Posts Made By: Brett Wylie

Arnold Schwarzenegger had secret meetings with Ken Lay (Enron) and Pete White, past governor of Calfornia, who was actually responsible as governor for agreeing to energy deregulation in the state (so that screwball agreement is squarly in Pete's "court", along with Bush Sr. and Ken Lay). Arnold is denying the meetings ever took place. -Emails are out proving otherwise. During Bush's 1st term..1/2 dozen ex-Enron employees had joined his administration. Enron was Bush's major contributor until just recently.

http://www.deal-with-it.org/diamonds/enron.htm

ENRON : ace of diamonds
($)

Before getting involved in energy futures and derivatives (investments, similar to futures contracts or options, which depend on the upward or downward value of the underlying investment, such as oil) in the early 1990s, Enron began as an energy producer or seller. After gaining the right to sell derivatives, Enron quickly began to manipulate the market in a way that has made them famous today. They set up thousands of little "partnerships" around the world, offshore companies that provided the perfect disguise for Enron's price gouging. Moreover, the company could transfer some of its debts and obligations over to their "partners" and thereby make Enron's value look rosier to traders on Wall Street.

Not so long ago, Enron's name did not carry with it the same connotation it does today. Today, hardly anyone trusts the Enron name because of the evidence that has come out detailing the deceptive and fraudulent practices which has made the company notorious for its brand of crony capitalism. We have nominated Enron to be the Ace of Diamonds for these reasons.

Manipulation of the markets
In 2001, the state of California experienced a power crisis unlike anything anyone has ever seen. Massive blackouts and brownouts occurred all over the state, and the prices of energy soared through the roof. Coupled with an outrageously low supply of energy, the entire situation called for serious attention.

At the center of the crisis were Enron and the other energy producers who manipulated the supply of energy on the market and exacerbated the crisis. According to a story by CBS News, during the crisis companies like Enron kept between 30 and 50 percent of their power off of the market. Moreover, when some of the worst moments of the crisis occurred, they held back even more - anywhere from 55 to 76 percent - in an effort, CBS News learned, to follow schemes which stifle the supply and thereby raise the prices for energy.

See:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/17/eveningnews/main522332.shtml

Enron was used to giving such schemes names such as "Load Shift" and "Get Shorty." With "Load Shift" Enron allegedly filed false power delivery schedules on transmission lines across California to create the appearance of "congestion" on these lines. That way, when it became necessary to drop or revise deliveries of power to other places which needed the power more, Enron was entitled to compensation from the state. They did so by exploiting a loophole in the ridiculous 1996 legislation in California which somewhat deregulated the energy industry in California.

In the "Get Shorty" scheme, Enron fabricated and sold emergency backup power to California, took the payment, and then cancelled those orders and instead sold them less expensive power from neighboring states. California consumers are still waiting for their refunds from these fraudulent transactions.

See:
http://www.forbes.com/2003/02/05/cx_da_0205topnews.html

The man formerly in charge of Enron's California and Western trading operations admitted as much in federal court. In October 2002, Timothy Belden pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to commit wire fraud. According to a criminal complaint filed by the Justice Department's Enron task force, the consumers in California during the energy crisis paid more than $9 billion than they should have! According to USA Today, Belden and others allegedly engaged in fraudulent trading which sent energy prices up from $40 a megawatt hour to $1500 a megawatt hour. All of this stolen money was deposited into the coffers of companies like Enron, who knowingly defrauded the citizens of California.

According to the complaint, Enron gained $1.3 billion in revenue from the scheme in 2000 and 2001. Belden's attorney remarked that Belden was simply following "Enron's policy, training and expectations."

See:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2002-10-17-enron-belden_x.htm

The meltdown
In February, 2001, president and chief operating officer Jeffrey Skilling took over as Enron's CEO. That August, he abruptly resigned after just six months on the job, although he denied knowledge of any wrongdoing by the company or Arthur Andersen, the company's accounting firm. That same day and a couple of weeks later, Lay sent separate emails to company employees, touting the stock and the declaring that the growth of Enron "has never been more certain." However, a day after Lay's first email, a vice president for corporate development, Sherron Watkins, wrote a memo to Lay expressing concern that the company would "implode in a wave of accounting scandals."

See:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/enron/1246305
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,195268,00.html

On the 17th of September, Skilling sold 500 shares in the company. The entire time he was encouraging people to buy shares, he was selling off $66 million of his own. By July, Lay himself had unloaded $21 million in stock that year alone. Even though Lay was selling off millions of stock, he himself was telling his employees that the stock was a "bargain" and would grow in value by 800 percent over the next ten years.

See:
http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/19/jskilling.html

On October 16, the public finally got a hint at what had really been going on. That day, Enron reported a $638 million loss in the third quarter of 2001, and a $1.2 billion loss in shareholder equity, partly related to all of the offshore "partnerships" they were running at the same time. On the 28th of that month, Lay talked to then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Commerce Secretary Don Evans about the company's problems. The Administration decided it would be better to not intervene, although they claim they never told Bush of the encounter.

See:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/energy/2002-01-14-enron.htm

Three days later, Enron announced a formal investigation by the SEC into possible conflicts of interest posed by the company's thousands of offshore "partnerships." A week later, Enron filed documents with the SEC revising its financial statements for the previous five years. This erased $586 million in profits and added $2.5 billion in debts. By the end of the month, Enron's credit rating was downgraded to junk bond status, and its stock began trading below $1 a share. The next week, Enron filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, making it the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history, and it fired some 5,000 of its employees in the U.S. and Europe.

At the beginning of 2002, the Justice Department acknowledged it had begun a formal criminal investigation into the company. The company's auditor, Arthur Andersen, admitted it had destroyed some of its Enron documents. The White House admitted Lay had sought the administration's help shortly before Watkins' premonition came true. In the investigation, Attorney General John Ashcroft had to recuse himself because he, like many other Republicans, had received significant contributions from Enron and its associates in his 2000 race for Senate from Missouri.

On the 19th of January, the White House acknowledged that Dick Cheney intervened to help Enron secure payment on a $64 million debt owed to it by an Indian energy project. Two weeks later, the General Accounting Office sued the White House to obtain potentially incriminating documents detailing the influence Enron had on the Bush Administration's national energy policy, which according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, benefited Enron in 17 different ways.

See:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/54921_energy18.shtml

In February 2002, a special committee set up by Enron itself admitted to an elaborate scheme involving "partnerships" which allowed the executives at Enron to fraudulently inflate earnings and profits by more than a billion dollars, pocketing millions in cash in the process. By that March, the U.S. government suspended all outstanding contracts with Enron and its accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, which had been indicted by a federal grand jury in February for "knowingly, intentionally and corruptly" persuading employees to shred Enron documents back in October 2001 when Enron first admitted to inflating profits to shareholders and Wall Street.

See:
http://www.dailyenron.com

White House influence
Throughout his career, Enron has been the single largest contributor to George W. Bush's multiple campaigns. From 1993 to 2001, associates of Enron as well as the company's Political Action Committee gave more than $700,000 to Bush. For Bush's nominating convention in 2000, Enron gave $200,000 to the Republican national Committee.

See:
http://www.fec.gov
http://www.opensecrets.org

When George W. Bush moved onto 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, his friend since the 1980s and Enron CEO Kenneth Lay was given a position on the Bush transition team where he worked along with Dick Cheney in helping to develop national energy policies. In fact, some 50 former Enron executives, lobbyists, lawyers or large shareholders ended up working in the Bush Administration. For example, Bush's former chief economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey and the U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick both served on Enron's advisory board.

See:
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/24hour/politics/story/217715p-2099162c.html

Between 1989 and 2001, Enron and its employees gave more than $5.95 million in hard and soft money contributions to federal candidates and parties. Of these, nearly three-quarters went to the Republican party. One of the largest beneficiaries of this money was House Majority Leader Tom DeLay along with his political network, which have collected over $200,000 in Enron's money. According to the National Journal, DeLay's connections to Enron are so strong that some call him "the congressman from Enron."

See:
http://www.rollcall.com, 02/25/02 (subscription required)
http://nationaljournal.com, 06/03/00 (subscription required)

And Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser - or as some call him "Bush's Brain" - refused to sell some $250,000 worth of Enron stock until June of 2000, despite having met with Ken Lay about the administration's energy policy before his sale of the stock. What Karl Rove's case indicates is a White House that is closely tied to the fallen giant and which, for self-interested reasons, refuses to create an independent energy policy which places the national interest ahead of the interest of corporate cronies of the administration.

See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/business/2002/enron/20.stm



For more information:

Some news sources have some excellent sections of their web pages devoted to news on Enron. Obviously this list is not exhaustive, but these couple sources are very good sites for Enron information:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/business/2002/enron/default.stm
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/01/enron/index.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ep/20050318/en_bpiep/studymediaselfcensoredsomeiraqcoverage

Study: Media Self-Censored Some Iraq Coverage

Fri Mar 18, 6:33 PM ET Entertainment - Editor and Publisher
NEW YORK: Many media outlets self-censored their reporting on the Iraq (news - web sites) invasion because of concerns about public reaction to graphic images and content, according to a survey of more than 200 journalists by American University's School of Communications.

The study, released Friday, also determined that "vigorous discussions" about what and where to publish information and images were conducted at media outlets and, in many cases, journalists posted material online that did not make it to print.

One of the most significant findings was "the amount of editing that went into content after it was gathered but before it was published," the study stated. Of those who reported from Iraq, 15% said that on one or more occasions their organizations edited material for publication and they did not believe the final version accurately represented the story. :S

Of those involved in war coverage who were in newsrooms and not in Iraq, 20% said material was edited for reasons other than basic style and length.

Some 42% of those polled said they were discouraged from showing photographic images of dead Americans, while 17% said they were prohibited. Journalists were also discouraged from showing pictures of hostages, according to 36% of respondents, while only 3% reported being prohibited from showing them.

American University professors MJ Bear and Jane Hall conducted the survey of 210 journalists from the United States and other countries, who completed the anonymous, online questionnaire in September and October 2004.

The study surveyed reporters, photographers, producers, and managers involved in their organization's coverage of Iraq. News personnel were e-mailed a link to the online survey; only those who completed all questions were counted in the results.

Some 35% of respondents, 73 people, reported being in Iraq or in a surrounding country during the war and its aftermath. About half that group said they were embedded with the U.S. military during all or part of their coverage.

Nearly one-third of news outlets used their Web sites to disseminate materials that were not first published or broadcast elsewhere by the organization, the survey said. In most cases, the Web sites were used not to run material censored from print but to take advantage of the virtually limitless space the Net offers for photographic essays, extended interviews, and behind-the-scenes reporter accounts.

Although the questions covered events from the beginning of the war through September 2004 -- the first 15 months of the occupation -- it focused primarily on decision-making during major events such as the release of the Abu Ghraib prison photographs and the images showing the deaths of four American contractors in Fallujah.

Respondents said several incidents sparked newsroom debates concerning the impact of publishing graphic photographs or detailed information about death and torture. In most instances, news managers self-censored coverage by choosing to run less-graphic images or putting details inside the paper and not on front pages.

The survey also included dozens of comments from respondents, offering specific incidents of censorship or lengthy discussions about coverage.

"As with any death, we tried to make sure the pictures were as 'tasteful' as possible -- not much blood or gore," one anonymous respondent wrote. "We ran a front page picture of the four dead contractors in Fallujah, for instance, but from a greater distance than some newspapers, so the bodies were not immediately distinct as corpses. Even so, we drew a large amount of criticism from readers."

Wrote another: "We published a press release issued by the kidnappers of American Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia, which included images of his beheading. It was hotly debated in the newsroom and resulted in dozens of e-mails, letters and phone calls from readers around the country; surprisingly, all but a handful approved of our use of the images, we published an editor's note on Page 1 warning readers of the images on an inside page. The photos were run in black-and-white, far smaller than actual size."

"Our duty is to report as vividly and accurately as we can what is happening in Iraq. But we have to make difficult judgments about some of the shocking raw footage we or agencies film of death, horrific injuries, hostage murders filmed by hostage takers, etc," another journalist wrote back. "We want to show what is happening, but also to avoid causing unnecessary shock and distress to viewers or encouraging further brutality by hostage takers. It is a difficult task."

Of the journalists who were in the region, 86% said their ability to publish online did not affect they type of information and material they gathered, but nearly half said they were able to publish content online that wasn't available to print and broadcast audiences. In addition, 29% said their Internet reports allowed more comprehensive coverage. Only 7% said their Internet reports allowed them to publish material deemed not appropriate for other media.

The survey found that there were only limited in-house restrictions in the type of interviews conducted. When journalists who were In Iraq were asked if their editors or managers limited interviews, 92% said they had no limits at all and only two respondents said they were limited in publishing interviews with Iraqi military personnel, Iraqi insurgents, or other journalists.




Among respondents who were in Iraq, 27% said their organization had prior rules in place about what they would or would not publish, and 31% of those who were based in newsrooms said their organization had prior rules. Coverage sensitivity focused more on the type of images published.

Among those who did not have such rules in place, 39% reported being unable to show images of dead Americans at some point, while 22% said they were not allowed to show images of hostages at times.

"There is an unspoken rule against publishing images that would be extremely horrifying such as a bloody stump on an amputee or a mangled corpse," one respondent wrote. Added another: "Several photos, especially one of a very young, naked, dead boy, stirred controversy before we decided to post them."

One journalist said a report with pictures from Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s secret archive, showing beating and torture, was edited, "on the grounds that the pictures were sickening -- my answer was that, Yes they were, but all the more important to show as much as possible."

Other anonymous comments from those who took part in the survey:

"We went in with no ground rules except those of the military, which prohibited photos that would show the faces of captives, and also which discouraged photos that would ID wounded or dead U.S. troops. That said, I think we knew that HIGHLY explicit photos of gore were not likely to get published. The editors were eager for powerful photos though, and went further than many U.S. media outlets in that regard."

"Our rules are against anything which might offend our audience, i.e. we are in the realm of taste and decency, which is difficult to quantify. ... on the one hand, I don't want, say, my kids to turn on the TV after tea and see some of the things I have seen in the field. But on the other hand, the effect of this is to sanitize the coverage, and glamorize the conflict."

"An American soldier who was injured during combat in 2003 was photographed alive, but before he died. After the soldier died, the paper ran the picture of him in his still-injured state. It caused a stir.

"We delayed or didn't even publish lots of information on which we had contradictory or incomplete reports.

--Joe Strupp ([email protected]) is a senior editor at E&P.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050330/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman

He's counting his money in hell now..while O.J. is still playing golf!

http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper=adg§ion=Editorial&storyid=113393 :S

Who served the long term interests of the country best in re: our Vietnam conflict/involvement?...McNamara, Westmorland, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy, Eisenhower, the CIA, the Pentagon? Or, Fonda...Kerry...the Pentagon Papers? Put another way, was the situation resolved by body counts (bean counters), increased troop deployments, high altitude bombing of Hanoi? The failed policies, solutions, assesments, lies, of our many Presidents many advisors? Or did telling the truth about the real situation in Viet Nam help the country most, in the nations realization of what really needed to be done, which was our total military withdrawal from a foreign country; what did the most to resolve the nations quandry in Viet Nam? Lies? or Truth?

Fonda, Kerry, and the Pentagon Papers; traitors or hero's?

To "win" was the unsolvable problem..it is the same problem we have in Iraq today..then and there, we would have had to best Hitler, Stalin, Mao..in atrocities, to "win" in Viet Nam. We would have won nothing..because there would have been nothing left of Viet Nam to win..and we would have lost our soul as a nation.

Bullets flying by your head..don't amount to empty rhetoric, I understand that, and that immediate experience makes it hard to stand back and look at a situation objectively. With that in mine though, how can we objectively and logically define the term "enemy"..specifically, is it a propoganda tool by our goverment similar to a present day over use of "insurgent" that we should question..or does it accurately describe an individual/or individuals, that desire the downfall of America and Americans (I would, for example, define members of Al Quaida as enemies of America)...what "viet cong" soldier had plans a foot to invade and take over America, as a long term goal? Were they in our country dropping napalm, high explosives from thousands of feet up, defoliating agents? None that I've ever heard of..they did want us t'hell out of their own country! We must also realize in this context the presence, the history, of the imperialistic French in Nam..and realize how many Vietnamese would, in that historical context, feel about us!

The Viet Cong were the enemies of the South Vietnamese Goverment..the VC viewed the SVG as a puppet goverment of a foreign country..the "Vichy" French equivalent against the French Resistance Fighters WWII. The fact that we changed the SVC goverments head as often we liked..either by assasination or by assasination...gives their view some perfectly good credence. To bad we didn't see land reform for peasants with quite the same importance as we did increased troop deployment.

We really totally missed the boat on our evaluation of the political, military, strategic situation in Viet Nam. McNamara admitted as much..in the movie/interview..in "The Fog of War"..that the Viet Cong were first and foremost, nationalists. That they were, afterall, fighting a war of independence from foreign occupiers. And, that U.S. war policy actually strengthened the political hand of the more rabid communists in Hanoi's goverment, forcing Ho Chi Minh and the rest of his goverment farther into the communist fold.

No photo, but what great news! I've been wishing this to happen for at least 40 years.

Thanks!

This is supposedly a quote from Eisenhower, although I don't have a source. If it is, it's prime!

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0505/p09s02-coop.html

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/06/the_white_room_revisited/