Let's Talk some POLITICS up in here - #2

[BillL]

And the ball's back in Bill's court (playing devil's advocate for a change);

Mike says:
Today the so-called "supreme court" overturned the convictions of the Arthur Anderson Accounting Firm for desroying (shredding) much of the evidence in the ENRON caper. Something about the jury wasn't properly instructed.
I figure this is just a sneak preview of how Dubyas Enron buddies are going to SKATE at the end of the day, but hey...we sure slammed Martha Stewart didn't we.

Whilst I completely agree with your conclusion that this, on this surface, is an outrage of huge proportion I'm finding it hard to reconcile part of the equation. Bear (beer or bare whichever works for you...sorry, Rhode Island accent time) with me for a minute. We are a nation of laws...people have rights. In this country, our judicial system was based on the accussed having most of the tilt in their favor. For good or bad, this is true. Now, and I can't speak with any authority here, assume if the jury instructions were wrong, or some other technicality, isn't our system supposed to protect the accused from possible wrongful incarceration? If evidence in a murder trial is found illegally, it's inadmissable in court. It's still there and may point to the accused and yet can't be used. There's very good reason for that. Now, let's tie it into this 1984 business. Your argument would be that since they are friends of Big Brother this whole thing was a sham. Go through the trial, get found guilty and then let go by a technicality. Strong argument there. But then again, do you through out the laws to try to keep these people in jail? Who makes that call? Who else do they feel should be in jail? Will the line that they use to determine this be a moving line? Who decides that? Getting a headache? I fully agree they should be in jail, by the way. Just trying to keep us all intellectually honest.

Chad says;

I've been telling my kids for the past 5 years that yes we think of such things as the internet, "caller ID", and a hundred other things as modern day conveniences. And they are, but they are also what Mr. Orwell referred to as "Big Brother". Your computers, telephones, and probably your TV's are watching you (and you always thought you were watching TV ). Hell, even your car is watching you if you have a dashboard GPS system installed. He called his book 1984, and he didn't miss it by too many years did he?

That's why I just bought a new tin foil hat from the back of the new Spiderman issue. Man, this thing works great. Not only that but the chicks really dig it when I wear it out to the bars. And I don't need my medication as much due to the voices leaving me alone when it's on.


Sorry boys, sometimes I just can't help myself. Maybe I should start taking my medications again.

Bill L

Scott said;
I am retiring in 9 working days, the wife has already moved the dog and all of our stuff up to Oregon, and I am living with a friend in an empty room with little to no internet access. So, it is a rare day, indeed, when I can visit the non-Little Feat related message board and try to catch up. Good to see you back, Bill.


Congrats, my friend. Enjoy many years of health and happiness in your leisure time. You, more than many I know, deserve it for the time you put in educating kids. And outside of your obvious shortcomings, your a good egg. ;D

And it's good to be back.

[BillL]

I'd just like to add that I clearly hadn't thought my whole arguement through because I'm certain that corporate criminal law is very different from violent criminal law. I would assume that my arguement still holds but I have know way of knowing (add valley girl accent here please) for sure.

Bill L

[Mike]

BillL said:

I would assume that my arguement still holds but I have know way of knowing (add valley girl accent here please) for sure.

Bill L

Oh I'm not trying to make an arguement. There is no arguement (see recent post regarding "parlor games")
Besides, my friends from Mexico tell me "you don't argue with dictators or aristocrats unless you is one"

The Washington Post:
"The instructions for the jury were too broad."
Here is a real hoot: ;D
"The decision was a defeat for the Bush administration which had declared prosecution of white collar criminals a high priority ;D following accounting scandals at major corporations."
These guys are hilarious!

[Scott Hays]

Thanks to one and all in reference to best regards for a happy retirement. Helen and I have no plans. We know that when we go to Jamaica we will neither feel guilty for leaving the children in the hands of a substitute, nor feel this incredible pressure to make sure we make that %*!!# connecting flight. We have a large garden to tend and lots of places to visit. We have two granddaughters about 1/2 hour away. Some publishers are interested in our input regarding upcoming textbooks. I have a lot of catching up to do in the world of music and technology, and Helen is anxious to learn along with me. Who knows ... the future is really a question of cash flow and interests, because for once, time IS on our side.

I philosophically have to agree with Bill about protecting defendent's rights in a court of law ... if the instructions to the jury were too broad, whatever that might mean, and that somehow violated their right to a fair judgment, then I guess we gotta let the suckers go. Who knows when one of us might be hauled in front of an unfriendly court and find that the judge's instructions to the jury were to find us guilty if any shred of evidence could even remotely be construed to impugn our innocence -- wouldn't we be happy to have the Anderson case as a precedent? Well ... that may be stretching the point; but certainly not any more than claiming this was a "defeat" for the Bush administration and its "war" on white collar crime. I saw an interesting statistic the other day ... while it came from a book published in 1999, I doubt very much if the balance in the following ratio has changed very much -- violent crime commited by individuals results in a cost to society of about 4 billion dollars annually; white collar crime committed by individuals results in a cost to society of about 30 billion dollars a year. Guess which crimes are more likely to be pursued and prosecuted?

By the way ... the amount of money that California was in the red was about equal to the amount of money that Enron and it's cronies ripped us off for (that is, until the gubernator came along and borrowed money to pay off the debt, significantly raising the ante, but at least putting it off until after his term expires)

[Mike]

Scott said:

We have a large garden to tend and lots of places to visit.

;D That reminds me of the Jerzy Kosinski novel (and movie with Peter O'Toole) "Being There" with Chance proclaiming "you must pull the weeds from your garden..." He was talking about..his garden, but the rest of the world thought he was talking metaphoritically about his genious leadership abilities.
Funny story. Read it or rent it! hey wait, i'm on the wrong thread...

[chadgumbo]

BillL said:

That's why I just bought a new tin foil hat from the back of the new Spiderman issue. Man, this thing works great. Not only that but the chicks really dig it when I wear it out to the bars. And I don't need my medication as much due to the voices leaving me alone when it's on.

;D ;D ;D
Wasn't I the one who was ranting sometime back about not being too vocal with regard to one's own paranoia? ;D Hilarious stuff there Bill. I'm too sexy for my tin foil hat, too sexy for my Spiderman tin foil hat... ;D

With regard to the Supreme Court decision and the Enron accountants, yes I too feel that if the jury received instructions that were too broad then the decision needs to be overturned. I'm not upset with the Supreme Court. But I'm still a believer in accountability and so it begs the question. Do we not hold the judge who gave these unacceptable instructions to the jury accountable in some way? Should there be no recriminations for this person at all?
Isn't this judge supposed to be the most educated and knowledgable person in that courtroom with regard to proper legal procedures? Doesn't giving the jury their instructions just about damned near define the judges role? If it isn't the judge's job to judge, then can't he or she at least give adequate instructions? Where did this judge go to school anyway, the George Clinton School of Law at Full Sail University in Florida? Gimme a break!
- chadgumbo

[Mike]

chadgumbo said:

Isn't this judge supposed to be the most educated and knowledgable person in that courtroom with regard to proper legal procedures? Doesn't giving the jury their instructions just about damned near define the judges role? If it isn't the judge's job to judge, then can't he or she at least give adequate instructions? Where did this judge go to school anyway, the George Clinton School of Law at Full Sail University in Florida? Gimme a break!
- chadgumbo

Slow down Chad. This is the same "supreme court" who's "interpretations" brought us........Dubya!

THESE ASSHOLES SHRED TONS OF EVIDENCE AGAINST ENRON, AND ALREADY THE BAD GUY IS THE JUDGE THAT CONVICTED THEM OF OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE?!? give me a break!!!

I for one find it hard to believe the origional judge would have improper proceedings with as high profile as this case was destined to be.
From what I see Rhenquist and the SC are a little "broad" with their interpretations of "broad instructions".
I still say this is just a warm up for the Ken Lay etal trial.
Here we go again. The people-vrs-...The people

I'm extremely curious to see how they will actually muster sympathy for Arthur Anderson/ENRON.

[BillL]

Mike says:
I for one find it hard to believe the origional judge would have improper proceedings with as high profile as this case was destined to be.

Do you remember the OJ trial?

and continues:
I'm extremely curious to see how they will actually muster sympathy for Arthur Anderson/ENRON.

I highly doubt that there is any sympathy for those guys. However, I would like to add that the law doesn't care about sympathy, hardship, any of that. The trial is based on a series of procedures intended to help innocent people from being railroaded by the government. Unfortunately, that is not how it appears most of the time but it is what it is.

Slow down Chad. This is the same "supreme court" who's "interpretations" brought us........Dubya!

I believe that is their job, is it not. Otherwise how does Roe v Wade fit into your right to privacy? (Ooops, big can of worms being opened).

Chad says:
But I'm still a believer in accountability and so it begs the question. Do we not hold the judge who gave these unacceptable instructions to the jury accountable in some way? Should there be no recriminations for this person at all?

Ever here of tenure? And how difficult it is to get anyone with power to give it up? Don't you know that judges and lawyers are way smarter than us?

Bill L

[featphoto]

Mike said:

That reminds me of the Jerzy Kosinski novel (and movie with Peter O'Toole) "Being There" with Chance proclaiming "you must pull the weeds from your garden..."

Peter Sellers ...

[Mike]

featphoto said:

Peter Sellers ...

Right. One of my favorites. Damn this dementia, "but I'd do it all over again".

[Mike]

BillL said:

I highly doubt that there is any sympathy for those guys.

I believe that is their job, is it not. Otherwise how does Roe v Wade fit into your right to privacy? (Ooops, big can of worms being opened).

Don't you know that judges and lawyers are way smarter than us?

Bill L

Bill L, you're probably right on this one. But...with friends like BUSH/CHENEY 2004 who needs sympathy? ;D

Roe v Wade - I'm happy to say that I've never been pregnant, so other than being a steadfast pro-choice fan I could care less about that one. Much bigger fish to skin IMO.

Hey, speak for yourself! Smart is a relative term.

[featphoto]

mike said:

Roe v Wade - I'm happy to say that I've never been pregnant, so other than being a steadfast pro-choice fan I could care less about that one. Much bigger fish to skin IMO.

glad you're pro-choice, but I disagree with your assessment ... an issue that affects over 50% of the population, is the focus of so much effort by the extreme religous right, and deals with as basic a question as personal freedom of choice seems to be one of the biggest fish out there, whether or not you have a uterus ...

[Mike]

Actually I contradict myself. You can't be "steadfast" anything and not care about it. After it being a common sense non issue for so long I just haven't woke up to it being such a part of the barrage from the Extreme Christian Coalition ironically led by the most evil Mofos in my lifetime. If only they worried as much about children that are already born!!!
True story:
Here in Denton, north of Dallas, a young girl was raped and examined by the Dr. at the Emergency Room. He prescribed the morning after pill to make sure her life wasn't even more traumatized. Now...the Pharmacist at Eckards (that's ECKARDS) refused to fill her prescription because it was "against his moral judgement" (just like Islam)! Of course there were protest, but the really scary thing is that it was 50/50 for him/against him.

I certainley don't want to appear insensitive to anyone with a uterus, but with our country being sold out from under us I still don't think we have the "luxury" of this being a "large fish" issue. I understand that the current administration with thier hand picked judicial system will jeopordize Roe v Wade but I say cure the desease not the symptoms.

Has America gotten weird enough yet? Just a tip of the 'berg is what I'm thinking.

(what is up with this site?)

[chadgumbo]

Mike,
The site was down for at least part of a day (one or two days ago) for updating.
I guess this is your "new LF forum" for better or worse. I think it's okay so far.
- chadgumbo

[Scott Hays]

There are two ways to look at power ... there are those who want power over the people around them, and there are those who empower the people around them. For quite some time, the former has held sway over the latter in this country. Even at local levels of governance (which includes school boards, housing associations, hospital boards, etc. etc.), this is increasingly true. Sometimes those in power have been benevolent (or at least portray themselves as benevolent), at other times not so benevolent. While I personally prefer a benevolent dictator over a ruthless one, we sometimes forget in the heat of battle that a dictator is still telling me (and us) what to do; or at least the source of all important decision-making flows from the top down (since what we really have in this country is -- as I have said before -- an oligarchy -- not a monarchy). Please note that some of us are in agreement with the top-down decisions. The numbers may drop as far as the low 40 percents (or, conversely, as high as the high sixty percents), but no "leader" in this country can ever alienate seventy or eighty percent of the population -- at least, not yet. This is because "disagreement" about some issues is okay and does not threaten the power base of the folks exercising the power. It may cause a swing in which wing of the ruling class is in control -- in traditional terms, democrats or republicans, or various shades of liberalism or conservatism -- but the swing is never very far. Eventually, the Christian coalition will exceed its tolerable range of influence, and it will disappear (much like Wobblies disappeared in the twenties and thirties). I, for one, will say good riddance ... but others will not be so pleased. And so, the "acceptable" dialog across the isle over such hot button issues such as choice/no-choice (I refuse to call it "right to life", since the same people who oppose a woman's right to choose tend to favor the death penalty), welfare/charity, gay marriage/traditional marriage, war/anti-war (etc.) will continue.

What also continues, of course, is the centralization of power and top-down management. Only big brother (not a "B" brother, yet) can guard us against the international terrorist threat, the possibility of a chicken-flu pandemic, foreigners taking our jobs, intrastate gang warfare, or pirating of audio/visual signals. Please distinguish for me any major difference between Ford, General Motors or Honda ... between Harcourt Brace Jovanovich and McMillan McGraw Hill ... between United and Jet Blue ... between Texaco/Chevron or Exxon/Shell/Mobil/76 ... between AT&T (and all the baby bells that are now bigger than the original parent, and one even "owns" it), Verizon (ex-GTE) and Cingular (ex-MCI) ... between any of the pharmeceutical or agricultural (including tobacco) or any other "giant" in any industry!

While we have our friendly (and at times not so friendly) discussions or arguments about "matters of consequence", we are easily diverted from recognizing that we, the people, who supposedly exercise "power", have willingly given it over to folks who are not shy about exercising it. I know the slogan "power to the people" has been bastardized ... and some very wise writers a couple of hundred years ago were arguably correctly suspicious of the "people", so created a government based on indirect democracy that served to check against their power as much as it served to check against the power of the individual branches of government -- but there is nothing un-American about telling an increasingly entrenced group of folks that they need to butt out and just do their business, not make government a tool that helps them do their business better.

There is also nothing un-American about nationalizing all those so-called "private" corporations, then reorganizing them so that they are controlled by the people who work for them. But this is a different thread, and I have overextended my stay this time around.