Martha Stewart
I am completely baffled by the importance and newsworthiness of the Martha Stewart case, and she will be glad to hear that I think she is being thoroughly persecuted.
I don't know anything about Martha Stewart. Because I don't spend much time in kitchens or pantries or broom closets, I have never seen any of her stints or performances. I have a vague idea that she is famous for doing cooking shows and even more for conveying all sorts of household ideas, some of them on the far out side.
Long before her trial I saw internet funnies satirizing her, but the points were lost on me, and it was at that moment that my first shreds of sympathy for her were born. What was wrong with a little ingenuity and going over the top in the cupboard and on the buffet?
I think of her as being a Julia Childs with gimmicks, and who in their right mind would've hauled Julia Childs up in front of a judge?
What was Martha Stewart's trial about? What was the charge against her?
As near as I can make out, she got a hot tip that had some bearing on some of her stocks, and before the hammer could come down, she quickly sold what she had so as to minimize whatever loss she might otherwise have incurred.
I thought that was normal. I thought that was what everybody did. I thought that was what the smart money is supposed to do. I thought that everybody is forever looking for that inside edge, and that they seek it without much regard for others who might be holding the same stocks yet not be aware of the threat. I thought it was the duty of all stockholders to keep their eyes open and to look out for that little cloud on the horizon no bigger than a hand. Was she just supposed to sit there and lose half a mil? What true-blue red-blooded American acquisionist is going to do that?
I tried, but I failed to see where anything that M. Stewart is charged with doing hurt anybody else, and I thought that that was what justice is all about.
Her prosecutors intimate that she should be put under the jail because she lied during the investigation. But those "lies" look suspiciously like the sort of responses that any person of character would make in answering in kind to ridiculous questions and charges. Prosecutors and police often seem to think that the accused have a Constitutional duty to give answers to the wildest and most reckless accusations that will guarantee that they will be found guilty. Too often, justice comes in a poor second to racking up a good boxscore.
It does my understanding of this case no good to click on things in the Internet about Martha Stewart. Even a lot of what I would expect to be unbiased, straight news accounts carry a definite air of resentment toward this strong-minded and well-preserved and kind of cute woman of about 63, and that leads me to think that her main and only crime is that an unfathomable something caused her to be tried and found guilty in the public mind, and so that's it. Rhyme and reason don't enter into the matter. Apparently she is not generally liked. The news accounts paint her as being arrogant, and the public verdict, far beyond any court of law, is that an example should be made of her, though if arrogance were a crime, 93 percent of the population would be behind bars.
People suffer that kind of fate. Some public figures are loved and revered beyond all reason, long after the original reason -- if any -- has faded. The golfer Arnold Palmer comes to mind. And others are hated far beyond any possibility of redemption, though no good explanation can be given for this hatred, and that seems to be the knife edge on which Martha Stewart's fate is teetering.
It looks, however, as if at least a glimmer of fairness and reality is gnawing at the verdict that was rendered against her. A man who gave testimony harmful to her has been charged with perjury. Yet, like prosecutors everywhere who suffer the embarrassment of being caught bare-rumped by subsequent developments, hers are being quick to try to quash any notion of nullifying her guilty verdict and giving her another trial.
I don't think she should get another trial either. Instead I think the one that she already allegedly received should be declared null and void, and they should allow Martha Stewart to return to whatever in the world it is that she does.
I don't know anything about Martha Stewart. Because I don't spend much time in kitchens or pantries or broom closets, I have never seen any of her stints or performances. I have a vague idea that she is famous for doing cooking shows and even more for conveying all sorts of household ideas, some of them on the far out side.
Long before her trial I saw internet funnies satirizing her, but the points were lost on me, and it was at that moment that my first shreds of sympathy for her were born. What was wrong with a little ingenuity and going over the top in the cupboard and on the buffet?
I think of her as being a Julia Childs with gimmicks, and who in their right mind would've hauled Julia Childs up in front of a judge?
What was Martha Stewart's trial about? What was the charge against her?
As near as I can make out, she got a hot tip that had some bearing on some of her stocks, and before the hammer could come down, she quickly sold what she had so as to minimize whatever loss she might otherwise have incurred.
I thought that was normal. I thought that was what everybody did. I thought that was what the smart money is supposed to do. I thought that everybody is forever looking for that inside edge, and that they seek it without much regard for others who might be holding the same stocks yet not be aware of the threat. I thought it was the duty of all stockholders to keep their eyes open and to look out for that little cloud on the horizon no bigger than a hand. Was she just supposed to sit there and lose half a mil? What true-blue red-blooded American acquisionist is going to do that?
I tried, but I failed to see where anything that M. Stewart is charged with doing hurt anybody else, and I thought that that was what justice is all about.
Her prosecutors intimate that she should be put under the jail because she lied during the investigation. But those "lies" look suspiciously like the sort of responses that any person of character would make in answering in kind to ridiculous questions and charges. Prosecutors and police often seem to think that the accused have a Constitutional duty to give answers to the wildest and most reckless accusations that will guarantee that they will be found guilty. Too often, justice comes in a poor second to racking up a good boxscore.
It does my understanding of this case no good to click on things in the Internet about Martha Stewart. Even a lot of what I would expect to be unbiased, straight news accounts carry a definite air of resentment toward this strong-minded and well-preserved and kind of cute woman of about 63, and that leads me to think that her main and only crime is that an unfathomable something caused her to be tried and found guilty in the public mind, and so that's it. Rhyme and reason don't enter into the matter. Apparently she is not generally liked. The news accounts paint her as being arrogant, and the public verdict, far beyond any court of law, is that an example should be made of her, though if arrogance were a crime, 93 percent of the population would be behind bars.
People suffer that kind of fate. Some public figures are loved and revered beyond all reason, long after the original reason -- if any -- has faded. The golfer Arnold Palmer comes to mind. And others are hated far beyond any possibility of redemption, though no good explanation can be given for this hatred, and that seems to be the knife edge on which Martha Stewart's fate is teetering.
It looks, however, as if at least a glimmer of fairness and reality is gnawing at the verdict that was rendered against her. A man who gave testimony harmful to her has been charged with perjury. Yet, like prosecutors everywhere who suffer the embarrassment of being caught bare-rumped by subsequent developments, hers are being quick to try to quash any notion of nullifying her guilty verdict and giving her another trial.
I don't think she should get another trial either. Instead I think the one that she already allegedly received should be declared null and void, and they should allow Martha Stewart to return to whatever in the world it is that she does.
posted by Carl (aka Sofarsogoo) | 12:05 AM
5 Comments:
Stewart was originally charged with a sort of insider trading, i.e., basing her dumping of the stock on information available to her that would not have been available to you or me. It's not merely that someone can get rich by trading on inside information... it's that they can get rich at the expense of other investors, bailing out first before a drop, buying shares first before a rise. The viability of the NYSE, or any other stock exchange, depends first and foremost on investor confidence in the market's transparency: if all investors have access to all important information about the company they are investing in, they can, if they have the skills, make informed judgments about what to do with their money. If they don't, insiders can make a killing at others' expense. So insider trading is rather a big deal.
But as happens so often these days, other charges were piled on Ms. Stewart, including (as best I understand it) obstruction of justice, for ordering the deletion of an email that might have cast her as having used inside information... in other words, she was charged with a cover-up. Many of the original charges were dropped, but the charge of a cover-up stuck. (I'm sure there are lawyers among your readers who can give a more sophisticated and accurate explanation, but that's the essence of it.)
What follows is my opinion, not an assertion of fact: Ms. Stewart's real crime was being a highly visible, very wealthy contributor to causes associated with the Democrats. I do not know her actual party affiliation, but I have read in several places that she gives... gave... money to liberal causes. By contrast, Bush crony and former Enron head honcho Ken Lay still walks the streets a free man, despite his being associated with... and possibly having personally committed... crimes many times worse than all the ones Martha Stewart was ever accused of. Draw your own conclusions.
Thanks Steve, for taking the time to write such a comprehensive and illuminating comment. My fifth paragraph was indeed less rhetorical than it was a couple of genuine requests for enlightenment.
Obviously I'm mistaken, but insider trading has never struck me as being that big a thing, because buying stocks has the appearance of being just another form of gambling, this time against the future, and I hadn't thought of that as being very visible even to insiders. And my confidence and respect isn't lifted when I see the market so often affected by factors that I wouldn't think should be relevant to anything, so that often it seems to be even on the frivolous side.
But anything to do with money is unpleasant for me to think about, I don't know why. This Stewart post pretty much wrote itself, but don't ask me why about that either. A weblog is a good place for setting mysteries out to stew. I guess that's the answer.
Seconding what Steve said, plus a mention that so often the cover up is what trips folks up.
And yes - Martha was indeed a donor to the Democratic party, candidates, and progressive causes.
Martha dislike? I'll use your mention of Julia Child as an example. In her own home, Julia does her own cooking. Martha (as I understand it) has an army of minions to make her home look like all the stuff she advertises.
It's sort of like the celebrity single moms that rhapsodize over the joys of raising a child, when all the time you KNOW they have a nanny, cook, and housekeeper!
I admit I rather like Martha. Let me contribute some doggerel I wrote a few years ago...
5/1/2000 Channel-surfing, I spot Martha Stewart and some pastry chef using an unlikely implement to finish a dessert, remove its ring, heat the knife for cutting it, melt sugar on its surface, etc. As Martha chatters on in her bored voice, I cannot help wondering...
Martha Blows It
Martha Stewart plies her art,
Points a blowtorch at a tart
(Not the kind who walks the street,
No, the kind you cook and eat),
Flames the hapless blonde confection,
Burns its surface... to perfection.
What a tool! When you employ it,
Martha, do you... well... enjoy it?
Queen of kitchen, garden, porch,
Seems you carry quite a torch!
Martha looks around and sighs,
Turns her back, averts her eyes:
"It's my job. It's unforgiving.
It's a Martha Stewart living."
- SB the YDD
These additions to my post, Steve, and Andante, too, are welcome. I think we can say that Ms Stewart is getting a far happier due here than she is at the hands of her harriers. Too bad that it can be of no help to her.
Post a Comment
<< Home