Martha!

[violetmemorial]

I am really friggin' angry about this whole Martha Stewart thing. I honestly cannot get my head around what it is that she did wrong. I know that insider trading is illegal, but what makes a bigger impact on the economy, the Martha Stewart empire going under, or a small insider trading deal?http://

Comments

[tonjanolan]

i think a whole lot of people do what she was found guilty of, but someone wanted to make an example of her.

[violetmemorial]

Absolutely true. I think many people get away with much worse things and never pay for it. Kobe Bryant (at least he probably won't see jail time), OJ Simpson, Ted Kennedy, Etc. I could go on...

Did you get your job? I hope so, you've been in my thoughts. Take care!

[tonjanolan]

thanks for the well wishes! the job interview is today... and i agree with you. for all the bells and whistles it's still a man's world and how dare a woman do what a man does and get away with it.. which is why martha will do time and these others (Enron ringing any bells? that big jackass has seen no punishment at all yet, and probably won't) won't.

[ex_rosabel_b372]

The Martha Stewart empire won't go under. The company will continue to do well without her as Chairperson, or whatever title it was she held.

So she's not a murderer or a rapist, but the fact is, she has been found guilty of insider trading, which is basically stealing. It's not only stealing, but it's cheating all the rest of the stockholders. She's a liar, she's a cheat, and she's a thief. If people lose their jobs because of her, I feel bad for them, but in the end, it's all Martha's fault. She got what was coming to her. Because of my job, I have opportunities on a regular basis to perform "insider trading," but there's no way I'm going to do it because 1) it's immoral, 2) it's illegal, and 3) it'll come back to bite me in the ass someday (see #2).

Martha & Peter should have known better. I hope the fact that they're sending her up the river is a good example to other people not to participate in the same type of criminal behavior.

[violetmemorial]

I just don't understand why there isn't a fine for what she did. The woman was a millionaire (before she sold that stock), it's not like she couldn't have paid to resolve the dispute. I think someone is just trying to pad their career by taking making an example of Martha Stewart. I don't think she fully understood the implications of what was going on. If anyone should be going down for this it should be the stock broker and the informant. I don't know all the ins-and-outs of this case, so I could be misinformed, but I just don't see it as justified. Nobody lost their retirement by Martha Stewart selling some stock, but tons of people are losing their jobs because of the conviction and new laws that were passed. In the end the justice system is sometimes unjust.

This is just my opinion based on dealing with career criminals and people who are really out to cheat everyone. I don't think it was premeditated.

But I digress...

Response Part I

[ex_rosabel_b372]

There's no reason you won't continue to get your Martha Stewart Living magazine. She has to step down from the board, as a convicted felon is not allowed to serve on the board of a publically-traded company, but she wasn't the only board member. The company will move on without her at the helm.

I just don't understand why there isn't a fine for what she did. The woman was a millionaire (before she sold that stock)

She's still a millionaire. It was only 5,000 shares of stock, which in the world of corporate stock-trading, is a fairly small amount.

...it's not like she couldn't have paid to resolve the dispute.

If there were loopholes that allowed paying a fine, sure. However, she was offered a plea bargain that would have kept her out of jail, and she refused to take it. She had the chance to get off easy, and she refused it.

I think someone is just trying to pad their career by taking making an example of Martha Stewart.I don't think so. I have a file in my office full of articles on inside trading. She isn't the first

Re: Response Part I

[ex_rosabel_b372]

when she's in possession of inside trading.

Oops... make that "...when she's in possession of inside information."

[zastava]

What Rosabel said...

[violetmemorial]

Both of you could be right. I am fairly uninformed of the situation. I am probably upset for very selfish reasons, I love my Martha Stewart magazine and I have a two year subscription. I need my magazine!

[zastava]

Just keep in mind those damn Martha Stewart bath towels. I think I ended up with one and it's still<\i> shedding black fuzz!