March 05, 2004

Martha Stewart Guilty Was she unfairly targeted? Or just plain busted?
  • If she were found 'not guilty', the question would have been whether they were letting a celebrity go free or if she were really not guilty. I'll admit that my first reaction to this news was, "Woo hoo!" There's definitely a level of schadenfreude surrounding the entire trial process, and I wasn't entirely sure why. Personally, I just can't stand the cadence of her voice, plus I've heard that she's something of a jerk when it comes to dealing with other people, especially employees. However, after doing cursory research, my theory is that people feel that Martha has effectively jailed them in their own imperfection, because M.S. can bring perfection in the most trying of circumstances. The fact that she uses an army of help to allow her to do so, while taking the credit herself, only further frustrates her viewers. Now the people who couldn't live up to Martha's standards are going to have the opportunity to see (or at least imagine) Martha stuck in a situation where she has her own set of real-world limitations, and perhaps she'll understand the difficulties that the rest of her viewers had in living the perfect life. The rest of us, though, are just annoyed with her and glad that she didn't get away with a crime.
  • Free Mumia Martha!
  • Be careful about lumping us all into "the rest of us," there, Cochise. While I think it's good that she was convicted, if she was guilty, all this does for me is highlight the incredible inequity between her situation and Enron Execs. Where are their convictions? Stewart does a little insider trading and gets bitch slapped, while these MEN who wreaked havoc on the economy and thousands of people's lives are sitting in their penthouses waiting for the unpleasantness to blow over? I know she's supposed to be a bitch in her personal life. I know people who have worked for her. If that's a reason to crow about her conviction that's pretty sad.
  • To hell with her.
  • And why not, here are a few topical categories from Worth1000. certainsom1, to be more precise, I mean the rest of us who are pleased that she was convicted. And I'll be more pleased if the Enron execs are convicted as well. It's a shame that not all the people who had done wrong are punished, and the punishment should be worse for those who are in positions of responsibility.
  • Anyone who can make an Easter basket from a handful of twigs, pocket lint, and a stick of butter should be in jail anyway.
  • Ack. I meant certainsome1, of course. Okay, here's the other thing: Why would Martha Stewart need to engage in insider trading? Did she not have enough money? Is it because she thought it would be fun? Did she not think she'd get in trouble for it? Also, what's the Cochise reference? Is it a pop-culture thing I'm missing? Google gives me a lot of different links that don't seem particularly topical.
  • In the grand scheme of things financial, Martha seems like small potatoes. There are way, way way bigger fish out there to catch.
  • The only thing that stinks is the way in which it seems trivial to bring Stewart to jail, but long-time Presidential friend and campaign donor Ken Lay just seems too hard. I'm betting Lay will wind up with a presidential pardon in either '04 or '08.
  • I'll be more pleased if the Enron execs are convicted as well. It's a shame that not all the people who had done wrong are punished, and the punishment should be worse for those who are in positions of responsibility. Amen to that. For some reason I feel like the Stewart trial existed solely to distract the public (look over HERE! not over there at those Enron guys! OVER HERE! BAD WOMAN! BAD WOMAN!). Oh, and the "Cochise" thing was something I guess I picked up from Dennis Miller.* *Old Dennis Miller. Back when he used to be funny -- before he became a conservative freako fucktard
  • So we should let the small crimes go just because there are bigger crimes? I would imagine that the investigation for the Enron case and similar are significantly more difficult, partly because of the large amount of evidence that they have to sift through. I do hope the Enron people are charged and, if guilty, convicted. But they should definitely do the investigation properly. I'd hate for someone to walk free because of a loophole or technicality. I'd happily wait another year if they delay is because of ongoing investigation. They wouldn't have charged the execs yet in that case because everyone has a right to a speedy trial, so it would cut short investigation if they're arrested too early. I just hope that's the case. On Preview: Ah, Dennis Miller. Right.
  • Okay, here's the other thing: Why would Martha Stewart need to engage in insider trading? Did she not have enough money? Is it because she thought it would be fun? Did she not think she'd get in trouble for it? Yep, the irony* of it all is that the money she saved by selling is like pocket change to her. People who engage in this type of behavior have a sense of entitlement.** * I think it's irony; ever since that song I've been a little confused about the word's proper meaning. ** I am not a psychologist, but when people break rules and expect to get away with it, that's what it is!
  • Look. She used to be a broker. She should *know* better. I work at an investment company and one whiff of impropriety and you are GONE. We get memos all the time about not acting on inside information EVER. And it does give me a little thrill that the fraud charges were dropped and she was convicted for covering up what she did. Talk about cosmic justice. If she had just come clean, she would be fine now. What she did may have been small potatoes, but it is very high profile. With all the mutual fund scandals recently, I think it's important to say "Stop fucking around!" in a way that will be heard loud and clear by everyone. Also, treat your assistants very nicely. I bet her broker's assistant was the happiest guy alive when he got to testify against a woman who constantly insulted him and treated him like dirt. Here's one vote for no. sympathy. whatsoever.
  • I'm trying to feel sorry for Martha, but... ...I just can't. Fuck Martha Stewart.
  • Knowing very little about Martha Stewart, one thing I would like to know is why everyone seems to hate her so much.
  • dng, check my post at the top of this article. There's a link in there that helped me understand, even if the linked article is poorly edited.
  • I think I would categorise it as hubris, iguanapolitico. Tho' irony it is.
  • Thanks, Sandspider. She sounds like another Oprah, then.
  • dng: Wow. I think your interpretation is really interesting (seriously). I wouldn't compare Martha Stewart to Oprah at all (other than the obvious rich and powerful woman). I find it fascinating that as someone who's not submerged in their culture would see it that way.
  • The similarities weren't just that they were both exceedingly rich and powerful, but that they both have an empire that seems to stretch over many different areas, but all based on (ultimately) lifestyle programs. Like I said, all I really know about Martha Stewart is her name, and what she looks like, so I'm probably way off in my assumptions.
  • From the empire angle, that's a fair point, but from a human level, Oprah has been pretty open about things she has struggled with in life, like her weight, having been molested as a child, etc., not in a "poor me" way, but just a human way, whereas Martha Stewart is sort of the epitome of the stiff-upper-lip WASP that projects a smooth veneer of perfection that simply can't be real. Oprah has more money than God (and way more than Martha) but I would guess that more people would say that they can relate to Oprah more. Just a guess. But an interesting comparison.
  • Not to be a fuddy duddy, but I was hoping we could avoid the topic. If we can't I think we can all agree a little schadenfreude is not uncalled for.
  • What's with all the playa-haters?
  • Don't ruin our fun forky. That woman has annoyed me for *years*.
  • Also, I never liked what I saw of Martha Stewart, but I loved Ana Gasteyer as Martha Stewart on SNL.
  • While I think it's good that she was convicted, if she was guilty, all this does for me is highlight the incredible inequity between her situation and Enron Execs. Where are their convictions? Stewart does a little insider trading and gets bitch slapped, while these MEN who wreaked havoc on the economy and thousands of people's lives are sitting in their penthouses waiting for the unpleasantness to blow over? That's a pretty uninformed statement. The Enron case is infinitely more complex than a simple insider trading situation like Mahtha's. There have been indictments, trials, plea bargains starting down below the Enron executives. It's taken plea deals in exchange for light sentences in several cases just to get the goods on Skilling and he's going down. They'll take a few years off his sentence to get the rest of the goods on Lay and then he's gone. It's patentedly absurd to suggest that the Enron boys are getting away with anything.
  • I
  • Marcia Marcia Marcia! /Jan
  • Any news story that can generate this quote from CNN money makes it all worthwhile for me.... "Neither defendant appeared to show any emotion as the verdict was read, while the lead prosecutor seemed to be holding back tears of joy. " see the 2nd paragraph
  • No! Not Martha Dumptruck.
  • Well, nax, considering my opinions on Martha were basically formed by the SNL Martha, I have no real justification for my feelings towards her. It just blows me away that she's 62. I mean, she may have been a model in the 50s/60s, but I'm guessing she's had some surgical assistance. /bitchy derail I do see this case as a warning to celebrities in a sense, much as the Pauline Hanson conviction gave Australian politicians (one would hope) a wake-up call.
  • The lesson for us? Never EVER ignore your lawyer when he says "Plead guilty, tell the judge you're sorry, and pay the fine."
  • My opinion on Martha Stewart can be summed up thusly: one evening a few years back, I happened to be watching Bryant Gumbel's evening show, called "Public Eye". It featured a live segment with Martha, doing sort of a "behind the scenes" type thing. At one point during the segment, she proceeded to taste something presented to her by an assistant, and proceeded to criticize it, live, on national television. It struck me that anyone who would embarrass an employee like that on national television was prolly not a very pleasant person for whom to work. While her high standards and desire for perfection are admirable to a degree, such behavior seems inappropriate when not balanced with respect and appreciation for her assistants. While she may very well be a wonderful person for whom to work, her personality serves to alienate most of us average working women who can barely manage to boil water at the end of a long work day, much less cook a delicious and savory exotic meal of several courses and organize our knick knacks into attractive handcrafted boxes made from leaves, ribbon and raccoon carcasses. Or something. By contrast, Oprah Winfrey is the patron saint of women. Just like us, she has faults, and she has visibly struggled with imperfections in front of viewers. While by some accounts, she functions behind the scenes with similar perfectionist habits that made Martha an empire, she seems to have attained success while projecting some respect and gratitude for her Harpo employees. She seems to maintain a great deal of humility, warmth, and compassion on her shows, often to a ridiculous level; at times, she seems to achieve an almost godlike status as women in her audience clamor to touch her as she enters the stage. Frequently, she buys them presents, inciting mass hysteria and screaming the likes of which even God has never seen. Oprah is the new Mother Theresa; Martha is the new Imelda Marcos. The moral of the story is this: if you find yourself in a position of power and authority, don't fuck with your staff. They can come back to haunt you in deposition.
  • I don't believe she's had any surgery. But I may be wrong about that. Also, not to give her any slack, but the woman has been desperately unhappy for many years. She's wound so tight...... Also, what she did was small potatoes. The problem is that she wasn't discreet enough about it. And she's a woman. I think there was a point to be made in bringing her down. When you consider things like the S & L scandals, Enron and many, many others that didn't bring justice equal to the crimes, it has to make you realize that, typically, the good ol' boy system is in full effect.
  • I realize Enron isn't finished, but we already know that the punishments will not fit the crimes.
  • Oh, she's had surgery, Darshon. Most definitely. Some kind of endobrow op, probly within the last few years, and certainly some other minor things more recently. Not a hell of a lot, but no question of something being done. No one has skin like that at her age. Collagen injections skillfully applied, although I doubt botox cos she's expressive. Her hands are a giveaway. That's not to bag people who do, it's just a reality for women in the entertainment business. Unless you're a Diane Keaton or whoever, who refuse. Those folks are the exception. There's so much pressure on women in the ent.biz. to look good, and believe it or not, it's also a major part of the selling power.
  • Martha Stewart set the bar way higher and gave women more to feel inferior about. Have you ever seen one of her shows? She uses expensive equipment, expensive ingredients, and often very complicated recipes (the contrast to other women on Food TV is huge--like Rachel Ray or even Ina Garten). Her message is that everything should be perfect and gorgeous. I can't imagine that women who actually have children would have time to do a lot of the stuff she's suggesting. Is it any wonder that there's glee in seeing her be less than perfect?
  • My wife owns a "Free Martha!" T-shirt, souvenir of a Nantucket weekend that she took with a friend. She reports that the T-shirt is a polarizing artifact, getting two strong reactions from two segments of female society: 1) low-to-mid-income working-class women with a craftsy bent, who gushed over it, and 2) the East Coast born-or-married-into-money class, who icily sniffed at it. I, too, find the she-monkey reaction here interesting.
  • I'm afraid that this low-income no time for crafts woman might look askance at your wife's shirt. So, what does Martha suggest for persistent cockroach infestations? Mold in old bathroom grout? Landlords who think that insulation is optional, despite the fact that no where in Canada is tropical? I don't know the details (no desire to follow the case), but any conviction should be on the basis of the evidence, not the person, and I dearly hope that this case was. That said, the schadenfreude will come on the basis of the person - or rather, since it is an unfair assessment of someone I don't know - what she represents. I really have no feelings about Martha Stewart. The world of perfection and consumption - which I find profoundly upper middle class - that is what bothers me. She capitalises off it.
  • Why shouldn't she capitalize off it? If there is a group of people out there (upper middle, etc.) who are highly consumptive and buy into the concepts that are continuously pushed at us all, then by all means, take advantage of it. If I cared to get into that whole scene, I would too. That being said, if she's guilty, let her rot. But I do ask that if she's is going to be convicted, then be consistant and go after everyone who does the same and worse. Be consistant in the sentencing, be consistant in dispensing justice.