And the truth shall set you free. Or not.
Martha Stewart, in a very public demonstration of how to really mess up your home no matter how organized the kitchen, was sentenced this past week to five months in prison and five more months home confinement for obstructing justice. She's not going to the big house and her house for capitalizing on an inside market tip from a friend. She's going because she lied about capitalizing on an inside market tip from a friend.
How many seashell candles, seaweed table linens and sets of matching china do you think Martha would give at this moment to be able to go back in time and have the federal agents ask her again if she dumped her ImClone stock because ImClone chairman Samuel Waksal tipped her off that the stock was about to dive?
If she'd just told the truth, she wouldn't be looking at five months at the federal work camp in Danbury, Conn.
But then lying has been big business ever since the Garden of Eden, which, to some people, is nothing but a big lie itself.
Whatever the case, it's been done — a lot — which is at least something Martha can take to her Danbury experience when she moves in with about a thousand other women who also didn't do it.
From the start, Martha's problem was the preponderance of evidence against her. It's hard to believe you didn't know something was coming down when you sold your stock just before it crashed and one of your closest friends was the company chairman. Her only hope was that the feds would simply believe her and not ask for anything but autographs. If only it had been someone with a serious question about composting.
It's like Carlos Boozer, the basketball player who has agreed to a six-year, $68 million deal with the Utah Jazz. The Cleveland Cavaliers, his former employer, could have retained Boozer's services this year by exercising their option for the final year on Boozer's contract, calling for a salary of $695,000 — the NBA equivalent of ash tray change.
After a discussion both the Cavs and Carlos agree took place on June 30, the last day Cleveland could exercise its option, the Cavs management let the deadline pass with no action. A couple of days later, Boozer and the Jazz came to their $68 million terms — more than a 100-fold raise. Not bad, even for a Duke guy.
The Cavs say they were bamboozered. They contend they had an implicit understanding after their June 30 meeting that if they let their option lapse, then they would be the ones to throw long-term millions at Boozer. The problem was their long-term offer of $42 million for six years was $26 million less than the Jazz.
Boozer, like Martha, says there was no heads-up ahead of time, no agreement, no deal. He further says he won't go back to Cleveland now because they demoralized him as a person (he probably meant demonized — the Duke profs have got to be suffering).
The problem with Boozer's protest is obvious: Why else would Cleveland have passed on exercising its option? Even the Clippers wouldn't make such a bone-headed move.
What exactly were they talking about on June 30? The stock market?
Like Martha's story after she saved a bundle by dumping her stock just before it plummeted, Boozer's story just doesn't add up.
In the meantime, I wouldn't buy the Brooklyn Bridge from either one of them.
Lee Benson's column runs Sunday, Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Please send e-mail to benson@desnews.com and faxes to 801-237-2527.