Martha The Scapegoat

[Anonymouse]

by Butler Shaffer

 

For those who believe that mankind has abandoned the practice of throwing children from cliffs, or tearing out the hearts of young women on temple altars, all for the purpose of appeasing the gods, the conviction of Martha Stewart should inform you that this ritual has only changed form. Scapegoating remains an accepted ceremony, even though its more brutal expressions no longer appeal to us. It is now usually performed in a bloodless fashion, with the rites of procedural due process carefully observed.

 

Scapegoating, along with other forms of human sacrifice, is as old as human society. It is particularly evident during periods of political, economic, or social instability, when there is a failure of group expectations. The scapegoat serves two purposes during such periods: as an object upon which the fears, anger, and frustrations of a group can be directed. The scapegoat is also politically useful, during periods of turbulence, as a means of reminding people that the state retains the power of life and death over them. In the words of a nineteenth century tribal chief: "If I were to abolish human sacrifice, I should deprive myself of one of the most effectual means of keeping the people in subjection." The scapegoat need not be innocent of any offense: if he or she is perceived to be guilty of some offense, so much the better to convince people of the propriety of the coercive action against the victim.

 

Scapegoats served the needs of power systems during the Inquisitions, as well as witch and heresy trials, when church authority was challenged by such influences as the Reformation and scientific inquiry. The roots of the Salem witch trials have been traced to political instabilities within that colony. The upheavals of the Civil War brought about a sharp increase in the lynchings of blacks, as did the depression of the 1930’s. As the post-World War II American state fashioned the mindset of a Cold War with the Soviet Union, it found it useful – with the aid of such men as Sen. Joseph McCarthy – to identify and ferret out domestic communist scapegoats, and to inflict the death penalty upon two: the Rosenbergs. Such a pattern of statist behavior is now repeating itself in the domestic phase of the "war against terrorism," wherein even the readers of almanacs are officially targeted, by the FBI, as potential "terrorists"!

 

Beginning at least in Lyndon Johnson’s administration, through the Nixon years with Watergate, the Reagan years of the Iran/Contra scandals, and the revelations of wholesale influence peddling in the Clinton White House, most Americans have lost their high-school-civics-class innocence about the "noble" and "public interest" purposes of government. Lying, deception, and the incestuous relationships between large corporate interests and the state have reached such a common awareness that, unlike earlier corruption that managed to stay hidden from view, it no longer surprises most of us. If there is one phrase that ought to inform minds of the political realities of our corporate-state world it is the one that emerged from Watergate: "follow the money!"

 

Lyndon Johnson’s and Robert McNamara’s lies about the prospects for winning the Vietnam War – lies that led to the deaths of at least fifty thousand Americans – have morphed into George Bush’s lies about "weapons of mass destruction" and the prospects for "Iraqi freedom" if only more American soldiers can be sacrificed to the cause. As Halliburton and other corporate interests close to the White House prepare to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars from the Iraqi war; and as Vice President Cheney treats a Supreme Court justice to paid hunting trips at a time when a case involving Mr. Cheney is before that court, even the most unsophisticated minds experience a failure of expectations about the nature of government.

 

But such disappointments will never rise to a fundamental criticism of state power for, to do so, would force people to question their very sense of being. The identities of most of us are so wrapped up with the nation-state that, to condemn it, is to condemn ourselves. Besides, like dealing with a bully, most of us are fearful of standing up to what we perceive as a more powerful force and content ourselves with attacking lesser targets. Unlike that brave soul, Wang Wei-Lin, who stood up to that row of tanks in Tiananmen Square a few years ago, most of us are moral cowards who lack the integrity to challenge the forces that destroy our lives.

 

We are nevertheless implicitly aware that the systems with which we identify ourselves have failed in their stated purposes, and we require a cathartic remedy to overcome our withered sense of wholeness and restore our illusions. Who better to fulfill this role than the scapegoat?

 

The scapegoating purposes of the Martha Stewart trial were apparently evident to at least some of the jurors. One of them stated, afterwards, that the verdict "sends a message to bigwigs in corporations they have to abide by the law." He added that the verdict "was a victory for the little guy who loses money in the market because of this kind of transaction." Considering that Martha was convicted only of obstruction of justice and lying to government investigators – and not for any illegal "transaction" – it appears that some of the jurors, at least, were responding to what they perceived as systemic problems within the business community, and not to any acts for which Martha was charged. It is not the role of juries in criminal cases to "send messages," but only to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. It would seem that, in the eyes of some of the jurors, Martha became a stand-in for the alleged sins of others.

 

The prosecuting attorney got caught up in this act of ritual sacrifice. "The victims in this case are the entire American public," he intoned. He then added: "when we first indicted this case, we said that it was all about lies," and "no matter who you are, if you’re Martha Stewart or Joe Q. Public, we’re going to go after you."

 

The prosecutor failed to note, of course, that those who tell more dangerous lies out of the White House, and those well-placed business interests who profit from the consequences of those lies, will remain untouched. That "the entire American public" has been victimized by government policies that have been "all about lies," will unlikely move this man to indict Mr. Bush and his cohorts. Martha will serve as a convenient scapegoat for the dishonesty and corruption of a political system that is to remain beyond criticism.

 

That Martha’s conviction serves to vindicate purposes irrelevant to the crimes with which she was charged is seen in the numerous attacks upon her personality following the verdict. I have heard people who should know better defend the jury’s decision on the grounds that Martha is "obnoxious," or "arrogant," or a "bitch." Such responses lend credence to the mistaken view of many feminists that this case was only about Martha as a woman. There are doubtless many people – women as well as men – whose personal sense of identity looks upon the proper role of women as inheritors, rather than generators, of great wealth, and to such persons Martha becomes a useful scapegoat.

 

I caution you not to hold your breath awaiting federal prosecutors bringing criminal charges against any of the big-time players who hang out on "Boardwalk" and "Park Place." It will be the denizens of "Baltic Avenue" who will be called upon to bear the sins of a disappointing system. "Take that, Martha Stewart! Take that, John Q. public! We have a ‘zero tolerance’ policy when it comes to the offenses of you ordinary people!" In the end, cases of this kind only reconfirm the centuries-old observation that:

 

The law locks up both man and woman

Who steals the goose from off the common.

But lets the greater felon loose

Who steals the common from the goose.

[Armat]

This article is just garbage. Sorry anon.She broke the law! plain and clear and that she is famous does not make her a SCAPEGOAT.Are we suppose to pad her in the back and say "excuse us, we know you broke the law but since you are famous we will not prosecute you since people would think we are making you a scapegoat. Doesn't this sound pathetic?

[vava]

I agree with Armat - why not make an example of someone famous? She lied, she cheated, and this because of her greed for the equivalent of peanuts (when compared with the rest of her fortune). She's not a scapegoat - but definately, we should not stop there - so many others have done similar or worse and all deserve the same fate.

[Anonymouse]

This article is just garbage. Sorry anon.She broke the law! plain and clear and that she is famous does not make her a SCAPEGOAT.Are we suppose to pad her in the back and say "excuse us, we know you broke the law but since you are famous we will not prosecute you since people would think we are making you a scapegoat. Doesn't this sound pathetic?

You obviously have no working knowledge of what the "law" is for her to have broken it. What "law" did she break? This is a classic example of a "law" after the fact, where anything goes as in any kangaroo court.

 

The only thing she was convicted of was lying and obstruction of justice. There was no real definition of the crime, nor did the prosecution ever prove the crime. That she was tipped off from her broker and not a company insider is enough to give suspicion to the alleged crime she has committed.

 

This has nothing to do with fame or what not, it is simply a matter of evidence and the sad state of condition for the American "justice" system.

[Armat]

Please Anon who the freakin cares!She got cought!The END.

[Anonymouse]

Please Anon who the freakin cares!She got cought!The END.

Well, if you aren't going to discuss what she got caught with, you might as well have saved yourself responding in this thread sir.

 

After all, to be familiar with the law and what she got "caught" with, we must have a proper definition of what the law is, and what she was charged with, and what was actually proven, and what in the end she was convicted with.

 

Nothing adds up, as anyone familiar with the practice of law will tell you, those that are impartial anyway.

[den_wolf]

That other outlaws haven't been caught is not a justification that she shouldn't be punished. If you want justice, you should work on getting the others convicted too, rather than advocating her release. Not that I am saying that you are doing that, but a lot of people are doing that.

[Anonymouse]

That other outlaws haven't been caught is not a justification that she shouldn't be punished. If you want justice, you should work on getting the others convicted too, rather than advocating her release. Not that I am saying that you are doing that, but a lot of people are doing that.

Once again you haven't grasped the issue. What should she be punished for? Lying? So if anyone lies these days they are to be punished? I would like if it some of you address the actual issue of the crime she is accused of, and not the fore followings of what the media would have you believe, or that lame juror.

[den_wolf]

Manipulating someone or something in order to gain money from it is a criminal offense similar to fraud.

[Anonymouse]

Manipulating someone or something in order to gain money from it is a criminal offense similar to fraud.

That is an unsubstantiated statement. How did manipulate anyone? Since when is "gaining money" a matter of manipulation. Anything can be defined as "manipulating". Do you understand how elastic your assertion is? It can literally be pinned on everything. Once again you have no working knowledge of the case, I best give up on this thread.

[Armat]

Once again you haven't grasped the issue. What should she be punished for? Lying? So if anyone lies these days they are to be punished? I would like if it some of you address the actual issue of the crime she is accused of, and not the fore followings of what the media would have you believe, or that lame juror.

Either you are too naïve or playing the part. Anon I am confident that in that jury room there was incriminating evidence presented against her much more then simply lying but hold it !let me gently glide the words “She Broke The Law” Now naïve you will ask me what that law is(hint insider trading) and my answer you look it up.

Your post or this thread holds no merit or substance and no offence to your intelligence

Edited March 12, 2004 by Armat

[bellthecat]

Manipulating someone or something in order to gain money from it is a criminal offense similar to fraud.

What a stupid statement! Is this what comes of studying philosophy at Liverpool? Manupulating someone to obtain money from them is the basis of all commerce! So you are going to have the prisons full of shopkeepers?

[den_wolf]

What a stupid statement! Is this what comes of studying philosophy at Liverpool? Manupulating someone to obtain money from them is the basis of all commerce! So you are going to have the prisons full of shopkeepers?

Are you saying that if someone sells you something by lying and telling you it's the cheapest on the market, or selling you something other than what he claimed to sell you, it's supposed to be legal? So by your definition, fraud would be legal?

[bellthecat]

Are you saying that if someone sells you something by lying and telling you it's the cheapest on the market, or selling you something other than what he claimed to sell you, it's supposed to be legal? So by your definition, fraud would be legal?

Once again, I'm pondering what "philosophy" means in Liverpool.

 

Beyond basic bread-and-butter purchases every commercial transaction involves what, by your standards, would be criminal fraud.

 

Buying cheap and selling expensive, while convincing the customer that it is actually inexpensive, is the basis of every transaction in every marketplace in every time-period or culture. And almost EVERYTHING these days is sold on the basis that you are buying something other than what you are actually getting - it's called advertising. and it IS fraud, and it is (and always will be) legal.

 

Steve

[vava]

Well, when you put it that way Dan, it's what people are doing ALL the time! Just look at the car dealerships in Toronto (right around the corner from ya ) Everyone one employs some method of 'manipulation' - from fine print, half-truths, to exagerrated statements like: 'Deal of the Century!!!! Really now, the Century???

 

But, what differentiates Martha, is that she deliberately used her inside knowledge to trade shares of a company that she KNEW was going down the tubes. It's very, very HARD to prove insider trading, unless there's a huge paper trail - in this case, they only caught her for obstructing justice, which is tantamount to lying about her insider trading. That is forbidden & illegal, and she deserves all the jail time she gets.

[Sasun]

Once again, I'm pondering what "philosophy" means in Liverpool.

How about an impostor? I think Dan is being dishonest, or maybe he has a multiple personality disorder.

[vava]

How about an impostor?

Isn't THAT fraud??

[Sasun]

Isn't THAT fraud??

I don't know, lets ask the genius philosopher

[den_wolf]

http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/compa...martha_verdict/

 

"Guilty of conspiracy to obstruct justice, make false statements and commit perjury"

[Sasun]

"Guilty of conspiracy to obstruct justice, make false statements and commit perjury"

It is too bad that there are dishonest people who conspire, make false statements, misrepresent and lie about what they do and who they are. Yet they are the ones bitching most loudly about injustices.

[Anonymouse]

Either you are too naïve or playing the part. Anon I am confident that in that jury room there was incriminating evidence presented against her much more then simply lying but hold it !let me gently glide the words “She Broke The Law” Now naïve you will ask me what that law is(hint insider trading) and my answer you look it up.

Your post or this thread holds no merit or substance and no offence to your intelligence

You are "confident" that in the jury room there was "incriminating evidence" presented? What makes you so confident about that? The "incriminating evidence" was supposed to have been presented by the prosecution in the court room, not the jury room. The job of the jury is to base a decision based on certainty, if the said defendent was proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. If she was accused of "insider trading", and it was never defined or clarified, much less established to be certain, what makes you so sure the jury acted correctly?

 

The biggest example of insider trading that ever took place was on the date of September 11th 2001, prior to the planes hitting the thowers. The powers that were involved and acted on that date acted within the broad spectrum of the international markets, yielded billions if not trillions of dollars and as an added perk and accomplished total control of the U.S. market. The fact that you are discussing this issue regarding the trial without working knowledge of how the trial process works and how courts of laws work, and to call me naive, is indeed naive on your behalf.

 

Bush lied about WMD, thousands have died as a price, but Martha Stewart is the sacrificial lamb. Come on folks, don't be naive, put things into perspective.

[Armat]

You are "confident" that in the jury room there was "incriminating evidence" presented? What makes you so confident about that? .

Fair question. Simple answer. Without any sold evidence 12 people could not have come out with guilty verdict! Either I have to assume there were all idiots who are very unlikely or there was enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she broke the law.

Although I can understand your mentality of questioning everything, there are certain things that are real. Such as

1. Evolution has happened and is happening.

2. Earth does revolve around its axes

3. Democracy is the best known form of government

4. Yes we do need structure

5. There was no CIA coup in Armenia

6. 9/11 was not “an insider job”

7. Martha S. did break the law

 

 

8.

[Anonymouse]

Fair question. Simple answer. Without any sold evidence 12 people could not have come out with guilty verdict! Either I have to assume there were all idiots who are very unlikely or there was enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she broke the law.

Although I can understand your mentality of questioning everything, there are certain things that are real. Such as

1. Evolution has happened and is happening.

2. Earth does revolve around its axes

3. Democracy is the best known form of government

4. Yes we do need structure

5. There was no CIA coup in Armenia

6. 9/11 was not “an insider job”

7. Martha S. did break the law

 

 

8.

Although I understand your need to "believe" things simply because it fills in that gap in the prism we call the mind, however one shouldn't be too quick to fall after them.

 

We are forced to go into tautology mode because of your unwillingness to let go of your fears and beliefs and rationally analyze the said case. Stewart was indicted for lying and obstruction of justice. For these to have any meaning there must be something she lied about. The prosecutors presented no such crime. Do you understand that? There was no crime presented. It was apriori accepted that she committed a crime, and she was lying about it. This is the same as the Nurmeberg show trials.

 

The simple fact that Stewart received information from her broker and not a company insider is enough to show that the prosecutors couldn't charge her with insider trading, although they would relish in the idea of wanting to. People have always bought and sold shares. It's a brokers job to advise her on the stock and the bad news, i.e. to sell. There is no crime in that. Anyone who contends otherwise has no working knowledge of the law, nor of how the market works. "Insider trading" is thus an undefined crime, created by beaurocrats, not any statutory law. It is meant as a tool for the government to slap in the face of anyone who dares get too big, or dares challenge the State, or for whatever reasons Martha was to be scapegoated.

 

The fact that the jury found her guilty, shows that the jury is stupid and it is a federal kangaroo court. Who knows how they might have been influenced, either by bribes, or what have you. I suggest the book The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice by Paul Craig Roberts, Lawrence M. Stratton.

 

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/076152553X.01._PE30_PIdp-schmoo2,TopRight,7,-26_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[DominO123]

Anon, just something I wonder. Is there something that works correctly in our world in your opinion? You can start a thread regarding that... I mean, every thing you write are about how everyone are in the wrong how things are not right... so I just wonder, beside you, is there anything "right"?

 

You may not understand my point now, but it is related with your last reply, answer to my question and I will show you how your last reply destroys your own argument.

Edited March 13, 2004 by Fadix

[Anonymouse]

Anon, just something I wonder. Is there something that works correctly in our world in your opinion? You can start a thread regarding that... I mean, every thing you write are about how everyone are in the wrong how things are not right... so I just wonder, beside you, is there anything "right"?

 

You may not understand my point now, but it is related with your last reply, answer to my question and I will show you how your last reply destroys your own argument.

What are you talking about? Is this about "destroying" for you? My, my, my...