Martha haters, stifle yourselves

Boston Globe (letter) ^ | July 2, 2002 | DAVID RAGAINI

[sarcasm]

NCE AGAIN, hatred of the good has reared its ugly head. Those who attack Martha Stewart do so not because of her (easily disproved) insider trading but because she is, quite simply, something they are not. The success with which she runs her life and her business is an unbearable reminder of their own inadequacies.

[sarcasm]

He forgot to mention that this "scandal" was manufactured to destroy a strong woman.

[dennisw]

Bah! Git a rope!

[NYpeanut]

I don't hate her because she is the embodiment of happiness, productivity, and successful, life-affirming action.

I hate her because she's an arrogant democrat and she sucks up to a rapist and his whore-for-power pus-bag wife. There's a difference, David.

[pt17]

The success with which she runs her life and her business is an unbearable reminder of their own inadequacies.

The unbearable nature of one's inadequacy at making party favors, decorating tables, insider trading or running roughshod over those who work for you must truly weigh heavy on those whose life has no substance.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Martha who?

[Rob45and2]

The FTC yesterday reported that there is NO evidence to support Stewarts statement that the sale of stock was based on a auto-sale order.

[Fzob]

I wonder if these achievement-haters realize how much their mind-set resembles that of the Islamic fundamentalists who wish America's destruction.

Statements like that make me wonder how many functioning brain cells call your head home. BTW, most people dislike her because she is a whinny liberal twit, not because she is successful.

[Xenalyte]

The FTC yesterday reported that there is NO evidence to support Stewarts statement that the sale of stock was based on a auto-sale order.

If there had been a stop-loss order, Bacanovic would have been all but waving the piece of paper in front of the media the second any impropriety was alleged. I'm surprised that Miss Ex-Broker Stewart couldn't think of a better cover story.

[strela]

You forgot the tagline:

Signed,

Love, Dad

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Those who attack Martha Stewart do so not because of her (easily disproved) insider trading...

No need to read further. This person is a dishonest nitwit. Martha may be innocent but, at this particular point, her insider trading is anything but "easily disproved".

[Physicist]

BTW, most people dislike her because she is a whinny liberal twit, not because she is successful.

While that's true on FR, I'm afraid most Americans don't mind her limousine liberalism--even smile upon it--but hate her for the fact that she became fantastically rich by being good at what she does. For myself, I didn't think much of her until the popular socialist front started attacking her for her virtues. I have come to appreciate how much value she has created through talent and very hard work. It's an indespensible thing.

[Rebelbase]

mmmm...I don't think this guys' a Democrat. Here is another letter he wrote to Microsoft, telling them the Gov't. need to drop its case: "To Whom it may concern"

And the email addrees at the bottom of the letter is from The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism.

[2Trievers]

A certain amount of "class warfare" seems to be a part of the anti-Martha landscape between the have-nots/wannabees and the smart, savvy successful. Throw in the fact that she's a female and it stirs a lot of envy, IMO ... regardless off her politics. Traits admired in a man ... negated for a woman. Food for thought ... it's a good thing. &;-)

[grania]

He forgot to mention that this "scandal" was manufactured to destroy a strong woman.

I'm not sure that's it....if they wanted to destroy a strong woman, the Hildebeast would be a really good choice. Martha Stewart was a huge donor to Democratic candidates...I truly hope that isn't a factor in this.

The Martha Stewart thing is really bad for the stock market...now, the bimbos that thought turning toilet paper rolls into a centerpiece (or whatever) is an ultimate life experience are going to know there is a stock market, and it's a place where even Martha can lose money.

Can't you hear it now...."Well, honey, you keep losing money in the stock market. Why don't we put our money somewhere else so we don't lose it all...look at what happened to Martha"

[PGalt]

No society ever survived by destroying its best and brightest. All Americans would do well to remember that.

The foundations of freedom are under assault every day by criminals..."white collar criminals" usually have more resources/enablers to deflect and defend.

[Physicist]

I should add that it appears she probably is guilty of breaking the law in the ImClone case, and that she should be punished according to the law. That said, I have always felt the laws against insider trading to be immoral and counterproductive. Furthermore, the amount of money she gained from this technical violation is so vanishingly small compared to the wealth that she has created that it should be disregarded when considering the net impact she has had on our economy and culture.

[DB]

Some poor sucker bought her stock.

It isn't like this is a victimless crime. Or maybe the buyer was just one of those "little people" that don'e matter...

[2Trievers]

&;-)

[11th Earl of Mar]

Those who attack Martha Stewart do so not because of her (easily disproved) insider trading but because she is, quite simply, something they are not. The success with which she runs her life and her business is an unbearable reminder of their own inadequacies.

Maybe that is why the rag-tag bunch of special interest groups that make up the Democratic Party hate the Republicans. They are upset that we are not poor, uneducated, disabled, helpless Americans. We are a reminder of ther own inadequacies.

[Fzob]

I have always felt the laws against insider trading to be immoral and counterproductive.

Why would you think laws against insider trading are immoral?

Furthermore, the amount of money she gained from this technical violation is so vanishingly small compared to the wealth that she has created that it should be disregarded when considering the net impact she has had on our economy and culture.

While it is certainly true the gain (or diminished loss) from this violation is small compared to her net positive impact on the economy not to mention her personal worth, how would you responsd to someone saying that because I run a billion dollar public corporation that hires thousands I can take a kick back from XYZ contractor into my personal account?

Or how would you feel if Martha got inside information that created a gain of 100 percent in a day. Hard work and business smarts that creates wealth is to be admired. Inside scams that appear to have the same effect should be immoral and illegal. IMO.