Spring Break
Martha Stewart's real crime
Frederick Pollock
Issue date: 2/5/04 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
A FEW WEEKS BACK MARTHA Stewart's trial commenced. There was the usual media hoopla. Most people rightfully paid no heed to the multi-million dollar prosecutorial circus. A few did though. And I have the misfortune of knowing one. A conversation with a friend who works for an advertising company turned to Martha's court appearance. She was convinced that Martha carried a purse that cost a small fortune when she went into the courtroom on the first day of the trial. I couldn't believe that Martha would do something so likely to annoy the jury or look bad in the press. And thus a bet was formed. If she could prove Martha was carrying a bag that cost more than $2,000 then I had to buy her a purse. If she was wrong, she would give me cash. Much to my personal chagrin, my friend was right. Martha Stewart was clutching a Hermes Birkin handbag on that fateful day. It didn't take long to establish this because the next day the Washington Post decided that the handbag itself was newsworthy. A call to the company confirmed a much-more-than-$2,000 price tag and established that there is a six month waiting list for it.
What does this story demonstrate? First, I am a moron for having taken the other side of such a bet with a woman who has patrician tastes and a keen sense for detail, and whose job it is to cut product placement deals. And second, that Martha Stewart is clearly guilty of some federal securities-trading related crime. Okay, the latter may be a stretch - a function of my bitterness over Martha's costly lack of discretion. But if you buy the argument underlying the actual federal case against Martha and that she deserves to be convicted then you might be willing to send her away for this as well. Truth be told, when you get to the heart of it, it would seem that Ms. Stewart's gross offense against society - the one for which she faces years in a federal penitentiary - is being an arrogant, take-no-prisoners, successful businesswoman. That isn't a crime. It is something the world needs a bit more of.
What does this story demonstrate? First, I am a moron for having taken the other side of such a bet with a woman who has patrician tastes and a keen sense for detail, and whose job it is to cut product placement deals. And second, that Martha Stewart is clearly guilty of some federal securities-trading related crime. Okay, the latter may be a stretch - a function of my bitterness over Martha's costly lack of discretion. But if you buy the argument underlying the actual federal case against Martha and that she deserves to be convicted then you might be willing to send her away for this as well. Truth be told, when you get to the heart of it, it would seem that Ms. Stewart's gross offense against society - the one for which she faces years in a federal penitentiary - is being an arrogant, take-no-prisoners, successful businesswoman. That isn't a crime. It is something the world needs a bit more of.