Ready for another conspiracy theory?


PDA






DaveB
October 6, 2003, 12:31 PM
I knew there was a reason Issa funded the recall: assure Republican control of Cali electoral votes (so they don't have to defraud Florida voters again), and simple money politics - the Cali electricity "crisis".

(From commondreams & Greg Palast)

It turns out that Schwarzenegger knowingly joined the hush-hush encounter as part of a campaign to sabotage a Davis-Bustamante plan to make Enron and other power pirates then ravaging California pay back the $9 billion in illicit profits they carried off.

Here's the story Arnold doesn't want you to hear. The biggest single threat to Ken Lay and the electricity lords is a private lawsuit filed last year under California's unique Civil Code provision 17200, the "Unfair Business Practices Act." This litigation, heading to trial now in Los Angeles, would make the power companies return the $9 billion they filched from California electricity and gas customers.

It takes real cojones to bring such a suit. Who's the plaintiff taking on the bad guys? Cruz Bustamante, Lieutenant Governor and reluctant leading candidate against Schwarzenegger.

Now follow the action. One month after Cruz brings suit, Enron's Lay calls an emergency secret meeting in L.A. of his political buck-buddies, including Arnold. Their plan, to undercut Davis (according to Enron memos) and "solve" the energy crisis -- that is, make the Bustamante legal threat go away.

How can that be done? Follow the trail with me.

While Bustamante's kicking Enron butt in court, the Davis Administration is simultaneously demanding that George Bush's energy regulators order the $9 billion refund. Don't hold your breath: Bush's Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is headed by a guy proposed by … Ken Lay.

But Bush's boys on the commission have a problem. The evidence against the electricity barons is rock solid: fraudulent reporting of sales transactions, megawatt "laundering," fake power delivery scheduling and straight out conspiracy (including meetings in hotel rooms).

So the Bush commissioners cook up a terrific scheme: charge the companies with conspiracy but offer them, behind closed doors, deals in which they have to pay only two cents on each dollar they filched.

Problem: the slap-on-the-wrist refunds won't sail if the Governor of California won't play along. Solution: Re-call the Governor.

New Problem: the guy most likely to replace Davis is not Mr. Musclehead, but Cruz Bustamante, even a bigger threat to the power companies than Davis. Solution: smear Cruz because -- heaven forbid! -- he took donations from Injuns (instead of Ken Lay).

The pay-off? Once Arnold is Governor, he blesses the sweetheart settlements with the power companies. When that happens, Bustamante's court cases are probably lost. There aren't many judges who will let a case go to trial to protect a state if that a governor has already allowed the matter to be "settled" by a regulatory agency.

So think about this. The state of California is in the hole by $8 billion for the coming year. That's chump change next to the $8 TRILLION in deficits and surplus losses planned and incurred by George Bush. Nevertheless, the $8 billion deficit is the hanging rope California's right wing is using to lynch Governor Davis.

Yet only Davis and Bustamante are taking direct against to get back the $9 billion that was vacuumed out of the state by Enron, Reliant, Dynegy, Williams Company and the other Texas bandits who squeezed the state by the bulbs.

db

If you enjoyed reading about "Ready for another conspiracy theory?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Brian Dale
October 6, 2003, 12:36 PM
Gee, and this was published the Saturday before the election, too:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1004-05.htm

Now where did I put the instructions for making my tinfoil hat ?

I smell politics-as-usual being played.

mtnbkr
October 6, 2003, 12:46 PM
Hey Dave, what's your favorite gun? Are a revolver man, into pistols, or strictly a shotgun person? I gotta know. You hang out here often enough. I figure you have a big collection of guns to leave to your kid.

Chris

DaveB
October 6, 2003, 12:57 PM
I can't hit anything with a shotgun: I'm right handed, but my left eye is the dominant one, so my brain can't do the math.

I'm reasonably proficient with rifle and pistol.

I'm going over at lunch (to the only gun shop in town) with my youngest - he starts shooting training for Biathalon tonite, and needs some proper kid-sized shooting glasses. He got his hunter safety card last week - he's 11.

My own favorite? I'm partial to my 10/22 International (Mannlicher Stock, stainless, Swift 2-10X scope with adjustment for parallax) - inexpensive to shoot, doesn't beat me up. Most important: it's beautiful. I'll probably put in a target trigger kit this winter: that's the only real complaint I have with it.

None of the above facts are as important as what's happening politically in my native land, but thanks for asking anyway.

db

Brian Dale
October 6, 2003, 01:52 PM
I disagree only with your assessment of the relative importance of things. I believe that teaching your child to shoot is more important than what anyone else does. Well done. Attention to things political is necessary, too.

Good luck to the youngster in biathlon!

Mike Irwin
October 6, 2003, 02:15 PM
173 messages total...

1 message outside of legal and political...

And most of them provocative...

Seems to me that you're nothing more than a very narrowly directed agenda poster, Dave.

Which is really nothing more than a half-step above a troll...

Andrew Rothman
October 6, 2003, 02:29 PM
173 messages total...

1 message outside of legal and political...

And most of them provocative...


Yeah. Discussions are much more interesting when everyone agrees. :rolleyes:

Seems to me that you're nothing more than a very narrowly directed agenda poster, Dave.

Which is really nothing more than a half-step above a troll...

By the way, the user agreement says:


Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.


I've looked at DaveB's last couple dozen posts (http://www.thehighroad.org/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=375672), and his worst crime is disagreeing with the majority. He is mostly polite, well-read and well-spoken, which is nice. Plus, his spelling is good. :)

This is The High Road, not The Narrow Road. There is plenty of room here for differing views.

"Can't we all just get along?" :D
Matt

Mike Irwin
October 6, 2003, 02:33 PM
Disagreement is one thing, Mpayne...

This is heading towards something entirely different...

Check out the tone and timbre of the messages if you don't believe me...

Provocation simply for the purpose of provocation has been frowned upon in the past, as well...

Andrew Rothman
October 6, 2003, 02:39 PM
...Provocation simply for the purpose of provocation...

Naw. He's just a political liberal. His arguments are well reasoned, whether you agree with them or not. His tone seems pretty calm to me.

A well-spoken liberal is a tremendous asset to this board. Even if you're an arch-conservative, having an intelligent opposite to debate sharpens your own skills.


Matt

[edited `cause I kant tipe!!!!]

Mike Irwin
October 6, 2003, 02:50 PM
Hum...

You make a paynefully good point, Matt...

DaveB
October 6, 2003, 03:28 PM
I guess I'm a gun-loving, fiscally moderate, socially progressive green.

I used to post more gun stuff on TFL, but the political stuff (Iraq/911 predominates) is more important to me nowadays. If my kid(s) get more into shooting, I'll probably post more shooting-related stuff.

Anyway, if I go away, who will keep you guys honest?

In any case, I have not seen anything to refute the article: don't y'all find it even worthy of comment? What % of "Davis's" budget crisis is a direct result of the electrical scam?

db

P.S. Thanks, Matt.

moa
October 6, 2003, 04:46 PM
If this was true, it would be banner headlines in the leftist pro-Davis news media. And Grey and Cruz would shouting at the top of there voices about the conspiracy.

I have not seen that yet. Have you?

cuchulainn
October 6, 2003, 04:47 PM
In any case, I have not seen anything to refute the article: don't y'all find it even worthy of comment? No it's not worthy of comment beyond this:

The burden of proof is upon the person making allegations. The bar for that burden is raised as high as possible when the writer makes the allegations for an entity with a political agenda -- like Common Dreams or the NRA or the RNC. Thus Palast has an obligation to prove every point, yet he simply makes insinuative allegations.

For example, Palast has an obligation to provide evidence for even simple points like Arnold's attendance at this meeting (in fact, he needs to provide evidence that the meeting itself occurred). Maybe it did happen; maybe it didn't; but Palast simply asserts that it did. Not good enough.

But let's give Palast the benefit of the doubt and assume that Arnold was at this meeting. From there we venture into an odd area of speculative leaps and circular reasoning -- the conspiracy operates both an assumed premise and the point eventually (ahem) "proven."

"There is a conspiracy and Arnold's attending the meeting is proof that he's involved and the fact that he's involved is proof that there's a conspiracy."

And for the record, maybe Palast's allegations and hints are 100% on target -- I'm just saying that he failed to show that.

Andrew Rothman
October 6, 2003, 06:05 PM
You make a paynefully good point, Matt...
Ouch. Talk about painful! :D

If you enjoyed reading about "Ready for another conspiracy theory?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!