National Review on Martha Stewart’s conviction:
What do I think about Martha? I’ve been asked that a lot during the past few months. And here’s the truth: Both sorry for her and a bit snicker-y. — Myrna Blyth
Justice was done — Andrew C. McCarthy
I’m anything but a fan of Martha Stewart, and the idea of her stuck in a cage making baskets of potpourri for the next two years is not at all unappealing. — Stephen Moore
Sure, no one is above the law; lying is wrong; and there was strong evidence that she had committed the crimes with which she was charged. Nothing in this column is intended to contradict any of these arguments. — John O’Sullivan
That Stewart was convicted anyway attests to just how patently inexcusable her behavior was. — Andrew C. McCarthy
Heartwarming, isn’t it?
The “supportive” article above is distinguished as such only by its lack of chimpanzee-hoots of delight at the prospect of another human being getting stuffed into a cage for disposing of her property as she saw fit. “No one is above the law”, O’Sullivan? Bullshit – everyone’s above the law, not the least of whom is Martha Stewart. “Lying is wrong”? Not to the Feds, not about what is properly no one’s damn’ business but Martha’s own. “Strong evidence she had committed the crimes”? I sincerely hope she did: “insider trading” is simply collectivist-speak for “smarter than the law allows”.
Could any one of those goofs above accomplish the sheer amount of literal goodness that Martha Stewart has? Could they even make an attempt? And they sneer at her, and cheerlead the institutions that drug her down.
“Hatred of the good for being the good”. It’s real, and alive and thriving at National Review.