* Arnold Schwarzenegger, a former bodybuilder champion now politician
* Governor of nearly bankrupt California
* A state scammed out of 40 to 50bn by Enron and pals
* AS career was supported by Enron (from Forbes)
* Writing an opinion column on Fox owned WSJ against state pensions
My sympathies to all californians. The world owes you so much.
Your down votes signal you read those facts and it upsets your beliefs. I didn't write this for people who agree with my point of view. I wrote this for you. Thank you.
You're probably getting downvoted because you seem to be implying, without real evidence, that California is bankrupt because Arnold was complicit in cheating California out of billions because of shady dealings with Enron.
These are the sorts of allegations that one would typically see in a political forum populated by partisans and hacks. Downvoting is just HN's way of saying this sort of discussion belongs elsewhere.
Actually if you followed the whole looting of California by Enron & friends, the final conclusion was Schwarzenegger taking office and refusing to pursue a serious lawsuit agains the perps and letting them off with token payments to the state. And yes the proof was and is very clear that the "crisis" was in fact looting. The energy traders who implemented it were taped per regulation and the leaked tapes were ugly. It was a crime and the perps got off. So YES, IN FACT, the governor is culpable for what happened, or to be very exact, refusing to pursue serious restitution.
My downvote signals that if you want people to take interest in claims like that, you need to substantiate them. It also expresses disapproval at the insertion of a tangentially-related, flamebait ad hominem into a thread discussing a particular set of economic statistics.
EDIT: I retract my statement that it's an ad hominem. I think the parent has a reasonable point.
This is disorienting. What is your recount of what happened in the California Energy Crisis involving Enron? Can you tell me which of those points are questionable, please?
I actually changed my mind, after thinking about your points and refreshing myself on the relevant history. I agree that your portrait of the situation is worth reflecting on, and not that much of an ad hominem. I wish you would have elaborated on your statements instead of just dropping them off, though.
Thanks! I didn't want to add opinion. In fact the idea was to make people reflect on those facts, given the heavily biased op-ed in the WSJ.
If I mentioned his lack of credentials it would've been ad hominem. His credentials being bodybuilder champion, action hero actor, and marrying into a well connected family. Ouch, now I did it!
