January 25, 2005

• We don't do enough as a society to help rich people. You can sign me up.
• Discuss? Do we have too? I just thought it was retarded enough without the need for witty banter from us monkeys
• Ha! Some of us monkeys need very large, easy targets for our weakened powers of wit.
• much as the tattooing is silly, I am not adverse to saving Martha, who was railroaded into jail basically for being an uppity woman and big-dollar supporter of the Democratic party.
• What drjimmy11 said, though I doubt Martha need much "saving."
• So how much are you getting paid for the tattoo, es el Queso?
• /snuckle
• DrJ: While I agree, screw Martha anyway, smug b*tch! I'm just sorry she didn't take the rest of them down with her. 'nockle: witless, more like it.
• it's not the money, Sullivan, it's the injustice, man...
• railroaded into jail basically for being an uppity woman and big-dollar supporter of the Democratic party. Yeah, that and being found guilty of lying to investigators and ostructing justice. I mean, doesn't everyone lie to the cops and try to stop them from conducting an investigation?
• How did we slip politics into this thread? Were the Enron guys Democrats?
• Some people's axes never get ground.
• I thought she was railroaded too, and my mother starts to froth at the mouth at the very mention of her imprisonment. I love the Free Martha people - I keep meaning to get a coffee cup or a bumpersticker - although a tattoo is a bit extreme - and don't underestimate their sense of irony, either, they know they're ridiculous, and they like it that way.
• Sure, everybody loves to hate Martha, but the fact is there are much bigger fish still frolicking in the free market ocean, splashing about in millions, perhaps billions of ill-gotten dollars, and Martha got jail time for, what, $50K? I tend to agree with the "uppity woman and Dem supporter" school of thought, but I would also add that regardless of her politics, she was a big name target and her punishment made big headlines. The reason this is motivation for slamming her is obvious to my fellow conspiracy theorists--this way the watchdogs LOOK as though they've really done something to stop insider trading and corporate shenanigans, when in fact they've done nothing.
• and Martha got jail time for, what, $50K? X Wrong. She was convicted of obstruction and lying to investigators.
• In pursuance of a deal in which she made at most around $50K. I'm not saying it's right to obstruct and lie--in a perfect world I suppose no crime would go unpunished. I'm just saying that Martha was an easy distraction, and the bigger crooks are still doing their deeds.
• And even if there are bigger fish still out there, how does that relieve her of the fact that evidence pointed to the fact that she profited illegally and that she tried to hide it and obstruct an investigation? And who do you mean when you say bigger fish? You mean like Dennis Kozlowski, who is on trial again? Or Frank Quattrone, who already saw trial? Or maybe Bernie Ebbers, who they were building a case for and are now bringing to trial? Nevermind, I know what you mean. Ken Lay. Well, it takes time to build cases like that. You figure that billions were swindled in the larger cases, and there were dozens of people who also needed trials and investigations surrounding that case. That takes time. In the case of Martha Stewart, she had a couple of phonecalls, a handful of people that needed to be talked to. Compared to Ken Lay, it's a minor case, and one that takes a much shorter time to compile. She wasn't railroaded. She just didn't make it complicated enough for investigators to push off her trial another two years.
• sheesh, the color schemes on that savemartha.com website...
• Uh, Shawn, she didn't profit illegally. That was the verdict: she did nothing illegal, save lying to investigators about what she had done. In my book, that's worth a fine but not hard time. Personal disclosure: I was stopped once for "not coming to a full and complete stop" before turning right on red. I hadn't renewed my license, and so ended up with a bevy of charges including driving on a suspended license. I talked to the prosecutor, made sure that my insurance and registration were brought back up to date, and the charges (and resulting points) were all dropped. I had broken the law, but the punishment was out of proportion to the crime. The prosecutor saw that and let me go, essentially unharmed (aside from having to take a day off of work and getting my suit cleaned). I tend to feel that Martha Stewart, having been convicted of hindering an investigation but not the underlying crime that was being investigated, got a punishment out of proportion to her crime. That you're getting apopleptic about the issue is pretty odd.
• *knew if he waited long enough somebody smarter and with more information would make the point he was trying to make much more succintly* *golf claps, eats shoots, leaves*
• I know that. But the investigators PRIOR to the case didn't know that, which is my point. There was evidence that she profited illegally, so they rounded her up just like they are rounding up the rest of those corporate cheats, only her case had less substance to investigate so it got to trial earlier. The reason she went to jail over it was because the maximum fine that the judge could impose was $500, or he could sentence her to three years. In this case, if the fine had been imposed, it would have been as if she lost a dollar in the vending machine. Sentencing her to jail time ensures some punishment for the crime. It's not out of proportion, considering that jail time is in some instances required for obstruction. I tend to feel that Martha Stewart, having been convicted of hindering an investigation but not the underlying crime that was being investigated, got a punishment out of proportion to her crime. She's lucky, actually. Sentences for obstruction can get two or even five years. The judge obviously took leniency on her by only giving her six months of sitting in a cell while her stock portfolio doubles.
• Shawn, while you do have some valid points, I still have to plant my feet in the "railroaded" camp. There is a certain stigma with regards to women in positions of power and infamy (outside of Hollywood, that is). Leona Helmsley's "bitchy attitude" and underhanded business dealings are quite reminiscent of another real estate mogul: Donald Trump. Of course, being a man, he's just a hard-ass, shrewd business person, but she's an evil witch. People love it when Oprah packs on the weight again, and often make fun of her "pet-husband" and they loved it when Martha got busted. The public hatred of Martha is much farther reaching than Ken Lay.
• I still don't understand how that should somehow exonerate her of her crime, or create a situation where tons of people flock to her defense. From my perspective, there's not much to defend there. Yes, the evidence in the case of insider trading was sketchy and unclear. But that's why they started an investigation.