|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 130 responses total. |
scg
|
|
response 100 of 130:
| 
Oct 10 06:19 UTC 2003 |
I think the story was that this was California's second time a governor had
ever faced a recall election, and this one was the first one to succeed. The
other previous recall elections have been for local offices, and there've been
several of those. There was apparrently a Berkeley city council member who
was recalled a couple decades ago, so at least one local recall election has
succeeded.
|
keesan
|
|
response 101 of 130:
|
Oct 10 10:53 UTC 2003 |
How many registered voters does CA have?
|
gull
|
|
response 102 of 130:
|
Oct 10 13:50 UTC 2003 |
Re #96: It would take more than just legislation. There has been some
talk of a Constitutional amendment to change that rule, though; the
current proposal would allow anyone who has been a U.S. citizen for 35
years to run. I saw Pat Buchanan frothing about this on MSNBC the other
night.
|
klg
|
|
response 103 of 130:
|
Oct 10 13:51 UTC 2003 |
(He can run; he just can't take office.)
|
polygon
|
|
response 104 of 130:
|
Oct 10 15:37 UTC 2003 |
For once, klg is right about something.
|
klg
|
|
response 105 of 130:
|
Oct 10 16:03 UTC 2003 |
(You are too kind, Mr. polygon. We shall keep trying to meet such
lofty standards.)
|
klg
|
|
response 106 of 130:
|
Oct 10 16:21 UTC 2003 |
re: "#80 (richard): . . . arnold's image was really tarnished by all
those sexual harrassment charges."
We are catching up on past reading, Mr. richard. How do you feel about
the following information in the Monday, 1/6 opinionjournal.com??
" . . . the L.A. Daily News . . .published an op-ed by Jill Stewart,
who asks why the Times hasn't subjected the governor to a similar
investigation: 'Since at least 1997, the Times has been sitting on
information that Gov. Gray Davis is an 'office batterer' who has
attacked female members of his staff, thrown objects at subservients
and launched into red-faced fits, screaming the f-word until staffers
cower.'
Stewart recounts her own reporting on Davis, which appeared in 1997 in
the now-defunct New Times Los Angeles:
Davis flew into a rage one day because female staffers had rearranged
framed artwork on the walls of his office. He so violently shoved his
loyal, 62-year-old secretary out of a doorway that she suffered a
breakdown and refused to ever work in the same room with him. . . She
finally transferred to another job, desperate to avoid him. . . .
Another woman, a policy analyst, had the unhappy chore in the mid-1990s
of informing Davis that a fund-raising source had dried up. When she
told Davis, she recounted, Davis began screaming the f-word at the top
of his lungs. . . Davis grabbed her by her shoulders and 'shook me
until my teeth rattled.'
Stewart writes that while she was researching the New Times story
she 'crossed paths' with L.A. Times reporters looking into the same
allegations. But the Old Times never published the story. 'When I spoke
to a reporter involved,' Stewart recounts, 'he said editors at the
Times were against attacking a major political figure using anonymous
sources. Just what they did last week to Schwarzenegger.'. . ."
|
tod
|
|
response 107 of 130:
|
Oct 10 17:35 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
polygon
|
|
response 108 of 130:
|
Oct 10 18:26 UTC 2003 |
Jon Stewart on the "Daily Show" reported that Schwarzenegger was
"devastated" by winning the election. "It was an ego trip that went
horribly wrong," the pseudo-reporter said. "He tried to stop it --
where do you think all those groping allegations came from? He even
said he admired Adolf Hitler. But that train had already left the
station. Now he has to move to Sacramento and live in the [bleep]-hole
of a governor's mansion."
|
slynne
|
|
response 109 of 130:
|
Oct 10 19:44 UTC 2003 |
I love The Daily Show
|
gull
|
|
response 110 of 130:
|
Oct 10 20:08 UTC 2003 |
It wasn't Jon Stewart, though, it was one of the other people on the
show. I forget who. Hilarious piece, though.
|
scg
|
|
response 111 of 130:
|
Oct 11 04:33 UTC 2003 |
Swarzenegger's accusers weren't anonymous, so if that were really the Times's
whole reasoning, they weren't being inconsistent. I suspect a lot of the
editorial decision involved deeper questions of credibility. Given that it's
presumably pretty easy to find out who Davis's loyal 62 year old secretary
was at a given point, it's very likely she wasn't the anonymous source.
|
tsty
|
|
response 112 of 130:
|
Oct 12 08:55 UTC 2003 |
what's gong to be most intersting is what the
report of teh OUTSIDE AUDITORS happens to be.
putting a state on teh model of a capitalistic enterprise is
wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyb longoverdue.
|
scott
|
|
response 113 of 130:
|
Oct 12 13:02 UTC 2003 |
Given the way some high-profile "capitalistic enterprises" have been run, I
don't think running the government should be done the same way.
|
gull
|
|
response 114 of 130:
|
Oct 13 00:39 UTC 2003 |
Heh, no kidding. I can imagine the headlines: 'California forced to
restate third-quarter earnings.' ;>
|
polygon
|
|
response 115 of 130:
|
Oct 14 17:17 UTC 2003 |
Actually, there are a lot of problems with government accounting, which
is why they came up with GASB 34. (That's "gazz-bee-thir-tee-four", for
those of you who aren't accounting geeks or readers of local government
budget documents.)
GASB 34 is a colossal shift of government accounting standards toward
private sector accounting standards, and it is about time. Governments
have been getting away with all kinds of accounting crap that no business
would be allowed to do.
For example, state and local governments are being required for the first
time to account for their assets, their buildings and roads and bridges
and so forth. Instead of being free money, deferred maintenance will show
up in financial statements as diminished value of capital.
Also, each governmental unit is required under GASB 34 to do consolidated
statements, instead of hiding lots of stuff in a cryptic maze of "special
funds". It will be possible for the first time to actually compare
financial statements across different local and state governments. (Maybe
that's why some folks hate GASB 34.)
Even better, governments will no longer be allowed to offer up all kinds
of financial bizarreness with only a shrug. GASB 34 requires an explicit
statement clearly explaining changes in financial position.
The goal here is to make government budgets and financial reports more
complete and less cryptic. Next time you hear some bureaucrat bellyaching
about all the work to implement GASB 34, remind them of this!
|
i
|
|
response 116 of 130:
|
Oct 17 00:50 UTC 2003 |
Hmmm. Don't attempts to audit the books of large government entities
often return "FATAL ERROR - too many accounting records were never kept,
are in error, or are missing; audit unable to figure out what they have,
what they owe, or where the money's been going."?
|
gull
|
|
response 117 of 130:
|
Oct 17 01:24 UTC 2003 |
Yeah. They neglect to pay someone to make up the numbers like large
corporations do.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 118 of 130:
|
Oct 17 05:11 UTC 2003 |
How large, Walter? The Army has its own audit agency, to check up on its
commands and units.
|
i
|
|
response 119 of 130:
|
Oct 18 02:47 UTC 2003 |
Re: #118
I've no idea whether the Army has accounting problems, but they are far
above the minimum for "large". Enron probably had a large staff of
auditors, too...the devil is in the details.
|
tod
|
|
response 120 of 130:
|
Oct 18 14:27 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
polygon
|
|
response 121 of 130:
|
Oct 19 15:18 UTC 2003 |
Re 116. No, a governmental unit which couldn't get an auditor's letter
would be unable to borrow money. That would be disastrous. I have not
heard about any large government units being unauditable, at least, not
in recent years.
|
jp2
|
|
response 122 of 130:
|
Oct 19 21:15 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
polygon
|
|
response 123 of 130:
|
Oct 20 05:16 UTC 2003 |
What's DISA?
|
jp2
|
|
response 124 of 130:
|
Oct 20 12:21 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|