The reporting on…um….Whoregate has been less that stellar, particularly I’m sorry to say, that of the LA Times, which was the media outlet that first received the recording.
This story is already past its prime, but it deserves some clean up.
So let’s review the basic facts:
1. On September 7, a 4:10 minute recording was made accidentally when Jerry Brown didn’t adequately hang up the phone after leaving a voicemail message for Scott Rate, a Los Angeles police union director and political endorsement committee chair for the LAPPL.
2. At the 1:53 minute mark on this recording, someone in Brown’s group said of Meg Whitman, “She’s a whore.”
3. The remark was made regarding what the Brown campaign regarded as Whitman’s willingness to sew up the police union’s endorsement by guaranteeing that she would exempt any state law enforcement and firefighters from the pension reform that both she and Brown have both described as crucial to rescuing California from insolvency. Since Brown declined to make such a guarantee, and Whitman had accused him repeatedly of being beholden to unions, Jerry and some of the rest of the Brown camp had much to say about the issue.
(It should be noted that it is the city, not state government, that negotiates the LAPD’s pension structure. The governor has ways of exerting influence, but has no direct power over the LAPD pensions.)
Nevertheless, the LAPPL’s Scott Rate told me that Whitman’s willingness to exclude cops and firefighters from her pension reform plans was was the largest single reason that the union endorsed Whitman over Brown. (He also cited some other reasons why they preferred Whitman, like the fact that Whitman is pro-death penalty while Brown is not, and that Whitman laid out many more specifics when they met with her than did Brown.)
OKAY, BACK TO WHORE-RELATED UTTERANCES.
4. The “whoregate” recording was handed off to the LA Times late last week, a full month after its creation.
Rate said that the reason for the 30-day plus lag time was that the issue had to go to the union’s “PAC attorney” for vetting to figure out if it was legal for the union to release the recording made without Brown’s knowledge. The PAC attorney decided that it was indeed legal.
(A “PAC attorney” is, Rate told me, as the name suggests, a lawyer who works for the political action committee of which the union is a part.)
Still Rate did not have a explanation for why it took a month for the PAC attorney to answer the legal question, and why the recording seemed to show up just as Whitman desperately needed a change of subject away from the elections previous “gate”— Nannygate.
5. I learned from another source that the timing of the recording’s release was, in fact, orchestrated by Don Novey, the ousted president of the prison guards’ union, who built that union into a monster political power and who now works as the primary political consultant for the LAPPL and the California State Law Enforcement Association. Novey reportedly wanted to release the recording closer to the election, but got talked into last week instead.
Novey was also reportedly the prime mover behind getting the PAC of which the LAPD union is a primary member to inject $450,000 into the campaign in Whitman’s behalf at the end of September, just after Nannygate first blew up.
PUTTING IT IN WRITING
6. Someone at the union—everyone presumes it was Novey-–also released to media outlets a “certified” transcript of the recording, which was transcribed by court reporter named Lori Odell Kennedy of of Kennedy Court Reporters Inc.
(I have my very own copy of the thing, some of which you’ll find after the jump.)
Bafflingly the transcript is riddled with inaccuracies, some small, others more egregious like the fact that court reporter Kennedy clearly and unambiguously attributes the “whore” remark to Jerry Brown—although it is absolutely positively not Brown’s voice saying those words.
7. Unfortunately, the LA Times’ Seema Mehta, who first broke the Whoregate story, did not go back and do her own transcribing or voice analysis but instead dutifully regurgitated mostly what the union gave her in her news report of Oct 8: “Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jerry Brown or one of his associates can be heard referring to his Republican opponent Meg Whitman as a ‘whore.'”
(Granted, at least Mehta included the possibility that the whore blurter was someone other than Jerry. But even that is bothersome as anyone who listens to the thing a few times can easily determine that it is positively not Brown who made the “whore,” remark.)
In fact, closer listening makes clear that the person uttering the “W” word….is not a man at all—but a woman.
SUGAR AND SPICE AND EVERYTHING NICE
8. Of course, if a woman used the word to make a point of political criticism, while it may not be polite, it does somewhat undercut the dramatic cries of vile sexism and the need for the fainting couch.
NOTE: Bill Bradley , writing for Huff Post, first got the gender issue right over the weekend. Then on Sunday, Fox News speculated that the woman in question on the recording is Brown’s wife, Anne Gust Brown—an attorney and former CFO of Gap who is central to his campaign.
(I don’t know Ms. Brown’s voice well enough to know for sure, but the notion is not in the least implausible.)
BUT WHY LET FACTS INTERVENE WHEN A NICE WHOREGATE IS AT STAKE?
9. Much of the text that the LA Times reports (and that most other news outlets have parroted) is also incorrect—but simply adheres to the LAPL commissioned transcript—which suggests that Brown takes in the phrase “she’s a whore” and then contemplates putting out an ad that employs this sentiment.
A nice story, to be sure, but A. it isn’t true and B.it would be something of a psychotic ad strategy, doncha think?
(Hey, what say we call Ms. Whitman a whore in our next 30-second ad buy? You good with that? Okay, good.)
NOTE: For those of you who’d like to check for yourself, go here. Dennis Romero at the LA Weekly has posted a cleaner audio that makes differentiating the words and voices easier. (Thank you, Dennis!
10. So as CalBuzz also noted, this brings up a rather vexing question: Is LAPPL deliberately trying to spread misinformation to media members about Brown’s accidental phone recording?
WHEREFORE ART THOU REPORTERS?
11. And what about the media’s due diligence?
And while we’re on the subject of the horror of calling one’s political opponents “whores,” CalBuzz also dug up the fact that former Governor Pete Wilson, who is also Whitman’s campaign manager, in 1995 called the Congress “whores to public employees unions.”
So was Wilson’s remark also an “appalling and unforgivable smear” and a “despicable slur” against the women in Congress, and “to the women of California”—or America, or whomever—as Whitman spokeswoman, Sarah Pompei, said of Jerry Brown (even though he didn’t use the word, but Wilson did)?
(If so, will Meg be dumping Pete off the campaign forthwith?)
Or do we just figure that Wilson and the still unidentified woman Brown staffer (or wife) were just opining rather coarsely that certain people (Congress/Whitman) were politically beholden to certain big unions, even when they swore they wouldn’t be?
12. There’s a new debate between Whitman and Brown on Tuesday night. It ’twill be interesting to find out if whores and nannies will be at all a part of it.
Okay, below you’ll find the central clip from the LAPPL “certified” transcript and the same clip from my re-translation.
CLIP FROM LAPPL/LORI ODELL KENNEDY TRANSCRIPT:
J. B.: That I have been warned if I crack down on pensions, I will be — that they’ll go to Whitman, and that’s where they’ll go because they know Whitman will give ’em a — will cut them a deal, but I won’t.
Female 1: Right.
J. B.: But she will probably believe it.
Female 1: Yes.
J. B.: What about saying she’s a whore?
Female 1: That’s good.
Male 1: That’s good. Let’s do it. Yeah.
(Static noise on tape)
J. B.: Whore. Well, I’m going to use that. It proves you’ve cut a secret deal to protect the pensions, to protect the pensions.
Female 1: Yeah, for sure …..
Male 1 : That will talk plenty to people.
J. B.: That’s my normal weakness. I’m a — we
demagogue. But anyway, she’s — thankfully, she’s abused
that .
CLIP FROM WLA TRANSCRIPTION OF SAME SECTION
JB: I’m being paid back now…..I mean, Maybe we’ll put an ad out…
JB: ….I’ve been warned that if I crack down on pensions, they’ll go to Whitman, and that’s where they’ll go, because they know Whitman
FEMALE….Will be focused [or something like that.]
JB:…..will give ’em a….will cut a deal that I won’t.”
FEMALE: Right
JB: (unintelligible) ..to do anything
MALE: Yeah
JB:…. What about saying that?
FEMALE (OVERLAPPING BROWN): Cause she’s a whore.”
MALE: (appearing to be responding to Jerry) Good… (unintelligible)…go (unintelligible)
JB (continuing his train of thought): Well, I can use that. ‘Hey, Meg, is it true that you’ve cut a secret deal to protect the pensions.. to exempt the pensions.’
FEMALE: Yeah, we should. We definitely should.
MALE: That’ll talk to plenty of people (or something close to that)
JB: Yeah, I don’t care. That’s my normal instinct. I’m a… demagogue… (pause) Alright…
(and it goes on from there….)
Dearest commenters, please no serial posting and personal fights. The last thread started out as interesting, and then collapsed into the same old thing.
Thanks in advance.
From my reading of your excellent deconstruction of this one, there are more than a few “whores” in the story, including the police union and the LA Times. Having listened to the tape, it is absolutely crystal clear on first listen that the “whore” jibe comes from a voice that, I would say with 99% certainty, is a woman and that it’s NOT possible for anyone who isn’t hard of hearing to confuse that voice with Brown’s in the crosstalk.
We’re dealing – in the midst of a budget crisis – with cops in Oakland who think they’re better than everyone else and deserve pension deals and exemptions that would be unthinkable for any other group. In the course of this, they are losing public support and generating the worst sort of cynicism. It’s creepy – especially when one knows from folks who work in these departments that there’s no cohort in the public sector more risk-averse or more coddled by their comrades in order to game the system than a cop accruing golden over-time hours in that last run-up to retirement. It’s scandalous. The lack of professional integrity is stunning.
Incidentally, that court reporter needs to be fired if that transcript is indicative of the level of “accuracy” that goes into legal records used in appeals processes. And that’s from a RECORDING, that could be re-played for the most accurate transcription. I wonder what goes down when they’re following live back-and-forth.
…especially when one knows from folks who work in these departments that there’s no cohort in the public sector more risk-averse or more coddled by their comrades in order to game the system than a cop accruing golden over-time hours in that last run-up to retirement. It’s scandalous. The lack of professional integrity is stunning.
——
Is that right? Overtime wages do not count in CalPERS pension benefits so your rant about the overtime is coming from a source that doesn’t know what their talking about. Maybe you should have vetted that info before posting your lie.
It’s sad that it strikes me as business as usual that you went after these remarks the way you did Celeste but gave no such investigative time to Nannygate. I understand your a far left liberal commentator but it’s still sad.
I’ve listened to the comments and I don’t know who made them. I don’t think that’s what’s most important. I only know two things. The hypocrites that populate the left are all talk when it comes to this type of an issue and would have been marching up the path to a conservatives home if they were the culprit, calling for their head, and brown was fine with Whitman being called a whore.
It makes me wonder if he’d be ok with a liberal female being described the same way if she crossed him.
J. B.: What about saying she’s a whore?
So JB himself did call her a whore. SAD. VERY SAD.
ATQ, you missed the point. Brown did NOT say that. Period the end. No question about it. None, zero, zip. NOT A SHRED.
The union’s political consultant put that transcript out as disinformation. IT ISN’T TRUE! It’s a craven attempt at political manipulation through out-and-out lies.
So what in the world are you talking about.
Read the damn post!
Sure Fire. If I saw inconsistency and deliberate misinformation in the Nicki story I’d take that apart—AS I BEGAN TO IN THE FIRST POST, when Allred made claims without back up.
But then she backed up her claims, annoying an opportunistic though she may be as a person. (I think the SNL skit was pretty funny. I’d call Allred a publicity whore, but frankly, as with the Brown staffer/wife’s use of the term, I find the term rather inelegant.)
Alas, however, irritating Allred may be, in both cases, frankly, the political hypocrisy points back to Whitman. I’d have posted more on the topic but I think others are doing a fine job.
Sorry that you don’t like the facts.
I read the post Celeste. I obviously misinterpreted it.
I’ll read it again.
ATQ, I didn’t mean to snap at you and admittedly my post is a bit long and on the wordy side.
To simplify things, just look at the comparison between the section of the BS “certified” transcript, and the one I did (they’re after the jump at the end of the post).
And if you REALLY want to enter into my obsession and waste time on a late Monday morning, look at my transcript section while playing the audio from about…oh…the 1:30 minute mark, and you’ll see that it matches pretty well. (There’s also some ambient conversation that would be too hard to get without better equipment. Their court reporter didn’t get it and I don’t have the equipment to get anything accurate.)
Okay, now I’m off to give student midterms.
Happy Monday.
PS: Reg, my sister-in-law is a court reporter and she would never in a zillion years make such mistakes.
With depositions, she goes over and over sections of recordings to get things absolutely right.
(As a journalist one often has to do the same thing, since we are frequently faced with transcribing recordings of interviews and the like.)
Okay, I’m outa here. Have a good, slightly over-heated day.
PS: Reg, my sister-in-law is a court reporter and she would never in a zillion years make such mistakes.
With depositions, she goes over and over sections of recordings to get things absolutely right.
As someone who in a prior job regulrarly testified and was deposed I would often get asked for clarifications by the court stenographer when I left the stand.
I think Jerry Brown should meet with Whitman on live t.v., get on his knees, and apologize to her. If for any reason, so that Answering The Question can sleep at night.
# Sure Fire/Nikki Says:
October 11th, 2010 at 7:57 am
It makes me wonder if he’d be ok with a liberal female being described the same way if she crossed him.
……………..
Not so much a liberal female, but a female that wasn’t rich and such a hypocrite like Whitman? Then I would be offended. Calling Whitman a whore? Who cares. The way I see it, it’s actually a compliment, because I think she’s worse than a whore. If she gets what she wants she’ll hurt more people than any whore could in a thousand lifetimes.
Celeste,
After re-reading the re-translation lol It’s abundantly clear it was as I thought before. It wasn’t JB who uttered the the epithet. It was merely a staff member who said it in the workplace, in his presence.
No worries. He’s golden.
Whew. You dodged a bullet there, Jerry. lol. Answering The Questions says you’re golden.
This story is just noise, but some people expect an FBI investigation and all the major news media to do 200 page investigative reports on the story. Most politicans “whore” themselves out to employee unions to get elected, the story is putting me to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Where is Nikki working these days? Which ambulance is Gloria Allred chasing this week?
ATQ, a female staff member. (And possibly a wife-like item.) I’m not saying it’s perfect behavior. And if I were Jerry, I’d say, “Look, this is not acceptable. It was a member of my staff, but I should have intervened.This is fully my responsibility. My apologies to anyone who was offended by the language.”
He’d have done better, if he had done that.
But he didn’t. I don’t think it’s a huge deal at all, personally, but I’d have liked to have seen it handled like I expressed above.
(I also don’t think it’s any big deal that Pete Wilson said what he said, way back when.)
Okay, students taking midterms. Must go.
WTF Says:
October 11th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Most politicans “whore” themselves out to employee unions
…………….
Sure. It’s only whoring when they go to unions. Not when they go to businesses and churches.
Celeste,
If you say it’s no big deal to you I’ll take you at your word. Please be patient with me. After 40 yrs. of hearing how women have been treated like second class citizens and all the sensitivity preaching I have been conditioned to think that referring to a woman as a “whore” is a big deal.
If we all need to put on our big girl/boy pants and toughen up a little bit so be it.
I’ll try and not be so sensitive from this point forward about the spoken word when referring to women.
ATQ, women are treated like second class citizens. Meg Whitman just isn’t one of them. Until ol’ Jerry called her a whore. No damage done. The world goes on. And, more importantly, Jerry Brown would be much better for advancement of women than Meg Whitman. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever even heard Whitman address the issue, until she started to slip in the polls, where she then talked about California having a female governor. Like most female or minority Republicans, they only take any concern for their female or minority status in last ditch efforts to save their political careers. Whores.
Answering The Question Says:
October 11th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
I’ll try and not be so sensitive from this point forward
…………..
You mean you’ll go back to your usual baiting of women and minorities on blogs as soon as you’re done with this stupid little alter ego you’re using right now.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Time for me to be sensitive again. lol.
Consistency. That’s the key to training.
Bitching = degrading.
Whore = cool.
Got it.
I mean Rob’s got to think it’s cool to call a woman a “whore”. He’s called Whitman a “whore” several times since we’ve been discussing this topic.
And I’m the baiter. Right.
Got it.
I actually said Whitman was worse than a whore. Don’t misquote me.
I wouldn’t call Whitman a whore because it’s an insult to whores. As long as whores only solicit to adults, and don’t perform while knowingly having an STD, they hurt nobody. Whitman will hurt millions of people if elected. A whore is above Whitman on the pecking order of morality. Far above.
And does anyone know why ATQ is taking this sappy, guilt trip angle? He KNOWS she’s going to lose. If he thought she could win, he’d be telling us that the voters are going to punish Brown for this. He knows that’s not going to happen. So it’s plan B. Go the old “how come when they do it nobody cares but when we do it” whaa whaa. Groveling from the losers’ circle. Nothing more.
lol. I already stated I wouldn’t be voting for Whitman. It doesn’t mean I think it’s cool to call her vile names that are degrading towards women.
Answering The Question Says:
October 11th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
lol. I already stated I wouldn’t be voting for Whitman.
……………
Oh, we’re playing this game again?
“worse than a whore”
OOOOOOOPPPPPSSSSS.
Talk about a Freudian slip.
Rob subconsciously admits that it’s degrading to a woman to call her a “whore”.
Just like you voted for Obama.
Just like you’re a Democrat.
Just like you marched with MLK in Birmingham wearing a dashiki.
You just want to warn your fellow Democrats of getting overconfident.
Got ya.
I’ll play along with your little alter egos, as long as you realize that everyone here knows who you are and what your real politics are.
We need to stop. Celeste asked politely for us to not do this.
Answering The Question Says:
October 11th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Rob subconsciously admits that it’s degrading to a woman to call her a “whore”.
…………..
When did I ever deny it? Of course it’s degrading to call a woman a whore. But it’s still a compliment to Meg Whitman, because she’s something even worse than a whore. Let me know if you still need help.
Answering The Question Says:
October 11th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
We need to stop. Celeste asked politely for us to not do this.
……………
LOL. We’ll chalk that up to your little alter ego, too.
“Overtime wages do not count in CalPERS pension benefits so your rant about the overtime is coming from a source that doesn’t know what their talking about. Maybe you should have vetted that info before posting your lie.”
But, of course, you know nothing about Oakland (and Richmond) police department pension practices – which is what I was specifically and clearly referencing (“We’re dealing – in the midst of a budget crisis – with cops in Oakland…”)
Beyond that, I really don’t give a shit what SF thinks about anything. Just don’t like being called a liar by someone who thinks ranting like a goon – and demeaning the union that takes the side of humble folk like like janitors and hotel maids – is impressive.
Script, please don’t bring other sites in here. Take any fights there. And dial back the personal.
Thanks.
What other sites did I bring in here, Celeste? I don’t see any comment on this thread where I so much as mention another site.
Anyhow, ATQ can add Betty White to his list of women haters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxL7MKsGoPo
I know lots more than you do apparently. Bottom line is Oakland is in PERS and governed by PERS rules regarding pensions. That you’re not honest enough to admit your mistake, or should I say blatant lie, speaks to your lack of character Reg, not mine.
Oh wait a second, here’s a link for you that shows their retirement system is with PERS ( not all law enforcement agencies are) and no matter what lies you spread your lack of integrity is here for all to see. (http://www.opdjobs.com/salaries-and-benefits.asp) It kind of makes your complete whine about Oakland PD very suspect which is par for the course with you.
Should have copied all your words but that would take someone with character. You remmeber them right?
Reg- It’s creepy – especially when one knows from folks who work in these departments that there’s no cohort in the public sector more risk-averse or more coddled by their comrades in order to game the system than a cop accruing golden over-time hours in that last run-up to retirement. It’s scandalous. The lack of professional integrity is stunning.
I love that one line that shows what a big time liar you are…”cop accruing golden over-time hours in that last run-up to retirement”. You’re claiming O.T. pay is included in figuring pension pay and nothing could be further from the truth. If it is true I’m owed a lot of money. Who do I see about that Reg, your source?
What’s really creepy is that you think because you said something people will praise it as gospel. You don’t like being called a liar, don’t get caught in a lie you arrogant old man.
Where has reg been, anyway? I hope Celeste didn’t ban him for disagreeing with someone and making them resort to personal insults.
You mean where Reg said I was ranting like a goon? Maybe you didn’t see that, I mean in the world of Rob that’s not an insult and telling a blatant lie is just business as usual. You don’t speak about the facts I presented Rob cause you can’t argue them, easier to try and be a smart ass. Reg got caught in a lie and he just doesn’t have what it takes to be a man and admit it.
Not my problem.
The facts you’ve presented Celeste? That’s pretty much a joke when it comes to what you’ve done in your investigations into Nikkigate as compared to Whoregate. You’ve bent over backwards to do everything you can to make it appear your pal Jerry is a saint while jumping on Whitman. It’s shoddy and partisan reporting at its worst. I’ll lay out my reasons for feeling that way.
I will say you acknowledge your dislike of Whitman but your fawning over Brown, in your own words, make your reporting suspect. How can in not?
“Look, I admit I’m not terribly objective. I don’t like Meg Whitman at all as a candidate. Whereas, I’ve known Jerry Brown for 34 years and think that he’s still one of the most interesting people in California political life, and assuredly one of the brightest in this or any other state”.
Please, the brigtest, give me a break.
Some of the questions and conspiracy theories you asked about Whoregate were non-existent in Nikkigate. You went into the timing, who might have said what, who was behind the release of the tape and seemed miffed that you couldn’t get some questions answered.
“The “whoregate” recording was handed off to the LA Times late last week, a full month after its creation”.
“Still Rate did not have a explanation for why it took a month for the PAC attorney to answer the legal question, and why the recording seemed to show up just as Whitman desperately needed a change of subject away from the elections previous “gate”— Nannygate”.
Maybe you could point out where the bulldog in you was at during the Nikkigate story? Why did this come out when it did, a time when Brown and Whitman were pretty much neck and neck in the polls? Who brought this to Allred, a Brown supporter, because she refuses to say? Nikki was let go how long before the debates, who sat on this and why? Allred got this a week or two before the debate and that isn’t a little suspect to you? How did SEIU get a Spanish language commercial up so quick? Doesn’t the investigator in you wonder about “all instances” of political dirty tricks or are you so into your own well known positions that it just doesn’t matter?
Oh wait, you did go into the timing didn’t you, of course it was Whitmnan’s fault right?
“For reasons that remain unclear, eMeg used her spotlight moment to point a finger of blame at Brown, with absolutely no evidence, for exposing her hiring and long-term employment of an undocumented housekeeper, Which big-brain adviser thought that was a good idea? Perhaps the same one who suggested she not mention the matter back in June 2009, when she could have disposed of the issue with a couple of page 8 stories, if that”.
Yet no evidence exists that Whitman knew about the letter does it Celeste? Her husband yeah, her no and all this was set up by a disgruntled housekeeper? Real fair and balanced Celeste.
Meg being called a whore didn’t matter to you, not even a little bit, you said it yourself and many of your other remarks point that out very clearly.
“In truth, the recording isn’t terribly important”.
Just like it’s not important to do a complete investigation into a matter that might show duplicity on the man you support for governor.
I could post lots more on this Celeste but I’ll leave it at that.
In the state of California and most jurisdictions one can effect service in a lawsuit by sending something regular mail and signing an affidavit that you mailed it.
Claims of not reading your own mail are not an affirmative defense. You’re skating on very thin ice.
Sure Fire, it’s over. Brown called Whitman a whore, NOBODY cares, because everyone knows she’s worse than a whore anyway.
The allegations that Whitman hired an undocumented worker are sticking because everyone knows she’s just the type of hypocrite that would hire an undocumented worker while calling for stricter immigration laws out of the other side of her mouth.
The far left can’t debate and since Rob said it’s over it must be over. Whatever you say Rob.
My wife reads our mail and I have 100% faith in her Randy but I appreciate the concern.
That’s not my point. The point is this: the standard by which service can be effected in a lawsuit is essentially the same way that Whitman received her notice. Accordingly, the issue of whether she saw the letter is moot; if this were a lawsuit, the fact that the letter was sent is sufficient. The fact that it arrived at her residence leaves her with no defense.
I don’t consider myself among the far left, but that is an object lesson in how one debates. Your argument on behalf of Whitman has no merit.
You’re wasting your time, Randy. You’re arguing with a block of wood.
Nice job by Brown tonight, he doesn’t know who called her a whore, nice move.
I’ve lost patience with the name calling. Call somebody else names, or get vicious with your disagreement, and you’re deleted. Push it and you’re banned. I don’t have any interest in going back to playground supervision.
If you cannot disagree civilly, then refrain from commenting at all.
Sure Fire, Brown could have called Whitman a whore tonight on live t.v., and he still wins the election. Whitman is unlikeable. Greedy, out of touch with real people, pushes for strict immigration laws while having an undocumented immigrant on her payroll…she represents EVERYTHING Americans hate about Republicans. Jerry could call her a whore and throw a pie in her face, and he still wins in November. Let it go.
Clarence Howard,
I know. I just think it’s important to refute his weak arguments. I certainly don’t expect him to offr anything to refute mine – and as of yet he hasn’t.
Surefire – you don’t, in fact, know what you’re talking about re: Oakland and Richmond. Sorry. Do some homework.
And if Oakland PD, as you claim, is governed by some statewide pension regulations and not local contracts negotiated by the city, why do Oakland police officers not pay any percentage of their paycheck into their pension fund ?
Your claims to be knowledgable about anything related to law enforcement look evermore like blowhardisms.
CalPers website states the following:
For local public agency members, your final compensation period is determined by your employer’s contract with CalPERS.
Your retirement benefit formula is based on your membership category, which is determined by your employer (State, school, or local public agency); classification (miscellaneous, general office and others), safety, industrial, or peace officer/firefighter); and the specific provisions in the contract between CalPERS and your employer
You know I’m not going to re-post what I wrote in regards to your dizzy claims Randy, I already did but Celeste deleted it. It doesn’t really matter though, you have no game.
PERS regulates what can be counted in as compensation when someone retires. O.T. pay is never part of it. Look it up, what’s kept you from doing it to this point Reg?
City, state or county employee unions, all of them police included, go through wage and hour negotiations when a contract is winding down. During those negotiations an association or union can realize a benefit like….having the city pick up the employee’s P.E.R.S. contribution so the employee doesn’t have to pay it at all.
When our association did this we gave up raises and made minor concessions the city wanted from us for a period of time. We felt it was worth it and it was.
Why is that so hard for a guy as smart as you to understand? During my 23 years I was probably one of our negotiators 18-20 times. It’s all about give and take along with…whose giving you the contract and how much help or support they might have received from the police at election time. It’s how that business works, welcome to the real world.
I have made you look real bad here Reg and your bitter words like “blowhardisms”, which you apparently made up because you’re so pissed I showed you up, reflects your inability to say three little words.
I was wrong.
I’d be happy to let Celeste use whatever cop contacts she has to see if I’m right. I’ll never expect you to man up and admit it.
I see your still spinning on this Reg. Call PERS today and see if I’m right.
You know I’m not going to re-post what I wrote in regards to your dizzy claims Randy, I already did but Celeste deleted it. It doesn’t really matter though, you have no game.
Nothing dizzy about. Just more insults from you, which I would imagine is why she deleted it; presuming you actually posted it.
If that is the case, then you have no cogent response other than the above, which has all the intellectual rigor of an upraised middle finger.
Sure Fire/Nikki Says:
October 13th, 2010 at 7:12 am
you have no game.
…………….
LOL!
Really Randy, wasn’t me who had to make up some far fetched hypothetical to comment on a simple issue. There was never any proof offered that Meg ever saw the letter. Did that opinion of mine have anything to do with the service of a lawsuit? Of course it didn’t but because you aren’t honest enough to simply debate that point you go off on some crazy post having to do with nothing about the question at hand.
This what weak liberals like you and Rob do as a matter of debate. There’s no skill in it, it’s meant to only stray from the subject at hand when you have nothing to respond with. That you would even say something as off base as “Claims of not reading your own mail are not an affirmative defense. You’re skating on very thin ice”, in reagrds to my claim is mindless. this isn’t about any lawsuit or has that fact escaped you Randy?
You didn’t debate the question at all and if you’re silly enough to believe Whitman wouldn’t be aware of lawsuits pending against her as compared to a letter her husband didn’t forward to her that he passed on, as Nikki claimed, you need to go back to high school and join the debate team. The experience will do you well.
By the way Randy, insults are peppered in everything you write of me, I expect nothing less from the arrogant “in denial” far left.
Now cheer him up Rob.
“If that is the case, then you have no cogent response other than the above, which has all the intellectual rigor of an upraised middle finger”.
Your arrogance is on par with Reg’s, congratulations. I had plenty more response Mr. Teacher, Celeste decided to delete them, have her send that post to you.
Wonder if Reg got all his PERS answers that he can beat me up with?
Sure Fire, you have no game.
Sure Fire, are you Sure Fire by day and Nikki by night?
Yeah, I clean houses, just like I do here.
There was never any proof offered that Meg ever saw the letter.
That’s a supposition which is entirely irrelevant. It arrived at her residence, period. The reason why I mentioned the service of lawsuit issue is that it is entirely alike the method by which Whitman received notification of the mismatched SSN.
Not reading, for example, a subpoena or complaint served properly, is not an affirmative defense for failing to respond to the lawsuit/subpoena. Whitman’s alleged failure to read her mail is not an affirmative defense for her in this case, either. I suppose, in her world and presumably in yours, the buck doesn’t merely not stop with her or you; it doesn’t even pause to catch its breath as it shoots by with her fleeing responsibility in gazelle-like fashion.
Your arrogance is on par with Reg’s, congratulations. I had plenty more response Mr. Teacher, Celeste decided to delete them, have her send that post to you.
Ignoring the textbook projection in the first clause of that first sentence, I’m inclined to trust and respect Celeste’s judgment and discretion and make the assumption that your comment – like so many of your comments – was so heavily larded with ad hominem slurs and insults that it would make Mr. Creosote seem anorexic by comparison.
Warm regards,
RP
Do you pat yourself on the back after you commit meanilngless babble to a post? Really Randy, people like me don’t like people like you because the arrogance and attitude of superiority drips from your post without reason or cause to think that way.
I don’t know what you’ve done or do for a living but all I’ve done for the better part of my adult life is investigate. That’s why it’s so easy to show your words to be absent anything that could seriously be taken as meaningful to the topic. You and Reg have cornered the market on this type of posting.
Here’s what set you off on your tizzy Randy.
Celeste posted..“For reasons that remain unclear, eMeg used her spotlight moment to point a finger of blame at Brown, with absolutely no evidence, for exposing her hiring and long-term employment of an undocumented housekeeper, Which big-brain adviser thought that was a good idea? Perhaps the same one who suggested she not mention the matter back in June 2009, when she could have disposed of the issue with a couple of page 8 stories, if that”.
I posted..Yet no evidence exists that Whitman knew about the letter does it Celeste? Her husband yeah, her no and all this was set up by a disgruntled housekeeper? Real fair and balanced Celeste.
Because in her zeal to fawn over her pal Brown, Celeste, in my opinion decided on one set of standards for Brown and a different one for Whitman. As I said, it was anything but fair and balanced.
From that you go into this song and dance that has zero bearing on the issue Randy…
In the state of California and most jurisdictions one can effect service in a lawsuit by sending something regular mail and signing an affidavit that you mailed it.
Claims of not reading your own mail are not an affirmative defense. You’re skating on very thin ice.
Nobody was skating on thin ice, nobody was being served with any suit and your repugnant air of superiority on thinking you need to tell me or anyone else how to handle our mail is mindless prattle.
Sorry, but that’s my opinion. You keep patting yourself on the back though if that’s what makes your day.
Sorry, but that’s my opinion
Well, at least you’ve acknowledged it’s an opinion. I suppose that’s progress of sorts.
As for your claims of my “arrogance,” spare me. I presented reasonable responses to your defenses of Whitman. Evidently your lack of self-control must have resulted in a stream of insults, which in turn resulted in your post being deleted.
That falls squarely on your shoulders.
Warm regards,
RP
I could run through this blog and point out countless attacks on people like me where you haven’t been disturbed enough to comment Randy so spare me your opinion on what should and shouldn’t be deleted.
It just doesn’t matter, same as your atempt to change this entire debate to fit your response.
It’s done, have a nice day.
More importantly to me…Reg never reported his findings about what I posted.
I guess it’s too hard for some people to say “I was wrong” when they put themself in a position of superiority on a subject (pretty much all subjects with some) they know nothing about and are shown to be lacking. Easier to just leave the scene of the crime.
It’s done, have a nice day.
Yes, by all means: take your marbles and go home.
I could run through this blog and point out countless attacks on people like me where you haven’t been disturbed enough to comment Randy so spare me your opinion on what should and shouldn’t be deleted.
I assume you’re tough enough to defend yourself.
I offered no opinion on what should or shouldn’t be deleted; indeed as I did not read the comment in question pre-deletion, I could not offer an opinion.
As I indicated before, I respect Celeste’s judgment and discretion as well as the fact that this is essentially Celeste’s living room. I merely pointed out your insults directed at me. Indeed, as I can only assume responsibility for my own sins, I can only hope that you’ll do the same.
On the other hand, I find your combination of what I perceive to be self-righteous indignation when others insult you and your zeal in ascribing sweeping generalizations concerning people about whom you know precious little with an extremely harsh zeal as well as your dismissive tone in addressing those who have the temerity to disagree with you to be rather – and I believe I’m being charitable here – to be rather contradictory.
Simply put, if you don’t like the heat directed at you, perhaps you should put the can of fuel down. Let me assure you: I’m more than capable of giving as good as I can get, but of respect to Celeste, I’m trying to best to show restraint. Mama always taught me to be a good guest.
Warm regards,
RP
But in fact you did Randy without, as you said, seeing my post. This would be called opinion.
As for your claims of my “arrogance,” spare me. I presented reasonable responses to your defenses of Whitman. Evidently your lack of self-control must have resulted in a stream of insults, which in turn resulted in your post being deleted.
That falls squarely on your shoulders
There were no stream of insults, you’re hyperbole is noted though. Celeste, in my opinion, should never have deleted the post. It’s her blog though so it’s her call, I certainly don’t agree with her.
In my opinion Randy, you can’t give as good as you can get. If you had that ability you’d try it, you know maybe just once, without being too crazy. I can use all sorts of styles, yours is anything but agressive, it’s more the east coast liberal “smarminess” the rest of the country pretty much hates.
Anytime you’d like to try you go right ahead. I won’t cry to Celeste about it, I’ll just fire back.
yours is anything but agressive
Precisely. It’s reasoned and fact-based.
In my opinion Randy, you can’t give as good as you can get. If you had that ability you’d try it
God forgive me for showing restraint.
God forgive me for not taking the bait as well.
While you ignore the simple fact you did post opinion when you said you didn’t. This is too easy.
Keep hiding Reg.
I honestly don’t care if or what you think.
I’ve always been man enough to admit when I fuck up, you and Reg could learn something from that.