Martha Stewart

Skinnywater · Jan 24, 2004

Re: Martha Stewart

Toad said:

Just imagine how dazzlingly decorated that cell could be. The smell of fresh basil and clove would be overwhelming.

Excellent Toad! I see your finally showing your freindly side.

On Martha, it's obvious once they did a deeper investigation it was found she, her corporation and Kmart didn't make any political contributions. Yeah, Kenneth Leah, of Enron, of Texas. Said to be a close personal freind of the Bush's. The fellow and his corporation that personally raised my electric bill a solid extra $47 dollars a month, every month, for the past year. And for the next (?) years to come...... This alone killed this states economy overnite.......... I'll continue to disagree with plywoody though. He always throws in a disclamer when posting something center of left. (He's calling us sexists again).

SCO · Jan 24, 2004

Re: Martha Stewart

But, Skinny, Californians allowed themselves to be vulnerable by wanting to have others provide their energy sos to avoid the associated pollution. Not a bad plan, but it backfired.

Ralph 123 · Jan 24, 2004

Re: Martha Stewart

Don't worry Skinny, Kenny's going down for the count very soon. The Government just cut a deal with the CFO (Fastow) in exchange for info on Skilling (Pres) and Kenny (CEO). Fastow took 10 years. Kenny will get at least that or more. They also just indicted the Controller (Causey) on six felony charges - as the head accountant he'll have lots of info to trade. I guess they didn't contribute enough

BRIAN03 · Jan 25, 2004

Re: Martha Stewart

She has a nice boat custom 44' Hinckley picnic boat. Yanmar with a hamilton jet drive. Egg yellow. Base on them is $440,000.00.

Skinnywater · Jan 25, 2004

Re: Martha Stewart

Only problem SCO is I'm within 50 miles of two major mega kilowatt hydroelectric dams and within 100 miles of 50 or so smaller ones. It isn't so much that us Californians deserve what we get. Because like I've said before, the vast majority of the people wouldn't get represented in our corrupt state government. We'd vote 'em in for sure. Then they were off collecting moneys from "special interests" and the people be danged. This is changing now, Arnold appears to have them way off balance. Good thing Ralph about Kenneth Leah. Haven't you ever noticed? That when a couple goes on TV to cry about their innocense, the more guilty they appear.

plywoody · Jan 25, 2004

Re: Martha Stewart

California's problem had little to do with locating, or building, new power sources. They don't have an energy shortage now, and not much new power has gone on line in the interim. The Sacramento Bee did a wonderful in depth expose on what exactly happened, and it was very complex. I am not sure if it is still in their archives or not, but it was fascinating. Basically it was a terribly designed system set up Originally by Wilson, and maintained by Davis, where the State of California divested itself of power generation, published their estimated power needs thru an ISO, and relied on energy traders and the open market to set prices of wholesale electricity on the spot market. This was a dream come true to the energy traders, as they quickly figured out that as they new the demand, all they had to do was manipulate the supply and could make a fortune. Of course, retail prices were regulated, so companies like Edison and such were supposed to pay the wholesale rate, but charge the regulated retail rate--which they couldn't do long term or they would go bankrupt, and hence power shortages. Then Davis stepped in at the height of the market, in a desperation move to keep the power on, and locked into long term contracts at excessively inflated prices. This not only affected California, but Washington and Oregon as well, who had to step in and guarantee a supply of power themselves thru Bonneville. All the while FERC was asleep (drugged?) at the switch. Of course, when it all came to light, with the demise of Enron, all of a sudden there were no longer power shortages, prices dropped, but then the entire west was locked into high prices long term... As it continues to be to this day. It had virtually nothing to do with a lack of power generation.

SCO · Jan 25, 2004

Re: Martha Stewart

Plywoody, I concede relative ignorance here, and only recall the headline conclusions, but you did say that California divested itself from power generation. Why did they do that? Did they want to set up a method by which they could obtain energy because they planned on producing less in California? You've got me on an information gap. I'll have to look into it. edit: Gulp. I think my insinuation was incorrect. I have read at least one article that lays the blame on the kilowatt price freeze in California in 1996. Result naturally was a free market disincentive for increased production capability. I think I'll sulk for a few days. See ya'll later

boatingfool · Jan 25, 2004

Re: Martha Stewart

How can Martha get charged with decieving her stockholders?? She is innocent. She is innocent until proven guilty. So wouldnt they have to convict her on something before thay can charge her with decieving her stockholders?? Because until she is convicted she is innocent. Therefore not lying.

Ralph 123 · Jan 25, 2004

Re: Martha Stewart

Originally posted by boatingfool: How can Martha get charged with decieving her stockholders?? She is innocent. She is innocent until proven guilty. So wouldnt they have to convict her on something before thay can charge her with decieving her stockholders?? Because until she is convicted she is innocent. Therefore not lying.

That's the issue in a nutshell BF and why this really is an abuse of power and unfair prosecution.

roscoe · Jan 25, 2004

Re: Martha Stewart

Hang her high, I supply the rope. If nothing else, convict her of misuse of the public tv airwaves. She was/is a pro, she knows the law, she intentionally broke it, deserves the highest penalty. Problem with the case, is that most of the public only knows her for her cute crafts and cooking. Hard to get a jury of common folk to convict "such a nice lady."

Ralph 123 · Jan 25, 2004

Re: Martha Stewart

She was/is a pro, she knows the law, she intentionally broke it, deserves the highest penalty.

What law did she break? Saying she is innocent in public? They never charged her with the crime they were investigating her for. They even offered Weitzel a deal to save himself, his daughter and his father if he gave them evidence against her. He said he couldn't becuase he never gave her any info.

boatingfool · Jan 25, 2004

Re: Martha Stewart

Even if they charged her with a crime, saying she is innocent is the truth until she is convicted.

Elmer Fudge · Jan 25, 2004

Re: Martha Stewart

Martha Stewart was charged because of exercising her inalienable right to freedom of speech,and that's a fact.

boatingfool · Jan 25, 2004

Re: Martha Stewart

Dont get me wrong. I am not a defender of Martha. I would love to see her sit in jail a few years. My question is more of a legal one. How can they charge her with claiming she is innocent when she is?? No matter how convinced the procecuter is that Martha is guilty she is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law !

Martha Stewart

Commander

Lieutenant

Captain

Petty Officer 1st Class

Commander

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Lieutenant

Chief Petty Officer

Captain

Supreme Mariner

Captain

Chief Petty Officer

Lieutenant Commander

Chief Petty Officer