Undocumented that is – a former housekeeper of nine years claims she was fired just before Whitman kicked off her campaign. Attorney Gloria Alred will be filing a claim for back wages and mileage reimbursement. If Whitman knew about her undocumented status as the woman claims – ouch!
Whitman’s people are already on damage control.
How many times have we been through this? Feinstein did survive her undocumented help controversy, but other pols haven’t fared so well.
Addendum: When the going gets rough, blame it on your opponent.
FYI, Gloria Alred and Brown have actually never been friends. She actually protested outside his office one time.
She once held a press conference in the office of California governor Jerry Brown to cast media attention on his threat to VETO a bill authorizing payroll deductions for child support payments. When the news media arrived, Allred and a group of women and children had hung diapers across the governor’s office. Brown reversed his position and signed the bill.
I bet Brown plays this one cool, and cruises into office. It’ll be especially devastating if he says he doesn’t believe it’s an issue, kind of like what Coons is doing in Delaware.
Second addendum: Meanwhile, in the latest poll Brown is breaking it open.
Third addendum: Whitman denies she knew and that she was “shocked” when she found out after 10 years of employment. She says that the social security number didn’t match her housekeeper’s name. She’s going to have to elaborate on that. Kos has the following:
According to a spokeswoman at the Social Security Administration, all employers are required to verify Social Security numbers before hiring someone, and that it “has been the case for ten years or longer.” Further, the Internal Revenue Service requires employers to use Social Security numbers to report wages.
If Whitman is already lying about this, it’s going to become a much bigger deal.
38 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 29, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Anonymous
Alred may not be Brown’s friend, but I’m sure she does not want Whitman to win. Obviously it’s politically motivated whether or not Brown had anything to do with it or Alread would have filed suit months ago.
Has Brown commented yet?
September 29, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Eric Kirk
Probably right. Thing is, with everything going Brown’s way lately, I don’t see that he would even want this strategically. It will probably work in his favor, but you never know how the electorate will react and you don’t rock the boat when you’re winning.
September 29, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Mitch
The media will probably focus on what Whitman knew and when she knew it. Maybe that matters legally, but it’s pretty irrelevant from the point of view of character.
Whitman says Diaz is like a member of her extended family.
Diaz says after she went to Whitman asking for help with immigration, Whitman told her “I don’t know you. We never met. Don’t call my kids — I’ll tell them you wanted to be a student.”
Apparently, after nine years of having Diaz as a member of her “extended family,” Whitman wasn’t willing to offer Diaz the help one would offer a dog in trouble.
Whitman probably never thought acting like a human being to someone she’d employed in her home for nine years would turn out to be helpful in her career path. Let’s see if a hundred million dollars of advertising can buy her way out of this demonstration of pure malevolent evil.
September 29, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Anonymous
“pure malevolent evil”
Now don’t hold back, Mitch.
September 29, 2010 at 7:51 pm
moviedad
I’m not fan of Whitman. But there is always more to the story. The fact that she is a “Job-exporter” should be enough for working class voters. But the media does its work well.
September 29, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Mitch
Someone works as a maid to a billionaire for nine years, asks for some help, and gets tossed out on their ass. Then, the billionaire refers to the maid as like family. Yup, “pure malevolent evil.” No need to exaggerate.
September 29, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Eric Kirk
I agree Mitch. And that’s even assuming she’s telling the truth about her ignorance of the woman’s status.
September 29, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Eric Kirk
Someone responding off-forum brings up a point. I was saying that while the 120 million Whitman spent may not have paid dividends in political terms, at least it helped with stimulus. As this person notes however, imagine the impact of her money if she had instead chosen two schools from each county in the state and given each a million dollars.
September 30, 2010 at 8:48 am
Plain Jane
If Whitman cared about California schools the main plank in her platform wouldn’t be cutting taxes for herself and her rich friends which will further decimate school funding.
September 30, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Joel Mielke
“No need to exaggerate.”
And thus, no need to resort to hyperbole.
September 30, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Eric Kirk
A conservative anti-illegal immigration group is calling for Meg Whitman’s arrest.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/arrest_meg_whitman_housekeeper_says_conservative_i.php?ref=fpb
September 30, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Mitch
Joel,
I think you and I just don’t agree with one another. I was not using hyperbole. I view a billionaire employer who throws her nine year household employee overboard without offering help to be a classic demonstration of exactly what I said.
If it’s not evil, it’s a mental illness. The fact that our society doesn’t seem to be bothered by it that much doesn’t change my opinion. It just reinforces my opinion of our society in general.
September 30, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Joel Mielke
“To suppose, as we all suppose, that we could be rich and not behave as the rich behave, is like supposing that we could drink all day and keep absolutely sober.”
—Logan Pearsall Smith
September 30, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Jim Buoy
Speaking of “pure malevolent evil”, Mitch, here’s the UN report on the IDF “restraint” practiced in their armed attack on the Mavi Marmara last May 31st. As predictable, our Admin and DOJ have no comment. Casting out an illegal housemaid by a billionaire is way worse in your world, I guess.
September 30, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Not A Native
The idea of Joel’s quote is similar to “Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die”.
The fact that Whitman is hugely wealthy isn’t news or something she needs to “live down”, politically. In fact, its been said to be a political asset. But casting her in a good/evil frame invokes a moral measure eliminating any need to consider the specific facts and context of her actions. If she had more modest means and did the same thing would that be moral? Is her real offense simply being much more wealthy than her employees? I’d say that everyone’s attitudes about wealth are irrational, to put it kindly. Here’s a pretty good NYTimes article about how that plays in the tax-cut issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/business/30rich.html
September 30, 2010 at 10:41 pm
Anonymous
A progressive knows what a rich person is Not a Native.
September 30, 2010 at 11:52 pm
moviedad
Before I’m a progressive, before I’m a Green Party member; I am an enraged, indignant citizen. Forget catch-phrases. How about we get back to the rule of law, instead of the rule of riches. Why are these billionaires allowed to steal our jobs for their profit? Then they want to run things? Why can’t people see them for the traitors they are.
They facilitate the bringing down of the American worker from a place where he used to be able to buy a house, a car and send his kids to college; to the level of an itinerant worker, with no future but a struggle to give all his money up to the rich class. And the people that made this happen are what…..heroes? If they are, then who are their fans, if not the enemies of America?
Sorry, what’s the point. no one gives a rat’s ass.
October 1, 2010 at 6:19 am
Mitch
Jim,
We simply do not see the same power relationships as one another in the middle east conflict. It’s that simple. Meg Whitman was not under constant attack from terrorists, and Meg Whitman has no rational reason to fear being wiped off the face of the earth.
I understand that yours is the majority view in the “progressive community.”
Joel,
The trouble with your “very amusing” quote is that there is no such thing as “rich people,” only individuals who are rich. And some of them behave quite decently indeed, just as some individuals who are poor behave quite decently. Some of each group behave poorly. And some demonstrate pure malevolent evil.
Maybe if I had a billion dollars, I too would tell my maid of nine years, my “extended family,” to quote Whitman, to get lost and not contact my children (who she’d probably spent a great deal of time with five days a week for nine years). I can only hope not.
October 1, 2010 at 6:25 am
Mitch
Oh, Not a Native,
In my opinion, if someone has sufficient means to employ someone else, and continues that employment for nine years, there is an implicit moral requirement to help that person if a moment of need arises. That applies regardless of the means available: if the employer finds themselves impoverished, they could still offer hugs, tea and sympathy.
Under our economic system, such behavior is considered inefficient.
October 1, 2010 at 6:50 am
the reasonable anonymous
“The trouble with your “very amusing” quote is that there is no such thing as “rich people,” only individuals who are rich. And some of them behave quite decently indeed, just as some individuals who are poor behave quite decently. Some of each group behave poorly. And some demonstrate pure malevolent evil.”
The difference is that wealthy people, by definition, have more power, and for that reason the consequences of their behavior are more severe.
October 1, 2010 at 7:47 am
Joel Mielke
“…there is no such thing as ‘rich people,’ only individuals who are rich.”
Sorry Mitch, but you are making no sense whatsoever.
“The idea of Joel’s quote is similar to ‘Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die’.”
It’s similar in that it’s also an aphorism.
October 1, 2010 at 10:52 am
Not A Native
OK Mitch, you’ve clearly stated your beliefs and assumptions.
RA, Power usually means simply having the choice to do what you “really want”. But what you decide you “really want” does involve “morals/ethics”. Its much easier to follow the “golden rule” if those are the only choices you believe you have. And its much easier to violate the “golden rule” if thats the only choice you believe you have.
The distinction between “fuck you” choices and “freedom” choices gets much more blurred when someone actually can choose. From this week’s Savage column in the NC Journal, referring to saving. (Of course, saving is a primary strategy to become(and remain) rich):
“You know when you’re succeeding? When your thoughts cease to be dominated by money worries.
An even better incentive (did you feel incentivized reading that prior paragraph?) is what some folks call a “Fuck You” fund. I prefer the term “Freedom” fund, but the idea remains the same: Not having savings oppresses you by limiting your choices, so therefore, save. Hate your job? Desperate to leave your horrible boyfriend? Need to change your life in some other profound way if only you had the money? Well, a Freedom Fund is what you need. Tuck a little away as you can. Ask yourself, do I really need another pair of jeans? Or do I need freedom?”
October 1, 2010 at 11:38 am
Mitch
Joel,
Your implication, as far as I can tell, is that we would all behave much like the rich if we were rich.
This is wrong on any number of levels, but I’ll spell out the most basic.
Rich people do not all behave identically to one another. That is what I was trying to say when I said there’s no such thing as “rich people,” only individuals who are rich.
Some rich individuals behave with great kindness in their personal relationships. Some rich individuals dole out favor based mainly on the perceived likelihood that their “investment” will pay off. Many vary between these two extremes. All, of course, behave differently at different moments and with different relationships.
Meg Whitman characterized her maid as being like a member of her extended family. And yet, when her maid came to her after nine years of apparent successful service, to ask for help with immigration issues, there was no help to be found.
Whitman could have, for example, said “Nicky, I’ve spoken with immigration lawyers and they say there is nothing to be done. Let’s see what I can do to get you and your family relocated in Mexico.” She would not have noticed any expenditure that could possibly have been involved, because when you “earn,” say, a hundred million a year, that meands that $100,000 is a morning’s “earnings.”
Or she could have told the press, “I never spoke with Nicky about immigration issues, and I was furious when she told me she was illegal — I told her to get the %^&* out of my house.”
Either would have shown humanity. But what Whitman did just showed pure, malevolent evil.
October 1, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Not A Native
OK Mitch you’ve made your point that being wealthy, Whitman had options. But calling someone “family” is often not synonomous with treating them well. Most really bitter and brutally violent disputes occur within families. Domestic violence is a code phrase which serves to distract from that reality. Ever see the movie “Kramer vs. Kramer”?
And FWIW, biologists observe that intraspecies competition is more intense than interspecies competition, simply becasue members of a species all occupy and must share the same ecological “niche”. Essentially, intraspecies competitive pressure is a major factor in the emergence of new species.
October 1, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Mitch
Thanks, NaN, that must be what Whitman was trying to explain.
October 1, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Joel Mielke
“Your implication …. is that we would all behave much like the rich if we were rich.”
Yes. You are a superior being Mitch, but most mere mortals would and do.
October 2, 2010 at 5:13 am
Mitch
Joel,
Sarcasm and repetition of your assumptions without evidence are not generally winning strategies in debate.
October 2, 2010 at 8:34 am
Joel Mielke
It was only partly sarcastic, Mitch. You’re an intelligent, well-intentioned guy. We can find outrageous, cruel behavior in the wealthy as well as in the laboring classes. Whitman’s behavior speaks for itself; you waste your passion wagging your finger. Alerting the dullest of readers, in case they had missed the point, that Whitman exhibits “pure malevolent evil” makes for dull reading. Imagine that we are smart, and then post accordingly.
I apologize for the unsolicited advice, but I appreciate your thoughts on the blogs.
October 2, 2010 at 9:51 am
Not A Native
Ahh, the eternal debate about what is essential “human nature”.
Is exploitation, self serving interest, and diversion of blame onto others our ordinary behavior, kept in check only by fears of likely larger losses of sanctions? As Joel implies when he cites his being “merely” mortal.
Or is equtable sharing, selflessness, and seeking common interests our ordinary behavior that is perverted by fears of deprivation? As Mitch implies when he cites Whitman’s choice as “evil”.
There’s no debate that people, seemingly at random, do both greedy and generous things, a clear contradiction. No “complete” scientific explanation has been created, however there are many theological ones.
My personal opinion is that people are inherently cooperative and collaborative but our (biological)intellect to determine the way to do that is limited. When we’re presented with situations that exceed our individual intellectual ability to solve, we often reach incorrect conclusions and take incorrect actions. In short, given similar knowledge, people with greater intellect will more often act correctly (or the people of similar knowledge who more often act correctly have greater intellect). If you feel that’s elitist, I disagree and claim its meritorious.
October 2, 2010 at 10:08 am
Mitch
NaN,
As you probably know, game theorists have found that a policy of “tit-for-tat” is optimal in a situation called a repeated prisoner’s dilemma, which tries to model people’s day to day interactions. The prisoner’s dilemma is an interaction in which two cooperators do well, but if you are a non-cooperator paired with a cooperator, you can do even better for yourself at the expense of causing harm to the non-cooperator. A repeated prisoner’s dilemma is where you and a partner are paired in repeated prisoner’s dilemmas, knowing that you will continue to be paired with one another for subsequent prisoner’s dilemmas.
Tit-for-tat beats thousands of more complicated approaches with a simple two-part rule. Always start by cooperating. If your partner cooperates, keep cooperating. Each time your partner cheats — the game theorists call it “defecting” — respond in kind the next round, then revert to cooperation.
If people have evolved to follow this optimal strategy, an individual’s behavior is going to depend a lot on what the individual sees happening in the surrounding society.
October 2, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Not A Native
Mitch you’re partially correct. Tit for tat hasn’t been proven to be”optimal” in general, only for very particular conditions. But more importantly the problems encountered in “real” life involve many more considerations than a prisoner’s dilemma. The least of which is imperfect information and information not being known identically and simultaneously by all. But tit for tat is fairly persuasive to me that cooperation is a good(but not perfect and not always) starting point in interactions.
From Wikipedia, problems with tit for tat . Please note how the characterization of the other party as “evil” arises :
While Axelrod has empirically shown that the strategy is optimal in some cases, two agents playing tit for tat remain vulnerable. A one-time, single-bit error in either player’s interpretation of events can lead to an unending “death spiral”. In this symmetric situation, each side perceives itself as preferring to cooperate, if only the other side would. But each is forced by the strategy into repeatedly punishing an opponent who continues to attack despite being punished in every game cycle. Both sides come to think of themselves as innocent and acting in self-defense, and their opponent as either evil or too stupid to learn to cooperate.
This situation frequently arises in real world conflicts, ranging from schoolyard fights to civil and regional wars. Tit for two tats could be used to avoid this problem[2]
“Tit for tat with forgiveness” is sometimes superior. When the opponent defects, the player will occasionally cooperate on the next move anyway. This allows for recovery from getting trapped in a cycle of defections. The exact probability that a player will respond with cooperation depends on the line-up of opponents.
The reason for these issues is that tit for tat is not a subgame perfect equilibrium.[3] If one agent defects and the opponent cooperates, then both agents will end up alternating cooperate and defect, yielding a lower payoff than if both agents were to continually cooperate. While this subgame is not directly reachable by two agents playing tit for tat strategies, a strategy must be a Nash equilibrium in all subgames to be subgame perfect. Further, this subgame may be reached if any noise is allowed in the agents’ signaling. A subgame perfect variant of tit for tat known as “contrite tit for tat” may be created by employing a basic reputation mechanism.[4]
October 3, 2010 at 7:45 am
Mitch
NaN,
subgame perfect equilibrium or not, prisoner’s dilemma is a model that seems to have a lot of explanatory power. It’s a model, so it doesn’t capture everything. But it does provide good evidence why members of an intelligent species will behave generally cooperatively in some societies and often non-cooperatively in others, based on historic circumstance. We do what’s been done to us.
The “one bit error” leading to catastrophic failure is interesting, but won’t happen unless tit-for-tat is otherwise followed with precision and by exactly two players with no outside interaction.
The most intriguing thing about tit-for-tat is that it’s NOT the golden rule. The alleged problem it flags with the golden rule is that the golden rule provides no “education” to non-cooperators, making it a successful policy only in a society composed uniformly of cooperators. In an evolved species, where reproductive success is the ticket to the future, the golden rule will not get genetically encoded, because cheaters would have an evolutionary advantage.
October 3, 2010 at 1:24 pm
anonymous
A vote for Whitman is another nail pounded into another coffin in this senseless drug war of Cannabis . Whitman has stated she will repeal the will of the voters if Proposition 19 passes which will do nothing more than continue genocide .
October 3, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Not A Native
Trying to cite a real world example of extreme tit for tat failure, I’ll risk a likely thread subject change. The Israeli Palestinian conflict is a clear failure of that strategy to maintain cooperation. Both sides in that conflict aver they’re primarily using tit for tat strategy. (And they both claim they’ve sometimes gone further and used tit for two tats strategy)
And Mitch, as the Wikipedia article describes, when tit for tat failures occur its common for each side to explain the failure as due solely to the other being “evil’. I’m pointing that particularly because that was also your characterization of Whitman, who you feel didn’t reciprocate her employee’s service(she defected on tit for tat?).
October 3, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Anonymous
NaN,
Yes, I see where you’re coming from.
I think the mid-east conflict is fundamentally that party A gave party B land that party C has a claim to. There’s no amount of punishment that will cause party B or party C to release its grip, and for whatever geopolitical reasons, party A does not / did not / cannot / could not / will not / would not provide either party B or party C with sufficient force for a complete victory. Parties B and C are unable to “educate” one another, to use the euphemism I used earlier.
As for Whitman, yes, she defected, or she had no clue that she was in anyone’s debt. Her “education” is now taking place. And yes, I characterize the defection as “evil.” I seem to get tweaked especially by defection of those who perceive themselves to be in far more powerful circumstances than the person they defect on, and I do characterize that as “evil.”
October 3, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Mitch
(Sorry, I didn’t switch back from Anonymous.)
NaN,
Yes, I see where you’re coming from.
I think the mid-east conflict is fundamentally that party A gave party B land that party C has a claim to. There’s no amount of punishment that will cause party B or party C to release its grip, and for whatever geopolitical reasons, party A does not / did not / cannot / could not / will not / would not provide either party B or party C with sufficient force for a complete victory. Parties B and C are unable to “educate” one another, to use the euphemism I used earlier.
As for Whitman, yes, she defected, or she had no clue that she was in anyone’s debt. Her “education” is now taking place. And yes, I characterize the defection as “evil.” I seem to get tweaked especially by defection of those who perceive themselves to be in far more powerful circumstances than the person they defect on, and I do characterize that as “evil.”
October 3, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Eric Kirk
In short, given similar knowledge, people with greater intellect will more often act correctly (or the people of similar knowledge who more often act correctly have greater intellect). If you feel that’s elitist, I disagree and claim its meritorious.
Whether it is elitist, it is most definitely not progressive.
In any case, Whitman has no excuse for her callousness. She has had ample opportunity to acquire knowledge and education. If she is lacking, she has squandered opportunities denied most people. In my experience some of the simplest and poorest folk are among the most generous and charitable.
October 3, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Eric Kirk
Back onto the subject of the thread, in yesterday’s debate Whitman accused Brown of conjuring up the scandal. Brown’s response was very well crafted.
“Let’s be sympathetic and let’s really empathize with the millions of people who are in the shadows and you want to keep them in the shadows and now you’re trying to evade responsibility,” he said. “Don’t run for governor if you can’t stand up on your own two feet and say, ‘Hey I made a mistake, I’m sorry, let’s go on from here.’ You have blamed her, blamed me, blamed the left, blamed the unions but you don’t take accountability.”