So, it looks like Martha is going to spend some time in the pokie for lying to the Feds while OJ gets off for murdering two people and I'll bet Michael Jackson somehow gets off on his child molestation charge. Something is upside down here.
Your emotional state has no epistemological basis by which we can automatically infer an intellectual position and therefore has no value to the rest of us in a discussion about the theme of his article--hating the good for being good. You are free, of course, to elaborate on precisely why you think the writer is clueless, why your judgment about his being clueless strikes you then as humorous, and why we should care what you think is funny or not. Or not.
yes, there is a lot of schadenfreude here. I confess prior to the case I was not sure of her guilt but I felt she could be guilty. I was also alarmed at how EVERY oneI spoke to seemd to dislike (actualy hate) her. I also felt that if she was guilty she should plea-bargian quickly. As the case proceeded and I became aware of more evidence I became convinced of her guilt and could not imagine the jury acquitting her on any count. I felt simultaneously sorry for her - that she could be so 'stupid' and angry at her for fighting a losing case! I am happy that justice was served but my sympathies are with her and her family as I can not take joy in someon'e down fall. Sadly she has indicated she intends to appeal - not a smart move in my opinion.
From article: >Consider the arbitrary nature of the charges against >Stewart, which include the non-crime of "insider trading." >The initial accusation against Stewart was that she was >tipped by her broker that ImClone executives were selling >the company's stock. This "inside information" supposedly >gave Stewart an "unfair" advantage. In a "fair" world, >apparently, investors are forced to hold on to their stock >even when they know it's going to crash. Martha's >alleged "crime" is not wanting to lose money. Sprstpd: >This paragraph makes me laugh. This guy is clueless. Rge: >Your emotional state has no epistemological basis and has >no value to the rest of us. You are free, of course, to elaborate >on precisely why you think the writer is clueless, why his being >clueless strikes you then as humorous, and why we should care >what you think is funny or not. My god Rg, if you don't see the comments such as "non-crime of 'insider trading'" and "Martha's alleged 'crime' is not wanting to lose money" as clueless then you just joined the writers clueless club. I've joined Sprstpd in laughing at the writers statements and unless I have misunderstood yours I'll soon be laughing at those too. JB
What if this guy was buying from Martha Stewart right before IMCL blew chunks? He is essentially proclaiming that insider trading rules shouldn't exist. When somebody says something like this, I have a problem taking that person's point of view seriously.
and toast to MS being convicted. Maybe's there's still hope for this sorry country, and our justice system when big money can take a fall like the poor and disadvantaged have been doing via our court system, for years. Steal $50 and you get 3-5 in Chicago. Do some pot and you could get locked up. So why some feel what she did is ok is beyond me. Must be that some peoples' values of right and wrong, following the rules and the like have sunk so low as to be non-existent. Maybe they never had many to begin with. Reminds me of an episode on The Shield where one of the characters comments how this country is made up of a bunch of greedy sociopathic, narcissists who always want it their way... and have little tolerance for making it the old fashion way anymore. Well that's not true IMO for most of the millions of decent persons; but a small group have been inculcated to believe they have superior worth and entitlements to all the rest of their fellow humans. MS is one of those misguided greedy porks. She had it all, plenty of dough and a good life.. but her arrogance and true character (not the on screen faux image) came out when she had a chance to save a FEW bucks on IMCL. Amazing pig... IMHO I hope this is held up on appeal and the big money does not buy-off some appellate Justice. If it stands it will do a lot to even the playing field; and might make some of the crooks who are fed inside info every day of the week, think twice before trading it!! ICe
I guess that you must be pretty naive as to the social and moral landscape that Wall Street has fallen prey to over the past several years . . . The author of the article that you posted, Mr. Tracinski sure does have a lot to learn so far as morality and commiting perjury is concerned. The last time that I checked, lying to the FEDS is not only a very bad idea, it is against the law. In fact, none of this would have ever happened had she been truthful in the very beginning to the FEDS. Instead, she thumbed her nose at them, and they were forced to proceed. She thought that she was ABOVE all of this, and there were several very hungry ( I want to see my name in Bright Lights and follow the path of Rudy Gulianni ) prosecutors that were only to happy to take her up on her bet. The Jurors aren't stupid. They keyed right into the testimony of Marianna Pasternak and Martha's secretary. The Jury made a moral statement. We don't want to see anymore lying . . . no more conspiracies and cover-ups, no matter how wealthy you are. P.S. Stewart's attorney is a moron. It was a high risk prosecution and the prosecution didn't want to bring her down . . . but Stewart's attorney ( by avoiding a plea bargain ) forced their hand.
LOL. Oh, so that's how the market in IMCL worked that day, did it? Thanks for showing us all just who's clueless about how the market works, supply and demand, and stock pricing. The fact is, Martha's sale of her stock had no more impact on anyone, including Mr. Tracinski had he bought it, than had any of us decided to sell based on a cross-over down of a 20 period exponential moving average. Prices move the way prices move. The argument that someone had to have bought what Martha sold is completely hollow as justification for a morally-based indictment of a real crime in which someone else's individual rights were violated. NO ONE'S rights were violated by her sale of IMCL. So called "insider trading" (just like trying to destroy Microsoft because it's been successful) is a "made up" crime. A crime in this society (pitifully) but one that is without basis in a free society. They spend all this time in trivial pursuits but do nothing to shut down out of control agencies such as the FDA. That's the one that determined, from its own paperwork issue, that Erbitux was not ready. Oh, then it was ready. Who destroyed more wealth of mom and pop? Whose arbitrary and capricious decisions wreak more havoc in the markets, if not this government's, day after friggin' day? In a free society, should things like the Fed and people like Greenspan really have that much impact? Who's a greater threat to society? Miss Stewart or the fools that inhabit the various beauracracies in the federal government? Prosecute Microsoft? Drug laws? Social Security? Letting Bin Laden live after 1998 and AGAIN in that 3-day hiatus after the first bombing of Afghanistan for "religious" reasons??? I'm sorry, did someone say we're focusing on Martha Stewart because she (and the rest of us who act in our own interests) needs to be made an example of? This is where we've decided to put our primary focus on? How long is the media been covering this? Going to be covering it? Well, gosh, I guess it's better than a few thousand hours of Lacey Peterson's disappearance and her husband's murder trial. That kind of "pornography" continues unabated in the "news" media, while another ridiculous organization, the FCC, wants to make an example of those who accidentally showed a woman's breast on TV. (Last time I looked, we all have breasts. Duh.) And the media moguls fall over themselves to apologize. But let's make an example of Martha Stewart. For protecting her own interests, lying to those who are liars themselves, and being a "tall poppy."