Safe at last! We finally got that monster. Phew!

Eventually I'll figure out how to make dough online, or have enough that I no longer care and then I'm off to paradise, where a man can get justice the old fashioned way (buy it). :wink:

Pura Vida Amigos... or what was it in Brazil, Vida Boa?

La mordita Bill. You belong in South America-grin

Grand Duke- This sums it up nicely!

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/ste0bio-1

She is a woman who made it BIG, in a man's world. Like many people in her position, she cut a few corners, and is being held up as an example.

For the record, I think that she needed to be punished for what she did, but not with jail time. A hefty fine and probation would have proven the point nicely. It seems that there are some who are hell bent on destroying her, but I think that she will bounce back nicely!

I have no doubt she can bounce back if she chooses to. I wonder if she'll bother. Were I her; I don't think I'd bother.

Occom Bill
Occom Bill, you have demonstrated the reason why I like you even if you and I disagree on most political issues. You are secure enough in your manhood to publicly admit it when you are wrong and in a most humorous fashion. Its always best to belay pride and say I'm sorry or I was wrong to restore civil relationships. Its too bad most people don't follow your example.

Salude!

BBB

I'll agree with BBB and disagree with you Bill. Your pride in your name and reputation would force you to come back and prove your mettle

Sure, sure BBB, rub it in why doncha? Of course I'm secure in my manhood... haven't you heard about my increased circulation? Seriously, though, I don't know why people are afraid to admit it when they are wrong. I think it just tightens the focus on all those times I'm right!

I don't know Panzade, were I to have such an impressive history of success I'm guessing I'd have slipped away to Galt's Gulch long ago. I've fantasized about creating such a place since I was a kid and only inviting the cool people to share it. Perhaps one day I'll tell you "I'll provide the land if you..."

OB
OB wrote: I think it just tightens the focus on all those times I'm right!

What times? Refresh my memory?

BBB :wink:

Kewl dream.

By getting the absolute minimum sentence possible and by dodging a sentence for her more serious crime she is being exemplified?

Riiiight.

It's irrational feminism like this that gives it a bad name. There may well be a lot of knee-jerk anti-woman themes in many of the reactions to her crimes, just as there is a lot of knee-jerk defenses of her crimes because of feminsim. But she is being treated with the most leniency allowed under law.

Her problem was in commiting a crime, and not being in a "man's world".

She was very successful in this world, and deserved her success, and her crimes are being punished as leniently as legally possible.

Unless he deserves special treatment that would violate laws it's hard to comprehend the call for a lesser sentence.



For the record, you need to lobby to change laws then, as she got the absolute minimum allowed term and laws have actually changed recently to increase them.

Unless you want ger to get special treatment as a woman in a man's world, you need to have the laws changed, and additional laws changed that can allow for retroactive saving of Martha to punish her crimes less severely than other people (men too, even in this "man's world") would.



Perhaps, but that would not be in line with what the law is. Should she get a break just because you are feminist?



Don't blame others for her multiple crimes. Nobody did that to her. The feminist line of apologetics for her are really really being knee-jerk about this.

Have some curiosity and examine the law. You will see that there is every possible way, the courts have been as lenient as possible with her under Federal law.

Craven, you are way overboard. Stockwatch ignores plenty of similar transactions for every one that's investigated, let alone prosecuted. The press doesn't make a soap opera out of everyone that is. It could easily be argued that the fact that she is a woman is part of the reason for the tremendous amount of exposure that the case has received and consequently the tremendous amount of damage done to the sale price of her stock. It could further be argued that loosing 9 figures over a relatively petty crime is among the worst punishments anyone's ever received for the offense. Smoke a fat one and relax.


Phoenix's postition isn't that far from your own so ease off a bit.

As wild Bill mentioned. Here we go again.

Not to worry, oh, wild one. Phoenix is not shy by any means. Martha Stewart is gonna be fine, for God's sake.

Besides that, I'm listen to Stan Getz and Oscar Peterson. Now Jazz is a man' world.(with the exception of vocalists, of course)..and, of course, the exception of Drom...

Re: LYING


This should be a lesson to everyone. When you're questioned by federal authorities concerning alleged insider trader, you ought to invoke your right to remain silent. If you need to talk, say something like this: "OMG, you suspect me of criminal activity, I'm shocked....where's my lawyer?" Run to the phone, pick up the receiver, immediately start crying as you fumble to dial the number, and sobbingly ask the feds to leave so you may talk privately with your attorney. And then, never talk to them again upon "advice of counsel."

Similarly, many criminals get away with crimes. This doesn't mean the ones who get the minimum possible legal sentence are being treated unfairly.



Not everyone is a celebrity...

furthermore, I acknowlege the possibility of anti-successful woman in teh reactions to Martha's case.

But Phoenix is saying she should be given special legal treatment that is, quite simply illegal.

She is saying she should not go to prison when the very minumim sentence dictates that she should.

Her more serious crime she got away with. Her lesser crimes dictate by law a minimum of 10 months sentencing, galf of which can be at home.

She got the very minimum sentence possible under law.

This is not unfair treatment. What Phoenix advocated would be tantamound to ignoring law to treat her as a special case.



1, yes 2, no.

I'm sick of a lot of the "she's a bitch" (i.e. assertive successful woman) reactions. Much of that may be about gender prejudice.

But they have nothing to do with her sentencing.

Similarly, when OJ became a race issue I'm sure there were some prejudiced reactions against him among the general population. But that says nothing about whether he should be punished for the crime.

Now as to 2 being false, you say it all the time. Money people are influenced by money.

The stocks rebounded when they saw her get the minimum sentence which was about 11 months less than what many predicted.

I think the stock went down as a recognition of how central she is to her company's success and how much her woes could hurt the company.



No it could not, because it was not punishment Bill. It was market driven fluctuation.

Her punishment was dictated by law and she got off with as much leniency as legally possible.

What happened in the market is a risk anyone who is invested there takes and while I sincerely regret that it's costing her (and more importantly others invested in her company) so much that is the nature of the market and is a result of poor choices she made.

Is it proportionate to the choices she made? I don't think so, but that's market forces and her chocies will cost others too.

I feel worse for people investing in her company who are not wealthy and who have lost money due to her series of crimes.



Homie don't play that. But I'm very relaxed. Thing is, I once called myself a "male feminist". and I take feminist causes seriously.

In some places the pendulum has swung overboard and I really dislike the hijacking of the legitimate feminist causes for knee-jerk feminism.

I sincerely think it undermines feminism and goddammit there are still a lot of legitimate things that need to be addressed, the pendulum can't do this now.

So when I see people making a feminist issue about Martha being treated with as much legal leniency as possible I am frustrated.

This isn't about feminism at all. She committed a series of crimes, got away with the most serious ones and got a slap on teh wrist for the ones she did get pinned on.

It's unfortunate that the market punished her but that is the nature of the market and could have happened if she simply decided to retire.



I'm at ease Bill. But Phoenix's position is very far from mine. Phoenix is advocating legal treatment that would make her a special case to violate the law.

As a legal principle that is wrong.

As a feminist principle that is wrong.

BBB said it best:



I feel the same way. Feminism shouldn't serve as apologism for her crimes. She is getting off lightly and treated in accord with the law.

Those who advocate different sentencing are making a case (perhaps out of ignorance of the law) that she should be treated as a special case and not face the law.

That is an affront to feminism and invoking feminist undertones to make this case is something I see as one of the greatest dangers to women's rights because it runs against the principle of equality and furthermore hijacks a movement that set out to establish it.

Becaus ethere is great predisposition to see any movement for equality as eventually a movement calling for superiority this can cause a dangerous backlash and it constitutes irrational feminism that hurst women's rights more than it helps.

Here's BBB's quote again, it says it all....

Dude, you got all that out of her one paragraph post? I didn't see her address it from a strictly legal perspective once. Nor did I see it as a big violation of your feminist position. I think you read way too much into it and attacked with way too much fervor. You and I agreed that jail wasn't necessary but it was the law and we like the law. How can you be sure Phoenix's entire paragraph doesn't fit within those same guidelines? You already convinced me, Craven. But even so, there is nothing wrong in Phoenix's post. YOU are reading excessively much into it. That's all.

No, Phoenix has written about it before and I remember nearly everything I read.



No, but she did advocate a sentence that would not be legal. This was in the strictly illegal sense.



Because I have seen her position on this more than once Bill, and I know it does not in any way resemble mine and contains a whole lot of "it's a man's world" apologism for Martha Stewart.



We may just have to disagree on this. That's all.

Never said that. If she got the minimum sentence for the crime that she was charged, of course the judge had to abide by the sentencing guidelines. But there IS such a thing as plea bargaining!

One of the things that I do, (for fun and profit) is keep track of a number of stocks. Now, I am by no means an expert.

Over time, I have noticed something VERY curious. I have seen this scenario over and over again. Let's say, that
there will be a stock, which has a certain daily average trading volume. All of a sudden, the volume spikes dramatically, and then the stock price drops like a rock. In many instances, I have looked around for news that would account for this, and find none. A day or two later, some bad news about the company will be published. Coincidence?????

I agree that the judge can't change the law, but couldn't they have given her the whole 10 months of house arrest?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No, by law she got the maximum possible portion of her term in house arrest which is 50%.