but We doubt that the relative tolerance shown regarding *former* drug use has very much to do with what was (apparently) wrong with the Jessica Q. situation.
Our "elected representatives" keep pretending all kinds of shit... like they are doing their jobs... like they give a damn about this country, like they aren't sold out to corporate America...
So what is it you think they are "acting like they don't notice":
that a clearance can be had by someone who once smoked a joint?
As I asked 6:15... "what is your problem?" Quit mumbling and speak up. What is your real issue here? Are you mad at LANL? Or DOE?
6:13 sounds like he's mad at those who rock the boat. Never mind that without such folks we'd still be living in caves. It's easier to attack those who advocate for a better world because you're defending the status quo in the process. And the status quo holds the purse strings. That's how you garner your next promotion at LANL. That's how you assure yourself another big raise. The name of the game is pucker up and kiss. That's what 6:13 appears to be doing. I too empathize with the victim--the single parent mother who has a couple of kids to support on her own because Dad ran off with the babysitter. Then she comes into work and has her high ranking boss ogling her, or worse. What does she do? Quit? Will she find a better paying job than the one she has? Who will she use as a reference? She stays on and her health deteriorates over time. The stress, the anger, the humiliation mounts. Relationships suffer, her self esteem hits rock bottom. But the good ol boys keep on being “just guys.” They protect each other. They get promoted. No women supervisors to please, hence no accountability. And the few women in authority just stay quiet. Why do they want to risk their own careers? They worked hard after all to get to where they’re at. They endured the same good ol boy attitude and somehow survived. Now they survive by refusing to help those in need. That’s the code. That’s what it takes to be a team player as they say. 6:13 just wants to be a team player.
Gee. Looks like I touched a nerve.
My point was simple. You don't have any evidence of anything. All you have is accusations. None of you do. It is amusing to hear you all rally to the defense of the "victim" as if the poster that made the claims was the victim herself (and, by extension, accusing me of not being on her side). The fact is you don't know. And unless a FOIA produces evidence, you are all just yapping in the air about nothing. Doing a FOIA is a good idea if it is possible (I am not sure it is in this case), but real facts are the last thing anyone around here seems to desire. You want to believe what you want to believe. You need a villain to blame for all of the bad things that have happened to you and to feed your paranoia about the future. It would be funny if it were not so pathetic.
But of course, narcissistic carping is what the blog is about. Sorry for the interruption. Please carry on. It does the laboratory so much good for you to do so.
As for what "my problem" is, I have none. I am simply pointing out that claims by someone like this are not evidence of anything.
I am also pointing out that the constant complaining about "the lab" on blogs like this is getting no one anywhere. It is a nice place to blow off steam, but it serves no purpose. Roberts' blog was not perfect either, but at least he had the sense to try to control things a bit so that it was not just a pile of complete nonsense. The evil empire LANS and Bechtel and corporate America and the laboratory is all of us now. Either work constructively to make it better or leave already and take your innuendo and unsubstantiated rumors with you. Please.
I look forward to all of the responses labeling me in various ways as a sycophant or an idiot or a sheep or a whatever. It never ceases to amaze me how folks will cry like stuck pigs when someone does to them the precise same thing they do to everyone else. Fine characteristics of a flock of your own.
A few points:
-I assume that the original intent of the posting was to find out who the person was in the AP photo mis-identified as Michael Anastasio. I don't know R. Marquez, but the the guy in the 2004 photo sure looks like the the guy in the AP pic. If the guy in the 2004 is Marquez, then I think the AP photog needs to take better notes.
- The poster who seems so concerned that
rampant, scurrilous, innuendo regarding Marquez appearing in this blog is tantamont to character assasination and thinks that to engage in such activities is damaging to the Lab and its employees could have a point. But I doubt that anything discussed on this blog will have any long-lasting effect on Marquez or his livelyhood, whereas.......
- With about as much "science" as was involved in looking at sheep entrails (augury, for you purists), and little more evidence of wrongdoing as is presented here on this blog, the DOE is going to embark on a program that will in all likelyhood ruin a number of careers of innocent, loyal employees whose only "crime" is that they are easily intimidated.
Now that is an injustice I think we should all rail against.
"I don't know R. Marquez, but the the guy in the 2004 photo sure looks like the the guy in the AP pic. If the guy in the 2004 is Marquez, then I think the AP photog needs to take better notes."
You are correct, it is indeed the same person in both pictures.
"But I doubt that anything discussed on this blog will have any long-lasting effect on Marquez or his livelyhood, whereas......."
That's right. For me it is not so much about Marquez, but what railing on him represents. I don't know anything about Marquez myself. Someone on the outside looking in will get very wrong ideas about us from blog comments. That is damaging to us and, ultimately, self-defeating as we continually look for the scapegoat around the next corner.
"the DOE is going to embark on a program that will in all likelyhood ruin a number of careers of innocent, loyal employees whose only "crime" is that they are easily intimidated.
Now that is an injustice I think we should all rail against."
This is a very good point...beyond Holian's suggestion that 5,000 cleared employees storm DOE with pitchforks and torches, which is not practical, I'm not quite sure how to rally against this psuedoscientific nonsense. I had no real problem with random drug testing, but the poly thing bothers me even though it probably won't affect me if I read what the targets for it are correctly. But that does not make me feel any better.
It is troubling on many levels and, in many respects, reflects what we are turning into as a country. And, no, it is not all Bush's fault for the Bush bashers out there. The seeds for this were sewn long ago.
6:13
You are correct that a big crowd chanting and name-calling against Marquez is not particularly productive and could be rather damaging, not only to Mr. Marquez (if guilty, perhaps the damage would be deserved) but to the souls of the chanters.
On the other hand, lacking other forums for discussion and information sharing, these blogs often include a little extra vitriol aimed at people who are perhaps merely symbolic of the problems we all suffer under.
Marquez's alleged abuses are symbolic of the kinds of abuses DOE through a number of agents and their agents (UC, FBI, Nanos, now Bechtel, etc.) have heaped upon us.
We agree that getting some "facts" via FOIA could change this from a random act of innuendo to either a hooting of the original inunuender (this is not a word, just a pun on decider) off the stage or vindicating same.
You are obviously thoughtful and articulate and probably care as much as any of us about things getting better, about righting the wrongs we can.
This blog is contrived specifically to err on the side of dark humor. You are obviously reading it... so something about this must resonate with you.
Thank you for participating and please continue. If there are some things you'd like to see more of, speak up... the milieu of nonsense you see here comes 90% from our own addled brain and it reflects our own particular set of paranoias.
As you might be able to tell we have a strong resistance to arbitrary authority, we do not like to see abuse of power, we do like and care about the people of this laboratory and this community.
The Good Doctor was born and raised in the mountains and deserts of NM and AZ during the Space Race and has a deep and abiding love and respect for the area, for the pursuit of truth and beauty whether through the scientific method, engineering practice, hand craft or art. We loathe abuse of power and petty politics.
On your advisement, we will refrain from whipping up any more discontent regarding Marquez. This does not mean we will not accept comments such as the one which specifically offered "Submit a FOIA request to the DOE, you would be surprised."
We called this "a thread to pull on". And we shall pull.
this is ridiculously juvenile
So what's more juvenile...the sexual harassment or those that complain about it? Or maybe it's the mindset that blames the victim that's the most juvenile of all.
Don't back off on Marquez...He (and the crowd he runs with)is an example of the "shoot the messenger" mentality so pervasive at LANL and that which will ultimately bring it down...
Looks to me like he'd make a great staffer for the Senator from Masachusetts.
Post a Comment