Thursday Afternoon Open Thread

Looks like BTD and I are both busy today. Here's an open thread until we get back. All topics welcome.

< Rahm Emanuel Leaving White House Friday | Obama's New Chief of Staff: Pete Rouse >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    R.I.P. Tony Curtis (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:09:49 PM EST
    He was one of the best...



    Actor Tony Curtis dies at Las Vegas-area home
    AP, September 30, 2010

       The Oscar-nominated actor died Wednesday evening of cardiac arrest at home in the Las Vegas-area city of Henderson, Clark County Coroner Mike Murphy said Thursday. He was 85.

        "He died peacefully here, surrounded by those who love him and have been caring for him," his wife, Jill Curtis, told The Associated Press outside their home. "All Tony ever wanted to be was a movie star. He didn't want to be the most dramatic actor. He wanted to be a movie star, ever since he was a little kid."

    and a star he was (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:17:45 PM EST
    I will always remember him for oysters and snails

    Another Spartacus reference..? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:39:51 PM EST
    he was in his master's house, where he studied da classics..

    He was also a great a story teller. At a point, when many were starting to get exasperated with Kubrick doing two hundred takes for a two minute sequence, he said that he asked someone "who do you have to f*ck to get OUT of this picture?"


    its funny to think (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:52:11 PM EST
    that innocent little line caused so much consternation.

    it always bugged the hell out of me that hollywood loved the era so much but never told the truth about it.

    in that same vein I found another example recently.
    samurai movies.  turns out samurai were the first chapter of NAMBLA:

     Not one of the many hundreds of samurai movies made in the past century even as much as hinted at it nanshoku,  the "love of the samurai"*. From its pivotal position in the education, code of honor, and erotic life of the samurai class, the love of youths has sunk below the level of the untouchable to the level of the unmentionable, truly "the love that dare not speak its name". But the indelible fact remains that one of the fundamental aspects of samurai life was the emotional and sexual bond cultivated between an older warrior and a younger apprentice, a love for which the Japanese have many names, as many perhaps as the Eskimo have for snow.

    Hmmm More ungrateful whiners? (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 03:28:25 PM EST
    Time to call them to task. Waiting....Gibbs, Biden, Obama, anyone??

    Democratic donors like George Soros, the bête noire of the right, and his fellow billionaire Peter B. Lewis, who each gave more than $20 million to Democratic-oriented groups in the 2004 election, appear to be holding back so far.

    "Mr. Soros believes that he can be most effective by funding groups that promote progressive policy outcomes in areas such as health care, the environment and foreign policy," said an adviser, Michael Vachon. "So he has opted to fund those activities."
    The donors' reluctance stems from a variety of factors, including pessimism about the party's prospects in November, but also President Obama's strong condemnations of this kind of independent activity, both during the 2008 campaign and after he was elected. FDL/NYT

    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 03:57:29 PM EST
    Chickens.  Roost.

    We are all fricken whiners until the (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 08:24:32 AM EST
    money doesn't show up :)

    I don't care if they call me a whiner, it was always B.S. from the beginning and I knew that.  As I sit on the sidelines now accompanied by George Soros I will flutter my lashes and jeer back Dumb A$$e$ now when the "whiner" din gets too loud.


    White House pressuring registrars to yank websites (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by boredmpa on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 03:44:50 PM EST
    Even without the new legislation they're going after out of country pharmacies through registrars and payment processors

    This is really about government support for regional product price discrimination in my opinion.  That and it opens up questions of censorship.

    Undoubtedly part of (none / 0) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 03:58:35 PM EST
    the deal made with big pharma to withhold major opposition to health care reform bill.

    Congress AP took care of important (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:11:52 PM EST
    business before leaving to campaign.

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Legislation to turn down the volume on those loud TV commercials that send couch potatoes diving for their remote controls looks like it'll soon become law.

    The Senate unanimously passed a bill late Wednesday to require television stations and cable companies to keep commercials at the same volume as the programs they interrupt.

    The House has passed similar legislation. Before it can become law, minor differences between the two versions have to be worked out when Congress returns to Washington after the Nov. 2 election. AP

    Jobs or loud commercials? Priorities???

    I think this is a wonderful thing (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:14:08 PM EST
    I hate falling asleep in front of the tv and being awakened by a commercial.

    Maybe people who are without jobs and (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:29:54 PM EST
    or about to lose their homes might think that job creation was a little more pressing.

    Of course YMMV if you are secure financially.  


    Im not that clear (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:32:13 PM EST
    on what they could do about jobs even if they were so disposed but I have been complaining, (b!tching endlessly) about this volume thing for years.

    I will take what I can get from this congress.


    Watch youtube (none / 0) (#76)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 06:19:43 PM EST
    of Bill Clinton interview on Wall St Week last Sunday.

    Accordingly to the Detroit Free Press, (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 07:13:34 PM EST
    the University of Michigan has banned Andrew Shirvell, Assistant Attorney General of Michigan, from the campus. Shirvell is appealing the decision. Moreover, the president of the University of Michigan Student Assembly, Chris Armstrong,  has filed a personal protection order against Shirvell fearing for his safety and privacy.  The story about Assistant Attorney General Shirvell's cyber bullying and stalking of Mr. Armstrong, the openly gay student leader, was revealed in a CNN interview of Shirvell by Anderson Cooper.

    Shrivell was apparently shocked to learn that Cooper may be gay but seems to be enjoying his national attention. Shirvell is on a mission to curb the "homosexual agenda" he claims Armstrong advocates, to the extent of starting his own blog that specifically targets the student.  Shirvell has apparently yielded to an obsession with the  handsome student, following his friends in hope of locating Armstrong, taking pictures of Armstrong's house, and calling  the office where Armstrong was doing a summer internship in DC.

    The Attorney General, Mike Cox (I am not making that up) has been supporting his colleague with freedom  of speech arguments as well as that Shirvell's activities are on his own time.  Shirvell is a graduate of Ave Maria Law School, the arch-conservative Catholic institution founded with Domino's Pizza money of Thomas Monaghan and has been an activist with Westboro Church bigots.   It seems to me that Cox has a greater responsibility to the integrity of his office so as to avoid appearances of intimidation and abuse of power.  Perhaps a complaint to the Michigan Bar Association would be an attention grabber for both Cox and Shirvell.

    Oh, he's a Cox appointee (none / 0) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:14:29 PM EST
    Cox is the GOP AG in Michigan who went around Dem. Gov. Granholm to join the GOP AG battallion filing suit against the health care law, if I recall right, despite her refusal to go along with it.  He tried initially to file suit on her behalf as governor, and when she blocked him from doing that, figured out he could file suit on behalf of the people of Michigan without her agreement.

    Yes, Cox seems to have (none / 0) (#97)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 09:48:37 AM EST
     a penchant for outreach and overreach: As Michigan Attorney General he filed an amicus brief in support of California Prop 8 appeal of Judge Vaughan's ruling, and got himself involved in the Arizona immigrant law.

    RIP Greg Giraldo (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:27:55 PM EST
    actually the Giraldo clip is pretty tame (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:34:03 PM EST
    he was visciously funny on the comedy central roasts.

    Too funny. (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:43:53 PM EST
    Whitman's maid, Nicky, said she saw the letter (the one from the IRS telling Whitman that there were problems with Nicky's SS#) in Whitman's garbage.

    As I pointed out yesterday, that seemed a little far-fetched.

    Today, Whitman says if such a letter did come to the house that she (Whitman) never saw it.

    A reporter asked if it's possible that Nicky intercepted the letter and Whitman said yes.

    Now that is a much more plausible story than Nicky's garbage story.

    I wonder of Nicky thought up the garbage story all by herself or if Allred made it up for her...

    why are you so inclined (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:51:05 PM EST
    to believe Whitmans version?  either seem plausible to me

    Why, Capt. Howdy... (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:25:33 PM EST
    Isn't it predictable to make supportive assumptions about those we like and to assume all the worst about those we don't? And, isn't that especially true with party affiliation? Maybe.

    Nicky's is pretty much implausible to me. (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:56:02 PM EST
    Just a fortuitous coinky-dinky that she was looking through Whitman's garbage and reading her mail on the very day the letter arrived?

    No, does not pass the sniff test to me.


    and how does the fact (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:01:49 PM EST
    that Whitman did not know she was undocumented smell?

    Undecided. (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:11:47 PM EST
    She contacted a employment service who sent her Nicky to interview for the job. Whitman hired her and sent in her paperwork.

    If she didn't see any letter from the IRS indicating Nicky's not legal, I would assume Whitman - like every other employer - didn't give it a second thought.

    imo, Nicky would have much more reason to keep an eye out for such letters and keep them from Whitman, than Whitman would have in reading and then disregarding the letter.

    You certainly don't have to have an illegal employee in order to ask or impose additional duties on her, if that's in fact what she did...


    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 03:53:33 PM EST
    Housekeepers/maids empty the trash, you dope, and are pretty frequently nosy enough to be curious about papers like that in among the used tissues and cigarette butts, etc.  In my mother's last years, her once-a-week cleaning lady several times fished stuff out of the wastebasket to give to me because she'd seen it and was worried it shouldn't have been discarded.

    Only reason I can think of is .... (none / 0) (#9)
    by vml68 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:06:19 PM EST
    if one of her duties was getting the mail from the mailbox or answering the door if the mailperson delivered to the door, then she might have known when there was a letter from SSA.

    True. And she would certainly have reason (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:14:53 PM EST
    to intercept such a letter and not let Whitman see it. A lot of reason to do so.

    I was thinking about Tom Tancredo (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:57:41 PM EST
    The erstwhile everything-is-about-illegal-immigration Congressman from Colorado and now the spoiler (for Republicans) thrd-party candidate for Governor. Some years back that same Tancredo had to own up to the fact that he hired "illegals" to do construction work on his basement; apparently, he didn't check. But then, according to him in the "sanctuary city" that us Denverites inhabit, you are responsible, etc. etc. etc. Or maybe not so when it comes to Tancredo himself. (Flashback: All those come-home-to-roost sex scandals & Republicans.) Who knows about Whitman... but ala Tancredo and others didn't she really condemn herself no matter the details? After all, she is a newly minted follower of the Arizona governor...shouldn't she have a strong "burden" on this. To laugh or to cry?

    And, a letter (none / 0) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:23:25 PM EST
    potentially incriminating her in illegal activity is just casually tossed in the waste paper basket in Whitman's house?

    She never thought to stick it in her purse to dispose of properly later?

    A little fishy, no?


    Fishy, yes (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by itscookin on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:50:57 PM EST
    Occam's razor should apply. Since Whitman fired the housekeeper when she discovered she was illegal, it only makes sense that she would fired her earlier if she had known earlier. Whitman was paying fair wages and would have certainly known what the penalties for hiring an illegal are. The person who most benefitted from the letter being "misplaced" was the housekeeper.

    The letter was issued in 2003, so (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 03:06:35 PM EST
    we have two people reaching back into their memory banks to support their respective contentions; it's hard to know who is telling the truth, frankly.

    I thought I had read or heard that there was more than one letter sent; if so, that could mean something.  But I also read that there is no requirement that the employer do anything other than to let the employee know there is a problem with the SSN, and the employee should get it straightened out; the letter may even state this, I don't know.

    And if that's the case, and if there was no duty on Whitman's part to do anything, why wouldn't she just throw the letter out?

    This wasn't a short-term relationship - it lasted nine years, and Whitman must have been happy enough with Nicki that she trusted her to take on child care duties that included ferrying the kids here and there for all that time.

    The balance of power in that relationship was clearly tipped in Whitman's favor, and that means that the potential for abuse of the employer-employee relationship was weighted for Whitman to be the abuser, not Nicki.

    Regardless of whether Nicki was documented or not, and regardless of whether Whitman knew one way or the other, I don't think that gives Whitman - or any employer - the right to take advantage of any employee in the way that is being alleged.

    What Whitman is being alleged to have done is happening all the time, either because people fear the immigration authorities, or, for the millions of legal residents and citizens living on the margins, they need the work so badly they just take it.

    Whitman could have afforded to have a full complement of hired help to assist her with the running of the household and the care of her children; she apparently chose to hire a young Latina and then take advantage of her instead.

    That doesn't cut it with me in any circumstance.


    Again, these are all Nicky's contentions. (1.00 / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 03:25:59 PM EST
    And we already know - for a fact - that Nicky will present untruths when it benefits her.

    We also know that her motivations for the untruths, intercepting mail, etc., were much more than Whitman's. Her motivations were much higher on the hierarchy of needs than Whitman's.

    Nicky had to support her kids and family, Whitman wanted a clean house and a driver.

    Nicky says she came to Whitman in 2009 and

    "asked her for assistance," [Nicky] Santillan said. "I explained to her why I came to the United States. I explained that I was married and our economic situation in Mexico was very bad. We had no job, no food, no place to live and for that reason we made the decision to come here."
    and she said that four days later Whitman fired her because of it.

    Whitman fired her in 2009 because she was illegal. Had she known previously that Nicky was illegal it stands to reason she would have fired her then.


    Whitman Has $117M on the Line (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:09:29 PM EST
    No one knows who is telling the truth, but quit acting like Whitman has no reason to lie.  Her reputation and millions are on the line, she has far more to lose than the maid.

    I would like to know how the maid was paid, and if Whitman followed all the employment laws, such as withholding and unemployment taxes.  Did she pay her in cash, like most who hire people they suspect aren't citizens.

    Sorry, but I just don't buy that a powerful former executive, governor hopeful, and billionaire is letting the maid go through the mail.

    She a service and this business of a mailbox/mailman coming to the door is absurd.  I can also promise you she doesn't toss mail in the trash that is of any importance, even little ole me shreds anything with an address of personal info.

    My god people are such suckers, both stories are ridiculous.


    Good point about the shredder, (none / 0) (#39)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:20:33 PM EST
    no way she'd let a letter like that go into the garbage w/o shredding it first.

    Not so sure about the "no way Whitman would let/make the maid get the mail" part.

    If Whitman does shred her mail, then Nicky is lying about seeing it in the garbage. I wonder if she's flat-out lying about seeing it at all.

    In which case I would guess the letter-in-the-garbage fable was authored by Allred.

    I also don't buy that after 9 years Whitman suddenly realized illegal Nicky was a liability. Whitman has been high-profile for a very long time, an illegal maid would have been a liability to Whitman the whole time.


    Whitman's only obligation upon receipt (none / 0) (#30)
    by coast on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 03:40:10 PM EST
    of the first notice (B Notice) is request information from the worker.  Upon receipt of the second notice, she is suppose to begin backup withholdings.

    I believe the maid now on this (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:55:04 PM EST
    Because I have received one of those notices that a social security number isn't clicking.

    So who's idea was if for Nicky to lie (1.00 / 0) (#88)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 08:31:29 PM EST
    about where/how she saw the letter, was her's or was it Allreds?

    perhaps after the Mr wrote on it (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:36:41 PM EST
    and discussed it with the wife, they decided to pitch it into the trash . . .   ;)

    Now that's funny! (none / 0) (#93)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:49:29 PM EST
    even funnier . . . . (or not ;) ) (none / 0) (#95)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:23:17 AM EST
    hubby received the letter and never shared it with the wife. how else does one explain her saying neither one knew about it?

    GEOtube Building Grows its Own (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 01:50:04 PM EST
    Lace-Like Sea Salt Skin

    The lace-like skin forms once the seawater, misted onto its exposed mesh, evaporates and leaves a layer of salt behind. Because the Persian Gulf has the world's highest salinity for oceanic water, the salt deposits accumulate quickly, making the transparent skin take on a new crystalline appearance.

    That is pretty cool (none / 0) (#13)
    by coast on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:17:41 PM EST
    but what happens when it rains?  Dubai doesn't get much but it gets some.  I wouldn't want to be around if the stuff starts falling off.

    says this (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:19:13 PM EST
    Faulders Studio imagines that after 15-30 years, the salt accumulation would make the skin nearly opaque. At this `mature stage', sea salt could be harvested for commercial use.

    nice place for a margarita bar.  are those allowed in Dubai?


    Yes. (none / 0) (#17)
    by vml68 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:23:58 PM EST
    are those allowed in Dubai?

    in case you have not googled today (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 02:34:44 PM EST
    its the 50th anniversary of the Flintstones.

    how old does THAT make you feel?

    Makes me think of a line from the movie (none / 0) (#28)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 03:33:18 PM EST
    Nightshift. "That Barney Rubble is some actor". LOL

    Almost 50... n/t (none / 0) (#40)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:22:20 PM EST
    Ah... (none / 0) (#43)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:39:06 PM EST
    The dawn of crappy animation...

    hardly (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:41:26 PM EST
    the "dawn" of crappy animation.  perhaps the zenith not the dawn.

    OK (none / 0) (#50)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:50:22 PM EST

    It just seemed that there once was animation that was full.
    The faces moved. Great care was taken with every movement - every shadow.

    Then, one day, they were replaced by stick figures that were shunted across the screen while the bottom part of their mouths moved generically and the rest stayed stagnant.

    I am awed by early Disney, Ub Iwerks and others whose names I can't recall at this moment.

    But that Flintstone style drives me batty.


    the Fleischer Brothers (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:57:04 PM EST

    then there was Hanna Barbera.  Flintstones, Huckelberry Hound, Snagglepuss etc.


    I guess you've never seen... (none / 0) (#91)
    by desertswine on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 09:48:55 PM EST
    Crusader Rabbit!

    Older than the Flintstones (none / 0) (#90)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 09:37:39 PM EST
    . . the self-righteous right wing knows about economics. It occurred to me that the CNN piece about the poll showing atheists more knowledgable about religion that the churchgoers was symptomatic of a larger malaise. When did we become such a shallow, heartless nation?

    I just googled (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 03:22:03 PM EST
    Meg Whitman curious as to what she looked like and found it interesting that she has had McCain and Romney on the campaign trail with her but nary a picture with George W. Bush.

    Only in this WH would a MOH (none / 0) (#27)
    by coast on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 03:28:54 PM EST
    recipient and the grandson of one get turned away at the door.


    Norris was turned away because the SS had not performed a background check on him.  Um...there are only a little 80 MOH recipients alive.  How freakin hard could it be to verify who he is?

    It was a mistake (none / 0) (#29)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 03:35:18 PM EST
    c'mon they had party crashers back in the spring (or whenever that was).  What a silly attack.

    interesting (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:20:16 PM EST
    from JoeMyGod:

    I just got off the phone with Sen. Saxby Chambliss, who said he was calling to personally apologize for the "All fagg*ts must die" comment left here on JMG last Tuesday. I'll paraphrase what Chambliss said to me, but reporters, please don't excerpt any of this as his exact words.

    Well, well, well. (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:35:43 PM EST
    This does not look so good for Whitman's story...

    wonder if that came from the trash (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:40:07 PM EST
    or the SS administration

    Well, if it's legit (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:46:29 PM EST
    it didn't come from either - it came from Whitman's husband.

    If it's bogus, ie, Mr. Whitman didn't do the writing on it, it seems to me it probably came from the SS admin.

    Why would Nicky keep an self-incriminating document for 6 years and not burn it or something?


    who knows (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:48:13 PM EST
    why didnt Monica wash the blue dress

    Pride? (none / 0) (#52)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:53:29 PM EST
    eeeuuu (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:57:29 PM EST
    Meg Whitman's husband declined to say (none / 0) (#58)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:05:34 PM EST
    Meg Whitman's husband declined to say if it is his handwriting on a 2003 document that would have raised flags about the family housekeeper's eligibility to work in this country legally.

    Dr. Griff Harsh walked wordlessly through the lobby of the Doubletree Guest Suites in Santa Monica, where his wife earlier had a news conference.

    Agree, it doesn't prove that Meg Whitman (none / 0) (#60)
    by BTAL on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:25:43 PM EST
    saw it, wrote it or was aware of the issue.  

    Guess if there is an R after the name TL members immediately go for the guilty until proven innocent.

    Reading the instructions on the form, it also appears that, whoever made the note (except Allred that is) brought it to the employee's attention.


    The obvious question (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 06:10:16 PM EST
    Why didn't Whitman perform a complete check at the hiring stage? The immigration issue has been off & on intense in California for 30+ years. Other people check references, etc. Some have raised the DADT comparison. But, it is more than that. An employer has an affirmative responsibility in a number of areas--see Social Security and related--to ascertain what the employee status is. It doesn't take a corporate executive to figure that one out...especially one who has been on recent record as being soooo concerned about illegal immigration.

    It is the same old adjective for Whitman: Hypocrite.


    Sorry Christine, but you need to get all the (none / 0) (#77)
    by BTAL on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 06:20:43 PM EST

    Whitman used an agency to locate and recommend the house keeper.  They, as part of their services, are required to vet candidates.

    The records show that the house keeper completed the forms herself indicating she was legally entitled to work here and provided 2 forms of identification (fraudulently BTW).

    To use your logic, I guess Whitman should have applied the same rules that are part of the AZ law.  You know, just to protect herself from charges of hypocrisy.  Be careful how you toss out that word.


    It took the better part of a decade? (none / 0) (#87)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 08:15:31 PM EST
    Remember this now involves the "court of public opinion."

    "to the employee's attention" (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:28:51 PM EST
    wouldnt that contradict the "not knowing she was illegal" part?

    What says they "knew" she was illegal? (none / 0) (#65)
    by BTAL on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:31:26 PM EST
    There are 12 ways to Sunday for this type of name/SSN disconnect to happen.  The instructions on the form specifically tell them to contact the employee AND that the employee is not obligated to actually show them  the SSN card.

    maybe its me (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:33:18 PM EST
    but it seems it might raise a red flag

    Hmmm, like a professional LEO may (none / 0) (#72)
    by BTAL on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:39:46 PM EST
    in AZ might have his/her "red flag" raised?

    Updated at 3:55 p.m.: An earlier version of this item said the letter contained a signature that might be Harsh's. The letter has handwriting on it, but not a signature.]

    The statement came hours after Whitman held a news conference at which she insisted neither she nor her husband had seen the letter from the Social Security Administration, and suggested that the housekeeper had intercepted it.

    The statement in its entirety:

    "While I honestly do not recall receiving this letter, as it was sent to me seven years ago, I can say it is possible that I would've scratched a follow up note on a letter like this, which is a request for information to make certain Nicky received her Social Security benefits and W-2 tax refund for withheld wages.

    Since we believed her to be legal, I would have had no reason to suspect that she would not have filled it in and done what was needed to secure her benefits.

    "It is important to note what this letter actually says: 'this letter makes no statement about your employee's immigration status.'

    "The essential fact remains the same, neither Meg nor I believed there was a problem with Nicky's legal status and I certainly don't recall ever discussing it with my wife, nor did I ever show her any letter about it.

    The facts of this matter are very clear: Ms. Diaz broke the law and lied to us and to the employment agency.

    When she confessed her deception to us last year, we ended her employment immediately.

    Meg and I played by the rules and followed the law. Ms. Diaz did not.

    If, as she claims, she received this letter and note of inquiry from me, she never answered my request to look into this. Instead, she choose to continue her deception.

    This entire matter is a sad one and it's timing is clearly the result of a calculated and cynical political smear by Meg's opponents."

    ooops! (none / 0) (#46)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:45:06 PM EST
    Ouch (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:50:47 PM EST
    This does not look good for Whitman. She was obviously notified of a problem and either ignored it or chose to falsify information.

    not being a legal eagle I wonder (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:58:45 PM EST
    could she just lose the race or actually be charged with something?

    i'd be happy to just see her (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:02:42 PM EST
    say buh-bye. our airwaves would be so much more pleasant :)

    Let's take a step back here (none / 0) (#79)
    by BTAL on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 06:29:29 PM EST
    on the letter that sarc. linked to in #41.

    •  It is from 2003.  

    •  Who kept that letter for the last 7 years?  

    •  The house keeper?  Why would she keep that when it provides evidence against her?  

    •  Was she hoping for a big payday from a "millionaire" CEO?  

    2 + 2 isn't adding up to 4 here.

    Baseball (none / 0) (#42)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:36:29 PM EST
    I was just wondering why it should be such a sin for Pete Rose to have placed bets on his team to win?

    I could see a problem if he were to have bet on his team to lose, and then throw a game...

    But betting on his team to win?
    And then winning?

    I just don't get it.

    greatest thing since sliced bread (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 04:46:26 PM EST
    Oh look: there's a mouse in my bread

    Forse, who bought the bread from a supermarket in 2009, said Monday he first thought a dark spot in the bread -- branded Best of Both -- was some poorly mixed dough.

    Then he noticed it had fur.

    you need to see the pic

    Speaking of recipes... (none / 0) (#61)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:27:54 PM EST
    I like these by Marshall Efron:

    Lemon Cream Pie


    Sardine Rarebit


    broken (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:34:12 PM EST

    Another try... (none / 0) (#71)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:38:13 PM EST
    Lemon Cream Pie

    Sardine Rarebit

    If this fails again, go to YouTube and search Marshall Efron.

    These two, plus his hilarious discussion of Olives, are my favorites.


    hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:50:21 PM EST
    "we'll just let this set chemically and heat up by itself"

    hmmmm (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:01:07 PM EST
    The Americans For Legal Immigration (ALIPAC) have issued a press release calling for the arrests of Meg Whitman and her former housekeeper for violating employment and immigration laws.

    Did Reid and the Senate Dems handcuff Obama? (none / 0) (#63)
    by BTAL on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 05:29:27 PM EST
    No recess appointments during the campaign period.  Were they afraid of any election fall out?  Obviously, the most important nomination is the OMB director since there was no Budget Resolution or appropriations bills passed.

    Poor governing from the Dem leadership.

    Senate blocks recess appointments with deal between Dems, GOP

    Senate Democrats struck a deal Wednesday night with Republicans that will keep President Obama from making recess appointments while Congress is out of town campaigning for the midterm elections.

    Democratic leaders have agreed to schedule pro-forma sessions of the Senate every week over the next six weeks, a move that will prevent Obama from making emergency appointments, according to Senate sources briefed on the talks.



    Guess all the political wonks here (none / 0) (#78)
    by BTAL on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 06:22:02 PM EST
    don't see this as an issue for both the country or the Dem leadership.

    Issue may be more complex (none / 0) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 06:44:18 PM EST
    than it appears. Per TPM

    The reason, according to top Democratic and Republican aides has nothing to do with recess appointments per se, but rather with protecting the rest of Obama's executive and judicial nominees.

    All presidential nominees expire when Congress adjourns for recess, unless the entire Senate agrees they can be carried over to the next session. Obama's had to renominate several of his picks after recent recesses because of this obscure rule, and with Republicans, and even some Democrats, objecting to so much these days, Reid's decision will allow all of Obama's nominees to remain valid when the Senate returns in November.

    I'm not enough of a procedural wonk to know if the stated reason is sound enough to offset the opportunity to make recess appointments.


    It works (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 08:54:44 PM EST
    At least, Bush respected it. If the GOP takes control of either chamber in November, that's it for recess appointees for the foreseeable future.

    It's too bad: I was hoping that Obama would go for broke and just fill up the Federal bench.


    I appreciate the nuance and some of the (none / 0) (#82)
    by BTAL on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 06:53:44 PM EST
    supposedly archaic rules, but if previous recesses resulted in "renominations" then it appears to be an administrative exercise (see the previous Obama recess appointments).  The same could/would happen when Congress reconvenes in Nov.

    This action by Reid clearly blocks any recess appointments.  


    No argument that it (none / 0) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 07:39:34 PM EST
    clearly blocks any recess appointments. Would never put my money on "they can't be that stupid" when it comes to politicians. Here is a little more info on the subject:

    Janet Yellen and Sarah Bloom Raskin finally got confirmed by the Senate as members of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors. Peter Diamond, another nominee, will have to wait until the lame duck session. The confirmations were part of a large deal, where some nominees got to move through the Senate in exchange for Democrats holding pro forma sessions so President Obama could not make any recess appointments. The 54 nominees confirmed included 12 ambassadors, 11 U.S. Marshals, 6 U.S. attorneys and one district court judge. Basically, Mitch McConnell threatened to send everyone back to the White House:

    Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had threatened to send Obama's most controversial nominees back to the president if Democrats did not agree to schedule pro-forma sessions, according to a senior GOP aide.

    Senate rules give McConnell this power.

    That would have forced the president to resubmit the nominees to the Senate and Democrats to start their confirmation processes (including hearings) all over again.


    As I stated, I do not know all the ins and outs of the Senate's procedures. Seems that the resubmission including hearings would definitely prevent any action taking place on the other outstanding appointments during the lame duck session. Also from what I've read, the lame duck session is completely overbooked with outstanding legislation without adding anything else to the schedule. See The Fattest Lame Duck in Captivity: 20 Bills Possible for Lame Duck Session


    You are correct regarding the lame duck (none / 0) (#85)
    by BTAL on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 07:50:05 PM EST
    session.  If it wasn't our country, it would be comical that after ~2 years with massive majorities and the WH, the Congress is even considering a huge lame duck agenda.  Sad or pathetic, take you choice.

    There probably was some serious horse trading happening to clear 54 nominations but, to then handcuff your own party's POTUS ANDnot get anything else in return is lame (pun intended).