From the Oh PUHLEEZ department
Well everyone's favorite domestic goddess is now unshackeled and she has quite an interesting perspective on the matter. According to this article Martha Stewart says her home confinement was tougher than doing time in federal prison. Apparently the pressure of returning to her mansion on time (after her allotted time out of doors was up) was quite draining on the poor woman.
Well back up the waaaahmbulance. Clearly someone missed the whole point of her supposed punishment. Those criminals without fabulous lawyers to get them off the hook sure have it tough...
posted by Shifra @ 10:53 AM
7 Comments:
heh "waaaahmbulance" :-P
Wow, nice display of schadenfreude. Since you're such an expert about " the whole point of her supposed punishment," why don't you share it with us? Oh, let me guess, you don't even know what her crime was, much less why she should be punished. (Hint: it wasn't any kind of insider trading.)
How about we confine *you* in you home for a few months and see how you like it?
Hello Urijah,
That was certainly an auspicious start to your commenting carreer here on my blog.
You've really got it all going on:
1)Gratutious use of vocabulary
2)Accusing the author of ignorance
and
3)Suggestive empty threats.
Well done ol' chap!
I guess you didn't know that I blog from inside a locked closet with only the monitor for light...
And for the record I like it juuuuust fine.
Urijah is just being a jerk. He's afraid even to create a Blogger profile.
By the way, readers, readers, please check out my post on the Ya`avetz's Siddur. My post begins with...
SEX!!
Oh Snap!
Apparently the vocabulary police are here. Pray tell, what other word is appropriate to reflect the sneering, overweening glee at someone else’s misfortune that was oozing from that post?
As for accusing you of ignorance, would you rather it be malice? I don't know one person well acquainted with the particulars of the Stewart case who doesn't feel it was a profound injustice. So I gave you the benefit of the doubt here. You're welcome.
As for you last point, I suppose I underestimated your suggestibility...
Thank you for the warm welcome and the effusive compliments; I suggest that better use of your reply would be to address my points, not my tone and (perhaps acerbic) writing style.
Urijah-
The focus of my comment was really meant to convey my surprise that Martha Stewart found house arrest more difficult than spending time in an actual prison.
If I offended you by making light of her situation (which you seem intimately familier with, and oddly defensive about) I apologise.
I chose to deal with the tone of your email rather than it's contents because it's my way of telling you that if you'd like to get your point across on this blog or get me to change my personal opinion on something (which is entirely possible) it's best to present the facts that to attack me with all manner of barbs abd jeers.
PS Sneering overweening glee?
I think not.
Do you really think mocking someone's unhappiness is appropriate? Just because a person is a public figure does not make her incapable of suffering. If the only point you were trying to make is the curiousness of feeling more frustrated under house arrest than being in a federal penitentiary, there are much more agreeable ways of putting it.
To reiterate the substance of my post again, perhaps more temperately:
Are you familiar with what Martha Stewart was imprisoned for?
Do you think the punishment fit the "crime"?
Do you think you would respond similarly if (G-d forbid) you were found in the same predicament? Why or why not?
Do you think it can possibly be more frustrating in some ways to be deprived and restricted in your freedoms while simultaneously reintegrating your manifold responsibilities?
(To "Mar Gavriel"--Why do I need a blogger profile? I don't have a blog. I think using my proper name should dispell any notion of my being "afraid." Is "Mar Gavriel" your name?)
Post a Comment
<< Home