Author
|
Topic: Bitch Hunt
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 17 March 2004 03:31 PM
Once everyone knew that Martha had been inside-trading, would it even have been possible to say "Oh, well, since we haven't yet nailed the big boys from Enron, we feel ethically bound to look the other way, and hope all Americans who believe in fairness will do the same"?In other words, once the word was out, prosecutors are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Either they're on a 'bitch hunt', or they're guilty of supporting one set of laws for rich women and another for the rest of us.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 17 March 2004 03:57 PM
fern hill, surely you didn't mean to imply that Adrienne Clarkson is "despicable"? I mean, I know she isn't everyone's cup of tea, but despicable? Martha is a quandary because those who argue on feminist grounds as Lafferty does -- tellingly, I think -- are immediately charged with defending class privilege, and that charge has some merit. Adrienne, by contrast, has not been breaking laws and has done many Good Things -- whatever I think of her personally, I don't have any trouble at all applauding the way she's done her job. What to do about the Martha quandary? Re-focus. Our new slogan for the day: Indict Dick Cheney! [ 17 March 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582
|
posted 17 March 2004 04:15 PM
No, I did not mean Ms Clarkson. I was thinking more of the Leona ("only little people pay taxes") Helmsley type. What I was getting at -- not well, obviously -- is that in achieving gender equality, both (or all to be inclusive) win a little, lose a little. Women lost their fairly automatic "good, caring, nuturing" traits; men lost their "above the consumer fray" stance. And while I'm grateful for the link to the M.Stewart article, I do not have time for it. As far as gender parity in media coverage goes, how about Belinda Stronach and Bush Jr? Both are light-weights, both have daddies that bought their positions. Are they treated much differently by the media? Well, considering that Belinda hasn't started any wars yet. The media seems quite entranced with Belinda. I wonder if they would be if she were he.
From: away | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 17 March 2004 05:44 PM
The reason I thought that a "fine" of $30 per month was silly was indeed because it wasn't a fine; it was literally (intended to be) giving back what she'd stolen. And by doing the math I realized that not only did she escape any serious legal repercussions, she was basically being allowed to keep the vast majority of what she'd stolen.Ironically, you said something along the lines of "people shouldn't have to pay for the rest of their lives for one mistake", and while I don't disagree, I don't think the victim of a theft should be the one left losing either. If that woman had been required to return the money she stole, and then pay a fine based on her income I'd have found that fair. But if you were to steal $30,000 from me, and try to pay it back $30 at a time, I think I might be less than happy to be left about $20,000 short by the time you retire. That's no different from me just giving you $20,000, right? As for Martha, while it's true that $50K might be nothing to her (which does of course leave many wondering just how ridiculously greedy she must be), I can't see indexing it to her income. Obviously the effects of theft are relative to the income or means of the victim, and so the punishment should be relative to the income or means of the criminal. After all, we are trying to negatively reinforce their criminal behaviour, right?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 17 March 2004 06:01 PM
Actually, she didn't escape any serious legal percussions. She has a criminal record and can never work as an accountant or bookkeeper again, which was her area of expertise, because she is not bondable. Also, $30 a month doesn't sound like much to you or me, but when you're living on less than $900 a month, it's a fair chunk. Also, she felt shamed in her community, and with her suspended sentence, she had to go to her parole officer as long as it lasted. It's true that it wasn't jail, but that doesn't mean the repercussions for her weren't "serious". It's also true that if she stole $30,000 from you, that $30 a month wouldn't help you out much. But the money was spent and there was no other way of getting it back. The church agreed through a cooperative process with the defence and the prosecution that this would be okay. The fact is, victims can't always get back what they've had stolen from them. In this case, it seemed like the fairest way to go about it, without giving her some kind of crazy over-punishment that is completely unnecessary. Sending her to jail wouldn't have produced the thirty grand for the church either. [ 17 March 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
beverly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5064
|
posted 17 March 2004 06:17 PM
Back to the article for a moment... While I agree with most of it.....I have two questions:It suggested comparing Donald Trump would.... quote: Better still, would Martha Stewart be considered decisive and even charming when she says "You're fired!" to a reality show contestant vying for her favor? Hardly.
Wasn't there a rather snarly woman on a show that everyone loved to hate precisely because she was a bitch? And I think the spreading of fear by the Bushites crosses gender and class lines. Everyone is suppose to sit down and shut up and don't you dare ask where those WMD are one more time. The Bush administration couldn't have done McCarthyism any better than the master. But, I don't think it has anything to do with Martha Stewart.
From: In my Apartment!!!! | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|