440

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 sub
tle nuances that more define bits and pieces that had still not come quite into focus.

As mentioned previousiy 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 es
say "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
rriainstream 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 noth
ing 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 in
sensitivity. "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 rep
resentation 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 le
gality-illegality of what certain individuals had done; the morality-immorality of these ac
tions; 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 in
stant 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 some
thing to amuse ourselves with. Even that artificially endowed porno star, providing erec
tions 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 entre
preneur. 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 multijillion 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 con
duit 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 congregat
ing 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: Post-Consumerman Main Page
Back to: keywestgallery.com Main Page