At first reading of the Browne piece, I was nodding yes yes quite right. But with further reflection the larger context came into view. Let's back it down. They couldn't nail a number of mafioso in the past for their real crimes, so they got them on tax evasion. And why is that? Simple. The courts are stacked in favor of the accused in cases of straight criminal law. But the bureaucratic laws are way simpler for the prosecutors to deal with. The criminal defense side has worked the criminal law part of the system way better than the prosecution side. Analogy...offensive linemen used to not be able to use their hands to hold off charging defensive players who had carte blanche to not only grab an offensive lineman, but could also whack him on the helmet with his heavily taped hands. Resulting in lots of sacks and stove up quarterbacks. This inequality has been adjusted somewhat by the NFL, but not the inequality in the legal system.

That's why we have plea bargaining, reduced sentencing, waived prosecution for testimony, on and on. Some punishment is better than no punishment. It's good to control the prosecution from abuse of power. It's not so good to let bad guys walk out of court on technicalities.

It's ludicrous to jail someone for lying, yes. But it's the only way the prosecution has been allowed to prosecute. Martha was the sacrificial lamb for social richie networks of NYC who have long had the advantage of inside knowledge from their associations with ceo's, financiers, and magnates. Spitzer is going after just about anyone in his bailiwick. Her lawyers probably thought she'd get a pass, but no.

And heaven knows where Browne came up with that line about insider trading not being illegal. And I like Browne, so this isn't about him. Just google insider trading + illegal for the facts. He should more careful with his statements.

When you throw out your TV and live like a bachelor, vast swatches of culture pass you by. So throughout the 90's and beyond I thought "Who IS this smiling little white fucklet, and why does anyone care what she serves for dessert?

So last Tuesday I went to work, and through a series of technical processes too mundane to describe here, consumed my first Martha Stewart product. It was a TV show called something like "50 Good Things Countdown by Martha Stewart."

It was remarkably shitty television. Lots of twelve-string guitar harmonics and police-interrogation lighting, all in the service of some of the most slender "ideas" the medium has ever conveyed... And friends, that's saying something. Most poignant of all, the warm smile we all recognize from magazines is shown by video to be a piece of frosty marble.

And still, this morning on the freeway, I found myself thinking "I really SHOULD go to Target and get one of those 38" x " 9" x 6" Tupperware boxes to hold my gift wrapping."

Ah, what to say about Martha. What she did was clearly illegal, no bones about it. However, she did have an issue of Martha S. Living with cake recipes from my childhood. Mind you that's the only issue I've purchased. Ok, I swiped another one from my vets office.

On the flip side she was always doing craft stuff with materials that aren't available anywhere but on her website. Martha is a real (real rich) piece of work.

Hey, we can't capture Osama bin Laden, but we nailed Martha Stewart! Don't you all feel safer knowing she's locked up?

Martha Stewart Living is a weird, voyeuristic pleasure, kind of like the National Enquirer. When I look at it, I think, "Some gullible asshole out there really believes Martha is methodically carrying out all of these prissy little chores and home projects, season after season." After a really bad date, there's no better salve for my wounds than a glossy invitation to feel superior to the high-end, discerning segment of the K-mart shopping crowd.

After me and the girls from Cell Block B are finished ripping Martha to shreds, stay tuned for a special issue of MSL: "Cape Cod meets Heroin Chic."