Well, Martha Stewart is out of the big house, none the worse for the wear. She’s a lot richer, a little thinner, and a whole lot more popular. Hey, who am I to rain on the parade? I couldn’t be happier for her.

Some folks – like Dan Gillmor over at Grassroots Journalism – still think she’s a crook. Well, that’s a valid opinion too, I suppose. In fact, technically, it’s absolutely right. The law is the law. But I’ve thought all along, to the limited extent I’ve been able to generate any measurable interest, that she was just being a good squirrel. Covering her nuts, you see. Who wouldn’t? And who wouldn’t lie about it?

I consider myself a pretty moral person. If a checker gives me an extra buck or two in change, I’ll drive to the store and take it back. They have to balance the drawer at the end of the shift, and everybody makes mistakes. But if somebody called me and said I was about to lose a chunk of my own money, and I could avoid it, well I’m only human. And I know who has the burden of proving that I did something wrong.

One more point: I think she was made an example of. I think The Prosecution just couldn’t pass up beaching such a big fish, to pad the ol’ resume. So it wasn’t Martha who decided the same rules don’t apply for the big crook and the small. Because the average Joe occasional investor would’ve have gotten off with a warning or probation, especially with no prior criminal history.

Just calling it the way I see it.