|
Comments:
Laura - 2005-03-04 10:05:42 When we're lost it's comforting to be in our own worlds. I'm glad I don't live next door to her. "Get rid of those junk vehicles! Clean up that dog poop! Mow your weeds!" No thanks.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2005-03-04 12:46:40 When we're lost it's a comfort to be in our own worlds. I'm glad I don't live next door to hers. "Get rid of those junk cars! Clean up that dog poop! Mow your weeds! Dust your McCoy pottery!" No thanks.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2005-03-04 12:47:55 oops. first time it didn't register. redid it. now it's twice. what the...?* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2005-03-04 12:52:54 Diaryland burped; not your fault of course; sorry Raymond. The alleged BTK serial murder suspect used to measure his neighbor's lawn with a ruler to see if it was long enough for him to complain. Nice.* * * * * * * * * * * * Dan Arbor - 2005-03-04 12:56:00 Too bad BTK wasn't Martha's neighbor... :)* * * * * * * * * * * * Dan Arbor - 2005-03-04 13:00:30 I have to say that I don't wish Martha the best. She knew exactly what she was doing, and she got caught. She got a light sentence, and now she's under "house arrest" at one of her mansions. If ever favoritism for the rich reared its ugly head, this is it. If you or I had pulled the same stunt with insider trading, we'd be in prison for many years to come. I think she should go back to prison. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2005-03-04 13:01:48 BTK/Martha: yikes. Anyways, Raymond, I'd bristle at such interference, too. By virtue of living in a densely residential area, I'm more or less forced to keep up a minimum standard of neatness. Mowing, pruning, &c. Which I do. More or less. But I prefer wild, weedy overgrownness, which my (hidden) backyard tends toward. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2005-03-04 13:04:45 I have to say her complete lack of shame or humility troubles me. A normal flawed person who succumbed to greed as we all do in some way or another would feel sorry. Ashamed. Not her. Her jail-leaving statement was full of complaints on how inconvenient it had been and how the whole time she was thinking of and helping other people (never mind that 200 people at her company were let go due to the conviction).* * * * * * * * * * * * Dan Arbor - 2005-03-04 13:22:03 "During her time at the federal women's camp in Alderson, Stewart foraged for dandelions and other wild greens, concocted recipes in a microwave and even ate from a vending machine. She also participated in nightly yoga classes, spent time on crafts and writing and lost weight." "...even ate from the vending machine..."!? My God! What kind of brutality is this? Such draconian punishments went out with the Spanish Inquisition! What kind of society have we become?
"The experience of the last five months ... has been life altering and life affirming," Stewart said in a statement issued on her Web site. "Someday, I hope to have the chance to talk more about all that has happened, the extraordinary people I have met here and all that I have learned." I sure do want another helping of dandelion greens that decades of prisoners have expelled masticated tobacco juice or worse upon. Pass my plate please.* * * * * * * * * * * * LF - 2005-03-04 20:10:20 "She also participated in nightly yoga classes, spent time on crafts and writing and lost weight." Sounds like she was at a spa or a retreat. What a buncha crap. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2005-03-04 20:55:03 It was a minimum-security facility nicknamed "Camp Cupcake."* * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2005-03-05 17:25:55 Good god. *I've* done worse than what she did in my life (which was, remember, *lying* not insider trading, which they have never proved). Haven't any of you ever bought stock because your friend at Borders mentioned that they thought it was a pretty good quarter? Or conversely, haven't you ever had a friend who's said, "My company sucks; we've had so many complaints, we can't get the orders out on time..." and decided not to buy stock in their company? As far as I'm concerned, she was in a very gray area and did nothing that isn't done every day. Is it strictly legal or even strictly right? No, but proportionality, folks. Come on. For example, my friend's rapist will never serve time because even if they identify him via the DNA sample, there is no DNA exception in the state she was raped in and the statute of limitations is over. Surely that crime was worse by an order of magnitude.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2005-03-05 18:41:49 I think the first part of your statement is reasonable. I had mis-thought that she'd actually been convicted of insider trading, and so was glad to see that corrected. I hadn't known she had not actually been convicted of that. My mistake (and that explains why she got such a light sentence). That the statute of limitations ran out in your friend's case is just wrong. There is no statute of limitations, if I may dare say so, not knowing her, on her probable ongoing feelings of anger, hurt, fear, and suspicion. Why put a statute of limitations on such a serious crime? I don't understand that at all. * * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2005-03-05 20:15:22 The statute of limitations for rape is 3-7 years in most states. Many don't have exceptions for physical evidence, like DNA (e.g., Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah). Some states (California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin among them) have created exceptions for cases in which DNA evidence is available either extending the statute until 10 years (New York), or eliminating it all together. Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Iowa have no statute of limitations with or without DNA. Nevada requires only that a written report be filed within the four year statute of limitations. In Michigan, the statute of limitations is 6 years. If the suspect is not identified and DNA is obtained, prosecution can occur at any time after the crime. * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan Arbor - 2005-03-05 23:13:02 Sorry, but I just don't buy Martha as an amatuer here. They charged her with what they felt confident they could convict her of, not simply her only crime. Insider trading and SEC rules violations are notoriously hard to uncover, and even harder to prove. I very much doubt that this is the only instance where Martha had a little inside help. For me, what's most irritating in this is her feigning ignorance of SEC rules. Martha is a very savvy business woman who built an empire. She is by no stretch an innocent in this matter, and playing one on TV is just insulting. Gimme a break. Also, there is a huge difference between anecdotal commentary from friends inside a business, and learning of a government agancy's decision to ban a company's hot new product from the marketplace the day before everyone else does. In the former's case, the stock will likely take a hit; in the latter, the stock may be deep-sixed beyond hope. Hence, the SEC. People commit crimes every day, but that doesn't make it okay. And it should not persuade us to sympathy for a multi-millionaire who couldn't help steal a bit more... And, while clearly there is no comaprison between Martha's little grift and a crime as serious and horrific as rape, murder, kidnapping, etc., I don't think she should skate because another person's crime is much worse. * * * * * * * * * * * * LF - 2005-03-06 13:48:19 Great post Dan. I concur wholeheartedly.* * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2005-03-06 15:45:29 I agree that few crimes are "right", but I still think that ten months, even five of those under house arrest, is a very steep penalty for lying. If they didn't think they could convict her of insider trading, then they couldn't prove she was guilty of it, and hence, she is innocent under the law and should only have been punished for lying. And she was. And ten months is a long time. Personally, I think being found to be in possession of an eight of an ounce of pot is worse in many ways because of the people who get hurt along the supply chain. But I don't think people should go to jail for ten months (or any months) for that. I think what it comes down to is people not liking her for some perceived flaw (such as perfectionism, phonyism, disengenuousness, too much luck, etc.) and feeling a sense of schadenfruede at her plight. The above posts seem to bear that out. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2005-03-06 18:30:20 Dan: Very well said. I have to respectfully disagree with Anna's position that people are protesting Stewart's light sentence due to not liking her. It's true she's not generally liked--because she presents herself as an arrogant, unlikeable person. But that's separate from a protest against a savvy mogul wiggling out of serious charges with a wide-eyed claim of ignorance of what was going on. * * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2005-03-07 07:20:11 She didn't wiggle out of the charges because she claimed she didn't know what was going on -- she wasn't prosecuted for insider trading because they could not prove that that is what she did, given that her broker claims she had an order in to sell if the stock fell below a certain level. They could prove, however, that she lied, so that's what she was convicted of, and that's what she served time for.* * * * * * * * * * * * add your comment: |