From: Leland Jory (ljory@mts.net)
Date: Tue Mar 09 2004 - 16:58:30 GMT
On Mar 9, 2004, at 8:46, Platt Holden wrote:
>> Martha was a thief who
>> illegally received and acted on insider information to enrich herself
>> and
>> then lied about it at every turn.
>
> How did Martha "enrich herself?" Preserving the value of you assets is
> hardly "enrichment."
So using fixed dice in Vegas (assuming you could ever get away with it)
would be a moral exercise? The stock market is a gamble, Martha knows
that (she was a stock broker, for Pete's sake!). Martha also knows
people lose money playing the stocks. However, she used a privileged
piece of information to ensure that she didn't lose on her gamble. She
abused the system, she cheated. Use whatever term you like, but she was
in the wrong.
And then, to top it all off, she lied about cheating. I'd have more
respect for her if she'd been caught with her hand in the cookie jar
and said "It's a fair cop." We are all responsible for our actions
(whether "right" or "wrong"), and we have to face consequences when our
actions take us outside of the social framework of law. If the law is
just, then the punishment will be. If the law is unjust, then it will
be changed in the process and our actions will be vindicated.
>> She lied under oath, forged documents,
>> and even got others to lie and forge on her behalf.
>
> An apt description of Clinton's behavior during the Lewinsky affair.
> Yet
> do you see him behind bars? Hardly equal, even-handed justice in my
> book.
Sure, what Clinton did was immoral as far as his relationship with his
wife went and illegal as far as the marriage was concerned, but it was
a private matter and had little to do with how he ran the country.
Martha stole money from investors and endangered the very corporation
that she founded, which employs thousands of people. Which immoral
action do you think affected more people?
> The real thief in this story is the Federal Drug Administration which
> disapproved of ImClone's application for a new anti-cancer drug, and
> application which they later approved! Your friendly government robbed
> ImClone investors, not Martha.
The FDA is well within its rights to approve or deny any application it
likes. I'm not familiar with the 'ins and outs' of the ImClone
application, I don't know if there were any amendments to it between
the initial denial and the subsequent approval. Martha, however, is not
within her rights to use insider information to profit herself on the
stock market. The FDA acted legally (as far as I know), whereas Martha
acted illegally.
>> Regardless of the alleged quality of her products or efforts on
>> behalf of "average shlubs", her refusal to plea to the crime she
>> actually
>> committed and decision to lie and cover-up endangered the corporation
>> she
>> built and the hundreds, if not thousands, of hard-working "average
>> shlubs"
>> who depend on it for their livelihoods.
>
> All of which pales in comparison to the coarsening effect on the
> culture
> of Clinton's lying and sexual escapades. Furthermore, anyone who
> depends
> on someone else for his livelihood better grow up and get some skills
> that
> are marketable regardless of who signs their paychecks.
OK, what do Clinton's escapades have to do with Martha's case?
Clinton's thing is done. It's finished. Get over it. You're comparing
apples and oranges here. Also, do you mean to tell me you DON'T depend
on someone else for your livelihood? Do you own your own company? If
so, do you employ anyone else? Guess what... those people depend on you
for their livelihood. Pull your head out and take a look around you.
Contrary to what your comments imply, jobs DON'T grow on trees.
> "The strongest moral argument against capital punishment is that it
> weakens a society's Dynamic capability-its capability for change and
> evolution. It's not the "nice" guys who bring about real social change.
> "Nice" guys look nice because they're conforming. It's the "bad" guys,
> who
> only look nice a hundred years later, that are the real Dynamic force
> in
> social evolution."
I hardly think Pirsig is condoning wanton ignorance of the law. To be
honest, I see this as one of the more ambiguous paragraphs in the book.
I'm all for improving the legal system, and DQ is the only thing that
can do it. What Martha did was not DQ (and it is insulting to DQ to
suggest that it was). I get the point, you like Martha and are outraged
that she's been convicted. However, the charges aren't trumped-up. She
broke the frelling law and now she has to face the consequences. Deal
with it.
BTW, as far as Bill Clinton is concerned he ALSO broke the law (or at
least one of society's stronger social moral codes) and he, too, ended
up facing the consequences, in the form of massive public
embarrassment. He's fortunate that he couldn't have run for office
again, since it is certain he would have lost (and by a greater margin
than Gore lost) because of his actions. Maybe that's why conservatives
are so pissed at him, he never had anything taken away from him (read,
the presidency). To some, it looks like he got away with it.
--
Leland Jory :^{)>
Cafeteria Spiritualist and Philosopher
"It is a puzzling thing. The truth knocks on the door and you say, 'Go
away, I'm looking for the truth.' and so it goes away. Puzzling." -
Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 09 2004 - 17:01:52 GMT