Third, presumably such ID cards would have to be paid for out-of-pocket (or would the taxpayer foot the bill?).
How does anyone cash a check ? When they say id card, they mean, Drivers Liscence, State ID card, Or other acdeptable phot ID OR a pay stub and or utliity bill. They are not talking about making a special ID card for voting with a fee on it.
Poor people with little money and many expenses would be tempted to forego voting simply to save the "license" fee. Â Â
First of all if you will note. It's only for the FIRST time. TO REGISTER! Secondly, they can ALSO use a pay stub. Or utility bill. It is for the first time to get them registered. Third in fact the League of voters said they would do what they could to pay for people to get thier ID card, DL etc. I would pay as well to insure we stopped the massive fraud that goes on in voting.
It's a lot like a disguised poll tax.
Ahh suddnely you're against taxes, Who would have thought ?
Why are the democrats standing in hte way of it ? I thought they wanted all votes to be accurate and fair ? What is so wrong with reqiring people to provide one of the three options ? We already have to do so when we show up at the polls and sign that we are who we say. But we know from dead people and dogs voting to people voting 5 times in different districts that massive fraud goes on. After all the crying done in Florida and conspricy theories about votes and the disinfranchised voters, they are allowing election reform die because we actually want to try to prevent fraud.They ask for one of three things to simply provide some proof as to who you are. It doesn't violate any rights. There are responsibilities that come with the privelege to vote. And those are those who abuse the privelege. Do you really thin it will stop someone from voting ? And if it does is that person really comitted anyway ? You either want to end fraud or you don't. Perhaps there's another reason they really don't want fraud ended?
You are REQUIRED BY LAW to have a form of ID in your possesion to vote already unless someone vouches for you, and they must show ID. This is almost a non-issue in Minnesota:
Subd. 3. Election day registration. An individual  who is eligible to vote may register on election day by  appearing in person at the polling place for the precinct in  which the individual maintains residence, by completing a  registration card, making an oath in the form prescribed by the  secretary of state and providing proof of residence. An  individual may prove residence for purposes of registering by:
(1) showing a driver's license or Minnesota identification  card issued pursuant to section 171.07;
(2) showing any document approved by the secretary of state  as proper identification;
(3) showing one of the following:
(i) a current valid student identification card from a  post-secondary educational institution in Minnesota, if a list  of students from that institution has been prepared under  section 135A.17 and certified to the county auditor in the  manner provided in rules of the secretary of state; or
(ii) a current student fee statement that contains the  student's valid address in the precinct together with a picture  identification card; or
(4) having a voter who is registered to vote in the  precinct sign an oath in the presence of the election judge  vouching that the voter personally knows that the individual is  a resident of the precinct. A voter who has been vouched for on  election day may not sign a proof of residence oath vouching for  any other individual on that election day.
Maybe getting the light on Mc Cauliffe's dealings which netted him $18,000,000.00 on his (sure thing) investment of $100,000 and the revealation of Clinton's repeated giveaways to Enron has cooled the fire...
Oh, that's right...
Now little Tommy's claiming Bush isn't doing a good job in the war on terror...
<giggle>
And claim that he didn't know anything about the phantom government...well at least until today when it came to light that he was IN the bunker on 9'11'02 and has been regularly briefed....
now if we could somehow enforce that csc, we'd be set. i've *never* been asked to prove who i was to vote, i didn't even have to prove who i was in order to *register* to vote; they just handed out registration forms to the senior class in high school. i would be very very pissed to walk into the polling place on election day only to find that someone else had already voted for me, all because we don't have to prove who we are.
here's the other thing i *hate* about that particular section of mn law. it only talks about proving residence. i didn't think residents who weren't citizens were allowed to vote.
my sister is doing a paper for her freshman comp class on this very subject, and while i don't have specific numbers with me here, she's got a report citing a 110 or 111% voter turnout in one election in alaska. what's wrong with this picture?
Where I live now they did ask for a Liscence and a Utility bill bout only the first time I voted. And that was to register, they weren't asking me to tell them whom I was voting for only that I was a registered voter. I wasn't offended at all. Where I lived before I had the same experience you did. They didn't ask me for anything I had to sign my name and have some guy I didn't even know vouch for me. Looking back I probably shouldn't of had the guy vouch but it was late and my wife was at home. I never really thought about it at the time because I have neve given any thought to voting 6 times or registering dead people. I hope they enforce it too. The bill just makes what is a nationalized standard which is already in most states with an emphasis on enforcing laws as well. I just don't see how or why anyone would be opposed to it. Interesting thought on the current law only having to prove residency. You can be a resident and not be a citizen. I wonder how or if that's being addressed.
You are correct! I would love to see them use the useless magnetic stripe on the back of State IDs to record whether you can vote or not. Enter the votes at the voting booth, and swipe the card. The computer records the votes placed and prevents me from voting again.
Dennis:
FYI, the State ID fees are reduced for the elderly, handicapped, and those that cannot afford the fee. Don't quote me on this, but I believe the rate is 50 cents.
csc, i wouldn't say cast your vote, swipe your card. more on the order of swipe your card, get your ballot. we don't want to annoy the paranoids who might take it to be linking their vote with their id (even though i'm one of them who would question that but vote anyway without giving it a second thought)
as for fees, make the state id free. then there's no excuse for not having one.
I think we can all agree (at least I hope so) that maximum enfranchisement for Americans who are truly qualified to vote ought to be made as easy and uncumbersome as possible.
And the actual balloting accurate and error free.
Because we certainly don't want to add to the voter apathy that's already such a pervasive problem.
I'm OK with voter apathy. If someone doesn't care enough about the race to learn anything about the candidates, I'd rather he not vote than pick the first name on the ballot or the one whose pic he last saw on TV.
Rick, what makes you think that some conservatives don't like the idea of one person/one vote? I've never actually read anything along those lines, but it wouldn't surprise me.
However, I have read some stuff about Democrats who like to see one person/multiple votes :-)
Conservatives used to fight the concept of motor-voter. The idea that it should be easy to vote -- particularly by people who spend a lot of time around government offices -- is not something they really care for.
Because the users of government services are less prone to vote Republican. Now, maybe Republicans will say that's insulting, but I don't think so. I think, if you are a working person or a person of low income, the Republcans have nothing for you, and they don't feel they owe you anything.
Which leads to the second assumption, and it's broad, I'll admit. I think it was Jefferson who held the notion that only property owners ought to vote, because he didn't trust people who didn't own property (I coulld understand that sentiment from the Lord of Montecello).
I think there are a group of conservatives who secretly like that idea. No evidence, just a hunch.
What do you think of the idea of the democrats being opposed to having to show ID to register for the first time.? It may ba a state ID card that non-drivers etc. use. It may be a D.L of course. or a utility bill, or a pay stub. And for some reason they are opposed to this. I have my suspicions as well as to why they are opposed to it but will reserve my remarks. But I would be interested to know why they are allowing that to be an obstacle to election reform. The same reform they and many (me included) is needed to curb fraud at the polls, ie; dead people voting, dogs being registered, illegal aliens or non citizens etc. Why do you think they are opposed to it ?
rick, luv, i'll sum it up in a real easy, non-partisan way why election reform will never ever happen in this country: no one wants to upset the system that got them elected into their office. and luv, don't worry one bit about your suspicions. cuz you're not the only one with them.
back in college i took a british history class. i remember specifically a quote from him with regard to "modern" british politics. the goal of the party that's "in" is to stay in. the goal of the opposition is, well, to oppose. very british? yep. but also very applicable to american politics.
Ares, You are probably right sadly for us. Same argument is probably true for the holes and seemingly built in advantage for incumbents of the supposed campagin finance reform that looks good on the surface but peeled back has a smell to it. Same with term limits, they will never relinquish the power they come to love.
and lets face it further. there is no such thing as a legislator or congress-critter that works for his or her constituents. sadly, they work for whoever gave their election campaign the most money.
have no idea why anyone would be opposed to a picture identification. It seems reasonable to me.
Ares:
That does not make me suspicious, worried or sad. Politics is about power. If you don't have power you can't advance your beliefs, whatever they are.
You might be non-partisan, I don't know. I'm highly partisan. I'm a Democrat. I vote solid Democrat. I can work for Democratic candidates, but no other.
well rick you're right, i'm hardly partisan, mostly because i like to leave my options open. and as should be obvious from my other postings here, i don't fall within the lines of either party. :)
no no no no no. partisanpolitics is about loyalty. as for me, i'm loyal to myself. maybe that's incredibly selfish of me, but in my mind that's what casting that ballot is all about. picking the person that's going to best serve myinterests. or at least voting for whoever does a better job of convincing me they're going to serve my interests. if i'm not, then what was the point of america obtaining its independence?
am i always going to get things my way? nope. and most of the time the bestthing would be to write my own name in on the ballot. but i really have no such desires. at least not yet anyway. ask me again in a few weeks when i'm actually eligibleto hold a seat in the us house of representatives :)
ya know, it is kinda nice to be able to carry on a civilised conversation with people i don't agree 100% with but who at least have an open mind. it really is.
Remember the scene from Raiders of the Lost Arc when Belloche hands Meriam Ravenwood the fancy dress and says something like "we can be civilized, even in a place like this?"
Karen Allen looked great in that dress.
Now, Belloche had no intention to be civilized, but that doesn't mean what he said isn't true. He was just doing the right thing, but for the wrong reasons.
Conservatives used to fight the concept of motor-voter. The idea that it should be easy to vote -- particularly by people who spend a lot of time around government offices -- is not something they really care for.
It is easy to register to vote. It doesn't have to be any easier for people that aren't supposed to be voting.
Because the users of government services are less prone to vote Republican. Now, maybe Republicans will say that's insulting, but I don't think so. I think, if you are a working person or a person of low income, the Republcans have nothing for you, and they don't feel they owe you anything.
Republicans offer common sense. But the democrats offer handouts.
Which leads to the second assumption, and it's broad, I'll admit. I think it was Jefferson who held the notion that only property owners ought to vote, because he didn't trust people who didn't own property (I coulld understand that sentiment from the Lord of Montecello).
Yeah becuase that don't have will legislate to take it away from those that do. An easy way to get ahead if they had the brains to implement it. Oh wait that is happening now.
It doesn't have to be any easier for people that aren't supposed to be voting.
but how do you keep those who aren't eligible to vote from registering? sometime my senior year in high school i got a minnesota voter registration card. no id was necessary. nothing. fill it out, mail it in and i was a registered voter. i had to prove my age to get an instruction permit at 15. yet there's no such requirement at age 18. go figure.
but how do you keep those who aren't eligible to vote from registering? They go to the county clerks office and apply. The county clerks then should do a background check.
sometime my senior year in high school i got a minnesota voter registration card. no id was necessary. nothing. fill it out, mail it in and i was a registered voter. i had to prove my age to get an instruction permit at 15. yet there's no such requirement at age 18. go figure.
Several weekends ago, I was rushing around trying to do some Valentine's Day shopping. I was stressed out and not thinking very fondly of the weather right then.
It was dark, cold, and wet in the parking lot.
As I was loading my car up, I noticed that I was missing a receipt that I might need later. So mumbling under my breath, I retraced my steps to the mall entrance.
As I was searching the wet pavement for the lost receipt, I heard a quiet sobbing. The crying was coming from a poorly dressed boy of about 12 years old. He was short and thin. He had no coat. He was just wearing a ragged flannel shirt to protect him from the cold night's chill.
Oddly enough, he was holding a hundred-dollar bill in his hand. Thinking that he had gotten lost from his parents, I asked him what was wrong.
He told me his sad story. He said that he came from a large family. He had three brothers and four sisters. His father had died when he was nine years old. His mother was poorly educated and worked two full time jobs. She made very little to support her large family.
Nevertheless, she had managed to skimp and save two hundred dollars to buy her children some Valentine's Day presents (since she didn't manage to get them anything on Christmas). His mother had dropped off the young boy on the way to her second job. He was to use the money to buy presents for all his siblings and save just enough to take the bus home.
He had not even entered the mall, when an older boy grabbed one of the hundred dollar bills and disappeared into the night. "Why didn't you scream for help?" I asked. The boy said, "I did."
"And nobody came to help you?" I queried. The boy stared at the sidewalk and sadly shook his head. "How loud did you scream?" I inquired. The soft-spoken boy looked up and meekly whispered, "Help me!"
I realized that absolutely no one could have heard that poor boy cry for help.
you may be up the creek. Condit was a ....$(&@%& fooling around with an intern (are you listening Reps?) who subsequently was no more. Can't see her must not be here. Sure, they may SAY he's not a suspect but I'll bet you that they're keeping him in mind.
K-Mart did not keep their eye on the bottoom line and did not close unprofitable stores, trim their costs and so on. Nothing actionable there just sloppy management.
Enron, now that's a story! They actively engaged in far worse than merely dishonorable behavior. Hiding debt to make themselves look good is criminal. Its called failure to disclose material information, i.e. FRAUD.
Should AA have smelt a rat? Surely! But that would have been biting the hand that feeds you. So back we will go to when auditing and consulting were separated by law. Tis about time.
Anyone else find it funny that Enron went away as soon as Global Crossing broke out as a story? Then they both faded rather quickly. From a political standpoint that is.
Dennis,
How does anyone cash a check ? When they say id card, they mean, Drivers Liscence, State ID card, Or other acdeptable phot ID OR a pay stub and or utliity bill. They are not talking about making a special ID card for voting with a fee on it.
First of all if you will note. It's only for the FIRST time. TO REGISTER! Secondly, they can ALSO use a pay stub. Or utility bill. It is for the first time to get them registered. Third in fact the League of voters said they would do what they could to pay for people to get thier ID card, DL etc. I would pay as well to insure we stopped the massive fraud that goes on in voting.
Ahh suddnely you're against taxes, Who would have thought ?
Why are the democrats standing in hte way of it ? I thought they wanted all votes to be accurate and fair ? What is so wrong with reqiring people to provide one of the three options ? We already have to do so when we show up at the polls and sign that we are who we say. But we know from dead people and dogs voting to people voting 5 times in different districts that massive fraud goes on. After all the crying done in Florida and conspricy theories about votes and the disinfranchised voters, they are allowing election reform die because we actually want to try to prevent fraud.They ask for one of three things to simply provide some proof as to who you are. It doesn't violate any rights. There are responsibilities that come with the privelege to vote. And those are those who abuse the privelege. Do you really thin it will stop someone from voting ? And if it does is that person really comitted anyway ? You either want to end fraud or you don't. Perhaps there's another reason they really don't want fraud ended?
You are REQUIRED BY LAW to have a form of ID in your possesion to vote already unless someone vouches for you, and they must show ID. This is almost a non-issue in Minnesota:
Subd. 3. Election day registration. An individual
 who is eligible to vote may register on election day by
 appearing in person at the polling place for the precinct in
 which the individual maintains residence, by completing a
 registration card, making an oath in the form prescribed by the
 secretary of state and providing proof of residence. An
 individual may prove residence for purposes of registering by:
(1) showing a driver's license or Minnesota identification
 card issued pursuant to section 171.07;
(2) showing any document approved by the secretary of state
 as proper identification;
(3) showing one of the following:
(i) a current valid student identification card from a
 post-secondary educational institution in Minnesota, if a list
 of students from that institution has been prepared under
 section 135A.17 and certified to the county auditor in the
 manner provided in rules of the secretary of state; or
(ii) a current student fee statement that contains the
 student's valid address in the precinct together with a picture
 identification card; or
(4) having a voter who is registered to vote in the
 precinct sign an oath in the presence of the election judge
 vouching that the voter personally knows that the individual is
 a resident of the precinct. A voter who has been vouched for on
 election day may not sign a proof of residence oath vouching for
 any other individual on that election day.
I haven't kept up with this like I should...
Is Daschle still trying to blame this on Bush?
Maybe getting the light on Mc Cauliffe's dealings which netted him $18,000,000.00 on his (sure thing) investment of $100,000 and the revealation of Clinton's repeated giveaways to Enron has cooled the fire...
Oh, that's right...
Now little Tommy's claiming Bush isn't doing a good job in the war on terror...
<giggle>
And claim that he didn't know anything about the phantom government...well at least until today when it came to light that he was IN the bunker on 9'11'02 and has been regularly briefed....
Liberals can be so...welll...er...
corrupt.
now if we could somehow enforce that csc, we'd be set. i've *never* been asked to prove who i was to vote, i didn't even have to prove who i was in order to *register* to vote; they just handed out registration forms to the senior class in high school. i would be very very pissed to walk into the polling place on election day only to find that someone else had already voted for me, all because we don't have to prove who we are.
here's the other thing i *hate* about that particular section of mn law. it only talks about proving residence. i didn't think residents who weren't citizens were allowed to vote.
my sister is doing a paper for her freshman comp class on this very subject, and while i don't have specific numbers with me here, she's got a report citing a 110 or 111% voter turnout in one election in alaska. what's wrong with this picture?
Ares,
Where I live now they did ask for a Liscence and a Utility bill bout only the first time I voted. And that was to register, they weren't asking me to tell them whom I was voting for only that I was a registered voter. I wasn't offended at all. Where I lived before I had the same experience you did. They didn't ask me for anything I had to sign my name and have some guy I didn't even know vouch for me. Looking back I probably shouldn't of had the guy vouch but it was late and my wife was at home. I never really thought about it at the time because I have neve given any thought to voting 6 times or registering dead people. I hope they enforce it too. The bill just makes what is a nationalized standard which is already in most states with an emphasis on enforcing laws as well. I just don't see how or why anyone would be opposed to it. Interesting thought on the current law only having to prove residency. You can be a resident and not be a citizen. I wonder how or if that's being addressed.
Ares:
You are correct! I would love to see them use the useless magnetic stripe on the back of State IDs to record whether you can vote or not. Enter the votes at the voting booth, and swipe the card. The computer records the votes placed and prevents me from voting again.
Dennis:
FYI, the State ID fees are reduced for the elderly, handicapped, and those that cannot afford the fee. Don't quote me on this, but I believe the rate is 50 cents.
csc, i wouldn't say cast your vote, swipe your card. more on the order of swipe your card, get your ballot. we don't want to annoy the paranoids who might take it to be linking their vote with their id (even though i'm one of them who would question that but vote anyway without giving it a second thought)
as for fees, make the state id free. then there's no excuse for not having one.
Who are you calling paranoid???
like i said frosti, i'm one of 'em too.
Just because they're all out to get me doesn't mean I'm paranoid...
I think we can all agree (at least I hope so) that
maximum enfranchisement for Americans who are truly qualified to vote ought to be made as easy and uncumbersome as possible.
And the actual balloting accurate and error free.
Because we certainly don't want to add to the voter apathy that's already such a pervasive problem.
definitely, dennis. and that is just as important as ensuring that those who aren't qualified to vote are prevented from doing so.
I'm OK with voter apathy. If someone doesn't care enough about the race to learn anything about the candidates, I'd rather he not vote than pick the first name on the ballot or the one whose pic he last saw on TV.
"I'm OK with voter apathy."
Because there are more Democrats than Republicans? I wouldn't like a larger voter turnout, either.
I think many conservatives have not ever really warmed to the concept of one person, one vote. Not saying you're among them.
I think there's a group who like the idea just property owners voting. Or maybe they like property owners' votes to carry more weight.
IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW
Not that it's a bad idea Duane, but why?
I think many conservatives have not ever really warmed to the concept of one person, one vote.
Conservatives are for one informed person one vote.
Rick, what makes you think that some conservatives don't like the idea of one person/one vote? I've never actually read anything along those lines, but it wouldn't surprise me.
However, I have read some stuff about Democrats who like to see one person/multiple votes :-)
Muskwa:
Couple reasons.
Conservatives used to fight the concept of motor-voter. The idea that it should be easy to vote -- particularly by people who spend a lot of time around government offices -- is not something they really care for.
Because the users of government services are less prone to vote Republican. Now, maybe Republicans will say that's insulting, but I don't think so. I think, if you are a working person or a person of low income, the Republcans have nothing for you, and they don't feel they owe you anything.
Which leads to the second assumption, and it's broad, I'll admit. I think it was Jefferson who held the notion that only property owners ought to vote, because he didn't trust people who didn't own property (I coulld understand that sentiment from the Lord of Montecello).
I think there are a group of conservatives who secretly like that idea. No evidence, just a hunch.
Rick,
What do you think of the idea of the democrats being opposed to having to show ID to register for the first time.? It may ba a state ID card that non-drivers etc. use. It may be a D.L of course. or a utility bill, or a pay stub. And for some reason they are opposed to this. I have my suspicions as well as to why they are opposed to it but will reserve my remarks. But I would be interested to know why they are allowing that to be an obstacle to election reform. The same reform they and many (me included) is needed to curb fraud at the polls, ie; dead people voting, dogs being registered, illegal aliens or non citizens etc. Why do you think they are opposed to it ?
rick, luv, i'll sum it up in a real easy, non-partisan way why election reform will never ever happen in this country: no one wants to upset the system that got them elected into their office. and luv, don't worry one bit about your suspicions. cuz you're not the only one with them.
back in college i took a british history class. i remember specifically a quote from him with regard to "modern" british politics. the goal of the party that's "in" is to stay in. the goal of the opposition is, well, to oppose. very british? yep. but also very applicable to american politics.
Ares,
You are probably right sadly for us. Same argument is probably true for the holes and seemingly built in advantage for incumbents of the supposed campagin finance reform that looks good on the surface but peeled back has a smell to it. Same with term limits, they will never relinquish the power they come to love.
and lets face it further. there is no such thing as a legislator or congress-critter that works for his or her constituents. sadly, they work for whoever gave their election campaign the most money.
Rob:
have no idea why anyone would be opposed to a picture identification. It seems reasonable to me.
Ares:
That does not make me suspicious, worried or sad. Politics is about power. If you don't have power you can't advance your beliefs, whatever they are.
You might be non-partisan, I don't know. I'm highly partisan. I'm a Democrat. I vote solid Democrat. I can work for Democratic candidates, but no other.
well rick you're right, i'm hardly partisan, mostly because i like to leave my options open. and as should be obvious from my other postings here, i don't fall within the lines of either party. :)
Options are for dishwashing soap and coffee.
Politics is about loyalty.
So's baseball.
no no no no no. partisanpolitics is about loyalty. as for me, i'm loyal to myself. maybe that's incredibly selfish of me, but in my mind that's what casting that ballot is all about. picking the person that's going to best serve myinterests. or at least voting for whoever does a better job of convincing me they're going to serve my interests. if i'm not, then what was the point of america obtaining its independence?
am i always going to get things my way? nope. and most of the time the bestthing would be to write my own name in on the ballot. but i really have no such desires. at least not yet anyway. ask me again in a few weeks when i'm actually eligibleto hold a seat in the us house of representatives :)
ya know, it is kinda nice to be able to carry on a civilised conversation with people i don't agree 100% with but who at least have an open mind. it really is.
Remember the scene from Raiders of the Lost Arc when Belloche hands Meriam Ravenwood the fancy dress and says something like "we can be civilized, even in a place like this?"
Karen Allen looked great in that dress.
Now, Belloche had no intention to be civilized, but that doesn't mean what he said isn't true. He was just doing the right thing, but for the wrong reasons.
You can be civilized, even here.
Sometimes you do the right things, but for the wrong reasons.
ain't that the truth.
Conservatives used to fight the concept of motor-voter. The idea that it should be easy to vote -- particularly by people who spend a lot of time around government offices -- is not something they really care for.
It is easy to register to vote. It doesn't have to be any easier for people that aren't supposed to be voting.
Because the users of government services are less prone to vote Republican. Now, maybe Republicans will say that's insulting, but I don't think so. I think, if you are a working person or a person of low income, the Republcans have nothing for you, and they don't feel they owe you anything.
Republicans offer common sense. But the democrats offer handouts.
Which leads to the second assumption, and it's broad, I'll admit. I think it was Jefferson who held the notion that only property owners ought to vote, because he didn't trust people who didn't own property (I coulld understand that sentiment from the Lord of Montecello).
Yeah becuase that don't have will legislate to take it away from those that do. An easy way to get ahead if they had the brains to implement it. Oh wait that is happening now.
It doesn't have to be any easier for people that aren't supposed to be voting.
but how do you keep those who aren't eligible to vote from registering? sometime my senior year in high school i got a minnesota voter registration card. no id was necessary. nothing. fill it out, mail it in and i was a registered voter. i had to prove my age to get an instruction permit at 15. yet there's no such requirement at age 18. go figure.
but how do you keep those who aren't eligible to vote from registering? They go to the county clerks office and apply. The county clerks then should do a background check.
sometime my senior year in high school i got a minnesota voter registration card. no id was necessary. nothing. fill it out, mail it in and i was a registered voter. i had to prove my age to get an instruction permit at 15. yet there's no such requirement at age 18. go figure.
There should be.
There should be.
no argument there.
"Enronitis".
You've heard the term, right?
It sounds like a sexually transmitted disease.
Come to think of it, it sort of is.
We've all been screwed, and now we've got...Enronitis.
Or...
We've all been screwed, and now we've got...Daschleitis!
Are we getting screwed, or 'Lay'ed?
Several weekends ago, I was rushing around trying to do some Valentine's Day shopping. I was stressed out and not thinking very fondly of the weather right then.
It was dark, cold, and wet in the parking lot.
As I was loading my car up, I noticed that I was missing a receipt that I might need later. So mumbling under my breath, I retraced my steps to the mall entrance.
As I was searching the wet pavement for the lost receipt, I heard a quiet sobbing. The crying was coming from a poorly dressed boy of about 12 years old. He was short and thin. He had no coat. He was just wearing a ragged flannel shirt to protect him from the cold night's chill.
Oddly enough, he was holding a hundred-dollar bill in his hand. Thinking that he had gotten lost from his parents, I asked him what was wrong.
He told me his sad story. He said that he came from a large family. He had three brothers and four sisters. His father had died when he was nine years old. His mother was poorly educated and worked two full time jobs. She made very little to support her large family.
Nevertheless, she had managed to skimp and save two hundred dollars to buy her children some Valentine's Day presents (since she didn't manage to get them anything on Christmas). His mother had dropped off the young boy on the way to her second job. He was to use the money to buy presents for all his siblings and save just enough to take the bus home.
He had not even entered the mall, when an older boy grabbed one of the hundred dollar bills and disappeared into the night. "Why didn't you scream for help?" I asked. The boy said, "I did."
"And nobody came to help you?" I queried. The boy stared at the sidewalk and sadly shook his head. "How loud did you scream?" I inquired. The soft-spoken boy looked up and meekly whispered, "Help me!"
I realized that absolutely no one could have heard that poor boy cry for help.
So I grabbed his other hundred and ran to my car.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Lay
Former CEO, Enron
He lost.
Who's Gary Condit?
Condit is the CA Congressman who had an affair with Chandra Levy, the missing intern.
But ... the police still insist that he isn't a suspect.
you may be up the creek. Condit was a ....$(&@%&
fooling around with an intern (are you listening Reps?) who subsequently was no more. Can't see her must not be here. Sure, they may SAY he's not a suspect but I'll bet you that they're keeping him in mind.
K-Mart did not keep their eye on the bottoom line and did not close unprofitable stores, trim their costs and so on. Nothing actionable there just sloppy management.
Enron, now that's a story! They actively engaged in far worse than merely dishonorable behavior.
Hiding debt to make themselves look good is criminal. Its called failure to disclose material information, i.e. FRAUD.
Should AA have smelt a rat? Surely! But that would have been biting the hand that feeds you.
So back we will go to when auditing and consulting were separated by law. Tis about time.
AA's now laying off 25% of their staff. Too bad the average Joe is going to pay for the evil deeds of others.
that's ok. i hear their competitors are hiring :)
Anyone else find it funny that Enron went away as soon as Global Crossing broke out as a story? Then they both faded rather quickly. From a political standpoint that is.
I'm sure it's just a coincedence Wolvie :)