From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Mar 10 2004 - 16:25:28 GMT
Hi Rick,
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.
I thought I made my position clear. The punishment for lying to government
authorities shouldn't involve jail time. Otherwise, if you believe in
equal justice under the law, Clinton should be behind bars.
> 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.
Wonderfully imaginative stories, but missing an essential element--the
government Judas who leaked the information about the FDA's decision to
ImClone's president who passed it on. It's amazing to me that no one ever
mentions the source of the information in the first place. But, then
again, I'm not really surprised. Governments are not known to investigate
their own unless there's a political advantage involved. Furthermore, I'm
sure your familiar with the old adage "caveat emptor" which casts a
slightly different light on your examples.
> > > 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?
I'm suggesting justice would be better served by treating everyone equally
under the law.
> > >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).
Would you elucidate on "satisfactorily completed trials in accordance with
the law." How come the FDA disapproved the drug before testing was
completed? I smell a rat.
> > > 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?
Bill Clinton set the precedent for the whole country that it's OK to be
dishonest. Martha watch Clinton perjure himself before a jury and get away
with it. She saw the Clintons lie, cheat, steal and suffer little
consequence. She saw the left-wing media cover up for them. Being a good
liberal herself and Democratic party contributor, Martha must have thought
that she too could sneak around the letter of the law as the Clintons had
done.
> 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'm not angry. I pity people who somehow have the childish idea that the
world owes them a living and that their jobs should be guaranteed for
life. Jobs are lost everyday for a thousand different reasons but many
traced back to some form of government interference in the marketplace.
Adults prepare themselves for the ups and downs of life that are beyond
their control. Children are dependent on others and need to be taken care
of. All I want is for individuals to grown up and become the captains of
their own destinies.
> > > 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 ;-)
You mean a company is obligated to retain its employees in perpetuity?
Absurd.
> 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?).
Of course she depended on her employee's efforts for which Martha paid
well. (If her employees weren't satisfied with the salaries and benefits
she offered, they were free to move on to greener pastures.)
> 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.
Apply your logic to Clinton and we'll agree.
> 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?
She's no more a criminal than Clinton is, yet she gets hard time and
Clinton gets a slap on the wrist. Do you honestly think justice is served
when people are treated unequally under the law?
Regards,
Platt
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 - 19:27:58 GMT