Saturday, August 06, 2005
Martha, Martha, Martha!
I hate Martha Stewart. I've hated her for really a long time. She's a thief and a liar, no better than any other even though she thinks she's above the law. She's the most incredibly arrogant and pompous person I can think of. I've heard several people, mostly other women, say that they think she was treated unfairly just because she is Martha Stewart. Well, I say that she has gotten off ridiculously easy just because she is Martha Stewart. These Martha defenders say that she was targeted because she is a successful businesswoman. No, she was targeted because her success came partly from unethical business practices. The defenders also say that what she did was no big deal. One commentator on FoxNews today, Mercedes Colwin, even said, "It was only $50,000." Excuse me? That's more than the median income in this country. I'd say $50,000 is a lot of money to most people. And if Ms. Jane Average embezzled $50,000 from her employer she'd be sitting in more than a Camp Cupcake or palatial house arrest. Some would object to comparing her crime to embezzlement. Well, they would be partly correct because she was convicted of lying to federal investigators, a lesser charge than she could have received for the insider trading. Well, whatever. She has gotten off extremely easy. Her 'house arrest' would be a great vacation for me! Hell, do you think I could get that if I go down to the Family Dollar store and steal $50,000 worth of shit? Well, maybe not Family Dollar because their whole store inventory might not be worth $50,000. Anyway, a better punishment for her would have been to give her house arrest in an 'average' American home (like mine). Let her do laundry and dishes and mop the floors and take care of kids and try to cook some fabulous dinner all at the same time. She'd lose her mind! She makes me sick. She's brazenly violated her parole so she's got 3 more weeks of 'palace arrest.' Oh, boo hoo hoo. In her next life she's probably going to be some poor third world peasant whose job is to rake cow or llama shit into a compost pile. We can only hope!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I could not agree with you more!!
I have repeated this same rant, if not verbatim. You summed up it very well, but additionally my added comment to ones that disagree..She has been so ugly & nasty to people for so long...Queen of Mean, that eventually things come back to you and bite you in the ASS! 7x over usually! I had hoped she would have got more time, at a place where she would have had a lesson in being humble. Apparently it did not happen!
Thank goodness for at least the extra 3 weeks..should be more in my opinion! Great Post!
Hey sweetie. I recently came across a wonderful work of art. I decided to post it over on my blog.
Don't worry I gave credit where it's due.
I can't fully agree here. Were Martha a man, she wouldn't endure half the criticism she does. I'm not making excuses for treating people poorly, but I think she gets a bad rap from a lot of women. I actually admire what she's done and the empire she's built. As for the SEC thing, I agree that it doesn't necessarily appear she was targeted for being female. Although, how many men of her public stature have you seen convicted of similar charges?
Rae Ann -
I'm not a big Martha Stewart fan, either, although I admire the economic empire she has built. What blows me away is that she felt she had to try to squeeze a few more thousands of dollars on top of the multiple millions that she already had. Having said that, at least she was convicted. Look at what happened with OJ and Michael Jackson. I don't think it's a male or female thing though.
And regardng the sentencing, Martha was convicted in federal court. There are fairly specific sentencing guidelines which outline the penalties for violations of federal law, within a range of about 6 months (for example, a base offense for stealing or embezzling a million dollars might be 36 - 42 months). A judge can then depart downwards from that with little to no justification (thanks, liberal judges and lawmakers!), but must meet strict criteria to depart upwards. In Martha's case, she fell within some pretty lenient guidelines, and a judge decided to depart downwards a bit. And, there are aggravating and mitigating factors that must be considered during sentencing. One of them, for example, is criminal history (or lack of such). If she's never been in trouble with the law previously, the sentencing guidelines require that the judge must depart downwards when considering sentencing. I'm speculating here, but I believe there was a limit to what he could do with the parole violation, as well. The guidelines were recently overturned in a Supreme Court ruling, but most judges still use them as a template for sentencing and apply them as such.
Oh, and thanks for wondering about me. :-) I have some job and home commitments that sometimes keep me away from the computer.
Yes madman, you are correct. But for that matter so is the CEO of every major oil company, not to mention the ones who head war profiteers like Halliburton. It's got nothing to do with Martha specifically, it's the corporate game and she's playing in the big leagues with people who play by the same rules. She got caught doing something they all do.
I mean, if you owned stock and a friend who worked for the company told you about something that made you want to see, do you think you'd hold your shares for fear of insider trading? I doubt it...I wouldn't either.
Don't hate the playa, hate the game!
that was want to "sell", not "see"
sorry!
suzie, I think you're so right about that!
mr g, I'm a little surprised to hear you defend her after reading your comments regarding female sex offenders and how you think the law should be applied to men and women equally. The reason that more men haven't been convicted of the same crime as Martha is just because they didn't get caught. Actually, all that white collar/corporate crime makes me furious and I wish that all the offenders would be convicted. And it's true that women are usually much harsher critics of each other than men.
dammit hammett, I understand about the sentencing requirements and all that, but I don't have to like it. I still think that she was pampered about it just because of who she is.
madman, you nailed it!
and hermes, you're a DOLL!
mr g, funny that you posted your comment just as I was saying pretty much the same thing! Cool!
I'm so sick of the dumb bitch - get her off the TV!
I agree that she's an annoying prat, and that she deserved wht she got, but Ken Lay deserves far worse, and he's still walking around free. I don't think that's a gender thing, though. I think it's more a "how far up the president's ass they are" thing.
For what it's worth, for the past 4 years or so, ever since the first revelations about MCI Worldcom, corporate crime has been a priority for investigations, according to federal prosecutors. And since the US Attorneys are appointed by the president, the problem is not that corporations are in bed with the president, no matter what the media would like us to believe. Frankly, fraud cases are incredibly time consuming to work and difficult to prove. Then, even when the evidence has been put together and presented, 12 people have to agree unanimously or there's no conviction. Don't take the easy way out, people. Place the blame where it should be...on a justice system that does not operate fairly.
After I read she learned how to remove her ankle tag, I knew she had already violated her parole... Eff her I say...
midwest hick, yeah, I don't think she got in trouble because she is a successful woman. You can be successful without being a 'higher-than-thou' bitch and crimimal.
princess, yeah, I just don't know why they keep giving her tv deals.
chris, yeah, Ken Lay is worse.
dammit hammett, yeah, I've heard more than once that these cases are hard to convict.
mad munkey, I hear you!
gina, it's wild isn't it? I'm not sure if Mr. Danger likes it though.
Post a Comment