Around the Blogroll
Some stuff people are saying:
- Steve Bainbridge reiterates his view that Martha Stewart was technically guilty of the charges she was convicted on but that the charges should not have been brought. I agree.
- Mark Hasty notes that, if Martha Stewart and Kobe Bryant just acted honorably, they wouldn’t be in such a mess, anyway. I agree with that, too.
- Kevin McGehee is having categorical fun.
- Glenn Reynolds has perhaps the longest post in the history of InstaPundit. Read the whole thing.
- Jeff Jarvis laments the fact that Tony Blair is defending George Bush’s policies much better than George Bush.
- Bryan S. warns of the improper preparation of peanuts and okra.
Well, I agree that going after Martha with both barrels was a pretty bald excuse not to go after ‘real’ white collar criminals (although I’m pleased to see some Enron and WorldCom bubbas turninged themselves in lately), but Martha is about to begin paying what I call The Stupid Tax.
Lookit: the insider trading charge was dropped. But the jury still saw fit to convict her on the lying and falsification stuff. So she basically got busted for lying and covering up stuff she ultimately didn’t have to cover up in the first place.
Remember the lesson of Nixon: The coverup is always worse than the crime…
Legion,
The issue with the Enron and Worldcom trials is that they involve complicated business arrangements carried out over several years. Martha Stewart got one phone call that made her sell some stock. The latter is much easier to track than the former, and requires much less piecing together.
John-
You’re right, there’s a world of difference between Martha and Enron/WorldCom/etc… But I keep hearing noises in news coverage saying that Martha’s conviction is supposed to ‘send a signal’ to Ken Lay wannabes that they can’t get away with it, and it just triggers the cynic in me. I think the political season is already wearing on me 🙂