Nathan Newman wrote:
>Milken chose not to go to trial
>and accepted a plea bargain. Here's a quick summary of the charges that
led
>to the indictment from THE AMERICAN PROSPECT
-Ah, so the victims were shareholders - i.e., other (and often bigger, -more prestigious) capitalists. Not workers. Thus Milken's a notorious -criminal, while Chainsaw Al Dunlap is a free man.
Of course the victims of the official crimes were shareholders - those are the only victims recognized under our securities laws. If you want to emphasize that point, fine, but Milken is no different from anyone else who has gone to jail under those laws, so why do you feel any great need to defend him? I'm truly confused by your softness for him. I see his imprisonment as an Al Capone style punishment - he wasn't going to be convicted for his real crimes, so they got him on the equivalent of tax evasion. Maybe he did just piss off other capitalists and that's why he was thrown in the pokey when others walked free, but cry me a river.
Milken was enormously destructive to the lives of millions of working folks. He may not have been punished for those crimes and the elite prosecutors may not have even cared about those crimes, but that he was punished is just a nice coincidence. And I see no reason why any progressive should spend a whole precious column on him. Better to have spent the space at Feed on Peltier or the drug war. That's the real problem with your piece. I know you care about those, but it would be better if others did too.
Nathan Newman