Martha's Guilty
- Thread starter Dee4707
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
Well, they ARE starting up with WorldCom. CFO has pleaded guilty, and the CEO entered a "no guilty plea". The situation with Enron is far more complex ( WorldCom cooked the books in a much more straight forward way; as one comentator described it: Enron used calculus, WorldCom used arythmetic). Unfortunately, getting someome like Martha convicted is far simpler -- there is one person, one action. With the big corporations, it's far more difficult since they took care to cover their tracks well.
Sometimes you have to wonder about CEOs. I have a friend who works for a big company (I don't want to say which one). The president of the company recently addressed the employees, urging them to hold on to company stock. As my friend found out from the news, the company president was dumping his own company stock as fast as he could all the while telling his employees not to!
Sometimes you have to wonder about CEOs. I have a friend who works for a big company (I don't want to say which one). The president of the company recently addressed the employees, urging them to hold on to company stock. As my friend found out from the news, the company president was dumping his own company stock as fast as he could all the while telling his employees not to!
Last edited:
I don't agree with what she did, but I think this is ridiculous. She's the most famous of the indicted, so thye can hold her up as an example to say they're really doing something. I don't trust that the Enron, Worldcom bigwigs will get their due. There are no convictions there yet. I also think her being a woman is at least partly responsible for all this hooplah.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
She got caught. How many others did not get caught?
Joe
Joe
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
I bet the inside of Martha's prison cell will look just fabulous!! Maybe she will get the rest of her fellow jailbirds to making cute little crafty things....lol
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
As my uncle pointed out, it's not the government that 'scandalized ' Martha's indictment and trial - it was the media. The federal prosecutors are doing their jobs - I'm sure they've indicted and prosecuted many others for insider training and obstruction of justice.
How many CEO's can be recognized by the general public? I can only name a few - let alone be able to recognize them walking out in public. Even with the scandals, it's still a miniscule proportion of CEO's with public name recognition. Unfortunately for Martha, she's a highly public figure and the media latched on to her case.
How many CEO's can be recognized by the general public? I can only name a few - let alone be able to recognize them walking out in public. Even with the scandals, it's still a miniscule proportion of CEO's with public name recognition. Unfortunately for Martha, she's a highly public figure and the media latched on to her case.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2003
Heyang,
I think that is the jist of it when it comes to Martha. I also don't think it helps that she has become one of those figures that many love to hate. Her character has been spoofed on everything from SNL to MadTV and that certainly hasn't helped to cast her in a positive light. I'm glad she wasn't allowed to get away with anything, but honestly, I feel there are other crimes/criminals that are more deserving of this type of coverage.
I think that is the jist of it when it comes to Martha. I also don't think it helps that she has become one of those figures that many love to hate. Her character has been spoofed on everything from SNL to MadTV and that certainly hasn't helped to cast her in a positive light. I'm glad she wasn't allowed to get away with anything, but honestly, I feel there are other crimes/criminals that are more deserving of this type of coverage.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
BronzeisGolden said:
Bronze - Ita, and how many others were in on the insider trading? I think any celebrity has to be soooo careful in life. The old adage that 'imitation is a sign of love and success' doesn't work anymore. Parody has turned into a sinister put down for the sake of headlines.
Joe
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
Martha does have a reputation of being very demanding. I'm sure some are exaggerated.
Just found out my cousin interviewed several years ago at her media company. Many of the people who interviewed him mentioned that she was 'very demanding'. One of the people that interviewed him was a consultant and acutally told my cousin 'you don't want to work here'.
I know some people feel she was targeted because she's a woman. Personally, I feel that it's because she's a celebrity who just happens to be a woman.
Glad to hear that someone's finally been indicted at WorldCom
Just found out my cousin interviewed several years ago at her media company. Many of the people who interviewed him mentioned that she was 'very demanding'. One of the people that interviewed him was a consultant and acutally told my cousin 'you don't want to work here'.
I know some people feel she was targeted because she's a woman. Personally, I feel that it's because she's a celebrity who just happens to be a woman.
Glad to hear that someone's finally been indicted at WorldCom
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
I thought I read somewhere that Martha was once a stock broker? anyone know more about this... if so then she was either a really DUMB stock broker, or she is completely guilty
though whether she was a sb or not doesn't matter I am positive that the jury is correct... she's smarter than she's trying to let on
one of our family friends says the jury found her guilty because of her tofu fries segment
though whether she was a sb or not doesn't matter I am positive that the jury is correct... she's smarter than she's trying to let on
one of our family friends says the jury found her guilty because of her tofu fries segment
I feel sad for her. It was stupid - which she seemed not to be.....it was unnecessary - $50K is "chump change" to her....it was wrong, and she knew it.
I think we may like to see our heroes fall in some way. Particularly if they embody the tough-edged attributes of a hard-driving businessman, and happen to be a self-assured, attractive woman. There's a bit of envy in it I suppose for those of us who strive to a gracious lifestyle and never quite get past the just-add-sour cream dip mixes.
I don't get it. I don't condone it. I just find it sad. It reveals perhaps more about us maybe than about her.
Maybe the curse of her creativity and public image rendered her immobilized at the idea of admitting fault and telling the truth early on. It certainly seems it would've stood her in better stead.
[Ken Lay - you better get ready....I'm hoping they throw away the key for you and all your Enron cronies!!]
I think we may like to see our heroes fall in some way. Particularly if they embody the tough-edged attributes of a hard-driving businessman, and happen to be a self-assured, attractive woman. There's a bit of envy in it I suppose for those of us who strive to a gracious lifestyle and never quite get past the just-add-sour cream dip mixes.
I don't get it. I don't condone it. I just find it sad. It reveals perhaps more about us maybe than about her.
Maybe the curse of her creativity and public image rendered her immobilized at the idea of admitting fault and telling the truth early on. It certainly seems it would've stood her in better stead.
[Ken Lay - you better get ready....I'm hoping they throw away the key for you and all your Enron cronies!!]
I cringe at what this trial will wind up costing the taxpayers. You know the appeals will drag on forever. I understand that there are important principles involved. However, I'm sure we could scrounge up a few important principles that are more deserving of our tax dollars.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
SusanBeth, this is a dangerous logic. Did we really need Watergate investigations? I mean, it's not like there was any real damage to our lives. Do we really need to, say, sue Zachariah Moussaoi (sp?)? He has already been prounced guilty by the population (unless you are a part of a liberal New Yorker reading NPR listening minority)? We should just execute him and be done with it! Actually, do we really need elections? And all that costly Congress that tries to prevent so many bills from passing? Wouldn't it be much cheaper to just have one guy in the White House make all the decisions by decreee? Think of how much money that would save!SusanBeth said:
Last edited:
I think it's simple logic. We do not have infinite resources. We have to set priorities. Deals are made that allow violent criminals back on the street because of prison overcrowding and costs. You get to hear about it when somebody's kid disappears. We have horrible crime rates. Drugs are destroying the lives of many of our children. I could go on, but it's too depressing. In light of all that, can we justify spending millions to prosecute such a petty crime, even if it was committed by a celebrity?
I don't know how executing people without trial and banning elections came up. I can assure you, I am the last person in the world to deprive anyone of their civil rights and the thought of never being able to elect a new president gives me nightmares. It's just that tossing Martha in jail accomplishes nothing worthwhile in my opinion.
I don't know how executing people without trial and banning elections came up. I can assure you, I am the last person in the world to deprive anyone of their civil rights and the thought of never being able to elect a new president gives me nightmares. It's just that tossing Martha in jail accomplishes nothing worthwhile in my opinion.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
SB, first of all I appologize for lumping so much in my post -- it was somewhat rude. Sorry.
As for pettiness -- I am not sure (though I agree that Martha was targeted for the wrong reasons, and would have been much happier had they reached a deal). There was a time when insider trading was legal; it was only banned in 1920's. I don't think we want to go back.
Look at it this way. What Martha did gave her $200K. There were those who bought those shares -- in essence she stole $200K from those who did not have her insider information. Now, suppose we were talking about someone who robbed $200K from a bank -- would we have considered it a waste of money to prosecute such a criminal?
As for pettiness -- I am not sure (though I agree that Martha was targeted for the wrong reasons, and would have been much happier had they reached a deal). There was a time when insider trading was legal; it was only banned in 1920's. I don't think we want to go back.
Look at it this way. What Martha did gave her $200K. There were those who bought those shares -- in essence she stole $200K from those who did not have her insider information. Now, suppose we were talking about someone who robbed $200K from a bank -- would we have considered it a waste of money to prosecute such a criminal?
Ptichka said:
No problem
I do understand your point. She did commit a crime. The people who lost that $200,000 ought to sue her for every dime and then some. When you consider that she seems to be extremely attached to money, a civil trial might cause her almost as much distress as a criminal one.
I don't think this is really comparable to robbing a bank. Bank robbers tend to bring weapons and sometimes use them. At the very least, they are setting up a situation which could place people in danger. That element of violence makes bank robbery a much more serious offense.
ETA Not being burdened with the worries of stock ownership, I am assuming that there is a way to match specific sellers to buyers.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
we don't even hear about 1/10th of the children that are missing...
Similar threads
