Originally Posted By ecdc I just finished watching "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" and wondered about something. The film draws a direct link to the imaginary energy crisis and rolling blackouts (that we now know were invented by Enron as a way of making money - there was actually plenty of power) to the recall of Gray Davis and the election of Arnold. The film, in other words, shows the anger of people, the rolling blackouts and news footage, then immediately cuts to footage from the recall and Arnold's campaign and victory speech. Do you feel like this is a fair characterization? If you voted to recall Davis, were the blackouts a large factor in your vote? On a side note, I enjoyed the film and would also be curious to hear from others about what they thought. Is the film fair? It seems like since these guys are in prison now, it can't be too far off base, but I admit to not reading too much about Enron and don't want to rely on one source for my information.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "If you voted to recall Davis, were the blackouts a large factor in your vote?" Not really. I voted to recall Davis mainly because he blatantly lied about the budget figures in such a way that it was almost criminal. Moreover, he took dirty politics to a new level during the primaries. It wasn't that he did anything new, but his staff flat out admitted it. They were afraid of facing former L.A. mayor Richard Riordan in the general election, so Davis had a guy named Garry South, his version of Karl Rove, conduct a smear campaign against Riordan that worked. The Republican primaries yielded a weaker candidate named Bill Simon, who in effect was his hand picked opponent. The irony was that since Davis was already wildly unpopular, he had to lie about the budget tomake himself look good in order to eventually barely beat Simon. When Davis admitted after the election he was "mistaken" and gave "wrong information" about the budget, a recall campaign was born. However, the energy issue did factor in for a lot of people.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Yeah, My sister, an actresss, currently resides in LaJolla and she voted Grey out even though she is Democrat for much the same reasons as Pass.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Did the film show how Schwarzenegger was connected to Enron? That's the real dirty pool. Makes Davis look like a school dipping little girls curls in inkwells compared to the crimes Enron foisted upon California.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe You're right paley as my sister is angry as well she should. Enron is pathetic but that is the way of most if not all corporations so we have to learn to work the system and of course PROTEST as we are.
Originally Posted By gadzuux There's another option - look to our federal government to regulate public utilities. Since this is all done through interstate commerce, they are the ONLY resource that can oversee these matters - not the states, and not the communities. It's the feds that are now (belatedly) sorting through the corruption endemic to enron. Yet people are sooo surprised when a rapacious texas energy corporation was able to commit these high crimes. But let's not forget how close ken lay is to the white house and to the president, and how this administration concocted OUR energy policy entirely in secret. They also refused court-ordered subpeonas for the documents, and then brazenly lied to congress about who was in attendance and what mattesr were discussed. California's "energy crisis" was aided and abetted by deregulation policies set forth by the GOP at the state and federal level. There's your corruption problem right there.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy LOL, I was thinking the same thing Douglas but just didn't want to get into it.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Really? Which part? Did a texas based energy corporation artificially create an energy shortage so they could profit? Was it a crime? Is ken lay close with the president? Did the bush administration create our national energy policy in secret? Did they refuse to respond to court ordered subpeonas? Did the leaders of these energy corporations lie to congress? Did the GOP push through energy deregulation, which allowed energy corporations to game the market? What part of my comments to you take exception to?
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By SuperDry It's fascinating that the questions posed by #9 apparently could only be answered in a manner that violated community standards.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I never saw it - I'm assuming it wasn't from douglas - he's many things, but vulgar isn't usually one of them.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Really? Which part?> Almost all of it. Let's take it point by point. <Did a texas based energy corporation artificially create an energy shortage so they could profit?> No. There was an energy shortage. That's not to say that individual employees of Enron took advantage of that shortage, because they did. But they did not cause the shortage. <Is ken lay close with the president?> He definitely isn't as close as he used to be, but the evidence is they were never really close. <Did the bush administration create our national energy policy in secret?> Not really. They had meetings with people concerned with our energy policy whose details were not disclosed, but the policy wasn't created in secret. A proposed plan was sent to Congress, and its merits openly debated. <Did they refuse to respond to court ordered subpeonas?> Not that I'm aware of. I believe the courts have agreed that the details of the meetings do not have to be made public. <Did the leaders of these energy corporations lie to congress?> I've heard that allegation, but I haven't seen it supported. <Did the GOP push through energy deregulation, which allowed energy corporations to game the market?> As I recall it, the deregulation of the California energy market was a bipartisan effort. That was part of its problem, as it compromised nature made it unworkable.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I never saw it - I'm assuming it wasn't from douglas - he's many things, but vulgar isn't usually one of them.> I didn't make the post that was removed, but I did read it, and it wasn't vulgar. Of course, one doesn't need to be vulgar to violate community standards.
Originally Posted By ecdc "No. There was an energy shortage. That's not to say that individual employees of Enron took advantage of that shortage, because they did. But they did not cause the shortage." That's simply not true. There was no energy shortage or crisis in California. It was invented by Enron and is quite well documented in the documentary and the book on which the documentary was based. I don't remember the exact figures, but 45,000 stands out. Whatever it applies to, it represents the peak amount of energy and going over it represents a shortage. California never went over it. The woman in charge of the State's energy department said at the time she couldn't figure out what was going on, because the numbers just didn't add up to make a crisis. But even she never dreamed there was fraud going on, until Enron collapsed and the proof was all over the news. "He definitely isn't as close as he used to be, but the evidence is they were never really close." This is somewhat true. Ken Lay was closer to Bush senior - quite close, in fact. And the makers of the Enron documentary got their hands on a personal videotape that Ken Lay had made for an executive leaving the company. George H.W. Bush and his son were in the tape congratulating the executive. They may not have been best buds, but they were close enough that Ken Lay got them to give someone a personal video greeting card. <Did the leaders of these energy corporations lie to congress?> "I've heard that allegation, but I haven't seen it supported." The other issues about secret meetings and refusing to comply with subpoenas is something I'm not familiar with. But this one is easy to refute. All you needed to do was watch CNN or MSNBC a week after oil executives testified before congress. They were asked, point blank, if they or representatives of their company met with vice-President Dick Cheney's energy task force. All but one categorically said "no." The other at least said, "Not that I'm aware of." A week later, documents surfaced proving, without any doubt, that these men did meet with Cheney and the task force. Again, I'm not familiar enough with other issues to address the nation's energy policy, though it is a bit weird that it was conducted in secret. But this issue is not one that can be spun; it's about as black and white as they come. It doesn't mean Cheney or Bush did something wrong, but these oil execs lied through their teeth. The only reason they weren't charged with perjury is because a congressman from Alaska (hey, what a coincidence! an oil producing state!) blocked their appearance before congress until he was guaranteed they wouldn't be sworn in and be required to testify under oath. The question remains, why would they lie if they haven't done anything wrong?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "The only reason they weren't charged with perjury is because a congressman from Alaska (hey, what a coincidence! an oil producing state!) blocked their appearance before congress until he was guaranteed they wouldn't be sworn in and be required to testify under oath." That would be the less than Honorable Sen. Ted Stevens.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There was no energy shortage or crisis in California. It was invented by Enron and is quite well documented in the documentary and the book on which the documentary was based.> I haven't seen that, and I'm skeptical of its accuracy. I remember that summer - it was very hot, the tech companies were still going pretty strong, and there had been some wildfires and other problems that had knocked out transmission lines. Plus California hadn't built a plant in decades. <They were asked, point blank, if they or representatives of their company met with vice-President Dick Cheney's energy task force. All but one categorically said "no." The other at least said, "Not that I'm aware of." A week later, documents surfaced proving, without any doubt, that these men did meet with Cheney and the task force.> Again, I don't think that's accurate.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>That would be the less than Honorable Sen. Ted Stevens.<< That would be Sen. Ted "multimillion bridge to nowhere" Stevens, right?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder The oil execs did meet with Cheney. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html</a> <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/16/MNG9HFP56T1.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/16/MNG9HFP56T1.DTL</a>
