"larry" > wrote in message >. ..
> Well she lied, cheated, stole and got caught.. so I guess she deserves to
> go to JAIL. I think they should fine the #%&$ out of her and put her
> back to work to pay some big taxes. But on the other hand those with
> plenty of money are not very afraid of paying a fine.. big deal.. but some
> time in stripes scares nearly everybody.
>
>
> Laurence

From today's Washington Times

Saving the streets from Martha Stewart


By Wesley Pruden


We'll all sleep better now, feeling safe and secure in our beds (with
or without flowered sheets). The feds are finally getting Martha
Stewart off the streets.
Her expensively coiffed scalp will look nice on the wall behind
the desk of the U.S. district attorney who led the prosecution.
Martha, who insists on things being done right, will help him choose
the appropriate presentation for her scalp. A mahogany frame against a
deep red matte ought to set off Martha's blonde locks in an elegant
and fetching way.
Some of the reporters and pundits who are offended most by
Martha's advocacy of grown-up clothes and neat hair, orderly digs, and
flowers and dishes arranged for a king's most demanding subjects
haven't had so much fun since the feds hounded Jim and Tammy Faye
Bakker into prison and oblivion for overbooking their hotel.
The first juror who spoke up after the verdict called throwing
Miss Stewart into the slammer a victory for "the average guy." You
could hear in his voice the triumphant note of revenge done well.
"Maybe it's a victory for the little guy who loses money in the
markets because of these types of transactions, the people who lose
money in 401(k) plans," said Chappell Hartridge, 47, a computer
programmer who talks too much. "Maybe it might give the average guy a
little more confident feeling that can invest in the market and
everything will be on the up and up."
Well, maybe. But making Martha Stewart an example for a seminar on
prudent investing is a bizarre use of a federal criminal trial,
particularly since the feds' bill of particulars was thin soup to
begin with and made more so when the judge threw out the charge of
insider trading, the only blob of genuine bone and fat in the pot.
Juror Hartridge and his prejudices, it now seems clear, was exactly
what the feds were counting on to save them from the humiliation of a
collapsing railroad job.
Miss Stewart, by all accounts, is not very nice: Arrogance,
haughtiness, self-importance and a condescending manner are no more
attractive in a Connecticut maven of gracious living than in, for
example, a presidential candidate from Massachusetts. A nice Polish
girl from New Jersey got into trouble in the first place by hanging
out with the wrong crowd, the swells and belles of the Upper East Side
who summer on Long Island Sound. She should have listened to her mama,
who knew that hanging out with the wrong crowd is guaranteed to get a
girl into trouble, and not necessarily the kind of trouble a girl can
get into between flowered sheets. One of the cable-TV talking heads, a
woman who was once a federal prosecutor, called Miss Stewart the
prototypical "rich bitch," showing up in court in her furs, jewels and
designer dresses. Indeed, her expensive lawyers should have taken her
back to New Jersey to find a Wal-Mart to deck her out in a peasant
frock. They could have returned to Lower Manhattan to warn some of her
celebrity friends, such as Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Cosby, to stay
away from the courthouse if they really wanted to help.
"If anything," the voluble Juror Hartridge said of the parade of
Martha's rich and famous friends, "we may have taken it a little as an
insult. Is that supposed to sway our opinion?"
In a word, yes. That's the way lawyers play the game. This time,
the defense trick worked instead for the prosecution. Miss Stewart may
be entitled to a rebate from her lawyers.
But Martha Stewart was not indicted on the charge of bitchery,
witchery or even slickery. She was indicted on charges of conspiracy,
obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal agents,
who are themselves enabled by the law to lie. The government even
suggested that she was guilty of "lying" simply for saying that she
was innocent of wrongdoing. This is pretty rich from the side that
gets to mark the cards.
We've always taken a certain pride in the proposition that in
America, class doesn't count, that we look out for the poor but don't
begrudge the rich their wealth. We look to them as an example of how
to make it to a million-dollar mansion on Coffee Pot Lane. Recent
decades of class warfare, abetted by the rich, the pampered and the
celebrated who play at populism, have changed that. Greed has replaced
religion as the national religion, and with greed comes envy.
Martha Stewart's transgressions were more sins than crimes, and
learning a little humility is never a bad thing. But when the
government commits vendetta, the sin becomes a crime. The government
ought to be ashamed of its bullying self.


Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times.