SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neocon who wrote (219048)1/16/2002 11:25:13 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Jonah Goldberg





Don't blame the Bush administration for Enron

newsandopinion.com -- KEN LAY should be handcuffed to a basement radiator next to a half-starved wolverine. The cadre of cash-outers from Enron's executive ranks should be forced to watch Bette Midler's "Beaches" with their eyelids propped open, like the guy from "A Clockwork Orange," for the rest of their lives. Anyone who says Enron without scowling should be publicly flogged with bamboo rods by bands of righteous citizens.

OK? Have I sufficiently denounced Enron? Am I on the record saying that what these guys did was wrong? Good. The last thing I want to do is seem soft on the most despised institution in America.

These days, to paraphrase President Bush's pronouncements about the war on terror, if you're not against Enron, you're with them. When such staunch conservatives and free marketers as George Will and Larry Kudlow feel the need to condemn a poster company of deregulation and the free market, you know that company is in trouble.

So now that I've gotten that out of the way, let me say something that strays off the reservation of all this populist correctness: There is a lot -- and I mean a lot -- of good news in the Enron collapse.

First of all, contrary to what the press and many Democrats would have you believe, the Bush administration did everything right. The only accusation opponents of the administration can make is guilt by association.

That doesn't mean we won't learn something new that changes that impression. But, to date, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Bushies did anything improper -- and there is ample evidence they did everything right.

Paul O'Neill, the secretary of the treasury and a former corporate bigwig himself, was asked for help by Enron, the most deep-pocketed and dedicated backer of George W. Bush's career. O'Neill said no. Enron reached out to the secretary of commerce, Don Evans, the president's former campaign chairman (i.e. the guy who took Enron's checks to the bank), and Evans said, can't help ya.

In fact, so far, the only evidence of a political figure doing anything improper, though hardly illegal, concerns President Clinton's former treasury secretary, Robert Rubin. Now a top pooh-bah at Citigroup, Rubin asked Deputy Treasury Secretary Peter Fisher, a Clinton holdover, to help prop up Enron. Rubin began the phone call by saying his lobbying "might not be the best idea." I'm sure Rubin is more confident that it wasn't a good idea now.

But the fact remains: The system worked. Despite all of Enron's money and access, and the caterwauling lamentations of the campaign finance "reformers," the administration let nature take its course.

We still don't know that any crimes were committed by Enron's management, but that's certainly being investigated. John Ashcroft immediately recused himself from the criminal probe, because he'd received money from Enron as a senator. He didn't wait for indignant demands from The New York Times or Congress to do it.

And, speaking of Congress, there are six separate investigations into the failure of Enron, several led or egged on by Democrats who took money from Enron, too. There's no sign that that money will do anything but provide motivation for these politicians to be extra hard -- not extra easy -- on the failed company and its possibly criminal executives.

Of course, the hypocrisy of Democrats and some pundits who want to beat up the administration for being "too cozy" with Enron and at the same time want to denounce the administration for not "saving" the company when Enron reached out for help is stunning. But such accusations, like bile, are a byproduct of a healthy democracy.

Similarly, the occasional failure of an enterprise is a necessary ingredient of healthy capitalist system. George Will recently wrote that Enron's failure should "remind everyone -- some conservatives, painfully -- that a mature capitalist economy is a government project. A properly functioning free market system does not spring spontaneously from society's soil as dandelions spring from suburban lawns."

"Rather," Will observed, "it is a complex creation of laws and mores that guarantee, among much else, transparency, meaning a sufficient stream -- torrent, really -- of reliable information about the condition and conduct of corporations."

Fair enough. But Will also knows that the market must be informed that criminal behavior or dishonest tactics will not be rewarded or long countenanced - by the government or the market.

If this White House had decided Enron was "too big to fail," as previous administrations had done for various corporations (Chrysler, the S&Ls and Long Term Capital Management come to mind), it's entirely possible that Enron would not be the cautionary tale it is today. We would not be screaming for scalps, and other companies -- and their accountants -- would feel much freer to cut corners. Instead, they are all saying, "We don't want to be another Enron" or "another Arthur Andersen."

Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, once noted, "Example is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other." It is a painful lesson for liberals, and apparently some conservatives, that painful lessons are vital to a mature capitalist economy as well.



To: Neocon who wrote (219048)1/16/2002 11:27:05 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
I was waiting for this to be discussed:

I understand the symbolism they are trying to portay, but there were actually 3 firemen, in a picture, so the statue needs to be a duplication of that picture. Someone can design another statue, that is not from that picture. Westi

newsandopinion.com -- PLANS by the New York City Fire Department to erect a 19-foot bronze statue in tribute to the city's 343 firefighters killed in the Sept. 11 terrorist murders provide an unflattering case study in political correctness.

You've surely seen the moving photograph of three New York firemen raising the American flag over the rubble at Ground Zero that is being used as a model for the statue. Did you notice that the men hoisting the flag were three white guys? I didn't, but I do now.

Like so many other people, I was taken by the photograph's similarity to the famous 1945 Associated Press photograph of the men raising the flag at Iwo Jima. But I saw only firefighters in their uniforms - their race was absolutely irrelevant to me.

What was relevant was that these men were Americans and New Yorkers who were triumphantly reaffirming their patriotism on the very spot where their colleagues had died trying to save the lives of others. Now that I've given it some thought, I believe the picture is especially meaningful because, intended or not, it can be seen as a convergence of the rescue effort with America's subsequent war effort. For me, at least, the firefighters represent not only the extraordinary heroism of New York City's Fire Department, but also America's armed forces, who would soon take the baton from these firefighters and bring the terrorists to justice.

What you need to understand is that we are talking about a real photograph - not some artist's rendering - of three real firefighters with real names (Billy Eisengrein, George Johnson and Dan McWilliams), who really did hoist the flag over the hell that is Ground Zero. The event captured on camera truly happened in history - it was not some staged photo-op. With that gesture, those noble firefighters served notice on terrorists everywhere - and on the entire world - that even this damaged real estate is the proud property of the United States of America and will be protected by all that the flag represents.

Regrettably, the fire department and the property-management company that owns the Brooklyn Fire Department's building, where the statue will be placed, have succumbed to the seductive overtures of political correctness. Instead of depicting the men who actually raised the flag, the statue will transform the men into three generic guys, one white, one black and one Hispanic. Reality takes a backseat to "diversity" and symbolism swallows substance.

Firefighters are so outraged at this development that they are considering raising private funds for a separate statue that depicts the actual firemen rather than their substitutes. The men have a right to be angry.

But not according to Fire Department spokesman Frank Gribbon, who said, "Given that those who died were of all races and all ethnicities, and that the statue was to be symbolic of those sacrifices, ultimately a decision was made to honor no one in particular, but everyone who made the supreme sacrifice."

With all due respect, this is cockeyed thinking. A statue based on the actual photograph would honor all races and everyone who sacrificed because it would glorify all Americans, regardless of their color. It is ridiculous to say that an accurate sculptural portrayal of a photograph of three Caucasians will in any way diminish the sacrifice and contribution of nonwhites.

If improving race relations is among our goals, we should strive toward a colorblind America. The color of the men depicted in the statue should be the last thing on our minds. Yet now we are being encouraged to think of the victims and heroes of Sept. 11 in racial terms. By superimposing divisive racial politics onto the memory of Sept. 11, we dishonor those victims and heroes.

Why do so many things in our society have to be turned into racial issues by the very people who claim to be dedicated to enhancing race relations? Sadly, when it comes to the raging priority of advancing the multiculturalist agenda, nothing is sacred - not even a hallowed memorial to our national heroes and victims. At a time when we ought to be thinking of our unity and common cause as Americans, we are forced to focus on our differences.

Mr. Gribbon glibly remarked that the fire department had not received any official complaints about its plans to politically sanitize the statue. Well, then, Mr. Gribbon, please consider this an unofficial complaint.

newsandopinion.com