MARTHA

I never had particularly negative feelings about her, but I never quite understood those who worshiped her. The only theory I have is that maybe Spiro Agnew had half a point -- many of us were raised on Dr. Spock and negotiation, and maybe we crave a little cracking of the whip. (Though a prescriptive woman like Stewart clearly pisses off a lot of people, mostly men.)

I also think this is part of the reason we keep electing Republicans -- we want to be disciplined, we want to be told in no uncertain terms what's right and wrong. (Though we don't want too strict a disciplinarian, which is why we elected jokey afternoon napper Reagan and sort of elected fratboy Bush).

Well, she's guilty, and she got time. That seems right to me -- though I say that only because rich people have no damn excuse for screwing up the way she did. If you're rich, be smart yourself, or pay people to prevent you from doing something rash, potentially illegal, and stupid.

I'll admit, however, that I was impressed by this point in the Nation article Doug Henwood wrote about Stewart in January:

...why are insider trading and related transgressions often treated more severely than defrauding retirees, lying to stockholders or, more prosaically, running a dangerous workplace? The only obvious victim of Martha's alleged crime is the public's perception of the fairness of the stock market. The authorities would love to preserve the illusion that everyone is equal, and that the rich and well connected have no special advantage over the masses. But that's absolute nonsense. Though people on the left often cheer the prosecution of insider trading (which, remember, is something Stewart isn't even accused of), there's nothing particularly progressive about preserving the illusion of Wall Street's fairness.