Rape Me, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld
January 5, 2013 Martha Thomases 3 Comments
With all the fuss about the Fiscal Cliff and Who Won and Who Lost and also, no more Joe Lieberman to kick around anymore, you may not have noticed the international news. And that’s too bad, because India is undergoing a revolution.
Rape and the sexual harassment of women is an embedded problem in Indian culture, as it is in most of the world. It’s hard to find real numbers, but very few rape cases in India are investigated by the police, and, when they are, the police will, on occasion, suggest that rather than bringing the rapist to trial, the victim should instead marry her attacker. As a result, it’s impossible to know what percentage of rapes are actually reported.
And then there was the tipping point. A young woman and her boyfriend got on what they thought was a public bus, and were both beaten. She was raped so severely that her internal organs failed and, despite a will to live that kept her going for 23 days, through multiple surgeries, she eventually died. The story spread, and, for a change, public outrage was swift and vast. There have been demonstrations for days. Men and, more important, women by the thousands took to the street to demand change.
For us Third Wave feminists, this is pretty much deja vu as usual. I well remember those years in the 1970s when women were blamed for being raped, and any woman who suggested that rape is a problem of the patriarchy M was derided as an extremist.
Those same arguments are being made today. And, thanks to the GOP and its spokespeople like Todd Akin, feminists making these arguments still sound cutting edge.
“No,” you say. “That’s not true. Women are considered equal to men, and are judged by the same standards.”
To you, I offer the example of Hillary Clinton. Although she was hospitalized with a diagnosis of a blood clot in her brain, the right wing continues to deride her in a manner that they would not if she were a man.
No, I’m not suggesting that Secretary Clinton is enduring something as brutal as being beaten and gang-raped. I’m saying that she is targeted in such a vicious, personal way because she is a woman.
As a Clinton, she’s experienced this for the “better” part of two decades. I would argue that she receives extra crazy because she’s a woman. Take a look at the comments in this article about her hair styles. You won’t see anything similar in a story about a male Democrat, like Obama, or a female Republican, like Condaleeza Rice.
It is my fondest hope that the righteous anger of the Indian people will prove to be contagious,and that our planet will be less tolerant of violently sexist assholes. It is also to be hoped that, as Americans with first-world problems, we will be able to find ways to improve ourselves before we pass judgment on the rest of the world.
—-
Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, has aged out of catcalls on the street and, despite predictions, doesn’t miss it one little bit.
Elizabeth
January 5, 2013 - 11:04 am
Thank you for writing about this, Martha. There is no question women around the world and here continue to struggle with unbelievable belief systems that consider them inferior to men, vessels for men and second or third class citizens.
Pennie
January 5, 2013 - 5:43 pm
Spot on as ever Martha. Try telling the women of so many countries, “You’ve come a long way, Baby.” India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar. Philippines, Ireland…the US…and so many more.
No, I’m not comparing the exact political and social circumstances of those aforementioned countries to the US–but your example of Ms. Clinton is not isolated.
We are still not given the same automatic respect as men in many areas.
The rape of women serving in the military is a national disgrace and has been since women began serving.
We need to conden second class treatment wherever it appears–in other countries and our own.
Pennie
January 5, 2013 - 5:43 pm
That would be “condemn.”
MOTU
January 5, 2013 - 8:26 pm
“Those same arguments are being made today. And, thanks to the GOP and its spokespeople like Todd Akin, feminists making these arguments still sound cutting edge.”
If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a million times, how anyone can be Black, Gay or a woman and belong to the GOP is STILL WAY beyond me.
Martha Thomases
January 6, 2013 - 7:29 am
And then, there’s this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/05/us-usa-crime-ohio-idUSBRE9040BP20130105?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29.
Before we get too full of ourselves.
R. Maheras
January 6, 2013 - 11:26 am
Akin is not a spokesperson for the GOP. Those on the left merely frame him as a spokesperson because it suits their political purposes.
Frankly, in my conversations with Republicans over rhe past four or five decades, I don’t recall any of them ever saying such a stupid Akin-esque statement.
Martha — As for Condolezza, all I can say is “My, what a short memory you have!” Rice was criticized for all sorts of superficial bullshit when she was in a position of power — including her hair. Blacks accused her of being a “race-traitor” because she straightened her hair, and others routinely panned her for her “bland” hairstyles.
Mike Gold
January 6, 2013 - 2:00 pm
When it comes to astonishingly stupid sexual comments, Akin is most certainly no loner in the GOP — as has been well-documented, both here at MDW and in the 2012 elections.
I’m not a football fan, but Condolezza did have a bland hairstyle. After the Republicans dumped so much “ugly kid” shit onto Chelsea Clinton back when she was a kid living in the White House, it’ll be a while before I take these sort of comments from the Right as anything other than Massively childish hypocrisy.
Martha Thomases
January 6, 2013 - 2:46 pm
Todd Akin (and Mourdock, and Ryan, etc.) ran as Republicans, nominated and endorsed by the national party. Hence, they speak for the party (if not the entire party, at least for those who don’t publicly disagree).
Mike Gold
January 6, 2013 - 4:45 pm
Of course, this assumes there is a Republican Party. Right now, there isn’t. The leaders of the various factions (and more pop up every week) couldn’t agree where to go to lunch.
Last time I had lunch in Washington DC with a bunch of Republicans, it was at the Watergate. No shit. Not that I have lunch in Washington DC with a bunch of Republicans all the time. But at least they eat red meat.
R. Maheras
January 6, 2013 - 7:40 pm
That the Republican party is fractured is true enough. These things go in cycles. Once Obama’s final term is over, the Democrats may very well be in a disarray. They definitely got a wake up call in the 2010 mid-term elections. If not for Republican failure to build on their success because of party divisions and another weak slate of non-populist presidential candidates, 2012 could have been quite a bit different.
But the Democrats have had similar problems in the past, so they’d best not get too cocky.
Rene
January 7, 2013 - 12:38 pm
The GOP wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want to appeal to the crazy people who may favor racist, sexist, homophobic and/or Christian Dominionist ideas, but they also want to be able to turn around and disavow all of those so they can appeal to non-crazies.
Mike Gold
January 7, 2013 - 1:30 pm
The Democratic Party has never been united, Russ. You will recall Will Rogers’ famous statement, “I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.” (I couldn’t find a date on that one, but I sure as hell enjoyed reading a zillion other Rogers quotes while I wasn’t finding it.) Nonetheless, if the Democrats find themselves in disarray in 2016 then they will find themselves on quite familiar turf.
What’s odd is finding the Republicans in such disarray. I can’t remembr a time when it was a quarter as bad as it is now. Really, the current Republican Party represents positions so disparate they really should split into at least two parties. As should the Dems. Four parties: the business Republicans, the Tea Party, the centrist Democrats, and the Progressives. 50.1% of the popular vote wins it; if there’s no winner everybody who gets 25.1% or more goes to a run off. No sudden death overtime, and the five minute overtime rule is stupid.
Wait a minute. I drifted back into hockey again, didn’t I?
R. Maheras
January 7, 2013 - 3:20 pm
And professional hockey is finally on the horizon again!
George Haberberger
January 8, 2013 - 10:53 am
The misogynistic attitudes found in other cultures are absolutely an anathema in the United States. No one who has an ounce of empathy can excuse assault and rape as the fault of the victim. There is no doubt in my mind that anyone who believes otherwise lacks the ability to function in modern civilization.
Yet for second time in four months, Martha has attempted to draw a parallel between despicable actions in the Mid-East to attitudes in the United States. In October she wrote about Malala Yousafza, (https://mdwp.malibulist.com/2012/10/waiting-for-a-girl-like-you-by-martha-thomases-brilliant-disguise-mdworld/), who was shot by Muslin fundamentalists for going to school. She said at that time:
“This attitude is hardly limited to Muslims. Most fundamentalists – certainly the Christian, Catholic and Jewish ones – subscribe to it.”
Interesting distinction between “Christian” and “Catholic” that I missed last October. The idea that Catholicism is something other than Christian is a discussion I’ve had only with “Christian” fundamentalists. But that is not my point. As was agreed back in October there is a Grand Canyon of difference between attitudes of the patriarchal governments of the Mid-East and the US. Yet now, another brutal attack on a woman is considered just a hair’s breadth difference from the United States.
The rape and death of a woman in India has ominous connections to criticism of Hillary Clinton. Martha mitigates that claim a bit with:
“No, I’m not suggesting that Secretary Clinton is enduring something as brutal as being beaten and gang-raped. I’m saying that she is targeted in such a vicious, personal way because she is a woman.
“As a Clinton, she’s experienced this for the “better” part of two decades. I would argue that she receives extra crazy because she’s a woman. Take a look at the comments in this article about her hair styles. You won’t see anything similar in a story about a male Democrat, like Obama, or a female Republican, like Condaleeza Rice.”
The phrase that stands out for me is “I’m saying that she is targeted in such a vicious, personal way because she is a woman.” As if she alone is the most obvious and perhaps only example. Now I understand that Hillary has been the subject of unfair criticism but anything she has endured pales in comparison to death threats on Facebook, being hung in effigy, criticized for carrying a baby to term after she knew it had Downs Syndrome, (and only that after admitting it was really her baby and not her daughter’s) and being called the C-word and having a “slutty flight attendant look” by comedians.
And of course Sarah Palin rose to the office of governor by being elected to the city counsel, then the mayor’s office and then by opposing her own entrenched party. And she did not accomplish any of that by riding on the political coattails of a popular husband.
Needless to say when I think of female politicians who have been subjected to unfair criticism, Hillary Clinton is not my first thought.
Martha Thomases
January 8, 2013 - 11:02 am
I think there is a difference between Catholic fundamentalists and Protestant fundamentalists, hence my distinction.
And if you like Sarah Palin, mazel tov. Enjoy. Again, the fact that I didn’t use her as my example is my choice as a writer. Although I don’t believe she’s been accused of murdering Vince Foster to cover up her lesbian drug-running ring, as Hillary was.
Mike Gold
January 8, 2013 - 11:13 am
Really, George? You’re going to make your stand on Sarah Palin? A completely stupid idiot who couldn’t pass a high school civics class and lacked the gumption to actually finish her one and only term as governor? A quitter, a whiner, a fool and a clown? Her gender doesn’t give her a pass, and criticizing her for being a quitter, a whiner, a fool and a clown is not anti-woman. It’s pro-reality.
Rene
January 8, 2013 - 12:17 pm
Comparing the situation of women in some places in Africa and Asia to even the worst that the West has to offer is like comparing the Ebola virus to the common cold.
I’m honest enough to say that the problem lies in a disconnect in liberal ideology. Liberals are supposed to hold women’s rights as sacrossant, but they are also supposed to have infinite respect for other cultures, and infinite x10 respect if said culture is non-white.
It’s like a Asimov robot conflicted when two or more of the Laws conflict with one another. So a Liberal that criticizes what happens in India will have to take extra care to not appear “racist” or “imperialist”.
In other words, I agree with half of what George says. But man, Sarah Palin is one of the sorriest public figures ever to appear in the US. George W. Bush really lowered the standards.
George Haberberger
January 8, 2013 - 12:28 pm
Mike,
Your assertion that Palin could not pass a high school civics class is an unfounded opinion. Unless you have evidence at the ready of a civics class that she did indeed fail, you are just making stuff up. I might as well claim that the president was born in Kenya.
Some facts about Palin: She was elected as a city councilor for two terms; elected mayor for two terms, she was president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors, appointed chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, elected governor of Alaska (Alaska’s first female governor and youngest governor), served as the chairman of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, served as the vice chair of the National Governors Association Natural Resource Committee.
As the governor of Alaska she was the executive over 16,000 full-time state employees and a $12 billion budget. In comparison, when Bill Clinton ran?for president in 1992, Arkansas’s state budget was $2 million and among the smallest in the country. Alaska is larger than all but 18 sovereign countries
She was the commander in chief of Alaska’s National Guard.
She had more executive responsibility and control than the governors of all other states except Massachusetts based on budgetary and appointment authority and veto power, among other things.
She fought corrupt big oil companies and exposed their ties to corrupt politicians
She increased educational funding for children with special needs
She implemented the Senior Benefits Program to support low-income seniors
She reformed Alaska’s public employee retirement system to make it solvent
She created the Alaska’s Petroleum Integrity Office to oversee all aspects of energy development.
She cut spending and vetoed hundreds of millions of dollars in spending, not because times were tough, but because she wanted to keep government small and solvent.?She reformed Alaska’s pension system and used surplus dollars to help pay down underfunded pensions, which reduced Alaska’s liabilities by 34.6 % to help provide analysts at Moody’s with enough confidence to later upgrade Alaska’s credit rating to AAA.?She also reduced earmark requests for the state of Alaska by 80% during her administration.
During Palin’s first year in office, three of her administration’s major proposed pieces of legislation passed—an overhaul of the state’s ethics laws, a competitive process to construct a natural gas pipeline and a restructuring of Alaska’s oil valuation formula.
Sarah Palin’s “business experience” comes with the negotiations and dealings she has had with one of the most powerful industries in the world: the energy industry. Palin has successfully negotiated new tax structures, lease deals and other issues that arise in the Alaska energy industry. Sarah Palin negotiated billion dollar deals with one of the toughest industries in the world.
Regarding her resignation as governor: At the time she had spent $500,000 of her own money to fight harassment lawsuits.
From Bill Whittle: “At least fifteen ethics complaints had been leveled against Governor Palin, and all of them have been dismissed as baseless. But that’s beside the point, isn’t it? Decent people, like most of you out there, probably don’t appreciate just how easy it is to destroy someone of integrity if you have no integrity of your own.
Here’s how it works. Fifteen assorted bloggers and miscreants of various stripes launch unsubstantiated ethics complaints against the Governor of Alaska, who, because of Alaska state law, is not immune from having to fight them. Fifteen charges of corruption – no matter whether they are true or not – means that the public hears nothing but the words “Palin” and “Corruption” being solemnly reported by the press. Even the phrase “cleared of corruption charges” makes that subconscious connection.
And that’s all it takes: false accusations. Consider this:
Bill Clinton spent every second of his Presidency – every second – knowing exactly what to say if the words “Paula Jones” or “Gennifer Flowers” or “Monica Lewinski” came up in conversation, or at a press conference, or even in the middle of deep sleep. If Hillary just whispered the words:
“Monica Lewinski”
…Bill would bolt upright in bed and sputter: “I did not have sex with that woman! Whichever one you mentioned!”
He’s ready for accusations because he knows he’s guilty. That’s what guilty people do all day: work on the explanation and the alibi. But an innocent person, when charged with corruption or lying or worse – well, it shakes them to the core, the same way it would shake you to your core if you were accused of some heinous act you did not commit. And if these false accusations came at you again and again and again, how many times would it take before you said, to hell with this. Who needs this? This is destroying my family. A guilty person has that factored going in; it’s part of their mental equation. But it’s enough to drive an innocent person out, and that was the goal. Wasn’t it?
There’s a reason the word Satan means “the Accuser” in Hebrew, and why “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” is one of the Ten Commandments. A false accusation against an innocent person is often more effective than a real accusation is against a guilty one.”
The rest of it is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmEE61iVhCA
It is named “Bill Whittle on the Sarah Palin Haters”. I think you probably qualify.
Mike Gold
January 8, 2013 - 12:41 pm
Yeah, yeah, Sarah beat the rap on the ethics charges. So next time I’ll vote for her lawyer. The statements she made during the campaign clearly showed she had little clue as to how the government operates or, indeed, what the government consists of and the constitutional functions of its sundry agencies. She showed the public by her very statements that she could not pass a high school civics class. She is maliciously uninformed.
And she’s a quitter. She couldn’t be bothered to finish the work the people of her state elected her to do.
Indeed, in the past couple years Sarah has become anathema to the Republican Party. Much like Mitt Romney, actually. Those fan club meetings must be getting pretty lonely.
George Haberberger
January 8, 2013 - 1:45 pm
“And she’s a quitter. She couldn’t be bothered to finish the work the people of her state elected her to do.”
Would you spend $500,000 to fight nuisance lawsuits?
“She showed the public by her very statements that she could not pass a high school civics class.”
So… no evidence at the ready? I guess I’m justified in saying the president was born in Kenya,
Rene
January 8, 2013 - 1:50 pm
Hey George, did you hear that old joke, what is the difference between Clinton and Bush?
Clinton fucked Monica Lewinski.
Bush fucked the world.
Neil C.
January 9, 2013 - 10:26 pm
Holy hell, just because you keep writing doesn’t mean that Sarah Palin is intelligent. She has never shown any desire to learn (“What papers do you read?” “All of them!”). Just because a person has the same views as you do doesn’t make them smart.
George Haberberger
January 10, 2013 - 6:06 am
Did you read the list of her accomplishments that I listed above?
Just because a person has different views from you doesn’t make them stupid.
Neil C.
January 10, 2013 - 7:22 am
It’s not the views, it’s the way when she talks it kind of turns into a word salad.
Reg
January 10, 2013 - 10:22 am
Realignment tweak…”It is my fondest hope that the righteous anger of the Indian people will prove to be contagious…”
Carry on.
George Haberberger
January 10, 2013 - 12:19 pm
Palin does not always help herself when speaking extemporaneously but that is not an indication of lack of intelligence, just perhaps a bit of self-consciousness. Many people do not come off well when not on a teleprompter and the president is one of them. Vice-President Joe Biden is a much more accurate example of your word salad description.
Palin gave a rousing acceptance speech at the Republican convention in 2008, (which put the McCain ticket up several points in the polls after being down about 4), and the teleprompter failed about halfway through but that was not obvious because she maintained her composure. She had not yet been exposed to the hostility and vindictiveness that would emerge in the next few weeks and still exists today.
Martha Thomses
January 10, 2013 - 2:00 pm
Palin thought Africa was a country.
George Haberberger
January 10, 2013 - 3:26 pm
“Palin thought Africa was a country.”
Really? You have hard evidence that she believed that? Or is this just another example of the hostility and vindictiveness that I reference above?
Go here:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2008/11/hoaxer_claims_credit_for_palin.html
Or here:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/palin_africacontinent_statements_prove_to_be_a_hoax/
Or here to hear her explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNQLBSHckQ8
Pennie
January 10, 2013 - 4:02 pm
Plain is a disgrace. She is the living embodiment of a political satire–except she is serious. Accomplishments?
“You can fool some of the people…”
Pennie
January 10, 2013 - 4:02 pm
Yeah, Plain.
George Haberberger
January 10, 2013 - 4:17 pm
Well I was criticized by Neil for writing so much but I really didn’t “write” anything. My second post on the 8th was largely just a list of her accomplishments that you dismiss out of hand.
Did you even bother to read them?
I see that my response to Martha’s post about “Palin thought Africa was a country.” is awaiting moderation probably because there are 3 links in it. One of those links is a video of Palin responding to that charge and the other two reveal the story as a hoax. Hopefully the post will go up soon. Or you could just google “Palin Africa” like I did.
Martha Thomses
January 10, 2013 - 4:33 pm
In any case, all of us who dislike Palin dislike her for reasons that have nothing to do with her gender. We dislike her politics, and I, personally, have problems with her character.
Pennie
January 10, 2013 - 4:58 pm
And I have problems with her lack of integrity; inability to form coherent, meaningful, sentences; and political stances. Not gender. Then again, she is a disgrace to women everywhere. Other than that, she’s just grand.
George Haberberger
January 10, 2013 - 6:08 pm
“In any case,… ”
What does that mean? That: “Okay she didn’t say Africa was a country, I just wanted to believe it.” ?
You don’t have to like her. Just be honest about why you hate her. She’s not stupid. She just has different opinions than you. Kind of Tim Tebow about whom Arthur said you disliked even though you don’t care about football.
And you say you don’t dislike her because of her gender yet this column started as an indictment of those critical of Hillary and you opined that; “I would argue that she receives extra crazy because she’s a woman.”
So criticism of Hillary is sexist but criticism of Palin is because of her values and positions?
Pennie, Palin has plenty of integrity and the ability to form coherent meaningful sentences.
Again check her list of accomplishments. I don’t know about yours but mine are nowhere near as impressive. Her political stances are fair game but if they are cause for hate then you have to hate half the country.
Martha Thomses
January 10, 2013 - 6:11 pm
George, my column reflects my opinions. They are not your opinions. Accept it and move on. By the wy, I know more about my opinions than Arthur does.
George Haberberger
January 10, 2013 - 8:17 pm
Oh, I am very aware that my opinions are not your opinions. I just thought your opinions would be consistent regarding reasons for disliking someone.
You certainly should know more about your opinions than Arthur but a year ago he wrote:
“The funny thing about this whole Tebow thing is that my parents hate him. A few weeks back I was visiting home and the Broncos were playing the Bears. My parents both knew who Tim Tebow was and that they didn’t like him, my mom even heckled him during his postgame interview. When pressed they revealed that they knew the names of zero other NFL players.”
You subsequently posted that “My problem is less with Tim Tebow than the news media coverage of him.”
Okay, but heckling him during a post-game interview? Why even watch a post-game interview if the media’s coverage is your issue?
My presumption is that both Palin and Tebow have similar Pro-Life views. That is reason enough some to want them to shut up and move on.
Martha Thomases
January 11, 2013 - 7:11 am
I never said anything about the so-called “pro-life” views of Palin or Tebow in this column.
Why would I watch a post-game interview with Tim Tebow? Gee, I don’t know, my son was home, my husband was dying, we were spending time together as a family. Yelling at the television when something stupid is said is what we do. Since my husband had lung cancer, he couldn’t join in with his usual elan, so I was trying to pick up the slack. With luck, I could make him laugh.
Is that pro-family enough for you?
Neil C.
January 11, 2013 - 7:54 am
The only thing I have against Tim Tebow is that he’s not an NFL quarterback (not that Mark Sanchez seems to be, too). I respect his beliefs, because, at least during interviews with the sports media, he doesn’t preach. Anyone can have any belief, it’s when they are a zealot about it and need to prove that their way is ‘the only way’ that I have problems.
George Haberberger
January 11, 2013 - 10:35 am
“I never said anything about the so-called “pro-life” views of Palin or Tebow in this column.”
I know. I said it was a presumption. A presumption based on previous columns and posts that that is what would account for your position that criticism of Hillary is has no justification so it must be sexism, and criticism of Palin is perfectly justified, so sexism cannot be charged.
No, I don’t believe that your dislike of Palin has anything to do with her gender. Is it so impossible then to believe that… well I almost wrote dislike but that would not be true. I don’t dislike Hillary. I just don’t agree with some of her politics. So is it so impossible that criticism of Hillary has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her politics?
“Is that pro-family enough for you?”
Absolutely, but you infer something I did not imply or intend to imply.
Rene
January 11, 2013 - 11:09 am
I don’t like the Tebow bashing.
I am all for bashing politicians or organizations that try to impose their religious beliefs on others. But Tebow is just one guy.
Pennie
January 11, 2013 - 4:30 pm
George, you wrote, “Pennie, Palin has plenty of integrity and the ability to form coherent meaningful sentences. Again check her list of accomplishments. I don’t know about yours but mine are nowhere near as impressive. Her political stances are fair game but if they are cause for hate then you have to hate half the country.”
I don’t hate Plain. I just object to the items I mentioned previously.
I’m not here to crow about my accomplishments. They are real and possibly more significant than Plain’s in the long run.
I am not going to get into a penis contest of “whose accomplishments are bigger.” I don’t possess a penis nor do I think there is anything to be gained.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree about, well, everything about Plain. Out.
Neil C.
January 11, 2013 - 8:53 pm
Rene,
I only bash Tebow for his inability to throw a football consistently. 😛 My Jets have become a circus.
George Haberberger
January 12, 2013 - 10:22 am
Pennie,
“I don’t hate Plain. I just object to the items I mentioned previously.”
What things that you mentioned previously? That she’s a disgrace, the living embodiment of political satire? Or, the lack of integrity and the inability to form coherent meaningful sentences?
Those things are more a matter of perception and bias than actual fact.
“I’m not here to crow about my accomplishments. They are real and possibly more significant than Plain’s in the long run.”
Wow. Congratulations!
Have you increased educational funding for children with special needs??
Have you implemented a Senior Benefits Program to support low-income seniors??
Have you reformed your state’s public employee retirement system to make it solvent?
Have your action’s enabled Moody’s Investment Service to upgrade your state’s credit rating to AAA?
If your accomplishments are, as you say, “possibly more significant” than Palin’s, you must concede that her accomplishments ARE indeed significant.
Yeah I know you don’t want to get into a pissing contest, but I’m pinch-hitting for a another person and you are essentially anonymous. Maybe Martha, Michael Davis and Mike Gold know you but I do not. So if “Pennie” is a pseudonym Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I am way out on a limb here.
“We’ll just have to agree to disagree about, well, everything about Plain.“
I think I’ve always known that would be the case.
Martha Thomses
January 12, 2013 - 11:17 am
Pennie is no more anonymous than you are, George (if that is your real name).
George Haberberger
January 12, 2013 - 12:25 pm
You can google George Haberberger. I just came up first with my LinkedIn profile,
Also my Facebook account came up.
It is my real full name. I don’t post anything if I am not willing to stand behind it.
Googling “Pennie” yielded Chris Pennie, Collins Pennie and then Pennie Lane and 3,090,000 others in .2 seconds.
Martha Thomases
January 12, 2013 - 12:31 pm
Try this: https://mdwp.malibulist.com/2011/05/rock’n’roll-heart-by-martha-thomases-with-special-guest-pennie-ruchman-brilliant-disguise/
Pennie
January 12, 2013 - 2:26 pm
Shucks, i I liked Pennie Lane, even though the song spells Penny in the more common for,.
Pennie
January 12, 2013 - 2:28 pm
I just re- read your link Martha. Avant le deluge…
George Haberberger
January 13, 2013 - 3:07 pm
Martha,
Yes that link helps. But Pennie doesn’t post as Pennie Ruchman and I don’t think I was reading your columns back in April of 2011. If I did read it, I didn’t remember Pennie’s last name.
But the situation is as I surmised. Pennie is a personal friend of yours, Mike and probably Michael Davis. I know you also know Howard Cruse who posts here regularly. I’m beginning to think I may be the only poster that reads these columns out of an interest in the views expressed and not because the writer is a friend.
Reg
January 13, 2013 - 7:17 pm
And almost 30 days to the day a repeat of the horrific acts of barbarism & violence against women has occurred in India as 7 males (including the bus driver) rape yet another woman.
I truly hope that the devastation and evil that has been wrought upon these women will serve as kindling that will spark and ignite revolution across India…and Europe…and Africa. But then, what to do about our ‘friends’ with the refineries as it seems that it does not bode well to be a maid.