The Martha Stewart Case From the Inside and Outside

Re “Our Lady of Perpetual Hostessing and Other Secular Saints,” Commentary, Feb. 11: Stephen Bayley’s thought-provoking essay states that it is a betrayal of faith, in our irreligious culture, when we are forced to understand the flaws of our own sacred cows (e.g., Martha Stewart). I suggest that truly trying to understand these flaws may be good medicine for all of us. It just may even be the path of faith.

It takes personal honesty and courage to try to understand the flaws in our sacred cows, or the flaws in ourselves or others, for that matter. Sometimes it takes a life-changing event to shock us out of our superficiality or certitudes and onto this quest.

In either case, we might eventually come to the humble realization that we all are imperfect and wounded people. We might see that the sacred cows just mirror our own broken humanity and that the great religious traditions only call us to be loving and forgiving people -- not perfect people. Perhaps then we will be open to the faith-filled conclusion that we all are utterly and completely dependent upon the mystery that transcends our imperfect selves.

John Wynne

Long Beach

*

What credentials does Bayley have to give his innocuous dissertation on “our” Martha Stewart? He is a London design consultant and the author of “A Dictionary of Idiots.” Bayley is not content to devour Martha -- oh, no -- he spills his poison ink upon other icons, such as Audrey Hepburn and Orson Welles. Mr. Bayley, go find your own sacred cows, in your own backyard. Leave ours alone.

Silvia B. Nickel

Los Angeles

*

Re “Prosecuting Investors: Not a Good Thing,” Commentary, Feb. 10: Let me make sure I understand James Glassman’s argument regarding insider trading and the Stewart case.

Although those in a fiduciary capacity, like Sam Waksal (then head of ImClone), shouldn’t be permitted to profit from trading on insider information, their compadres should be, because it improves the efficiency of the market, right?

Investors ought to be rewarded for their research efforts, their analytical knowledge, skills and tools and their judgment, but not simply because of their proximity to an information source.

Enabling many buyers and sellers to respond to their individual evaluations regarding the significance, if any, of information on share value contributes to market efficiency; enabling a few to “front run” on information contributes neither to an efficient market nor to one in which public confidence is justified.

Edward R. Scott

Los Angeles