Here's the Philadelphia Inquirer, pontificating about Martha Stewart:

Let what Martha Stewart did serve as a lesson and a warning to other investors - even if that lesson so far appears lost on the perfectionist homemaker-mogul.

Stewart's crime of lying to federal investigators about a well-timed stock sale wasn't in the same league with corporate-accounting scandals that toppled entire companies.

However, there was no way that authorities could overlook the attempted coverup by Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter E. Bacanovic, who on Friday was given a sentence nearly identical to Stewart's.

Such deceits are the bread and butter of securities fraud, even if federal prosecutors in the Stewart case were unable to prove illegal insider stock trading.

So Stewart may continue to proclaim her innocence and tiptoe around a genuine apology. That's her right, and it's understandable since she's appealing the conviction. But as the case has unfolded, Stewart has had less and less reason to complain about being singled out as a high-profile defendant.

The minimum penalty meted out at her sentencing - five months in jail, plus another five months of house arrest - paled in comparison to what lesser-known defendants face for robbing fewer dollars from a convenience store.

The Inquirer concludes with some heart-felt advice for Ms. Stewart:

Best advice for Stewart as she faces time behind bars? Simplify, of course. And maybe learn just a smidgen of humility from the experience. That would be a good thing.

Under the circumstances, I think the lecture on humility is a bit much.

But hey, let's try to remain humble anyway, and turn to today's Inquirer editorial on Sandy Berger:

Even if his main sin is just being one disorganized fellow, Berger committed a serious security faux pas. He was right to resign as an informal Kerry adviser.

But you know who was even more in the wrong?

House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who used the curiously timed leak about this months-old matter to engage in a hasty partisan smear.

In a way, I feel sorry for the people who have to crank out these logically impenetrable editorials and wildly variable moral principles. The mental contortions required almost remind me of the demands placed upon those poor Communist Party members back in the 1930s. (First Nazis bad; then peace with Nazis; then war with Nazis!)

But at least in those days, there was an identifiable party line to be followed. If there's one today, I can't find it.