Hacker News Reader

Comment by alecco | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

While it didn't bankrupt California the economic impact is very relevant with regards of the sums required to pay state pensions.

Also I assumed everybody knows it was Davis who allowed that to happen, well before Schwarzenegger was elected.

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.

proof:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/03/eveningnews/main67...

Enron also pulled power out of states like California, causing emergency conditions to worsen.

"Sorry California," an Enron trader says. "I'm bringing all our power out of state today. I moved out six — over six hundred megawatts."

The "shut downs" and "pull outs" triggered sky high power prices.

"We're just making money hand over fist!" one voice is heard saying on the tape.

And when states complained, the guys at Enron seemed to have a response.

"Get a f clue," one says. "Yeah," another chimes in. "Leave us alone. Let us make a little bit of money."

"Exactly," says another trader.

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!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com