From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Mar 10 2004 - 04:13:04 GMT
Hey Platt and all,
P
> Welcome back! Great to hear from you.
R
Glad to be back :-) Work's been killing me lately, I read the posts but
usually don't respond anymore because I don't want to start anything I may
not have time to finish.
> > Platt, my friend, your characterization of the Stewart Jury as
"envious
> > jurists" who conspired " to bring down in individual whose life was
> > dedicated to quality" strikes me as preposterous.
P
> Maybe preposterous to you, my friend. But, one of the jurors let the cat
> out of bag when he said that convicting Martha "was a blow for the little
> people." Not only that, several jurists, expressing childish petulance,
> said they were "insulted" that Martha didn't testify.
R
I can't honestly address these comments as I myself have not seen them in
context and can't possibly interpret them based on the eight quoted words
you've given me. I can only say that I believe the jurors' conclusions on
the facts were well supported by the evidence presented by the government.
If you don't think the verdict is supported by the evidence, I would be
interested in hearing your take on what elements of the crimes she was
convicted of you think weren't sufficiently proven.
> > Martha was a thief who
> > illegally received and acted on insider information to enrich herself
and
> > then lied about it at every turn.
P
> How did Martha "enrich herself?" Preserving the value of you assets is
> hardly "enrichment."
R
That's a difference without a difference. Free economics lesson:
(1) Rick comes to Platt's door and offers to sell Platt a copy of LILA
autographed by the author for a price of $400. Platt looks at the book and
on the title page sees an autograph that reads: "Thanks for being a fan,
Your friend, Robert M. Pirsig". Platt desires the autograph personally and
believes that it's a good investment as a collectible so he immediately pays
Rick the $400 and promptly places the book on the shelf above his computer
to inspire him as he writes emails to the MoQ discussion group. The next
day, Platt is at a book store and sees Robert Pirsig's autograph on a copy
of ZMM, only it looks like a drastically different handwriting from the one
he just purchased. Platt calls the police, who after some investigation
learn that Rick has forged the autograph and had swindled Platt out his
$400.
Now, compare: (2) Martha Stewart comes to Platt's door and offers to sell
Platt 40 shares of Imclone stock for a price of $40,000. Platt researches
the stock and sees on a website that the stock is worth $40,000 and might
jump in value if it's new drug is approved by the FDA, although it may sink
in value if the drug isn't approved. Platt thinks it's a good company and
that it's a good investment and immediately pays Martha the $40,000 and
places the stock certificates in his safe as he goes to bed dreaming of what
he'll do with the extra money if the drug gets approved and his stock pays
off. The next day, Platt sees in the paper that Imclone's drug has just
been rejected by the FDA and that his stock is nearly worthless. Platt
calls the Justice Department, who after some investigation learn that Martha
already knew the stock was worthless when she sold it and had swindled Platt
out of his $40,000.
See what I mean? A difference without a difference.
> > She lied under oath, forged documents,
> > and even got others to lie and forge on her behalf.
P
> 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.
R
Demurring to the validity of your analogy, are you suggesting that justice
would have been better served if Martha got off for her crimes too?
> >The jury was dead-on.
> > She stole $40,000 at the expense of legitimate investors as surely as if
> > she robbed a bank with a gun and then she tried to lie and cheat her way
> > out of it.
P
> 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.
R
Huh? The FDA didn't approve the drug because it hadn't satisfactorily
completed trials in accordance with law. Once it did, they approved it.
Martha was the one who defrauded imclone investors (see my free eco lesson
above which illustrates in very simple terms how she did it).
>
> > 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.
P
> All of which pales in comparison to the coarsening effect on the culture
> of Clinton's lying and sexual escapades.
R
It also pales in comparison to Watergate, the Manson family murders, the
Kennedy Assassination, the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, the European
devastation of Native Americans and about a zillion other things... But so
what? What does Bill Clinton have to do with Martha Stewart's crimes?
P
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.
R
I'm totally baffled by this comment. Why do you bend over backwards to
defend a liar and a thief and then sound so angry when talking about the
decent hard-working people who might be about to lose their jobs solely
because their boss is a crook?
> > I can just hear them saying, "Sure
> > I can't feed my family anymore, but the quality of throw pillows at
K-Mart
> > is just so much better than it used to be. Thank God for Martha!!!"
P
> Yes, there are always those who will whine, blame others for their
> problems and claim the world owes them a living.
R
There you go again. You think the honest people who lose their jobs because
Martha is a greedy criminal are "whiners" but you have no scorn or words of
reprimand for Martha herself who bilked investors out of $40,000 and then
lied to investigators? What perturbation of logic stands behind this
imbalance?
And by the way, they're not claiming 'the world owes them a living' (a
strawman if i've ever heard one) they're claiming Martha Stewart owes them a
living, and they're right...every employment agreement is a contract. She's
about to violate the contract of every employee the company has to lay-off
to stay in business. But don't worry, her unemployment insurance will cover
it... and your tax dollars will cover that ;-)
P
These are not the people
> I respect because, by reason of their dependence on others, they can never
> muster the courage to effect any change.
R
On the contrary, without their honest efforts, Martha would still be selling
pie out the back of her station wagon. You seem to give Martha all of the
credit for the work of a corporation of thousands of people (I'm glad you're
not my boss). Martha didn't design almost any of her own products or
recipes or anything, she simply endorsed them. Her goods were designed by a
vast creative team and often purchased from other, lesser known designers.
She depended on the efforts of her employees and associates as much as
theydepended on her, if not more (the company may be able to go on without
her, but how well of do you think she would be if they all quit at once?).
P
It's the "not nice" entrepreneurs
> like Martha, regularly bombarded with insults like "heartless bitch and
> the "ice princess" who respond to DQ, take risks, and move culture
> forward. As Pirsig put it:
>
> "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."
R
I find your application of that quote to this situation perplexing.
Pirsig's argument in the quote above is about not *executing* criminals
because every human being might have Dynamic potential. It doesn't saying
anything about not punishing them at all. I mean, how can we tell the
difference between a Dynamic Force like Martha Stewart and an ordinary
criminal like Ken Lay? Or is he a Dynamic Force as well? What about Dennis
Koslowski, do you think they'll be singing his praises in 100 years? Ivan
Boesky? Michael Milken? That guy who stuck a gun in my face and stole my
wallet last year... was he DQ in disguise as well? Should we let them all
go scott free just because they might be a Dynamic Force? The only
difference I can see between Martha and these other criminals is that she's
got her own TV show.
P
> Like the Zuni priests' persecution of the brujo, our Zuni Feds found a
> trophy target in Martha and brought her to trial. The perjury charge was
> just a cover; they couldn't abide her supposed "arrogance" in the face of
> their almighty presence.
R
I'm not sure where this conspiracy theory is going or what you base it on.
Are you suggesting that Martha was framed? That she didn't commit any
crimes? That the DOJ fabricated the charges and conspired with the jury to
wrongly convict her in order to hold off the cultural revolution bound to be
ignited by her elegant line of K-Mart products? I see you casting a great
many aspersions at her prosecutors, jury and employees, but I don't see you
standing up to say that she's innocent? Do you honestly think she's not a
criminal?
take care
rick
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 : Wed Mar 10 2004 - 04:24:52 GMT