Posted on 06/24/2002 4:06:52 PM PDT by RJCogburn
Why do so many people hate Martha Stewart? How does a home-decorating and entertaining expert with a sweet, wholesome public persona come to be portrayed as a major cultural villain?
Consider the past week's media frenzy over charges that Stewart engaged in "insider trading." The reaction in the press and by members of Congress — who have launched an investigation — is far out of proportion to the actual evidence or the alleged crime. Nor can this case explain the eagerness with which snide columnists and catty morning talk-show hosts contemplate the prospect of seeing Martha in prison — joking, as one host did, about whether her cell will have matching curtains.
There is only one explanation for this tone of vicious glee. Martha is hated because she's a tall poppy.
I've been told that there is an Australian saying: "You have to cut down the tall poppies." In other words, anyone who dares to poke his head above the crowd must be attacked, denigrated and brought down to the common level. I don't know whether this Tall Poppy Syndrome, as it is called, is really typical of Australian culture — but it is a widespread trend in American culture, and Martha Stewart is one of its favorite targets.
Martha-hatred is an established cottage industry, peddled in dozens of books and television profiles purporting to reveal Stewart as a shrewish employer, a neglectful mother, a cold wife, an ungrateful daughter, and everything else you could dream up. One charge keeps recurring as the central thread — and real motive — of all these claims: Martha is too perfect.
The problem with Martha Stewart, we are told, is that the lifestyle she promotes in her books, magazines and television shows projects an "unattainable" perfection. Her kitchen is too clean, her house is too beautiful, and her parties are too elegant. She gets too much done in a day. Such perfection, the charge goes, merely makes everyone else feel inadequate because they can't measure up.
This attitude is not shared by Martha's many fans (and customers), even those whose homes are not as lavish as hers. Most people are able to appreciate the accomplishments of others, even if they cannot match them. But for those who suffer from Tall Poppy Syndrome, other people's achievements are an affront, an intolerable reminder of their own shortcomings. These are the people who desperately search for dirt to sling at celebrities, to show that they aren't so good after all — and who rush to join any witch hunt and repeat any allegation.
The Martha Stewart "scandal" is a case study in the Tall Poppy Syndrome.
First, it is important to grasp what non-crime "insider trading" is. The allegation is that Sam Waksal, CEO of the drug-development company ImClone, phoned relatives and close friends to warn them of an upcoming FDA ruling that would wreck his company's stock. This "inside information" supposedly gave Stewart and others 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.
But even the evidence for this pseudo-crime is lacking. Stewart, it turns out, had already sold much of her stock in ImClone the previous month but, according to one source, she was prevented by SEC limits from selling it all. This means that Martha made the decision to sell long before the FDA's ruling. As for her phone calls with Waksal, they are close friends and according to some reports were once romantically linked. Is it the SEC's job to monitor the friendships and love lives of CEOs?
In fact, few commentators have bothered to wait for evidence before passing judgment. The same people who assume Martha is a shrew because she is "too perfect" also assume she's a swindler because she's rich. No further evidence is needed.
Martha Stewart is not alone; ask Bill Gates what kind of welcome a self-made man can expect today. Or consider the achievers who impose restraints on themselves — as in Justice Stevens's recent death penalty decision. A man nominated to the Supreme Court for his superior knowledge and wisdom looks instead to public opinion polls to decide how government may wield the power of life and death. Apparently Justice Stevens didn't want to be a tall poppy.
This trend is not merely ugly; it's dangerous. A culture that hates its highest achievers will mow down its tall poppies — and end up with nothing but weeds.
If the results are faked or not conducted properly or you lie on the application your drug will not be approved.
When Martha's main sqeeze applied to the FDA he knew damned well his chances were near zero. That is why he hyped the drug before the decision was announed. If they had waited until the drug was approved to unload stock and the drug was approved they would have made big bucks. The only reason to hype and sell before approval is they knew it was not going to be approved.
The only question is who all was in on the deal. The strategy to hype a drug that will not be approved to make a bundle before the decision is attractive. They figured it is hard to prove in court that the developer believed it would not be approved. But the law does what it usually does in such cases, it tries to find other things to try them on, that they can get convictions on.
Everyone knows that Arthur Anderson was well aware of the crooked dealings of Enron. But the law can't prove it. So they take them down for trashing documents. If the CPA for Enron had not swown to Enrons accounting lies, they would not have gone down for the destruction of documents. If this promoter had not promoted a drug he knew would not be approved, he would not be going down for insider trading. His girl friend would not be going down with him.
Poppycock! The reason I don't like Martha is because she is a phoney. She shows how to do things on her show and she doesn't even know how to do them. If she didn't act like she knew everything I could handle it. But she does everything as an expert which she ain't. Smart money-wise though, I must say, however she may be too smart by half.
Martha and her boyfriend ripped off the beautifull people. The media are the beautiful people too.
If Hillary every rips off the beautiful people, her a$$ would be dried Hollywood grass too.
Hillary ain't the worlds smartest woman, but the broad ain't anywhere near that dumb.
I don't think they would touch her. Isn't one of the Hollywood elite suing Bill and Hill for 2 million dollars for some sort of reimbursement on a fundraiser? The only place I have seen it reported is on conservative news sources.
Martha is a tastemaker and stylesetter, probably the most important in our century. Unless you're a longtime fan, as I am, you probably don't see the effect that she's had on American aesthetics--the shapes, the influences in furnishings, even the popular colors. She singlehandedly made homemaking a fascinating occupation. That she is frequently precious and ridiculous (who believes she hangs out her clothes regularly?) does not take away from her passion for domestic excellence.
SOME of this hostility is sexism. SOME of it is deserved for being so slavish to the Hollywood left.
"The government picks the citizens' pockets taking half their money yet the citizens think the government is looking out for their best interest and Martha Stewart's their 'enemy'." -- Zon
Politicians and bureaucrats are notoriously incompetent when it comes to solving real problems yet champions at creating problems where they need not exist.
Politicians and bureaucrats create and implement roughly 3,000 new laws and regulations each year. That number increases on average from one year to the next. Each year they tell us that the new laws are "must-have laws" that people and society can't prosper without. They do that to keep people from running society headlong into destruction.
Yet how is it that citizens and the society they make up has managed to not only survive but increase prosperity when they didn't have this year's 3,000 new laws last year or for decades before. Likewise, how did citizens increase prosperity for decades prior to last year's 3,000 new must-have laws? And they do that despite a mountain of laws that they've already saddled with. Thirty new laws a year is probably overkill. But 3,000 is insane.
During Clintons eight years in the White House alone, there were 25,000 new laws and regulations created. How many of those laws did you break? With that many laws piled on top of the ones that already existed virtually every citizen is a criminal.
However, if in a day it was physically possible to apprehended even one quarter of those lawbreakers society would come to a screeching halt. Yet with all these supposed criminals on the lose prosperity continues to increase.
Seems obvious enough to me that lobbyists and special interest groups seeking to buy access to government power in order to gain unfair competitive advantages would be non existent if politicians weren't putting government power up for sale in the first place. They sell the "little guys" snake oil while they sell access to government power to their cronies.
Politicians and bureaucrats write and implement thousands of laws each year to justify their unearned paychecks and to usurp power that rightfully belongs to the citizens.
It seems obvious to this writer that politicians and bureaucrats think the citizens are as stupid as themselves and can't readily comprehend the bigger picture when given even a small amount of full-context facts presented honestly.
Government intervention into peaceful, private activity -- free association wherein any or all parties are free to walk away -- will make things worse rather than better.
Parasitical Elite vs. Prosperity Creators
If civilization had to chose between business/science and government/bureaucracy, eliminating the other, which is the better choice?
The first thing civilization must have is business/science. It's what the family needs so that its members can live creative, productive, happy lives. Business/science can survive, even thrive without government/bureaucracy.
Government/bureaucracy cannot survive without business/science. In general, business/science and family is the host and government/bureaucracy is a parasite.
Aside from that, keep valid government services that protect individual rights and property. Military defense, FBI, CIA, police and courts. With the rest of government striped away those few valid services would be several fold more efficient and effective than they are today.
Underwriters Laboratory is a private sector business that has to compete in a capitalist market. Underwriters laboratory is a good example of success where government fails.
Any government agency that is a value to the people and society could better serve the people by being in the private sector where competition demands maximum performance.
Wake up! They are the parasites. We are the host. We don't need them. They need us.
This "writer" is in no danger of being mowed down. He is no tall poppy. Off the top of my head, allow me to think of some examples of "tall poppies" beloved by America which disprove this idiot's dumb theory:
Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, George W Bush, Rudy Guiliani, Harrison Ford, Tom Hanks, Frank Sinatra, Dale Earnhardt, Stephen King, Tom Clancy, George Clooney, Bill Nye, Charles Shultz, Matt Lauer, Andre Agassi, Yo Yo Ma, Isaac Stern, Leonard Bernstein, Andrew Lloyd Weber, Bob Hope.
These are all tall poppies in their field (no pun intended) and all beloved. What "widespread" trend is this guy talking about? Not a shred of data to support his imaginings. Nice. It's pretty funny when you think about it: An objectivist basing his entire case on subjective anecdotal evidence. Why am I not surprised?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.