Because You Never Asked

ENRON

            Until a person reaches an age where their physical condition prohibits it, one should always be exercising their intellect in a way that leads to new discoveries and understandings. At times, this might lead to stark revelations that fundamentally alter previously held ideas, but more often, especially as one ages, we are dealing with subtle nuances that more define bits and pieces that had still not come quite into focus.

            As mentioned previously in this continuing saga of chicken soup philosophy, one writing a work such as this begins to realize that it is not just you creating the book. Somewhere along the line, the book begins to take on an existence of its own. (See essay "Pro Wrestling"). In putting together its composition, the writer's thoughts become more crystallized, more consistent, you become more aware of who you are and what you stand for. More nuances, hidden folds, textures and heretofore-unseen shades of light are seen as the text continues to grow. It makes you see more.

            Lately, the book is showing me that I continue to edge further away from the cultural mainstream I was nurtured in. The latest realization is the following:

             With what seems to be more frequency, every time an important news item is presented to the public for debate, I find little relevance on either side of the issue. For me, the epicenter of the quake is often in a different place from where Time-Warner, Fox, Disney, and the usual suspects put it. What this means is that they are forming the debate in a way I would consider less relevant.            Both the Enron and Anwar stories (which I shall talk about in the next essay) fall into this category.

            If there is one thing I don't have a proclivity for, it is a tendency to quote Spiro Agnew, one of the most forgettable politicians in the history of the Republic. But the book, at times, leads me down some out of the way, over grown paths. Although nothing Agnew said is worth repeating, there is one utterance that seems to have lightly carved itself into the etching of American history, probably due to its stupidity and insensitivity. "If you've seen one ghetto, you've seen them all". Couldn't we substitute "Enron executive" for "ghetto" (or "CEO" for that matter) and add a bit of relevance to the remark?

            For some inexplicable twist of fate, the only Enron personality whose name I can remember is Kenneth Lay. I ask the reader to keep in mind Spiro Agnew's one anemic contribution to American history when I use Lay's name in this essay, for I use it in representation of all the Armani clad, Rolex- wristed, Nasdaq gangsters, wherever their Neronian mansions might be.

            I recently read an article in one of Spain's leading newspapers which focused on the Enron case. In truth, it added very little new to my understanding of all this, merely scrambling the same eggs that have been cooked to death in the United States: the legality-illegality of what certain individuals had done; the morality-immorality of these actions; the legislation that could eliminate or dissuade such actions in the future . blah, blah. The article resonated with me only because it failed to center the discussion, like its American counterparts, over what I consider to be the essence of it all.

            The real issue, for me, is the amount of money Kenneth Lay made from this fiasco and what exactly justifies the accrual of such sums. Quantities like $50 million, $60 million, whatever, added to the net worth of Kenneth Lay in ridiculously short amounts of time --- hour to hour? day to day? week to week? does it really matter? --- have been set forth. Even if this had all been done legally and "morally"; even if Enron was for real and still existed; even if there had been no scandal, shouldn't we be asking ourselves why we accept the fact that Kenneth Lay, from one moment to the next, has been deemed to have $50 million more? How does his relationship to the rest of us translate into such mega remuneration? What is it about his "work" that entitles him to such instant wealth? Does he sell something, repair something, teach something? Even that loveable beast, Shaquille O'Neal, who has parlayed a moderate amount of athletic skill and the strength of a water buffalo into an obscene amount of money, gives us something to amuse ourselves with. Even that artificially endowed porno star, providing erections for the eternally horny male population, gives us value for our buck. I suppose the ultimate question is, "what does Kenneth Lay do?"

Perhaps one of his cronies, Vice President Dick Cheney, can explain this? (I could have used the President, but he explains things so badly.) "Well, he's an entrepreneur. He creates jobs, products, services."

            Does he?

If we look back at the history of Enron, we see that the more it moved away from providing a real product or service, the more its worth began to soar. For a laymen like myself, it's not easy to find out exactly what kind of company Enron was. There are vague insinuations of a pipeline it maintained, or constructed, or provided fuel with, or electricity, or . who knows? Back then, I suppose, it was a prosperous company, but hardly the multi-jillion dollar creature it would become when the likes of Kenneth Lay started to mess with it. By the time this all hit the fan, Enron was little more than a conduit for paper. There was virtually nobody riding around in a truck that said "Enron" on the side, nobody showing up in an Enron uniform to fix, maintain, or build anything. It really existed only within the confines of its presumptuous skyscraper in downtown Houston. Its only employees seemed to be people pushing paper when not congregating at the water cooler, coffee machine or out to power lunches. As it turned out, the only people who were really doing any work at Enron were their accountants. In a way, it only existed in our imaginations.

And yet, perhaps if they had been a bit more careful, a little less greedy . if they had played the game with more caution, they might still be around and the rest of us would accept the fact that this entity represented tens of millions of dollars in wealth . even though they did not seem to provide anything that human beings might need or want .

. and someone like Kenneth Lay can sell his part of this vapor for $50 million (or was it 60?). Which leads to another interesting question: who bought whatever it was that Kenneth Lay was selling . and for $50 million!?

How is it that we accept this scale of values? Who's convinced us? What kind of legal framework could possibly allow this kind of compensation? How does Kenneth Lay's contribution to the human condition get valued in such a way? $50 million for him, faster than you could say "Monica Lewinsky", $500 a week for you. It's as if they've convinced us to buy a perfume that smells like raw sewage.

The next time the plumber comes out to your house and untangles that filthy mess which backed up your toilet, please, before you complain about the bill, think about Kenneth Lay.

Which brings me too .

back to the Table of Contents

Email: JerryG@postcman.info