Wednesday Night Open Thread: Whitman and All Else

Here are the documents Meg Whitman says her housekeeper gave her in 2000. I'm not impressed by the housekeeper's story, but that might be because of her lawyer. (I like Gloria, but I've never bought into any of her clients' "victim" stories over the years, starting with the woman who claimed Marv Albert bit her.) They seem to start with a grain of fact,and then get blown out of proportion with far too little later on to back them up.

And didn't she pull a similar stunt a month before the recall election in which Gray Davis got sacked and Arnie became Governor - coming forward with a woman who claimed she was groped?

Miller first surfaced around midday on October 6, the day before the recall election, front and center at a news conference called by Los Angeles lawyer Gloria Allred, California’s pugilistic defender of women’s rights. Miller told the assembled media that Schwarzenegger groped her on two occasions while she was a stunt double in the films The Terminator and True Lies.

Whitman's version of the sequence of events sounds plausible, although a little too much like "Don't ask, don't tell" -- and this all could be retaliation over being fired, after Mrs. Diaz "told." The truth is probably in the middle. [More...]

And there's Jerry Brown, trying to capitalize on the unproven allegations against Whitman. Why am I not surprised?

What I find interesting is the headlines. Some say "Whitman Admits" while others say "Whitman Denies" yet all the articles, however headlined, basically relate the same facts. Spin.

So will this turn out to be a $119 million mistake for Whitman? Or, like Arnold, much ado about nothing?

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Move On Makes Feingold Race Top Priority | Rahm Emanuel Leaving White House Friday >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    As I recall, Governor (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 12:34:33 AM EST
    Swarzenneger apologized to any who were offended by his pre-gubernatorial conduct.

    No Apology to Allred's Client (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:55:14 AM EST
    And no admission of misconduct (that I've found so far.) His apology came in the wake of a later British libel suit which he settled (a different woman) and said "he apologized for having "behaved badly sometimes "toward women and doing some things that "were not right, which I thought were playful."

    Allred's client's libel suit against Arnold was thrown out by the court. Allred's response to the British settlement:

    A separate libel lawsuit also grew out of the 2003 recall. In July 2004, a Los Angeles judge dismissed a suit brought by former stuntwoman Rhonda Miller, who accused the Schwarzenegger campaign of trying to smear her reputation as well.

    Gloria Allred, Miller's attorney, said Friday that she was disappointed there was a settlement in the Richardson case. "I hope that one day the governor will be required to appear in court and testify under oath to answer such allegations," she said.

    If your point was that Allred's client wasn't the only one accusing Arnold, that's correct. But it has nothing to do with my point, which was that Allred has a history of this kind of meddling in electoral politics by staging a press conference with her "victim" client just before an election.


    My point was that the Governor (none / 0) (#145)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:10:50 PM EST
    admitted (in a very nonspecific manner) his pre-election conduct may have offended someone.

    Tony Curtis, RIP (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:05:36 AM EST
    Per a report I got on German radio, Tony Curtis has died at age 85.  

    They don't make them like him any more.

    One of the truly great stars (none / 0) (#63)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:24:00 AM EST
    and always a pleasure to watch.

    Health insurance reform? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 09:25:16 AM EST
    McDonald's Corp. is threatening to drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new health care law requirement. Sending "one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers' health plans," McDonald's claims the requirement to spend 80% to 85% of premiums on benefits would be "economically prohibitive" to continue offering coverage. Think Progress

    Denial (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:06:44 AM EST
    McDonalds has a denial out.  Boy, that was a non-info article.  The statement was made to the HHS in it's request for an exemption (and they will most likely receive)  They state they will seek another provider if they don't receive a waiver.

    So was that the WSJ pushing the line that the WH is a big meany to business?


    Sorry I didn't see any denial (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:17:58 AM EST
    just the Think Progress reference and the WSJ article.

    Think the line that the WSJ was pushing is that the health insurance legislation will cause more harm than good. Since many people who read that article may never see a denial, it will become "fact" in the minds of many people.

    Once again, thanks for correcting me on this. While I am not a fan of the legislation, I do not want to spread misinformation.


    Beyond WSJ (none / 0) (#43)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:50:30 AM EST
    was on my 11 PM news last night. to me it sound more like another corp not willing to do the right thing as it follows on the insurance biggies here wanting to drop child only policies. I was very tired when they reported it, but what stood out was the number of folks who would lose insurance because the new law specifies most of the premium should go to health care . . . .

    While better than nothing, (none / 0) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:08:08 AM EST
    the coverage vs benefit received is darn expensive. Employee is paying $14 a week or $728 annually for a plan capping annual benefits at $2,000 per year. IOW the employee is only receiving a maximum of $2,000 of coverage. Is McDonald's contributing anything to this plan? McDonald's refused to disclose its medical-loss ratio.

    I believe that McDonalds states that (none / 0) (#60)
    by coast on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:22:24 AM EST
    a majority of those covered do not have high medical cost (typically less than $5,000).  Based on the fact that the paln covers 100% of doctors visit; 70% of inpatient hospital; and 100% of generic drugs after $5 co-pay, it doesn't sound like such a bad plan when you look at the alternatives.  Try finding a plan with those benefits for individual or family coverage for that cost.  I know they are better off than I am - $11,000 in premiums and $10,000 deductible.  I would take their plan in a heart beat.

    Per spec of McDonald's plan (none / 0) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 12:26:18 PM EST
    100% of doctors visit after $20 co- pay
    $5 copay for generic drugs and $50 for brand names
    70% of inpatient hospital
    and a maximum limit of $2,000 per year

    Is that $11,000 for individual coverage with a $10,000 deductible?

    Friend in 50s with some pre-existing pays around $3,000 for $10,000 deductible for individual coverage here.



    Family coverage (none / 0) (#88)
    by coast on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 12:36:33 PM EST
    in a small group plan where majority of participants are "at risk" (age).  Looked into getting the family covered on their own, but coverage was denied.

    Exemption (none / 0) (#46)
    by coast on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:01:01 AM EST
    From same article - "Federal officials say there's no guarantee they can grant mini-med carriers a waiver. They say the answer may not come by November, when many employers require employees to sign up for the coming year's benefits.

    The government is waiting for the association of state insurance commissioners to draft recommendations. The head of the association's health-insurance committee, Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, said she doesn't think these types of mini-med plans deserve an exemption.

    "If they are sold as comprehensive coverage, we expect them to meet the same [medical-loss ratio] standards as other health plans," she said."

    I don't read that as an indication that the exemption is "most likely", more like "if your lucky".


    Denial (none / 0) (#77)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:40:56 AM EST
    The more companies drop coverage (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:24:27 AM EST
    The sooner single payer will be the only option for America. Next best thing to an insurance strike.

    More health care related news (none / 0) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 09:54:26 AM EST
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- More people signed up for Medicaid last year than at any time since the program's inception, as the recession wiped out jobs and workplace health coverage.
    Nearly every state - 48 in all - took some action to limit Medicaid spending last year, and most plan more cuts next year. Although they didn't reduce eligibility, Kaiser found that states took steps to restrict the scope of coverage:

    • A record 20 states placed restrictions on benefits, and 14 plan new restrictions next year. Arizona, California, Hawaii and Massachusetts eliminated some or all dental coverage. Other states limited medical imaging, therapies, supplies and personal care.

    • Thirty-nine states cut or froze payments to hospitals, doctors and other service providers, and most plan another round next year. Medicaid payment rates are already so low that in many states it's hard to find doctors who will accept the coverage.

    • Eighteen states placed limits on long-term care services, and 10 plan additional limits next year. AP

    I just got a letter from Washington Regence (none / 0) (#92)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    The good news!  Starting in January, they're moving me to a plan I'll have unlimited preventive care with no deductible!  This is in answer to Obama's new regulations!

    The bad news, they're adding a $500 dollar deductible to prescription drugs, they're increasing the co-pay from 30% to 50%, and they're increasing my rates another 10% (after they just enacted a 17% increase).  They're also only going to cover MRI's, CAT scans, and other imaging at 50%.

    To get the same premium I had before this wonderful new plan goes into effect, I'll have to move to their $7500 deductible plan.  Needless to say, I'll be moving to that plan.

    So I can get all the free preventive care I want, but if they find anything that needs less than $7500 worth of care, I'm paying it myself -- all that on top of $5000/yr premiums.  I am seriously considering dropping insurance.  I'll have to get awfully sick to make it worth it.  

    Don't you love good progressive legislation?


    tragic and pathetic (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 09:37:49 AM EST
    Victim of Secret Dorm Sex Tape Posts Facebook Goodbye, Jumps to His Death

    Two students, Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei, have been charged with two counts each of invasion of privacy after allegedly placing a camera in Clementi's room and livestreaming the recording online on Sept. 19, according to a written statement by New Jersey's Middlesex County Prosecutor Bruce Kaplan.

    On Sept. 19, Ravi appears to tweet, "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay."

    these two a$$holes should be made famous and never allowed to forget what they did.

    Yes, this was a despicable act on the roomate's (none / 0) (#19)
    by Angel on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 09:45:06 AM EST
    part.  I'm hoping for a charge of hate crime because it seems to me that's what it was.  I'm so sick of cameras everywhere and anyone and everyone knowing other peoples' business.  Hey, if you want to share YOUR life, go for it.  But for those who want to retain their privacy, leave us the hell alone.  

    I do not think it it a hate crime (none / 0) (#21)
    by nyjets on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 09:52:31 AM EST
    I do not think that this was a hate crime.
    Mind you, the crime was nasty.

    History will be useful (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by waldenpond on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:10:36 AM EST
    I imagine they will look into these two.  If they have ever made and posted videos of heterosexuals they might have cover.  If they have attacked other gays or made homophobic statements, it will show they targeted a person simply because of sexual orientation and be charged as a hate crime.

    The twitter message was: (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Angel on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:22:47 AM EST
    "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.''

    Do you think if he had been making out with a young woman that the text would have reported the gender?  I doubt it very much.  


    yes (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:26:03 AM EST
    this was clearly about outing someone who probably was not out.  
    and I agree with angel it could become a test case of people putting sh!t up in public places of people who do not wish their life to be made public without their permission.

    Yes (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:36:54 AM EST
    But it seems that the only crime here is illegal spying...  a felony, I believe. Some states allow recording sound only or video only without consent, but not both sound and video.

    As tragic as the suicide is, I do not think you can make a crime out of someones suicide for this type of thing.

    Bullying, and relentless taunting is another thing. That kind of activity has led to deaths and the bullies have been held accountable.

    On the face of it, this is a different story.


    its a crime (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:40:26 AM EST
    The Middlesex County prosecutor's office said Mr. Clementi's roommate, Dharun Ravi, 18, of Plainsboro, N.J., and another classmate, Molly Wei, 18, of Princeton Junction, N.J., had each been charged with two counts of invasion of privacy for using "the camera to view and transmit a live image" of Mr. Clementi.

    The most serious charges carry a maximum sentence of five years. Mr. Ravi was charged with two additional counts of invasion of privacy for trying a similar live feed on the Internet on Sept. 21, the day before the suicide.

    Yes (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:01:07 AM EST
    Exactly as I said. The criminal charge has nothing to do with the suicide.

    hence (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:04:33 AM EST
    civil suit

    Ugh (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:08:24 AM EST
    How horrible....  as if money can do anything to bring back the poor kid.

    I would not do it. Too much trauma involved.


    the money is not the point (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:15:02 AM EST
    any more than it was the point in the OJ trial

    Poor Analogy, imo (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:24:48 AM EST
    But whatever, vengeance is a strong emotion for some.

    Forgiveness works out better, imo.

    Fred Goldman came out looking quite disgusting, imo. And I believe that his grief was worsened by the civil suit.

    Nasty business.


    Standard of proof (none / 0) (#40)
    by waldenpond on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:41:00 AM EST
    Seems the standard of proof is quite rigid for applying hate crimes to gays.  'Dude' is not a derogatory term.  It could come across as the guy was titillated by his roommate rather than trying to shame the victim.

    I dont believe it qualifies (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:45:24 AM EST
    as a hate crime.  more like a stupid pathetic crime.

    possibly not (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:12:06 AM EST
    but at the very least they should be taken for everything they and their parents have in a civil suit.

    Why stop there? (1.00 / 0) (#28)
    by vml68 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:16:53 AM EST
    they should be taken for everything they and their parents have

    Why not throw the parents in jail too? How about other friends and family, can we punish them too?


    typical (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:18:14 AM EST
    Typical of what? (none / 0) (#49)
    by vml68 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:05:49 AM EST
    Since when have we decided to punish parents for their adult children's actions?
    Are they accessories because they may have paid for the webcam?
    I am trying to understand your reasoning for wanting to take the parents for everything they've got.

    parents are "punished" (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:11:23 AM EST
    for the acts of their children every day.

    And I ask you again.... (none / 0) (#59)
    by vml68 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:19:59 AM EST
    parents are "punished" for the acts of their children every day.

    If this is what you are advocating for, why just ruin the parents financially? Why not go the whole nine yards and sentence the parents to prison along with the children?


    checking out (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:22:53 AM EST
    I have had my say and you have had yours and I am not interested in debating you.

    I feel a bit to close to this and I would almost certainly end up saying stuff that would at the very least be deleted.


    just out of morbid (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:20:32 AM EST
    curiosity, what do you think should happen to them for directly causing a mans death.

    Per AP article (none / 0) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:38:15 AM EST
    Collecting or viewing sexual images without consent is a fourth-degree crime. Transmitting them is a third-degree crime with a maximum prison term of five years.

    Also, per news, roommate has been arrested.


    IMO (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:46:25 AM EST
    not enough.  

    If they are 18 are the parents still (none / 0) (#52)
    by coast on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:09:32 AM EST
    liable?  I don't know, just asking.  It really won't matter though.  The parents will end up spending a ton in legal fees.

    I read this the other day and had the same reaction as you.  Sad and cruel.  The discriptions of the kids sound like he was just a nice talented kid.  


    no idea (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:13:51 AM EST
    but it time to take a stand against this sh!t.  if the parents (or the students if they are not dependents) are made to pay till it hurts perhaps more thought will be given to doing this stuff next time.

    Are you making an argument for (none / 0) (#66)
    by vml68 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:26:22 AM EST
    Capital punishment?... If we sentence a murderer/rapist/whoever to death it will make people give more thought to killing/raping/whatever next time?

    if the parents (or the students if they are not dependents) are made to pay till it hurts perhaps more thought will be given to doing this stuff next time.

    I agree. Something is seriously wrong with (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:28:09 AM EST
    a world in which these two thought this was amusing or in any way a good idea. Only very stiff penalties will make others think twice.

    This was a horrible act and the (none / 0) (#75)
    by vml68 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:38:53 AM EST
    two students should have to pay for it. But, I don't agree with CHowdy's contention that the parents should be liable.

    What damages? (none / 0) (#68)
    by waldenpond on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:29:45 AM EST
    What are they going to get from college students?  I guess you could go after future earnings.  They are both over 18 so the parents aren't liable.

    future earnings works for me (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:34:54 AM EST
    they do this all the time right?

    No point in suing the kids (none / 0) (#74)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:38:45 AM EST
    I do wonder if you could reach Rutgers, though.

    Now you have your lawyer hat on. (none / 0) (#78)
    by coast on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:42:09 AM EST
    Where is the big money?

    My quick search (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:55:23 AM EST
    on the relevant law. (DISCLAIMER: IANAL, IANYL, and this is not legal advice):

    [T]o establish liability for [the negligent infliction of emotional distress], a plaintiff must prove that defendant's conduct was negligent and proximately caused plaintiff's injuries. The negligence of defendant, however, depends on whether defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff, which is analyzed in terms of foreseeability. "[L]iability should depend on the defendant's foreseeing fright or shock severe enough to cause substantial injury in a person normally constituted." Caputzal v. The Lindsay Co., 48 N.J. 69, 76, 222 A.2d 513 (1966).

     While the foreseeability of injurious consequences is a constituent element in a tort action, foreseeability of injury is particularly important in the tort of negligent infliction of emotional harm. This reflects the concern over the genuineness of an injury consisting of emotional distress without consequent physical injury. In these situations, there must be "an especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress, *430 arising from special circumstances, which serves as a guarantee that the claim is not spurious." Prosser & Keeton, supra, § 54 at 362. In emotional distress cases, there has been "a constant concern about the genuineness of the claim."

    The progression has been from denying recovery unless the emotional distress is accompanied by physical impact, Eyrich for Eyrich v. Dam, 193 N.J.Super. 244, 252[, 473 A.2d 539] (App.Div.), cert. denied, 97 N.J. 583[, 483 A.2d 127] (1984), to permitting recovery if the emotional distress results in physical injury, Falzone v. Busch, 45 N.J. 559, 569[, 214 A.2d 12] (1965). More recently, we have found a sufficient guarantee of genuineness, even in the absence of physical injury, if the plaintiff perceives an injury to another at the scene of the accident, the plaintiff and the victim are members of the same family, and the emotional distress is severe. Portee v. Jaffee, 84 N.J. 88, 93[, 417 A.2d 521] (1980). [ Buckley v. Trenton Sav. Fund Soc'y, 111 N.J. 355, 365, 544 A.2d 857 (1988).]

    Thus, recovery for negligent infliction of emotional harm requires that it must be reasonably foreseeable that the tortious conduct will cause genuine and substantial emotional distress or mental harm to average persons. See, e.g., Giardina v. Bennett, 111 N.J. 412, 417, 545 A.2d 139 (1988); Buckley v. Trenton Sav. Fund Soc'y, supra, 111 N.J. 355, 544 A.2d 857; Procanik v. Cillo, 97 N.J. 339, 478 A.2d 755 (1984); Schroeder v. Perkel, 87 N.J. 53, 432 A.2d 834 (1981); Portee v. Jaffee, 84 N.J. 88, 417 A.2d 521 (1980); Berman v. Allan, 80 N.J. 421, 404 A.2d 8 (1979).

    Unless a plaintiff's alleged distress is truly genuine and substantial, the tort of negligent infliction should not be broadened to permit recovery of damages. Hence, the genuineness and severity of emotional distress can present threshold questions of law.

    Decker v. Princeton Packet, Inc.  116 N.J. 418, 429-430, 561 A.2d 1122, 1128 (N.J.,1989)

    well (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    Thus, recovery for negligent infliction of emotional harm requires that it must be reasonably foreseeable that the tortious conduct will cause genuine and substantial emotional distress or mental harm to average persons.

    certainly seems obvious enough to me.  in fact "genuine and substantial emotional distress" would seem the only reason for doing it.


    My guess is that the two teens (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:57:52 AM EST
    have now been punished enough. I attribute responsibility higher up the influence chain.

    what do (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:59:40 AM EST
    you mean
    who is higher up?
    they thought it up and did it.

    They didn't kill him (none / 0) (#53)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:09:52 AM EST
    By "higher up," I mean the people who run and enable anti-gay campaigns.

    they did (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:12:00 AM EST
    kill him

    Not in a criminal justice sense, IMO (none / 0) (#58)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:19:46 AM EST
    You could probably come up with a tort theory, though.

    yes (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:23:25 AM EST
    I agree

    I hope they have at least been summarily (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:33:39 AM EST
    dismissed from Rutgers. I don't believe it was a hate crime on its face (maybe they have a history of gay bashing that has not come out yet, and that would change my mind), but a very serious crime nonetheless.

    I can't imagine how mad their parents must be. I hope they are anyway. Really a sick, despicable thing to do.


    I wish I could be sure (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:37:25 AM EST
    their parents were "mad".  unfortunately I have lived long enough to know that there are plenty of people out there who would not care less because the kid was gay and if they are mad about anything it would be getting caught and causing a scene.

    but I agree with you, I hope so.


    Are the parents of the young man (1.00 / 0) (#80)
    by itscookin on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 12:02:36 PM EST
    who committed suicide at least a little bit responsible for not helping to provide their son with a safe environment for being open about his sexual preferences?

    aren't the parents of a rape victim... (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 12:09:02 PM EST
    ...at least a little responsible for allowing their daughter to wear that revealing blouse?

    Come on.  I would guess that this kid was not out of the closet with his family, nor would I guess that he felt emotionally ready to be. Just, uh, my wild guess.


    It wouldn't be a parent's fault (1.00 / 0) (#99)
    by itscookin on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:16:04 PM EST
    if a daughter was raped while wearing revealing clothing, but if the daughter committed suicide because she was afraid to reveal to her parents that she had been raped, then, yes, her parents would be partially liable for the suicide. As parents, we need to take some responsibility for making our kids afraid of us. So the young man wasn't out to his parents. I agree that this is not the ideal way to approach coming out, but this young man felt the only alternative he had was to commit suicide. If it were my son, I would believe that I shared some of the blame.

    As a parent of a homosexual (now adult) child, (none / 0) (#134)
    by the capstan on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 07:58:53 PM EST
    I agree 100%.

    'As parents, we need to take some responsibility for making our kids afraid of us. So the young man wasn't out to his parents. I agree that this is not the ideal way to approach coming out, but this young man felt the only alternative he had was to commit suicide. If it were my son, I would believe that I shared some of the blame.'

    Analogous to the girls of the past who died at the hands of abortionists because they were afraid to go to their parents for help.  But it would have been clearer to say 'As parents, we need to take some reponsibilty (a lot, actually) if we have made our kids afraid to be honest with us.'

    It's hard being a teen.  It's hard going away from home and friends.  It's a darn sight harder if you are gay--and if you are hiding, how much harder still?  Kids are not usually born
    expecting to be 'gay'--mostly I think they expect pretty much to live like their parents.  And then comes being tossed off the train at the wrong stop (until they find a new road map).


    Wow (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 12:30:28 PM EST
    How insensitive...  is it also the parents "fault" that their son was gay, in your mind?

    No, it's no one's "fault" (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by itscookin on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:10:12 PM EST
    that someone is gay because there's nothing wrong with being gay. My point is that if he had been secure in the knowledge that his family accepted his sexuality, then while he might have been embarrassed that sexually explicit video of him had been made public, it would have been unlikely to push him to commit suicide. If his parents created a hostile environment for him to pursue his own sexual preferences, then they helped create the atmosphere that led him to suicide.

    first (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:19:04 PM EST
    he may have been out to his family.  we do not know the reason he jumped.  except that it was caused by the video.  I can imagine more than one reason that does not include parents.
    second, its good to know "there is nothing wrong with that"

    People here were suggesting (none / 0) (#106)
    by itscookin on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:38:14 PM EST
    that the parents of the two students who created the video should be held financially responsible to the parents who lost their son because their children had behaved very badly . My only point was that all of parents had children who obviously needed more guidance and help than they got, and all of them share responsibility if any of them do.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#119)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:24:50 PM EST
    Maybe the parents had a genetically transmissible propensity for depression as well.

    parents are held responsible (none / 0) (#121)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:26:19 PM EST
    for the actions of children all the time.  whether it is borrowing the car and killing someone or standing of the roof and shooting out the neighbors windows, as happened locally recently.

    this is not a new idea.

    if they are not children thats another matter.  


    Good Point! (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:34:43 PM EST
    First reasonable thing you have said about this catastrophe, imo.

    Obviously the issue is personal and quite sensitive to you..  almost lynch mob level..

    I can comfortably cut you slack on this one because of it.


    well (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 03:02:30 PM EST
    I wont deny that I would give a weeks pay for 30 minutes alone with those two and two feet of rubber hose.  

    I would be happy to take them both at once.


    Terrible (none / 0) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 12:44:12 PM EST
    But I did also see some of Dan Savage's vids at the link for teens dealing with their sexuality.  I feel very grateful that such things are available and that adults are reaching out to the kids.  I had a friend that I got to grow up with.  We were close because we both lost our mothers at around the age of 7.  There are some things about me that nobody will ever understand other than her.  In our early 20s she tried to kill herself and as it turns out it was because she is gay.  The last time that I saw her she was with a church group trying to cure herself for her family and I guess the shame that she felt.  She seemed so numb and smiling and rictus.  Her dad was happy.  I was terrified, I couldn't see how she wasn't going to finish the job.  I couldn't deal with it and what I thought was going to happen to her so I had to completely disconnect myself.  I don't know if she made it, but I could not afford to watch someone who had spent years with me talking about the aloneness of growing up motherless finally just kill herself for everyone else's desires.

    IMO (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by SOS on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:36:36 AM EST
    anyone who would spend $119 million of their own money to run for Governor is likely insane anyway.

    The Latest (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by call me Ishmael on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:48:06 PM EST
    I heard is that apparently the Whitman Camp is back-peddling on its story and suggesting that her husband "may" have seen the letter from the IRS but thought the housekeeper would handle it.  The issue here aside from the question of the hours is that Whitman has been running the typical demonization of undocumented worker campaign and yet was pretty cavalier about the whole thing until it seemed like it might have political impact.  Sort of like her voting history.  It also reinforces the fact that she has no idea how most people live and thinks that firing people is the way to help the economy.

    When does the housekeeper claim... (none / 0) (#3)
    by EL seattle on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:42:06 AM EST
    ... that Whitman found our about her actual status?  The .pdf contains copies of an Employment Eligibility Verification form (that has the Lawful Permanent Resident selection checked - with an ID number), and includes copies of two documents that were required for "employer verification".  

    Obviously, if the housekeeper wasn't a Lawful Permanent Resident, that first document is inaccurate.  But what about the others?  If a person isn't a Lawful Permanent Resident, is it possible for them to get a valid California Drivers License and/or a Social Security Card that doesn't indicate that fact?

    Unless these documents are forgeries, I think that when Whitman hired Santillan, she probably had no reason to doubt that the housekeeper was in this country legally.  The question would be at what point she found out that Santillan hadn't been completely honest about the "I attest, under under penalty of perjury..." part on the Employment Eligibility Verification form.

    After looking at what was i the TMZ .PDF (m.o.u.s.e), I have two questions:

    1.) Is it likely that potential employers are less suspicious of - and give a little more slack to - applicants who include a smiley face as part of their signature?  (Check out the copies of Santillon's provided SS card and other legal forms.)

    2.) Whatever happened to The Smoking Gun?  Don't tell me that TMZ is scooping them on this sort of thing now, too.

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Radix on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:59:58 AM EST
    She filled out a questionnaire? Where's the copy of here green card? If we call people un=documented workers, wouldn't that imply there actual documents which show legal eligibility to work here? Some how I don't think such documents are hand written questionnaires.  

    That's all in the TMZ .pdf document package. (none / 0) (#5)
    by EL seattle on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 03:52:01 AM EST
    Here's a link to the latest .PDF version of the OMB No. 1115-0136 form.  

    See the "LISTS OF ACCEPTABLE DOCUMENTS" section on the last page for a description of what legal ID material is also required along with the form.


    Or try this ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by EL seattle on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:02:41 AM EST
    If this .PDF File won't link, you might be able to cut and paste:

    Colin (none / 0) (#7)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:05:01 AM EST
    Powell practically announced the other week that he hires "illegal" immigrants all the time?

    Why is he not in the dock?

    He clarified his remarks, said he meant that (none / 0) (#18)
    by Angel on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 09:38:06 AM EST
    he sees the illegals all over his neighborhood, not actually AT or inside his home.  

    How does he know they (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 09:47:01 AM EST
    are illegal?  Do they all have a flashing neon "I'm an illegal" sign on their forehead or the matching T-shirts?

    Beats me how he thinks he knows. I'm just (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Angel on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:16:24 AM EST
    reporting that he made a clarification that he did not employ illegals in his own home, as his original poorly worded statement implied.  

    Isn't it the lack of valid immigration status (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:35:00 AM EST
    that causes "those people" to have that weird brownish skin color and funny Spanish-sounding accent?

    A little more Colin... (none / 0) (#89)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 12:40:25 PM EST
    Colin may have "clarified" what he said, after he realized the consequences of what he said...

    But this is what he said:

    "They're all over my house, doing things making repairs. I'm sure you've seen them at your house."

    He said his house. Doing repairs, yet.
    Not his neighborhood.


    He said they were "all over" his house. (none / 0) (#139)
    by EL seattle on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 12:00:24 PM EST
    And that he's "sure" you've seen them at your house too.

    Maybe this is a bit of poetic license to make his overall point?  A bit of exaggeration for dramatic efffect?

    It doesn't quite sound like it was intended as some sort of under-oath statement of fact to me.


    Either That (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 12:12:58 PM EST
    Or his gated community provides the services and he has little to do with the grounds personal and hiring for upkeep.

    Gloria Allred has pics, signed by Colin. (none / 0) (#141)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 12:13:54 PM EST
    She's going to release them tomorrow, if Colin denies it today...

    Pecs or Pics (none / 0) (#142)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 12:18:20 PM EST
    I heard that he signed her pecs (late one night), but did not know that he signed her pics as well..

    What probably bothers Powell the most... (none / 0) (#143)
    by EL seattle on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 12:26:38 PM EST
    ... is that he has to sign all those pictures.  I'm sure all troves of guys working all around his house all want autographs.

    This might actually be decent idea for a TV sitcom.  Sort of modern version of "Mr. Blandings Builds his Dream House."  


    Better not deny signing them. (none / 0) (#144)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 12:44:31 PM EST
    Even if he really didn't sign them, Glo can probably produce pics with his sig on them. ;-)

    is it just me, (none / 0) (#9)
    by cpinva on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 07:39:00 AM EST
    or does it seem that a significan number of ms. allred's clients start out with a bang (big press conference, lots of allegations), and end with a whimper (cases dismissed, or never actually filed)? i have no idea of the validity of these claims, and my intent isn't to impune anyone's reputation.

    that said, i have to wonder how ms. allred benefits, from cases that go nowhere? yes, i know she gets tons of free publicity, but free publicity doesn't, by itself, pay the bills. am i to assume these high-profile, no income cases are merely a sideshow, and that her real income comes from really boring, yet paying clients?

    I was wondering the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 08:42:06 AM EST
    I think the high profile cases that go nowhere must keep her name out there for the more boring cases. Kind of like her advertising budget.

    Interesting that she claimed Zero (none / 0) (#10)
    by Rojas on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 07:44:09 AM EST
    exemptions and requested that withholding be at the higher single rate. I would say this is not typical for someone who is using a fake SS document.
    My experience has been that they have 9 exemptions even if they are only 18yrs old.

    Doesn't take fake docs to claim 9 dependents (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by DFLer on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 09:28:57 AM EST
    Used to do it all the time, then claim the proper number when filing. When you work for good pay once every month or two, you get dunned at a rate as if you made that $$ every week. Anyway....

    But yah, I take your point about no intent to deceive (yes ?)


    Carl Paladino threatens reporter (none / 0) (#11)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 08:03:43 AM EST
    Gotta love NY politics.  After Carl Paladino suggested Andrew Cuomo had an extra-marital affair, Fred Dickerson of the NY Post tried to ask him what evidence he had.  Paladino lost it, accusing Dicker of being a "bird dog" for Cuomo and sending photographers to take photos of the daughter he had out-of-wedlock 10 years ago.

    "I want to know why you sent your goons after my daughter, Fred," Paladino demanded. "You send another goon to my daughter's house and I'll take you out, buddy!"

    Break out the popcorn .... I hope they send Dicker to every Paladino event for the rest of the campaign.

    I don't think this is a political stunt (none / 0) (#14)
    by Slado on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 09:28:07 AM EST
    Just a stunt by a opportunist.

    Sure GA is a democrat etc.. etc... but her past shows that she is just looking to capatalize on a celeberity no matter if they're a politician or a sports star.

    Why would anyone give the benefit of the doubt to GA?   The benefit of the doubt should go to the accused int his case and it appears that she did nothing wrong other then be naive about her employee's status.

    How much farther would anyone of us gone?   She said she wasn't illegal, produced documents.  That's enough for me.  

    Remember many are outraged that the state of AZ is going to go farther to document status but we're supposed to expect this private citizen who wants to run fro public office to do more?

    This is a publicity stunt of the first order and Mrs. Whitman is right to fight back hard.

    Re:Gloria Allred (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:38:35 AM EST
    I would suggest that her life experiences have had a great deal to do with her approach to being a lawyer, from answers(dot)com:

    Allred says her interest in the struggle for equal rights arose from personal experiences. While she was in college, she married, gave birth to a daughter, and divorced. Unable to collect child support  from her former husband, she was forced to return to her parents' home. She also recalls being paid less than a man for what she considered equal work. The reason given was that the man had a family to support, but at the time, Allred was the single mother of an infant. Perhaps the experience that most galvanized her commitment to equal rights was being raped and then having to undergo an abortion  at a time when the operation could not legally be performed by a doctor. She nearly died after the operation. According to Allred, the experience made her realize the need for safe and legal abortions and precipitated her lifelong commitment to the fight for reproductive freedom.

    Allred is perhaps the most flamboyant and well known member of her firm. She has achieved notoriety and name recognition through staged press conferences and demonstrations publicizing and dramatizing the cause she is championing at the time. She also accepts controversial cases that naturally attract media attention. During her years in practice, she has successfully sued Los Angeles County to stop the practice of shackling and chaining pregnant inmates during labor and delivery; put a halt on the city of El Segundo's quizzing job applicants about their sexual histories (Thorne v. City of El Segundo, 802 F.2d 1131 [9th Cir. 1986]); represented a client who was turned down for a job as a police officer after a six-hour lie detector exam that included questions about her sex life; and sued a dry cleaning establishment for discrimination because it charged more to launder women's shirts than men's.

    Click Me

    You don't rack up wins like the above being a publicity hound, especially with judges on the CA appellate circuit.

    The first three cases mentioned sound like they were serious, important cases that any lawyer would be proud to have on their resume.

    Ms. Whitman should find the best civil attorney in CA whose specialty is defending suits brought by former employees against their ex-employers and hiring him, it would be money well spent.


    Is that true? (none / 0) (#76)
    by coast on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:39:55 AM EST
    "sued a dry cleaning establishment for discrimination because it charged more to launder women's shirts than men's".  If so, that is a great example of why our judicial system is ridiculous.  How was that not thrown out the minute it landed on the court steps.  That is a business decision, not descrimination.  If a customer wants to pay less they can go to a different store.  What is next, a class action suite against all the barber shops that charge more to cut a woman's hair than a man's?  Absurd!

    iirc (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 12:07:29 PM EST
    you couldn't go somewhere that charged less. woman's shirts button on the opposite side. it was common practice to charge more.

    You use the past tense "was" (none / 0) (#87)
    by coast on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 12:32:13 PM EST
    Isn't it still the case.  It is at every cleaner I go to.  Also, I have about 10-12 dress shirts.  All are pretty much the same.  My wife has go knows how many different blouses, none of which are the same (in cut, fabric, you name it).  So why would I expect - demand - that the business charge me the same?

    Her other accomplishments withstanding, this example just ticks me off because some guy is out there trying to make a living and following industry practicies, which are still being followed and are not desciminatory given the fact that there are evident differences between what men wear and what woman wear, and he has to fork over lord knows how much money to a lawyer to defend himself against something like this.  And in the end apparently loses.  Again, absurd.


    i said was because (none / 0) (#128)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:10:58 PM EST
    i don't have things dry cleaned anymore (think years!) but why should i pay more for a plain cotton dress shirt to be cleaned than you? and yours more than likely is a lot bigger than mine . . . .

    Gov race in MN (none / 0) (#16)
    by DFLer on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 09:34:21 AM EST
    I posted previously that Dayton was showing growing strength in the polls over the dickish Emmer-gop and Horner -(pushed out former middlegop, now indie)

    Today I see in the state political news that VP Joe Biden will be coming to campaign for Dayton. Hope that doesn't hurt the polling! :o)

    IMO Whitmans problem (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:16:42 AM EST
    is not so much the illegality of the nanny but as HotAir says the "[C]old and heartless treatment of a hardworking Latina."

    The "hardworking" Latina (none / 0) (#82)
    by itscookin on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 12:08:28 PM EST
    was paid very well for domestic work, and the unemployment rate hasn't been high for the whole 9 years she worked for Whitman. She could have gone elsewhere if her working conditions were horrible.

    The arrangement was that she (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:06:51 PM EST
    was to be paid $23/hr for 15 hours of work; that's a nice hourly rate.  Except that, soon after she started working, Whitman started adding more duties beyond the housecleaning she was hired to do - nanny responsibilities, personal errands, etc., that had her working more than 15 hours, and using her own car, spending her own money for gas to run Whitman's errands and transport her children.

    Whe she approached Whitman about wanting to be paid for the additional hours, Whitman said no - that the deal was 15 hours and that's all she was going to pay for, and that if she didn't want to fulfill these duties, she could just hit the road.  Which means that that nice hourly rate got lower and lower the more hours she worked, and even lower for not being reimbursed for mileage/gas.

    When you take that into account, it sure sounds to me like a case of Whitman taking advantage of the employee - and the question I have is, why did Whitman think she could impose these conditions without fear of the employee going elsewhere, and why didn't the employee quit and find other work?

    I think it all comes back to the employee's immigration status, and I am just not believing that Whitman thought the employee was here legally - even with the forms and other materials the employee presented and signed; an employer who makes demands like Whitman is alleged to have made wouldn't have kept demanding more work and more hours with no change in pay with someone she believed to be in the country legally.  Legal residents feel they have recourse, and other options; those who aren't here legally don't - which gives all the power to the employer.

    I'm no fan of Allredd, and I know it's tempting to assume that because this woman is an Allredd client, this is just a lot of noise about nothing, or is about using her to derail Whitman, but immigrants - documented or undocumented - suffer this kind of treatment too often not to give the employee here at least some benefit of the doubt.


    Your analysis makes the most sense (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:13:10 PM EST
    so far Anne.

    Is there some other source (none / 0) (#101)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:19:10 PM EST
    that supports Nicky's contention that the agreement was 23/hr for 15hrs/week of around-the-house work only, and that Whitman forced her to work extra hours, drive her kids w/o reimbursement, etc., contrary to their agreement?

    I don't know, to be honest. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:43:29 PM EST
    I didn't listen to the entire presser, so I don't know whether they are supporting the claims with records or witness depositions or what.  What do the W-2's reflect?  The tax returns?  Did they reflect the same pay for the entire 9-year period?  Did she keep a journal, and are there people - at the kids' schools, after-school activities, businesses she regularly ran errands to - who can say, or have provided statements, that she was doing all these things, and there is no way she could have cleaned the large home AND done all these other things in the 15 hours she was being paid for?

    I'd have to think they would have at least some of these ducks in a row in order to make these allegations - the consequences of just making them up against someone with the connections Whitman has seems foolish at best and dangerous at worst.

    I guess we'll find out soon enough.


    the maid's "I saw the IRS letter in Whitman's garbage" story seems pretty suspect...

    Why? She was there to clean the (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:05:27 PM EST
    house - I assume that means emptying the trash/garbage, so I don't think it's suspect at all.

    And if you were here illegally, knew you had provided false documents, and lived in fear that at some offical level, you were going to be caught, something that looked like an official government communication might easily catch your attention.


    I think she saw the letter alright, (none / 0) (#114)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:20:44 PM EST
    I agree that it would be something that would catch her attention.

    It is a lot more plausible that it caught her attention when it was sitting in plain sight in the mailbox than when it was in a garbage can, imo.


    Also, (none / 0) (#110)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:51:53 PM EST
    who's to say driving the kids wasn't part of the original agreement?

    We had a day-care person who drove our eldest son from his pre-school to her home for after-school daycare. She did it as part of what we were paying her for (she also had our younger son all day).


    Well, the employee says so. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:15:54 PM EST
    Said she interviewed for a 15 hr/week housecleaning position, that it was strictly cleaning and that the other duties were added later.

    Do you think you could schlep kids back and forth to school and other activities, run errands for your employer and clean a 4,000 sq ft house from top to bottom in 15 hours a week?

    I don't think that's possible.

    But let's say, just for the sake of argument, that that was the arrangement.  After a couple of weeks, she goes to  Whitman and says she can't do all these things in the number of hours for which she is being paid.  Whitman says she won't adjust the pay to accommodate the extra hours, but isn't that the effect of not paying for them?  If she's working 40 hours instead of 15, her hourly rate has been lowered, hasn't it?

    When corporate employers do not pay hourly employees for the actual hours worked, they are in violation of a host of wage and hour laws; I guess the question is, is there a written contract that specifies the hours and the pay, and is there evidence that Whitman did not honor it?


    What I don't get is why the (none / 0) (#115)
    by vml68 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:21:36 PM EST
    housekeeper did not quit. I can see staying for a 23/hr job. But, if you end up working so many hours that you are in effect only getting 8/hr, you can get paid that much at quite a few places, undocumented or not.

    perhaps because (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    she believed as she said that Whitman would help her get legal documents.

    Now I am confused... (none / 0) (#122)
    by vml68 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:28:21 PM EST
    I thought Whitman fired her because she asked for help with her legal situation.

    my understanding is (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:29:49 PM EST
    she fired her when she started running for governor.

    According to BOTH their stories... (none / 0) (#125)
    by vml68 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:46:52 PM EST
    the subject of the housekeeper's immigration status was brought up at that time. So why did this housekeeper stick around for 9 years in a situation that she describes as humiliating?

    I do not have a high opinion of Meg Whitman, but the housekeeper's story has a lot of holes in it.


    it seems to me (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:22:11 PM EST
    cleaning a 4000 sq ft house in 15 hours a week would be a non stop job.

    forget everything else.


    Right, the employee says so. (none / 0) (#118)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:24:17 PM EST
    The same employee who says she that happened to stumble on the most important letter in the world (to her, anyway) while taking out Whitman's garbage.

    so the (none / 0) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 12:58:19 PM EST
    you dont know me, I dont know you, yada yada is just par for the course as far as you are concerned.

    why am I not surprised.


    I think you are correct on that (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:10:40 PM EST
    I watched Antichrist too.  I'm still recovering.  I'm not sure I can let my husband ever see it :)  You are right though about the beauty in places.  And what you think initially happened is a parents worst nightmare.  I think we have all had that nightmare.  I can't really do gore either, but I had to find out what happened so I could not just stop watching it.  I'm still digesting, what was the significance of the last scene?  Was able to save his perception of women in general by what he became able to do?  A mindbending movie, and I would flinch and grimace but I couldn't stop needing to know.

    got me (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    I didnt get the ending at all.  but by that time I was just really really happy it was over.

    cant say I didnt warn you.

    still.  its worth it if you are into other than mainstream cinema


    one thing (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:21:16 PM EST
    I do gore.  all the time.  heck, I do it for a living.  but for some reason the context of that, or something, just really really made my skin crawl.

    it was not typical movie gore.

    btw, bambi and the fox . . . .



    Talking fox was a bit much (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:28:01 PM EST
    Whoever wrote this, and I'll go look it up to keep on eye on them, knows a lot about psychology.  I could feel them plant the hooks and getting me emotionally invested.  When she decided to make her husband's "leaving" not doable, wow....my brain fell out.  Can you imagine anyone doing that to you, and I'm not talking about weighing him down....the other thing?  Such a violation.  I was pretty emotionally invested, in the end he did the right thing :)  Now I must recover.  But who really loves cinema and could say that they chose to miss this?

    Oh yeah (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:30:15 PM EST
    And the baby's feet thing stabbed me in the heart good, he did the right thing :)

    Von Trier (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:35:03 PM EST
    wrote it

    I just read up on him (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:50:06 PM EST
    It is stunning.  He has an autobiographical film in which his alter ego is Neitzsche.  His mother told him on her death bed in 89 that who he thought was his father is not his father and she slept with a past employer who was of a long line of classical musicians in order to get the artistic genes :)

    And he makes porn for women, what is not to like about this cat?

    I have not seen Dogville or Manderlay but I will now.  The guy does have a scary understanding of women.


    not seen Manderlay (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:55:34 PM EST
    but Dogville is interesting.  know anything about it?
    it is done like a stage production with no sets.  just marks on the floor for like walls and furniture if I remember correctly.

    And his use of the crow kept snagging (none / 0) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:53:21 PM EST
    me in.  I've been raised and programmed to understand that a crow is a harbinger of death in film noir, not life :)  Very interesting film, it will be running around in my head for days.

    Bis repetita... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Lupin on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:32:55 AM EST
    A 29 yr old French alleged pedophile who might have molested children in Minnesota and had fled the US jurisdiction was arrested in France and arraigned.

    http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/justice/un-francais-recherche-aux-etats-unis-pour-pedophili e-arrete-a-angers_922444.html

    This is what happens when US authorities go to the proper channels and do the proper thing instead of playing cowboys and ignoring other countries' legal systems as they did in the Polanski case.  

    Great (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:35:41 AM EST
    Although it does not appear that Polanski posed any risk to children, in the 40 years after he fled the US.

    That you know of (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 12:26:44 PM EST
    True (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:25:31 PM EST
    You also may be having sex with animals and young children for all I know.

    My only point here... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Lupin on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 12:42:18 AM EST
    ...is not to revisit the facts of the case, but to merely point out, as a French lawyer, that had the Los Angeles DA followed the proper course of action then (and arguably today as well) the case would have received a proper disposition.

    America's stubborn notion that only they, their country, their laws, matter, --"my way or the highway" as the saying goes -- was entirely responsible for the unsatisfactory results.


    Well (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 04:32:10 AM EST
    America's stubborn notion that only they, their country, their laws, matter, --"my way or the highway"

    With all due respect... if you want to argue about nationalism.... France is about as nationalistic a country as they come... no?


    What Result Do You Want? (none / 0) (#129)
    by DaveCal on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:30:12 PM EST
    This is a serious question.  

    I suspect most people here don't like Meg Whitman and won't vote for her, so they probably like the nannygate story for its political fallout.  But what would people have preferred happen in this case?  

    The woman apparently lied on her documentation forms. Should Whitman have done more to check it out?  And if so, or if she otherwise found out later, what should she have done?  Fire her?  Report her to the police?    

    If she lived in SF wouldn't the police be prohibited from cooperating with ICE or INS since its a sanctuary city?  But I think Meg lived in Atherton.  So Atherton police would contact ICE or INS, would those agencies do anything?  Deport her?  

    Isn't the left in favor of leaving these people alone, letting them work to support themselves?

    So, and I mean this sincerely, what would people have preferred happen in this case?  

    I would have preferred (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:37:59 PM EST
    Whitman help her get documentation.  as the woman seemed to think she would.

    ok (none / 0) (#131)
    by DaveCal on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:50:27 PM EST
    That would be very generous of her (both in time and resources I suspect), and I don't know why the woman "thought" Meg would help her get documentation.  But regardless, unless we are now expecting everyone who encounters an illegal immigrant to "help them get documentation" what's the right thing to do? (I personally wouldn't even know where to start in getting her documented).  

    And what do we expect of the undocumented woman?  Can we expect her to try to get proper documentation herself?  More so than Meg?

    Again, I'm being serious.  

    What expectations should we have for the undocumented worker, and what expectations should we have for employers who find out the employee lied about his or her status?  

    Also was Meg required by law to fire her?  


    employers (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:53:45 PM EST
    often help people get documentation.  we do it here all the time.
    as far as time and "resources",  well she is a billionaire.

    Once (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 06:10:28 PM EST
    she found out she was using a false ssn it should have sent up a red flag but it apparently didn't. The fact that she ignored the problem speaks ill of Whitman. She should have either helped her get documentation or had her deported. Whitman apparently wanted to have it both ways. She the situation worked for her because she knew that her maid would never complain about anything she did due to her status I would imagine.

    imo, she should have helped her (none / 0) (#137)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:35:26 AM EST
    iirc, she had already had been working for her for a time. If she was willing to keep her on, because she was doing a decent job, when the letter came, she should have stepped up.