On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 08:42:04PM -0500, Jim wrote:
> A good report about called:
> Hoax: How Deregulation let the Power Industry Steal $71 Billion from
> California
> can be found at
> www.consumerwatchdog.org
>
Some observations. First, this organization appears to be primarily
agitators. They remind me a lot of Nader's bunch, and Nader's bunch are
basically socialists. Lots of complaining, investigating, carping
criticism, whining, posturing, accusation of conspiracy, etc.
For example, they make much, in several articles, of a supposed memo
from Enron exhorting Cheney to do nothing about California's energy
crisis, and to avoid price controls. They highlight Boxer's and
Feinstein's whining about this (what don't Boxer and Feinstein whine
about?). But this is patently absurd. First off, the Republican party
typically avoids price controls like the plague, because they are
advocates of a free market economy. Price controls are anathema to a
free market economy, and are like pissing in the wind. You can't alter
the laws of supply and demand, which is what price controls attempt to
do. Second, the Republican party tends to argue in favor of states'
rights, and avoid issues which are strictly local in scope. California's
energy crisis was, on the surface at least, a crisis of its own making.
Indeed, it would set a bad precedent to bail out a state because of its
own mismanagement. So the proscriptions are useless, since these things
are precisely what the Republicans would do anyway. Moreover, though,
the way it's presented makes it appear that there is a conspiracy and
that the White House was under the thumb of Enron. Repeated efforts by
the media and the Democrats have indicated that this is not the case,
and that the White House acted properly. Liberals like to point at the
data that Cheney is withholding (which is Cheney's right). But again the
question must be asked: when Enron called for help, what did the
administration do? Nothing. That "purchase of influence" by Enron proved
the lie behind "campaign finance reform".
This is another issue as well. The fall of Enron has no business in
Congress. It is a matter for the Justice Department. If Congress
believes that the Justice Department cannot fairly investigate and
prosecute this case, then they are welcome to move for a special
prosecutor. But the only reason to air any of Enron's business in the
Congress is as an opportunity for congressmen and congresswomen to
strut and posture. Was there dishonesty involved with Enron? Absolutely.
What was it? That's a matter for Justice.
As for the deregulation article, there are a number of inaccuracies, and
I question the analysis of these people. Most importantly, there was no
"deregulation" in California. It's been repeatedly called that because
it gives politicians (liberal ones) a chance to say, "See, the
government has to control these things or they just go off the rails."
This is the modus operandi of the Democratic Party and the liberal
media. It is a consistent cry throughout the liberal world. But the fact
is that what California had was not "deregulation". It was gross and
massive mismanagement. (By the way, does anyone know if Gray Davis ever
ran a successful business in his life?) There are a plethora of claims
made by these people, and I haven't time to investigate them all. But
let's look at the premise that the power industry set up an elaborate
blackmail/coercion scheme to force California to do something or
another. Does this even seem probable? The power folks were investigated
when this whole thing first blew up, and to my knowledge, nothing stuck.
On the other hand, in a state where there was such gross mismanagement
of the power grid, I can well imagine a great deal of finger-pointing
and histrionics in an effort to draw attention away from the
mismanagement. This is standard for politicians who can't manage their
way of out a paper bag. It happens everywhere there are inept
politicians.
> A new book about Bush is coming out Tuesday and its already on Amazons
> bestseller list. Its called : Stupid White Men
> www.michaelmoore.com
> Jim
>
Umm, I think the title says it all here. It's a smear job, because we've
got elections coming up and the liberals want to regain the House and
solidify their lead in the Senate. They've tried repeatedly to get
traction on a number of issues and they just can't, and it scares the
crap out of them. "Stupid" people don't graduate from Harvard with MBAs.
"Stupid" people don't fly jets; the Air Force doesn't allow it. "Stupid"
people don't run successful businesses. From what little I've heard
about this book, it appears, for example, that much is made of the fact
that Bush is not familiar with the latest pop artists and fashion
trends. This claim is probably true. It illustrates three things. First,
that we finally have a president who's got some depth. Second, that the
person writing this couldn't think of anything better to come up with.
And third, that the people who fostered this effort are truly desperate.
Bush is a dismal orator, and he leans too far to the left for me. But
he's not stupid, and he's done an incredibly difficult job very well.
And unlike the last idiot we had in the White House, he has some
integrity. Whether he's intimately familiar with Britney's Spears' new
album matters about as much as what brand of deoderant he uses.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:06:10 EDT