- Thanks for taking a stand on this issue. I've occasionally
watched her (much p[refer Christopher Lowell!) and have been somewhat put
off by her attitude, but I really think she has been unjustly and unfairly
persecuted/prosecuted, basically as a Democratic scapegoat for white collar
crime (and a powerful woman to boot).
-
- I really doubt that she was aware that she did anything
wrong, or that she did. They threw out the Insider trading, because though
she might have known that this guy at ImClone was selling it, she didn't
know WHY, and that would have been insider trading...maybe.
-
- They got her on 10001 (I think), an obscure law that
basically will get you in trouble for lying to any federal investigator
by commission OR ommission. And you don't have to be read your rights
or be under oath to get prosecuted for that (besides, you don't have to
even be lying, they can just accuse you of it).
-
- My warning to anyone who gets questioned by the FBI,
etc., is to never answer ANY questions of anyone in the government unless
you have a lawyer present. I think that may have been Martha's mistake.
-
- Might want to read this article, Jeff...
-
- Bright Blessings!
- Joy
-
-
- An Open Letter From Ms. In Support Of Martha Stewart
-
- Let's make it clear at the start: Martha Stewart has
never been a feminist icon.
-
- While we may like her K-Mart paints or appreciate some
of her suggestions for décor, she's never made the short list for
Ms. Woman of the Year. It doesn't mean we don't consider her a feminist
- we have no idea what Ms. Stewart calls herself - it's just that domestic
perfection hasn't been one of our top priorities.
-
- That said, we're outraged about her recent prosecution
and conviction. It's time for women to speak out.
- The issue is proportionality. John Ashcroft's Justice
Department spent millions of dollars overzealously pursuing a case in which
Martha Stewart saved herself $52,000 in stock losses by following an insider
stock tip. And she wasn't even prosecuted for that--she was busted for
lying about whether or not she'd sold her stock based on that tip.
-
- We certainly believe in the judicial system, and in going
after "bad guys," including rich white collar criminals who use
their power and connections to make money off the backs of small investors.
Let's just go after the real bad guys, and put Martha Stewart into perspective.
-
- For example, we can't wait for indictments to come down
on Bush crony Kenneth Lay of Enron, contributed thousands to the Republican
Party, who sold off $80 million in company stock while telling his employees
to keep buying. When those employees found out that Enron's profits were
created by smoke-and-mirror accounting, many lost their retirement nest
eggs.
-
- We're also concerned about Vice President Dick Cheney's
sale of Halliburton stock in 2000, on which he made $18.5 million. The
price of stock then was $52/share; sixty days later, when reports of poor
earnings surfaced, it dropped to $13/share.
-
- Ordinary investors lost their life savings. Mr. Cheney
is now being sued in civil court--but not by the federal government--for
being part of a conspiracy to overstate company profits.
-
- And lest you think we're only looking at Republicans,
we couldn't fail to notice how Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe
invested $100,000 in the now-bankrupt Global Crossing--but got out with
an $18 million profit while leaving other investors holding the bag.
-
- None of these people have been prosecuted by the state,
though. Instead, the government threw its full weight behind the case against
a powerful woman . This was not a serious case that protected Americans
against criminals. This was a bitch hunt.
-
- Martha Stewart, after all, is a woman-you-love-to-hate.
Despite her fans, a Gallup poll reported that 55 percent of Americans have
an unfavorable opinion of her.
-
- The fact is that there is a reserve of cultural hostility
toward powerful women--particularly if their personalities border on arrogance,
as many would say Martha's does. Martha was portrayed in court as being
haughty, a diva, a snob. One juror noted that she took a tax deduction
for her vacation. We wonder; what about all those CEOs who deduct their
membership at country clubs like Augusta that discriminate against women?
-
- Juries reflect social prejudices--witness the racial
whitewashes of the 60s in the South--and those prejudices fall hard on
women who step outside proscribed gender roles.
-
- Imagine a man in Martha Stewart's position. Would Donald
Trump be pre-judged guilty for arrogance and conspicuous consumption? Better
still, would Martha Stewart be considered decisive and even charming when
she says "You're fired!" to a reality show contestant vying for
her favor? Hardly.
-
- We're conditioned to not like that sort of power in women.
The government prosecutors who decided to make an example of Martha Stewart
knew that.
-
- Plenty of other powerful people--usually men--have broken
SEC rules, but Martha Stewart was a convictable target. She was made an
example --and we believe that it's not because of what she did so much
as who she is.
-
- We believe this prosecution did send a message. The message
is one of fear, and intimidation to those who stand up to the government.
Don't stand up for yourself and protest your innocence. Don't be a successful,
arrogant, unlikable woman--that will just make the government more vindictive.
-
- These are scary times we're living in. Our government
is creating and exploiting fear. If you're on a list of people who support
progressive causes, you could potentially not be allowed on an airplane
flight. If you're accused of being a terrorist--just accused --you aren't
even allowed a lawyer. As I write this, I anticipate my name will move
to the top of the list for an IRS audit.
- But it's time for all of us to speak out against fear
and intimidation. And it's time for Ms. to join the chorus of those who
believe that Martha Stewart was taken down because she's that bitchy Martha
Stewart. The punishment should fit the crime, and Martha Stewart going
to prison is wildly wrong, overzealous, and disproportionate.
-
- Elaine Lafferty
- Editor in Chief
-
- Copyright Ms. Magazine 2002- 2005
-
- http://msmagazine.com/Editor_Martha.htm
|
