Amber on Martha Stewart (Hot Objectivist on Millionaire Action!)
Sadly, No!’s bestest friend Amber has a new column out. It’s about how Martha Stewart was convicted of a crime she didn’t even commit. (Attempted insider trading? Now honesty, what is that? Do they give out a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?)
Well, as you know, Martha was actually convicted of lying to authorities, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. But Amber considers the whole thing to be a witch hunt, and is outraged that Martha is being burned at the stake when it’s clear that Martha is not made of wood, and does not weigh the same as a duck.
Amber says:
The government has no business regulating ?insider trading? in the first place ? it is something the market itself can regulate on its own. The scandal around her is ridiculous ? more ridiculous that she is going to jail over it.
Hmm, so if Corporate insiders and their friends and family members are allowed to use confidential information about significant corporate developments in order to make profits that aren’t possible for non-insiders (or to avoid losses while the other investors lose their shirts), the market will regulate itself when “regular folks” refuse to invest in the securities market anymore, the stock market crashes, the insiders all jump from skyscraper windows, we have an economic depression, but then there’s a war, the economy picks up, and everybody is happy again. Okay, works for me.
And it is kind of astounding that Martha could do jail time for lying, when so many other people are guilty of the same thing. But maybe she will get her conviction overturned like Oliver North did — I wonder if Sean Hannity would spearhead the effort to pardon Martha if Amber asked him to.
I?ve avoided writing on this topic, because the witch-hunt against Stewart is too unbearable for me to handle. This case is evidence of what Ayn Rand called a hatred of the good for being good. Stewart is not being dragged through this hell because of her vices but because of her virtues.
Aw, poor Amber — I guess seeing an objectivist heroine being brought down this way is terribly traumatic for her, especially since Martha will probably turn to lesbianism while in prison. If only Seb were around to help Amber through this trying time.
it’s clear that Martha is not made of wood, and does not weigh the same as a duck.
In contrast, I’m pretty sure we could build a bridge out of Amber…
If Amber has “avoided writing on this topic,” why is she writing on this topic?!?
A cool washcloth to the forehead and a nice nap, Amber. Go now.
Absolutely, Amber! What this country needs is a ‘level playing field’, with the widows and orphans on one side, and the Fortune 500 corporations on the other side. And “rules” are for _wimps_!
Why, if only Enron and WorldCom had been allowed to self-regulate, they wouldn’t be this mess today!
I just went over to http://www.haloscan.com and their “Catch of the Day” (I think this is a blogad posted on lots of sites) is one missdaphnepurr, who looks to be an attractive young woman. She writes, “More about what I am looking for: ‘A girl who isn’t too skinny and isn’t too tall and cute as a button.'” That describes Amber to a T! Do you want to let her know about this romantic opportunity?
Come on–Pawlik’s right about this. Enron management screwed thousands, mutual fund managers lie outright about their holdings, the SEC under Bush is such a joke that no one with a lick of sense can trust the stock market–and who’s doing the perp walk? A Dem contributor who acted on a stock tip.
Molly, I think you’re partly right, and Pawlik’s dead wrong. Stewart wasn’t targeted (just) because she was successful–the Enron crowd has her beat there. I think she was pretty clearly singled out because of the widespread public distaste for her, most of which stems from her reputation as a ballbreaking bitch. Which of course is not something that male executives are ever accused of being.
Stewart wasn’t targeted (just) because she was successful–the Enron crowd has her beat there. I think she was pretty clearly singled out because of the widespread public distaste for her
Wall Street has gotta throw someone high profile to the wolves every now and then, or else the rubes won’t keep mailing in their chump money!
I think poor old Martha got the penalty because of her celebrity status, not because of her supposed “reputation as a ball-breaking bitch”.
But mark my words: she’ll never have to worry about sewing new curtains for her cell, because she ain’t never gonna see one single day in the slammer.
IMHO, Martha Stewart, just like Rush Limbaugh before her, was targeted because (A) She’s famous; and (B) She’s guilty. She was prosecuted as an example to everybody else. Amber feels that Martha was unfairly persecuted just because she’s rich and the “little people” were jealous of her success. But shouldn’t somebody (a former stockbroker, in fact)who has used the stock market to make a fortune, and who theb breaks the law in order to save a few bucks, be prosecuted more zealously than Joe Schmo who breaks the law in order to pay the mortgage this month? Bottom line (IMHO): if you’re rich and famous, be law-abiding or face the consequences.
Bottom line (IMHO): if you’re rich and famous, be law-abiding or face the consequences.
In George W. Bush’s America, you can be rich, famous, and break the law with impunity as long as you give a relatively modest chunk of your ill-gotten gains to BushCo (see “Kenny Boy” Lay; Halliburton; Koch Oil Company).
Amber considers the whole thing to be a witch hunt, and is outraged that Martha is being burned at the stake when it’s clear that Martha is not made of wood, and does not weigh the same as a duck.
ROFL!!
I consider the true test of intelligence to be the ability to work in a Holy Grail reference while discussing any subject.