Post #26,109
1/28/02 3:38:31 PM
|
give it time...
I think with Enron happening as it is...it'll be just a matter of time before he has to hand over the docs. Either
- He'll look foolish for sitting on documents that had nothing in them for months (They're be speculation that the real docs were shredded and never turned over.)
- They'll contain some stuff - but nothing illegal. (But it'll make politicial hay when the time comes.)
- They'll really contain some stuff - and no one will have a doubt why he sat on the docs.
The game is gonna get fun.
|
Post #26,198
1/28/02 9:34:00 PM
|
There is no time.
The goal is "Get Bush!". The content of the papers, and of the meetings whose minutes they are, is utterly irrelevant.
If he'd turned over the papers immediately and voluntarily, the cry would have been "he's trying to divert attention from the real issues!"
If he turns over the papers now, the reaction will be divided, about half and half: "These aren't the real papers! They were destroyed!" versus "This really does implicate him if you read it correctly!"
There is no time in the future when that will change. There is no set of contents of the papers that will change the reaction, since the conclusion is already foregone and only the evidence needs be adduced.
So there is no downside to his holding on forever. And he does have a point: the President (and Vice President) need advice. Some of that advice will come from people with a chicken in whatever fight is going on, because they're the ones most motivated to gather information on the subject. This and similar demands, if acceded to, will have the effect of foreclosing that information source forever; the result will be that anyone who knows anything about the subject is absolutely forbidden to offer advice. I thought we were against the PHB decision-making process here.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #26,237
1/29/02 4:01:23 AM
|
Get Bush?
You mean the question may not even be asked .?. whether Bush+Cheney+Lay somewhat participated.. in that roundabout way that these things just sorta happen.. with the net effect over some months of,
Getting Us ??
Remember when Frito-Lay and his Texas buddies were raping California? Last year - recall? It was about [oil] er Energy. What did Enron 'do' for a Lavish Living? May not be relevant that these meetings occurred quite early in the new admin, of course. But one might be prompted to find out - mightn't one - especially when AT THE TIME:
Remember that the Admin Had No Slightest Interest in even appearing to be 'of assistance' to: a State of the union whose GNP is usually larger than [whatever: 7th? 9th? largest GNP in world] Mr. Laissez Faire, y'all. Remember? I sure do + a couple Senator types, seems so too.
So now your morose essay above certainly implies "gosh it must all be about Getting Bush" / politics as usual ie
Nothing to See Here? Move On?
Of course there are 'Exec Principles' involved. But there are principles and Other Principles like: To just what extent is Enron the tip of the iceberg? Hey = even those self described 'Conservative' 'Republican' 'Businessmen' cannot get folk to buy their stock IF everybody gets the strong inference that: all the time it has been rigged. And maybe not just by One of the Five major firms who Account and er Advise << thanks to a successful quashing of the SEC's desire to STOP that incestuous mix. Just last year, coincidentally.
So.. which of the above Principles gets the squeaky [oil] this time?
Moderates Want to Know
(Sometimes paranoids don't fear enemies so much as.. better accountants?)
|
Post #26,279
1/29/02 9:29:16 AM
|
You haven't quite got it right on one point, Ash...
Remember that the Admin Had No Slightest Interest in even appearing to be 'of assistance' to: a State of the union whose GNP is usually larger than [whatever: 7th? 9th? largest GNP in world] Mr. Laissez Faire, y'all. Remember? I sure do + a couple Senator types, seems so too. What you're missing, Ash, is the reason why California was allowed to fester. It wasn't laissez-faire, Reganesque, shit-trickles-downhill voodoo economics by a "true believer", nor was it quid pro quo for a job well done in helping Bush become the Selected Resident. (Although you can bet that both were contributing factors...). It was simply that California's umptee-ump electoral votes went for Gore. The Resodent got 'im a mean streak in 'im. jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #26,333
1/29/02 12:31:34 PM
|
What I find interesting is the head of energy
appointed by Bush didnt exactly believe in totally unregulated energy policy, Ken Lay asked that he be replaced and was allowed to interview for his successor. The regulatee's should not have the ability to appoint the regulators.
thanx,
bill
My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
|
Post #26,364
1/29/02 2:45:48 PM
|
California?
What does California's self-induced energy problem have to do with Bush, Cheney, Enron, or whatelse the fuck? They screwed themselves over pretty good, but that had nothing to do with Encron, Bush, Clinton, Cheney, Gore, or other names you might feel free to finger.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #26,390
1/29/02 3:39:13 PM
|
Amen
Darrell Spice, Jr.
[link|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
|
Post #26,394
1/29/02 3:50:23 PM
|
Interesting...
and yet, I think California actually was attempting to subpenoa a number of Enron documents. (I wonder what documents Enron shredded.)
|
Post #26,470
1/30/02 3:23:23 AM
|
Hardly a rhetorical question..__that. And 'self-induced' is
a judgment which completely ignores all the compounded skullduggery which has barely begun to seep out.
Or was this just your hyperbolic equivalent of Leave our er self-correcting market alone.. We don't need no steenkin busybodies checkin anythin ?
The Grid ain't intramural CA -remember?
A.
PS besides - the Real rip-off last year, under the e- shenanigan smokescreen: was natural gas prices / unfunded national pipelines etc. Plenty of idiocy ex-CA to go around.
|
Post #26,271
1/29/02 9:22:05 AM
|
Getting a might defensive, aren't we?
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #26,319
1/29/02 11:32:07 AM
|
No downside to holding them forever?
I suppose if he's guilty, amd these documents incriminate him, he'd have nothing to lose. Otherwise, it's really making him look bad. Can a politican afford to look bad? After all, he's not a Kennedy.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #26,323
1/29/02 11:51:56 AM
|
Excuse me, but, what the fuck?
"And he does have a point: the President (and Vice President) need advice. Some of that advice will come from people with a chicken in whatever fight is going on, because they're the ones most motivated to gather information on the subject. This and similar demands, if acceded to, will have the effect of foreclosing that information source forever; the result will be that anyone who knows anything about the subject is absolutely forbidden to offer advice."
If this is information, why isn't it made available to the public?
What secrets are there that can't be released?
|
Post #26,351
1/29/02 1:48:02 PM
|
They're plenty of time....
The goal is "Get Bush!". The content of the papers, and of the meetings whose minutes they are, is utterly irrelevant.
If the papers and meeting minutes are utterly irrelevant (and there's nothing in them) - then why not release them? If the papers and meeting minutes have something in them - then they're not utterly irrevant - are they? I don't disagree that there's a "Get Bush!" attitude....but I find it humorous that you're outraged by it. It's not like this is the first time that someone's hounded a President looking for things that might get them.
If he turns over the papers now, the reaction will be divided, about half and half: "These aren't the real papers! They were destroyed!" versus "This really does implicate him if you read it correctly!"
and if he released the papers immediately, there wouldn't be an issue, would there? Let's face, he's brought this upon himself.
So there is no downside to his holding on forever. And he does have a point: the President (and Vice President) need advice. Some of that advice will come from people with a chicken in whatever fight is going on, because they're the ones most motivated to gather information on the subject. This and similar demands, if acceded to, will have the effect of foreclosing that information source forever; the result will be that anyone who knows anything about the subject is absolutely forbidden to offer advice. I thought we were against the PHB decision-making process here.
Sorry...but demanding disclosure of who's advising someone does not equal forbidding people from offering advice. If that were true - campaign disclosure laws would prevent candidates from getting any cash at all. (And everyone knows candidates are getting lots of cash right now.)
|
Post #26,440
1/29/02 8:26:12 PM
|
Nah, let me try once more
Sorry for being inarticulate.
The content of the papers is not irrelevant as to whether there is any wrongdoing on the part of Bush, Cheney, et al.
The content of the papers is totally irrelevant as to whether wrongdoing by Bush, Cheney, et al will be loudly asserted.
Thought experiment, if you will: Take the known circumstances (fairly large number of energy-company execs, including Enron people, schmoozing with the Vice President and high-level aides). Assume that there is no one at the meeting advocating giving away energy free to anyone (highly likely, I think). Your mission, should you wish to accept it: Concoct a theoretical set of minutes for the meeting that would result in NO accusations of wrongdoing on the part of the administration.
....
Thought so.
I said it before, I'll say it again: The Enron debacle is a sharp stick poked directly into the soft parts of American (and world) law regarding corporate behavior, regulation, and investment. Properly used, it could be both inspiration and goad to generate some badly-needed corrective measures.
It won't happen. All the political energy generated is going to get pissed out on the ground, as the two political parties try to gore one another over it, and nothing will be done about the substantive issues. Oh, and the teevee folks will sell a lot of soap.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #26,472
1/30/02 3:53:58 AM
|
Oh.. well then OK. But you're just bemoaning the Heart
of Murican Politico-bafflegab / nondenominational. On *any* topic large enough to be worthy of heroic cooperation towards a decent solution.
We are or damn well Look like we are: so utterly conditioned to sports metaphors that.. alls we can think of to do with *any* obvious debilitating gen-u-wine Problem: is declare some fucking War On ____ This n'That. And make sure *Our* Team Wins the posturing BS Award.
Over and over and.. {sheesh} No wonder! nobody wants to "vote" anymore: it's Always a Hobson's choice of which is the smarmiest phrase to use as a slogan so's to pick the Team whose colors ya wanna wear.
Soccer Moms? Shh-eee-itt: Soccer Everything!
Simply, we don't know *how* to 'debate' Anything !!
..mumble bitch natter %^#%^ Idgit Way to run even a dog pound: by the loudest sanctimonious bark..
|
Post #26,504
1/30/02 9:57:16 AM
|
okay...and....
The content of the papers is not irrelevant as to whether there is any wrongdoing on the part of Bush, Cheney, et al.
The content of the papers is totally irrelevant as to whether wrongdoing by Bush, Cheney, et al will be loudly asserted.
Ahem...so you're saying that the content of the papers is irrelevant to the spin. And my answer is "duh!". Welcome to politics. Bush entered this world with his eyes wide open. So why are you yelling?
I said it before, I'll say it again: The Enron debacle is a sharp stick poked directly into the soft parts of American (and world) law regarding corporate behavior, regulation, and investment. Properly used, it could be both inspiration and goad to generate some badly-needed corrective measures.
It won't happen. All the political energy generated is going to get pissed out on the ground, as the two political parties try to gore one another over it, and nothing will be done about the substantive issues. Oh, and the teevee folks will sell a lot of soap.
Are you sure you've dealt with politics before? Politicians do NOT solve issues. (Certainly political parties don't.) The badly-needed corrective measures will be implemented, (imo). Wall Street will begin to demand better accounting practices to disallow the hiding of debt in offshore accounts. (Hell, several merges fell through because companies, when they saw the real data, knew Enron was nothing but hype. -- sooner or later, market analysts/stockholders will demand access to this same data.)
|
Post #26,612
1/30/02 10:03:27 PM
|
Nope, I don't expect politicians to solve anything
except, perhaps, the ever more difficult conundrum: How To Get Elected...
"The badly-needed corrective measures will be implemented, (imo). Wall Street will begin to demand better accounting practices to disallow the hiding of debt in offshore accounts."
Oh, I do hope so, but I'm afraid it's wishful thinking.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #26,618
1/30/02 11:25:08 PM
|
By the way, some good news
from the [link|http://www.theonion.com/onion3803/partisan_bickering.html|usual source]...
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #26,595
1/30/02 5:58:53 PM
|
See...stuff is already coming out...
Seems ol' Kenny Boy sent a memo to Cheney outlining policy ideas. (Most of them worked their way into the eventually policy.)
In particular - Kenny didn't want Price Caps and specifically mentions California.
[link|http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object.cgi?object=/chronicle/pictures/2002/01/30/enron_memoscan.gif&paper=chronicle&file=MN46204.DTL&directory=/c/a/2002/01/30&type=news| Src ]
|
