Lay and Skilling Convicted

[Pangloss]

Oh hell yeah.

 

Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling have been convicted of fraud for the Enron fiasco. Each face 25 years in prison.

 

Finally there is justice for the Enron employees.

 

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aUm5vViGkGwc&refer=home

 

And even more interesting, it's yet another victory against corporate corruption by the Bush administration's Justice Department. A conviction that never would have happened under the Clinton/Reno Justice Department, given the level of Enron's political donations.

[Pangloss]

I loved this quote from Skilling today after the verdicts were read: "Some things work, some things don't."

 

Can't you just picture an Arthur Andersen partner saying those exact same words to Skilling when they were caught five years ago?

 

(chuckle)

[Jim]

Oh hell yeah.

 

Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling have been convicted of fraud for the Enron fiasco. Each face 25 years in prison.

 

Finally there is justice for the Enron employees.

 

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aUm5vViGkGwc&refer=home

 

And even more interesting' date=' it's yet another victory against corporate corruption by the Bush administration's Justice Department. A conviction that never would have happened under the Clinton/Reno Justice Department, given the level of Enron's political donations.[/quote']

 

I'm not saying they don't deserve what is coming but I wouldn't take any amount of money to be a CEO of a publicly traded company these days.

[Pangloss]

I don't think we need to worry about lack of motivation for honest, hard-working potential CEOs.

[bascule]

And even more interesting, it's yet another victory against corporate corruption by the Bush administration's Justice Department. A conviction that never would have happened under the Clinton/Reno Justice Department, given the level of Enron's political donations.

 

Yeah, I'll give the Bush Administration that... Clinton was the worst president in terms of letting business run amok since Coolidge...

[padren]

And even more interesting, it's yet another victory against corporate corruption by the Bush administration's Justice Department. A conviction that never would have happened under the Clinton/Reno Justice Department, given the level of Enron's political donations.

 

Considering the degree to which the Bush administration was in bed with these guys when they were screwing everyone, anything less would look like Ford pardoning Nixon.

 

Whatever did happen with all that secret energy plan stuff that Cheney kept trying to keep covered up?

 

 

Don't get me wrong - I am all in favor of the convictions. I just don't think a dedication to the cause of justice has anything to do with it.

[Tetrahedrite]

Considering the degree to which the Bush administration was in bed with these guys when they were screwing everyone' date=' anything less would look like Ford pardoning Nixon.

 

Whatever did happen with all that secret energy plan stuff that Cheney kept trying to keep covered up?

 

 

Don't get me wrong - I am all in favor of the convictions. I just don't think a dedication to the cause of justice has anything to do with it.[/quote']

Here, here. I was thinking along exactly the same lines.

[Pangloss]

That's just wild, off-the cuff sentiment, though, which suggests that maybe you guys really *need* that to be the case. Another example of just how prejudicial a lot of anti-Bush sentiment can be.

 

Consider, for a moment, the possibility that he's done some good here, full stop?

[Jim]

That's just wild' date=' off-the cuff sentiment, though, which suggests that maybe you guys really *need* that to be the case. Another example of just how prejudicial a lot of anti-Bush sentiment can be.

 

Consider, for a moment, the possibility that he's done some good here, full stop?[/quote']

 

 

Really.

 

While I respect the jury's service and their decision, I do not take pleasure in these guys spending the rest of their life in jail. Reading the jurors' statements, the basic reasoning was "you're too smart not to have known what others did for their own profit." I hope the sentence is 5-10 years not for the rest of their lives.

[padren]

That's just wild' date=' off-the cuff sentiment, though, which suggests that maybe you guys really *need* that to be the case. Another example of just how prejudicial a lot of anti-Bush sentiment can be.

 

Consider, for a moment, the possibility that he's done some good here, full stop?[/quote']

 

Why would you say that? I really wish I could believe Bush had decided they should be prosecuted in the name of justice. And of course, he did do some good here, I just have no basis to believe he suddenly had a huge shift in behavior.

If Philip Morris donated a million dollars tomorrow to a charity for cancer screenings, do you think it would be because well, people who run the company run it because they felt working for Philip Morris was the best way help the world and make it a better place and spread love, good will and good health to all?

If you did, it would suggest that you really *need* that to be the case, when you consider the action within the context of their behavior as a whole.

[Pangloss]

Well I can't deny that my centrist/bipartisan tendency is ideological in nature. I'm simply pointing out that you're casting aspersions on the value of this accomplishment because of a pre-existing judgement about the man.

 

The point is that anti-Bush sentiment is, more often than not, pre-judicial, just as anti-Clinton sentiment was. There's nothing really rational, objective, or fair about it. It's just easier.

 

You didn't raise a tobacco company for comparison because they're perceived as good guys. Just for a nice contrast, I'll point out that rabid anti-Bush sentiment is a bit like clubbing a baby seal -- it feels good when you do it, but at the end of the day you still know that you've done something horribly wrong. ;-)

[padren]

Well I can't deny that my centrist/bipartisan tendency is ideological in nature. I'm simply pointing out that you're casting aspersions on the value of this accomplishment because of a pre-existing judgement about the man.

 

The point is that anti-Bush sentiment is' date=' more often than not, [i']pre-judicial[/i], just as anti-Clinton sentiment was. There's nothing really rational, objective, or fair about it. It's just easier.

 

You didn't raise a tobacco company for comparison because they're perceived as good guys. Just for a nice contrast, I'll point out that rabid anti-Bush sentiment is a bit like clubbing a baby seal -- it feels good when you do it, but at the end of the day you still know that you've done something horribly wrong. ;-)

I didn't mean to imply the tabacco company is precieved as good guys - they have a well documented pattern of behavior that is very negative. My feelings are that from a rational, unemotional perspective, Bush also has a well documented pattern of behavior that is also very negative. I can't speak for rabid anti-bushies, but I can only imagine they never feel wrong...no more than limbaugh regrets attacking clinton all the time.

And unless a lot of heroine was involved, I can't imagine clubbing a baby seal would feel good to begin with.

 

I do agree I am using the man's record of actions to evaluate the most likely motives for his current actions, but its not like I am assuming his motives are bad because he's a conservative. If McCain was president and did the same thing, I would be much more likely to believe he did it for the right reasons.

[Pangloss]

I don't mean to nit-pick and I don't lump you in with the ravenous anti-Bush crowd. I just think it's worth noting that you made a comment that suggests that you can't appreciate the positive because you feel it's overshadowed by the negative. And make no bones about it -- that's opinion, not objective fact.

 

That's the danger of partisanship -- it stops people from recognizing good things when they happen.

[padren]

I don't mean to nit-pick and I don't lump you in with the ravenous anti-Bush crowd. I just think it's worth noting that you made a comment that suggests that you can't appreciate the positive because you feel it's overshadowed by the negative. And make no bones about it -- that's opinion' date=' not objective fact.

 

That's the danger of partisanship -- it stops people from recognizing good things when they happen.[/quote']

 

Fair enough, but I really don't think its about partisanship. You could say Clinton did a "good" thing when he came clean about Monica Lewinsky, but he only came clean when completely cornered and after he had lied to everyone - therefore, I wouldn't say his honesty in the end would be considered the result of good character, nor would I consider any conservatives that pointed out that fact to be "ignoring the positive over partisanship."

 

 

I do see the positive effect and I am glad for it. It is my opinion, and granted its just an opinion (though I feel it is justified and based on more than just a generalized political bias), that if Bush uncovered misdeeds by Haliburton and knew prosecuting them would hurt his administration due to Cheney's ties to the company, that the decision to pass that knowledge on to the Department of Justice would be based on whether it would come to light anyway and hurt him more if he sat on it, or if it would hurt him more if he brought it to light himself.

 

 

I do agree that when someone bashes a member of the opposing party over partisanship and erects a mental block around any good deeds they do, that the person in question really looses out and is being horribly effected by his partisanship. I do believe that is dangerous. I also believe it is dangerous to attribute acts of political manuvering to acts of character, which is why I err on the side of caution and try to take in the individual's track record, regardless of the party affiliation.