I received an email this morning asking if I was okay and it made me realize I shouldn't go silent for a week at a time without an explanation. I apologize for being so thoughtless. Life got crazy this week. It happens. I've been writing but not finishing, as my attention has been drawn towards the needs of an ill family member.
Bonnie, and all who wondered and care about me - I love you, too. I'm happy to say that I'm okay and I'll be posting sometime this weekend.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Shailey Tripp Threatened by Todd Palin's Associate
Let's say you are financially marginal. Let's say you are a mother. Now, imagine opening an email one day and reading this:
Like I said, hire yourself a VERY good lawyer. We will not tolerate you. I have the endorsement of palin himself.
You just spent 40 seconds imagining yourself in Shailey Tripp’s shoes.
No, not Shailey’s new shoes; not the ones she was standing in yesterday delivering a speech about the mistreatment, abuse, and exploitation of women. No, not new shoes; you tried on an old pair. What I quoted is from an April 2010 email which can be found in its entirety on page 256 of the book “Boys Will be Boys: Media, Morality, and the Cover-up of the Todd Palin Shailey Tripp Sex Scandal.”
I don't know why I assumed that Shailey’s arrest in March 2010 ended her career as a prostitute and cut her ties to Todd Palin. It was when I read her manuscript I learned those assumptions were wrong...VERY WRONG.
In Shailey’s memoir, Todd and the author of the email above (whom she names) are exposed in their attempts to get Shailey to go big time, to sign a contract with them – a contract with a minimum starting salary of $80,000 and bonuses that would take it into six figures. Applicants for the position get interviewed in hotel rooms because “of the nature of the interview,” and the interviewer tells Shailey (his potential new hire) that the other reason for using the hotel room is to “make sure I am not talking to law enforcement.” (I guess if law enforcement were wearing a wire it would be discovered when the clothes came off. ) That same “businessmen” asks for pictures and says “my girls will only work up to 3 days per week.” The enticements end and the email culminates with “Todd P. has vouched for you, you come highly recommended.”
Shailey Tripp did not say no immediately, but when she did say it - said no to Todd Palin and his business partner - she received the threatening email above. I would imagine that wasn’t the only threat she received. Maybe she received many. There’s some stuff Shay is saving for another time, and certainly I don’t know.
What I do know is that the one email above would convince me to leave Alaska. No one should live like that – looking over your shoulder for Todd Palin or one of his thugs.
There’s no doubt Todd Palin can be menacing. We got a sense of it (thanks to Palingates ) in the video shot by an Alaskan citizen at an airport in 2010. From Immoral Minority we heard Todd pulled a gun on Levi Johnston. Shailey Tripp says there were times he grabbed her arm roughly when he was angry. And in the last bunch of email released, we find the Anchorage Daily News trying to get the facts about a newsworthy confrontation of Levi by the First Dude. That must have been some argument, maybe the one Gryphen heard about. Anecdotal evidence like that is reason enough for the people of Alaska to avoid pissing off the aging spouse of the governor who bailed out after serving two years. Besides, Alaskan culture imposes the expectation that everyone mind their own business. All of this works well for Todd. No one is speaking up about “Boys Will Be Boys” – the expose by Shailey Tripp of Todd Palin’s deep involvement in sex trafficking.
In this political climate where women are under attack, Sarah Palin’s husband is peddling his influence, and probably peddling his prostitutes in order to get Palin-friendly people in office. Newt Gingrich thanked Todd Palin Tuesday night in his victory speech after winning the primary race in Georgia. He thanked a man who has been exposed for running an interstate prostitution ring! What’s coming next from the right wing – a bill to require women to undergo clitoral circumcision? Other countries run by barbaric men have such laws, is Todd more evolved? Is Newt? Surely their leader Rush Limbaugh isn’t. Are you ready to do something about it? I have ideas.
It’s Shailey’s book that’s going to bring Sarah Palin down. When the media can no longer ignore Todd Palin’s involvement in sex trafficking, the Palin dynasty will fall. Everything will be exposed. The media will have weeks worth of material once they begin. Todd, once arrested under the Mann Act (there’s a name that works) will not have any power to stop the media from exposing Babygate. Our job should be to clamor for Shailey’s book to be reviewed, let people know where to buy it, and to insist that the law look into Todd Palin’s activities.
There’s plenty of evidence, according to Shailey. She told us on her blog that there are several copies of all her documents, and a set has been left with her lawyer, being held as evidence in case the Palin’s come after her. Have you noticed the Amazon.com listing for “Boys Will Be Boys” says this is “Volume One”? I’ve not asked Shay about that, specifically, but I’m pretty happy with the thought she’s going to put more documents out in another book. Don’t you just love this woman? She is the best hope for us Truthers who want to see Palin’s exposed for the frauds they are. For the danger they are. Let’s help.
Here are some ideas. If we each did one thing each day, it would have an impact. The more of them we do, the quicker we can see results. Let's start a buzz about Todd Palin by making calls and sending email.
Call or email some of these organizations and individuals:
- the Gingrich campaign and tell them Todd Palin is a pimp. Tell them you wouldn’t vote for Newt because of Todd.
- your favorite local news, ask them to carry the story of Todd being implicated in sex trafficking across state lines
- your favorite cable and national news personalities
- Local university libraries. They got a complimentary copy of “Boys Will Be Boys." Tell them it is an important book for students and faculty in politics, social, and women's studies.
- Faculty at local universities who teach Women’s Studies. Ask them to bring Ms. Tripp to campus for a seminar open to the community as an educational event (this is Women’s History month, and if not this year, next year)
- Local churches, ask them to sponsor an appearance by Shailey Tripp to speak to young women and teenage girls
- Your local library, ask for the book; ask them to start a waiting list in case they decide to buy it. Get your friends to call, too.
- Public and private high school librarians. Tell them you think this book has an important message for that age group. (It has a couple raw descriptions of sex, but nothing today’s 16 year olds aren’t doing ).
- The FBI and tell them to do an investigation.
- The Alaska state police, tell them to do an investigation.
- The Washington state police, tell them to do an investigation.
- The IRS, tell them to look into the Palin's income from prostitution
- Put a book review on Amazon.com
- Comment on online reports that mention Rush and the "prostitute" comment, or mention Palin in any way, or in news about the Gingrich campaign. Mention the book and author by name.
- Send a letter to the editor
- Put a notice on Craigslist
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
"Game Change" - Sarah Palin's Trojan Horse?
For Truthers another highly anticipated date approaches . March 10th, HBO premieres “Game Change.” The movie, like last year’s Palin books, is the current now-people-will- see-the –real-Sarah piece of merchandising we’ve built up in our minds and on our blogs. Well, I’d advise not to pop the cork on the champagne when the title appears on the screen. Wait until the credits roll and see if you still feel like celebrating.
Yesterday morning on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Jonn Halperin, co-author of “Game Change” was shown about a 30 second clip of a 2 ½ minute movie “trailer” created by SarahPAC to rebut the upcoming HBO movie version of the book and asked to comment. The pro-Sarah donation-funded advertisement says exactly what you’d expect, i.e. the movie gets it wrong. Actual footage of cheering crowds, enamored reporters, and the McCain team’s grandiose descriptions of the accomplishments of the sitting governor, all move across the screen in rapid-fire succession. Ho hum.
Halperin’s reaction is that they (Sarah and her team) are assuming this movie is negative. But, he says, the movie is very sympathetic toward her. He says they had a screening in Seattle this past weekend, the movie was shown to an audience of 500 “mostly not pro-Palin people andwhen it was over, they were asked how many felt more sympathetic toward the VP candidate after seeing the movie. Almost everyone had a hand in the air Mr. Halperin goes on to say it is “largely sympathetic.” “It’s going to be uniting,” for the Republicans.
Again this morning, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski had Game Change on their minds. Both of the co-authors were on the show, MarkHalperin joining with Mark Halperin to discuss and promote “Game Change, ” and Julianne Moore, too.
This time Joe and Mika said they’d been to a preview. Their descriptions work in Sarah’s favor, too:
I don’t know about you, but my enthusiasm has been replaced with trepidation. For years, we’ve heard about Sarah’s ability to come back after being written off, to come from behind, to pull of a political imitation of Lazarus, and yet, we Truthers fall for the next book, the next movie, whatever…. Every time!
I’d love to be proven wrong. We will know very soon.
“Game Change” the movie may be the game changer for public opinion of Sarah that puts her in a better position on Sunday morning than she’s been in a long time. March 11, we may wake up to pundits raving about the movie, talking about the hockey mom who was so badly mistreated that the fact that she survived at all shows she is a superwoman, supermom, superpatriot, and the reincarnation of Queen Esther. This could be a nightmare. One more time, Sarah Palin might be the hottest thing the Republicans have to offer in their stumbling, bumbling, awkward sack race to the national convention.
Yup, “Game Change” may turn out to be the Republican Party’s launching of Sarah Palin 2.0 - refurbished and sold “as is” to those who love the brand and can’t find a new, untarnished version.
How can it be? Allison, you are wrong. You MUST be wrong. Please, say you are joking. (See? I can argue with myself, too.) But here’s the key to Sarah’s return - sympathy. It's a key she wears around her neck. Mom of a child with Down Syndrome. Mom of an unwed teenage daughter. Mom of a deployed soldier. First female governor who took on the "good ole boys." Wife of a man wrongly accused (ha- read this) of cheating. A mother who is stung by the insensitivity of David Letterman (has she said anything to the parents of Sandra Fluke about Rush's beyond crude comments or their having been deemed "entertainment" or .simply "inappropriate" by GOP leaders? - NO.) Sarah wants all the sympathy and leaves none for anyone else. It's been a gold mine for her.
Yesterday morning on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Jonn Halperin, co-author of “Game Change” was shown about a 30 second clip of a 2 ½ minute movie “trailer” created by SarahPAC to rebut the upcoming HBO movie version of the book and asked to comment. The pro-Sarah donation-funded advertisement says exactly what you’d expect, i.e. the movie gets it wrong. Actual footage of cheering crowds, enamored reporters, and the McCain team’s grandiose descriptions of the accomplishments of the sitting governor, all move across the screen in rapid-fire succession. Ho hum.
Halperin’s reaction is that they (Sarah and her team) are assuming this movie is negative. But, he says, the movie is very sympathetic toward her. He says they had a screening in Seattle this past weekend, the movie was shown to an audience of 500 “mostly not pro-Palin people andwhen it was over, they were asked how many felt more sympathetic toward the VP candidate after seeing the movie. Almost everyone had a hand in the air Mr. Halperin goes on to say it is “largely sympathetic.” “It’s going to be uniting,” for the Republicans.
Yesterday I watched it live and found it on the MSNBC site for Morning Joe. Today I'm having problems with it. Here's a link to another site, Real Clear Politics, reporting with an opinion different from mine, where you can watch the clip and consider an opposing view:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cts=1331059889966&ved=0CDMQqQIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com%2Fvideo%2F2012%2F03%2F05%2Fgame_change_author_halperin_palin_just_assuming_movie_is_a_smear.html&ei=c1pWT9aXE8Tg0QHcy7y8Cg&usg=AFQjCNGCaNKbf4HFXLVkf-XQlf2pr7BTFA&sig2=J8_A2oCzK2UBe5AvE_uEvA
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cts=1331059889966&ved=0CDMQqQIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com%2Fvideo%2F2012%2F03%2F05%2Fgame_change_author_halperin_palin_just_assuming_movie_is_a_smear.html&ei=c1pWT9aXE8Tg0QHcy7y8Cg&usg=AFQjCNGCaNKbf4HFXLVkf-XQlf2pr7BTFA&sig2=J8_A2oCzK2UBe5AvE_uEvA
Again this morning, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski had Game Change on their minds. Both of the co-authors were on the show, MarkHalperin joining with Mark Halperin to discuss and promote “Game Change, ” and Julianne Moore, too.
This time Joe and Mika said they’d been to a preview. Their descriptions work in Sarah’s favor, too:
Sympathetic
Balanced
Sympathetic
Accurate
Sympathetic
It’s the story of a woman
Recently given birth
Plucked from obscurity
Put on national stage
Recently found out her daughter was pregnant
Son about to deeply to Iraq
Sympathetic
Sympathetic
People around her did not have her best interest at heart
Not well informed about some areas of international politics
Treated cruelly
Sympathetic
A mom separated from her kids
Sympathetic
I don’t know about you, but my enthusiasm has been replaced with trepidation. For years, we’ve heard about Sarah’s ability to come back after being written off, to come from behind, to pull of a political imitation of Lazarus, and yet, we Truthers fall for the next book, the next movie, whatever…. Every time!
What has Sarah used to her advantage as much as her female identity? Maybe Trig, but technically he is an offshoot. She’s never a “parent” she’s a “mom,” be it a “Hockey mom”or the “mother of a combat vet” or “Trig’s mother.” Her story about being pregnant and over 40 sells over and over, no man can touch it and no thinking woman who sees the March 2008 pictures of her can believe it but still, it sells. You never hear Todd Palin say “when our daughter Bristol came to us and told us she was pregnant…”; no, it’s a much more sympathetic phrase when it comes from Sarah. She winks, she licks her lips, she crosses her legs wearing short skirts. She thrusts out her chest. She wears stupidly high heels. And she interjects sexual references into her challenges, her complaints, and her excuses. All the while, she complains that she's been the victim of sexism.
Good grief, "Game Change” is going to do more for the sympathetic female image Sarah wants to promote than “The Undefeated,” ever could. That’s my fear. That’s my prediction.
Good grief, "Game Change” is going to do more for the sympathetic female image Sarah wants to promote than “The Undefeated,” ever could. That’s my fear. That’s my prediction.
While I don’t like the looks of this one bit, I’m going to have to sign up for HBO just to see this for myself. In my gut, I know I’m opening the gates and inviting the Trojan Horse inside the walls of my sanctuary. I hope I’m wrong, but I believe history teaches lessons. I believe the Palins’ history shows clear patterns, and in this case it’s Sarah’s pattern of making a comeback that I fear. It’s what she does. If you can’t watch the movie Saturday night, tune in to the Sunday morning and Monday morning talk shows. We’ll be hearing the concensus together 12 – 48 hours after the credits roll.
I’d love to be proven wrong. We will know very soon.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Shailey and Sarah and Sandra Fluke - American Attitudes About Women
Maybe I was disgusted by having re-read Sarah Palin's comment about "boys will be boys" but a woman involved with them was "some broad." Perhaps I was inspired by Shailey standing up for herself and publishing her book. Or maybe it was seeing clips of pompous Rush Limbaugh calling a 30 year old named Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute because she testified in front of congress on behalf of women who use birth control pills. Worse than that, though, was the filthy idea that she should submit to being videotaped for his pleasured viewing.
It's possible, too, that the comment by the biggest donor to the Santorum campaign was partly to blame. (You know the one about holding an asprin between the knees.) Then, again, I've been angry and amazed for weeks now while lawmakers from hell back the idea of forcing women to have vaginal ultrasounds, and congress prepared to vote on the Blunt amendment which would allow anyone to give any reason to deny health insurance to hard working American employees. Just say, "I morally object" and the corporations (ie "people" without heart nor soul) can save themselves gazillions.
Whatever it was, I was primed to take on the jerk in the train conductor's uniform who tried to bully me Thursday evening. I was ready to settle in to my long commute and finish up a posting for The Palin Place, when he chose me to humiliate. He picked the wrong person. I'm small but I'm fiesty. I'm female, but I'm not a second class citizen. I documented what happened on that train and it took my whole commute home and back in to work this morning. Then I sent it off to the president of the railroad. Because of that, I didn't get to finish that post yet, and maybe that will turn out to be serendipitous. Instead, I'm going to share the letter I sent, and you all get a glimpse into one American woman's experience during this season of political actions directed at restricting women, taking away our choice and our health care. Then there's letting Rush calling a sexually active 30 year old a slut. I'm mad.
Just to help you guys understand the difference between living in this America as a female versus being male in our country - quick, give me the word that is the male equivalent. of "slut."
So, here's what I sent off to the president of the railroad today. I'll redact here and there to protect the innocent but not the guilty.
Dear. Mr. [redacted]
Let me first say I am a regular commuter from [redacted] to [redacted]. I have never had a problem with any [railroad] employee, and in fact, in the four years of my daily commuting, I have been so pleased with the assistance of people in your main offices on three separate occasions -when I’ve lost my pass, lost personal belongings, and had a ticket dispenser fail to spit out a ticket-- that I have even taken the time to write to you to report exceptional service. In other words, I’m not a complainer.
Your Pledge to Customers begins with a claim that your "top priority is to provide transportation that gets you to your destination safely, comfortably and on time." I felt threatened by an employee's behavior last night, and was made extremely uncomfortable. I will explain, but before that, I quote the next sentence in your pledge, where it says "...anticipated deman d so as to provide a seat for every customer and conductors will enforce rules to maximize seat availability." That is the part the employee in my unfortunate experience will use in his defense. I will explain why it is no defense to him at all.
It is giving me no pleasure to spend my evening commute to write a complaint. But because, as an organization, you have earned my trust and respect, I believe you really do want to hear about my being treated menacingly today. Conductor Christopher Duffy on the 4:45 pm train to [redacted] acted in a manner that was in violation of the [redacted] Pledge to Customers that was, ironically posted above and behind me as he singled me out for loud and public humiliation. His verbal assault on me was irrational, his finger pointing toward another woman was inexplicable, and I felt threatened by the severe anger and unreasonableness on display in Mr. Duffy. I am afraid it will happen again, to me or to others, and you need to know.
Here are the facts. I got on in [redacted] and took a seat in the second car from the front, my back to the door. As you know, this is a quad of seats, facing each other, and in my location I faced row upon row of other commuters. These seats are uncomfortable if all four are filled, as knees bump and there are no racks above them for storage. They are not desirable seats, they are always the last to be taken. I know this because I get on in [redacted] and seats are always hard to find.
Opposite me, in one of the two seats facing me was a woman I did not know. I set my bag and my purse on a seat, and took off my coat as the train began moving – next stop [40 minutes away]. When the conductor made the announcement, he was particularly jocular, warning that those in the quiet car must not have contact with the outside world, etc, etc, and saying, too, that people should remove their feet and belongings from seats to make all seating available. I understand that. As I said, getting on in [redacted] means “good” seats are hard to find. Sure, there are lots of center seats in the three seat sets. Those seats are as undesirable as the remaining seats in a quad after two are filled. Lots of people stand rather than take any of those. These cars are from the early 70s. People are bigger today. So middle seats are a very tight fit.and in the seats like mine, some stranger is facing you, and there isn't room for four people, their knees, and their packages. You know all this, I'm sure.
When I heard the announcement, I looked at the racks above the seats closest to the end where I was (again, there are no racks above end seats) and I took note that they were full quite a distance down both sides. I also looked around and saw a clear seat opposite me (the other woman had her purse on the floor), and an available seat across the aisle where two men were seated, one with a backpack on the seat next to him and the other taking one seat and leaving clear the next-to-him-aisle seat (the one where a person would sit knee between knees with another rider.) It may have been apparent that I was looking for rack space because this woman facing me, who later introduced herself as [redacted], told me the conductor would make me move my coat from the seat. I thought that was unlikely, and I left my things where they were.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Christopher Duffy came into the car, walking quickly, and went up to three young men standing in the center of the car where there are doors. He pointed in the direction where I was (I could see him because I was facing that way) and said “there are seats, go get seats.” It was an order. It was not a suggestion. All three walked up the aisle and passed up center seats and even some empty seats where, in sets of two there was only one person and a bag, purse, or backpack on the other seat. All three passed up the empty aisle seat that faced the man in the quad set across from me. All of them passed on the seat next to that man – a seat with a satchel on it. All three passed up the seat in the middle of the first row of three across the aisle - a take-out drink container was on that seat. None of them took the empty seat opposite me and next to the other woman. They all continued on to the front car.
Mr. Duffy then hurried back up the car, passing the other passengers who had various things on seats, including the one with the drink sitting on a seat, and came directly up to me, pointed to my things and barked “GET THAT STUFF OFF THE SEAT! I SAID MOVE THAT STUFF.” It was loud, abrasive and rude. There was no reason to yell. I had done nothing to single myself out. In fact, the train had left [redacted] eight minutes before I got on in [redacted], and in the car I was in there were seats up and down (I later counted at least 10) being taken up by backpacks, parcels and coats. What was going on?
I said in a polite tone of voice, “There is no rack space for my things.”
He got red in the face, turned around, and with the attention of everyone in the facing half of the car, pointed about six rows down and said loudly “There’s room down there.”
It was above someone’s head, and not easily accessible. The train was moving, I would be stepping over this other rider and her purse, and while it seemed unreasonable, I was willing to comply.
“Would you help me, then?” I asked. “I’m short, and that space is above other passengers. It’s difficult for me to reach that.”
At first he huffed, and glared. He said “No, you put that stuff up there. Do it now.”
This was when I knew something was more wrong than my having a coat on my seat. It was personal. I didn’t know why it was personal. I’d never had any run-in with Mr. Duffy or any conductor.
Yes, the "Pledge" says conductors will enforce the rules. That's fine. But it says in the same sentence "to maximize seat availability." If Mr. Duffy were maximizing availability, he would also have asked the man with the bag on the seat right below the rack space to put his own bag up there. No, this was not about maximizing seat space. This was personal. An ugly abuse of power.
Again, to be clear, I wasn’t taking up a seat anyone asked for. And ten other seats on the same car had personal belongings on them. Even with that, there was an empty seat in the set of four on both my side and the opposite side at the front end of this car. The next stop would be in 40 minutes, no new passengers would get on until then, and at that stop many people get off. Seats would be available. Nothing about Mr. Duffy's abrasive confrontation made sense.
Mr Duffy is a large man. I am a small woman. Mr. Duffy is much younger than I am. He was wearing a uniform and asserting his authority in tones that sounded menacing to me, and my gut reaction was fear. I was afraid of him. Would he confiscate my commuter pass? Could he? How could I get to my job if he did that? I felt vulnerable and threatened and I knew I'd done nothing unusual to bring this attention upon myself. I also knew he was singling me out for something he let other people do, that he was obviously very angry. It wasn't rational. That made it all the more frightening.
He then came and took my bag, a very small, light bag with only some papers and a bottle of water in it, and shoved it recklessly in between other people’s things on a rack. I’m glad it didn’t have anything delicate in it. Then he came back and scooped up my folded coat making it clear he was even more angry than when he started. When took the coat, he also took my purse which was underneath. I tried to stop him from taking the purse. “Wait a minute. Don’t take…”
He wasn’t listening. Or he didn’t care. He shoved the coat and purse into the rack space ten feet from me.
“That was my purse. I need to keep that near me.” I asked him for it back.
“NO, “ he said, “You get it.” He started walking away.
The woman seated across from me said in a low voice, “Report him. I have. Three times.”
At this point I stood up to him. Literally and figuratively. I stood, all five foot one inch tall, and yelled back, “Hey!” He kept walking. “Hey, my wallet is in there. I want that back!”
He glared, went and pulled my shoulder bag back down from the rack, and gave it to me. I asked him his name. “Christopher Duffy” he announced loudly.
“Mr. Duffy, I am going to report this,” I said.
“Go ahead,” he replied. He pointed at the woman across from me, and said, “She does.” Then he went on through the car and out the other end without asking anyone else to clear a seat.
In the discussion that followed among the passengers sitting around us, learned the other woman’s name was [redacted], and that she reported being harassed by Christopher Duffy three times. Some people kept their heads down, others gave me sympathetic glances or nods, others spoke up and voiced amazement and discomfort.
My being singled out appeared to me to be bullying. Furthermore, I see this as discrimination in the workplace based on gender. There are laws against that. The train is Christopher Duffy’s workplace. He was causing discomfort for the other people in his workplace, discomfort that was gender related, and based in power, and the abuse of power. I say that because the two men sitting in two of the four seats across the aisle, with a third seat being taken up by a backpack, were not confronted, were not asked to clear that seat, were not yelled at and humiliated, and Mr. Duffy didn’t point any fingers at them. The sets of seats were in the same car, the same end of that car, and were occupied in the same configuration. The only difference was gender. Two women on one side, two men on the other. Ms. [redacted], in that she endured being pointed out for no reason and in front of 40 strangers, is the second victim of harassment in this incidence I have described.
The man across from Ms. [redacted] got off the train in [redacted]. He told us his name was [redacted], and as he left he commented that the conductor would be a union member who would have that protection when called to task for this, but [redacted], described himself as “a union guy and said, “but, I don’t go for that.” Then he lamented that he had ten more years ahead of him to ride [redacted], that particular train, and unless the railroad does something about this, it will be with Christopher Duffy as one of the conductors.
After [that stop],I went to get my things, as there were lots of empty seats. The middle-aged gentleman seated beneath my things shook his head in bewilderment and stood and took them down and gave them to me. He spoke in a low voice, leaning in as if afraid the conductor might be near, and said, “I don’t understand. This seat next to me had my things on it.” He said he was embarrassed to witness how I was treated.
When the train was pulling into [redacted], a young woman that was lined up waiting for the doors to open, said to Ms. [redacted] and I that she was astonished by the conductor’s rudeness. She said she thought at first that I must have had some very large luggage, but when she saw him putting my “ tiny litte bag,” and my coat up on the rack she couldn’t make any sense of it. She said in the ten years she’s ridden this train she has “never seen anything like it.” She claimed she would be making a call. I hope she did.
I commute weekdays to work. . I lost an hour of quiet commuting time writing this account for you. I invested my return commuting time in this, too. Please let me know that this time was not spent in vain. While writing this was cathartic in some ways, I want more. I want to make it very clear to you that Mr. Duffy has issues that put your customers at risk. I am fearful that he will act out again and target me. I am now uncomfortable seeing him come into the car where I am seated. I feel on edge and have my iPhone at the ready, to record any further bullying whether it be directed at me or at [redacted], should I ever see her again, or at some other woman. Ms.[redacted] told me she witnessed him demand that a young woman open her wallet and prove to him that she really didn't have the money that she was short for her fare. That is illegal search. It's not his place, uniform or not, to do that. But as I understand it, that victim was young, female, and compliant. It appears that Mr. Duffy sees women as weaker and vulnerable and is a bully and he uses his job as a means to treat them as lesser people.
Harassment is no joke. It is emotionally painful. Your employee hurt me, hurt Ms. [redacted], and yet he wears your uniform. This is a problem. My purpose in writing to you today is to ask you to make it stop. Don’t let Mr. Duffy bully me again, or any other woman. My very real fear is that now that I have become associated with Ms. [redacted], he will continue to pick on me. What I thought was irrational and random, I now believe was Christopher Duffy’s associating me with Ms. [redacted]. He may have thought I knew her. No matter, he definitely zeroed in on the set of seats where she sat, and confronted the occupant [me] of the area where she sat. It definitely was personal. It definitely caused discomfort. It has all the appearances of being gender biased. I can’t do anything about being a female. You have to do something about Mr. Duffy.
I have provided you with details and in return, I ask that you let me know if this is a concern to you and what will be done to restore my confidence in [redacted] railroad’s commitment to customer service.
Even now, I want to thank Michael in Customer Service with assisting me this morning with the website I am using to submit this complaint. Michael was every bit the professional, he made me feel that I am valued, and he made me laugh. If I had his last name, I'd give it to you.
You know, as I re-read it, I'm still angry at Mr. Duffy, but I'm even more angry about the attitude that is coming out in this election year. There are white men (not all- but too many) who think they are better than the rest of us, and while that's always been around, this year it's becoming a Republican theme. Look at the men in congress who at first, refuse to even hear that young woman speak on the issue of birth control. And then there is the voter suppression movement underfoot, trying to keep minorities and poor people from voting.
Oh yeah, I'm mad. And I'm not gonna take it quietly. Why aren't men speaking up, too? None of the candidates has taken a stand against Rush. He was vile. Speak up! There is a movement underway to let sponsors know you disapprove of his hate-speech on the airwaves. Join the movement, contact his sponsors.
If you see a Mr. Duffy character in your workplace or his, bullying someone, for heaven's sake speak up!
Did you think of the word used most often to describe a man has an active and spontaneous sex life? You know, the guy who has sex with women he isn't involved with emotionally - no commitment. Any words coming to mind for the male equivalent of what some people call a slut?
It was a trick question. The answer is actually two words. Does that help?
Okay, here's the answer. She's a slut and he "got lucky."
It's possible, too, that the comment by the biggest donor to the Santorum campaign was partly to blame. (You know the one about holding an asprin between the knees.) Then, again, I've been angry and amazed for weeks now while lawmakers from hell back the idea of forcing women to have vaginal ultrasounds, and congress prepared to vote on the Blunt amendment which would allow anyone to give any reason to deny health insurance to hard working American employees. Just say, "I morally object" and the corporations (ie "people" without heart nor soul) can save themselves gazillions.
Whatever it was, I was primed to take on the jerk in the train conductor's uniform who tried to bully me Thursday evening. I was ready to settle in to my long commute and finish up a posting for The Palin Place, when he chose me to humiliate. He picked the wrong person. I'm small but I'm fiesty. I'm female, but I'm not a second class citizen. I documented what happened on that train and it took my whole commute home and back in to work this morning. Then I sent it off to the president of the railroad. Because of that, I didn't get to finish that post yet, and maybe that will turn out to be serendipitous. Instead, I'm going to share the letter I sent, and you all get a glimpse into one American woman's experience during this season of political actions directed at restricting women, taking away our choice and our health care. Then there's letting Rush calling a sexually active 30 year old a slut. I'm mad.
Just to help you guys understand the difference between living in this America as a female versus being male in our country - quick, give me the word that is the male equivalent. of "slut."
So, here's what I sent off to the president of the railroad today. I'll redact here and there to protect the innocent but not the guilty.
Dear. Mr. [redacted]
Let me first say I am a regular commuter from [redacted] to [redacted]. I have never had a problem with any [railroad] employee, and in fact, in the four years of my daily commuting, I have been so pleased with the assistance of people in your main offices on three separate occasions -when I’ve lost my pass, lost personal belongings, and had a ticket dispenser fail to spit out a ticket-- that I have even taken the time to write to you to report exceptional service. In other words, I’m not a complainer.
Your Pledge to Customers begins with a claim that your "top priority is to provide transportation that gets you to your destination safely, comfortably and on time." I felt threatened by an employee's behavior last night, and was made extremely uncomfortable. I will explain, but before that, I quote the next sentence in your pledge, where it says "...anticipated deman d so as to provide a seat for every customer and conductors will enforce rules to maximize seat availability." That is the part the employee in my unfortunate experience will use in his defense. I will explain why it is no defense to him at all.
It is giving me no pleasure to spend my evening commute to write a complaint. But because, as an organization, you have earned my trust and respect, I believe you really do want to hear about my being treated menacingly today. Conductor Christopher Duffy on the 4:45 pm train to [redacted] acted in a manner that was in violation of the [redacted] Pledge to Customers that was, ironically posted above and behind me as he singled me out for loud and public humiliation. His verbal assault on me was irrational, his finger pointing toward another woman was inexplicable, and I felt threatened by the severe anger and unreasonableness on display in Mr. Duffy. I am afraid it will happen again, to me or to others, and you need to know.
Here are the facts. I got on in [redacted] and took a seat in the second car from the front, my back to the door. As you know, this is a quad of seats, facing each other, and in my location I faced row upon row of other commuters. These seats are uncomfortable if all four are filled, as knees bump and there are no racks above them for storage. They are not desirable seats, they are always the last to be taken. I know this because I get on in [redacted] and seats are always hard to find.
Opposite me, in one of the two seats facing me was a woman I did not know. I set my bag and my purse on a seat, and took off my coat as the train began moving – next stop [40 minutes away]. When the conductor made the announcement, he was particularly jocular, warning that those in the quiet car must not have contact with the outside world, etc, etc, and saying, too, that people should remove their feet and belongings from seats to make all seating available. I understand that. As I said, getting on in [redacted] means “good” seats are hard to find. Sure, there are lots of center seats in the three seat sets. Those seats are as undesirable as the remaining seats in a quad after two are filled. Lots of people stand rather than take any of those. These cars are from the early 70s. People are bigger today. So middle seats are a very tight fit.and in the seats like mine, some stranger is facing you, and there isn't room for four people, their knees, and their packages. You know all this, I'm sure.
When I heard the announcement, I looked at the racks above the seats closest to the end where I was (again, there are no racks above end seats) and I took note that they were full quite a distance down both sides. I also looked around and saw a clear seat opposite me (the other woman had her purse on the floor), and an available seat across the aisle where two men were seated, one with a backpack on the seat next to him and the other taking one seat and leaving clear the next-to-him-aisle seat (the one where a person would sit knee between knees with another rider.) It may have been apparent that I was looking for rack space because this woman facing me, who later introduced herself as [redacted], told me the conductor would make me move my coat from the seat. I thought that was unlikely, and I left my things where they were.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Christopher Duffy came into the car, walking quickly, and went up to three young men standing in the center of the car where there are doors. He pointed in the direction where I was (I could see him because I was facing that way) and said “there are seats, go get seats.” It was an order. It was not a suggestion. All three walked up the aisle and passed up center seats and even some empty seats where, in sets of two there was only one person and a bag, purse, or backpack on the other seat. All three passed up the empty aisle seat that faced the man in the quad set across from me. All of them passed on the seat next to that man – a seat with a satchel on it. All three passed up the seat in the middle of the first row of three across the aisle - a take-out drink container was on that seat. None of them took the empty seat opposite me and next to the other woman. They all continued on to the front car.
Mr. Duffy then hurried back up the car, passing the other passengers who had various things on seats, including the one with the drink sitting on a seat, and came directly up to me, pointed to my things and barked “GET THAT STUFF OFF THE SEAT! I SAID MOVE THAT STUFF.” It was loud, abrasive and rude. There was no reason to yell. I had done nothing to single myself out. In fact, the train had left [redacted] eight minutes before I got on in [redacted], and in the car I was in there were seats up and down (I later counted at least 10) being taken up by backpacks, parcels and coats. What was going on?
I said in a polite tone of voice, “There is no rack space for my things.”
He got red in the face, turned around, and with the attention of everyone in the facing half of the car, pointed about six rows down and said loudly “There’s room down there.”
It was above someone’s head, and not easily accessible. The train was moving, I would be stepping over this other rider and her purse, and while it seemed unreasonable, I was willing to comply.
“Would you help me, then?” I asked. “I’m short, and that space is above other passengers. It’s difficult for me to reach that.”
At first he huffed, and glared. He said “No, you put that stuff up there. Do it now.”
This was when I knew something was more wrong than my having a coat on my seat. It was personal. I didn’t know why it was personal. I’d never had any run-in with Mr. Duffy or any conductor.
Yes, the "Pledge" says conductors will enforce the rules. That's fine. But it says in the same sentence "to maximize seat availability." If Mr. Duffy were maximizing availability, he would also have asked the man with the bag on the seat right below the rack space to put his own bag up there. No, this was not about maximizing seat space. This was personal. An ugly abuse of power.
Again, to be clear, I wasn’t taking up a seat anyone asked for. And ten other seats on the same car had personal belongings on them. Even with that, there was an empty seat in the set of four on both my side and the opposite side at the front end of this car. The next stop would be in 40 minutes, no new passengers would get on until then, and at that stop many people get off. Seats would be available. Nothing about Mr. Duffy's abrasive confrontation made sense.
Mr Duffy is a large man. I am a small woman. Mr. Duffy is much younger than I am. He was wearing a uniform and asserting his authority in tones that sounded menacing to me, and my gut reaction was fear. I was afraid of him. Would he confiscate my commuter pass? Could he? How could I get to my job if he did that? I felt vulnerable and threatened and I knew I'd done nothing unusual to bring this attention upon myself. I also knew he was singling me out for something he let other people do, that he was obviously very angry. It wasn't rational. That made it all the more frightening.
He then came and took my bag, a very small, light bag with only some papers and a bottle of water in it, and shoved it recklessly in between other people’s things on a rack. I’m glad it didn’t have anything delicate in it. Then he came back and scooped up my folded coat making it clear he was even more angry than when he started. When took the coat, he also took my purse which was underneath. I tried to stop him from taking the purse. “Wait a minute. Don’t take…”
He wasn’t listening. Or he didn’t care. He shoved the coat and purse into the rack space ten feet from me.
“That was my purse. I need to keep that near me.” I asked him for it back.
“NO, “ he said, “You get it.” He started walking away.
The woman seated across from me said in a low voice, “Report him. I have. Three times.”
At this point I stood up to him. Literally and figuratively. I stood, all five foot one inch tall, and yelled back, “Hey!” He kept walking. “Hey, my wallet is in there. I want that back!”
He glared, went and pulled my shoulder bag back down from the rack, and gave it to me. I asked him his name. “Christopher Duffy” he announced loudly.
“Mr. Duffy, I am going to report this,” I said.
“Go ahead,” he replied. He pointed at the woman across from me, and said, “She does.” Then he went on through the car and out the other end without asking anyone else to clear a seat.
In the discussion that followed among the passengers sitting around us, learned the other woman’s name was [redacted], and that she reported being harassed by Christopher Duffy three times. Some people kept their heads down, others gave me sympathetic glances or nods, others spoke up and voiced amazement and discomfort.
My being singled out appeared to me to be bullying. Furthermore, I see this as discrimination in the workplace based on gender. There are laws against that. The train is Christopher Duffy’s workplace. He was causing discomfort for the other people in his workplace, discomfort that was gender related, and based in power, and the abuse of power. I say that because the two men sitting in two of the four seats across the aisle, with a third seat being taken up by a backpack, were not confronted, were not asked to clear that seat, were not yelled at and humiliated, and Mr. Duffy didn’t point any fingers at them. The sets of seats were in the same car, the same end of that car, and were occupied in the same configuration. The only difference was gender. Two women on one side, two men on the other. Ms. [redacted], in that she endured being pointed out for no reason and in front of 40 strangers, is the second victim of harassment in this incidence I have described.
The man across from Ms. [redacted] got off the train in [redacted]. He told us his name was [redacted], and as he left he commented that the conductor would be a union member who would have that protection when called to task for this, but [redacted], described himself as “a union guy and said, “but, I don’t go for that.” Then he lamented that he had ten more years ahead of him to ride [redacted], that particular train, and unless the railroad does something about this, it will be with Christopher Duffy as one of the conductors.
After [that stop],I went to get my things, as there were lots of empty seats. The middle-aged gentleman seated beneath my things shook his head in bewilderment and stood and took them down and gave them to me. He spoke in a low voice, leaning in as if afraid the conductor might be near, and said, “I don’t understand. This seat next to me had my things on it.” He said he was embarrassed to witness how I was treated.
When the train was pulling into [redacted], a young woman that was lined up waiting for the doors to open, said to Ms. [redacted] and I that she was astonished by the conductor’s rudeness. She said she thought at first that I must have had some very large luggage, but when she saw him putting my “ tiny litte bag,” and my coat up on the rack she couldn’t make any sense of it. She said in the ten years she’s ridden this train she has “never seen anything like it.” She claimed she would be making a call. I hope she did.
I commute weekdays to work. . I lost an hour of quiet commuting time writing this account for you. I invested my return commuting time in this, too. Please let me know that this time was not spent in vain. While writing this was cathartic in some ways, I want more. I want to make it very clear to you that Mr. Duffy has issues that put your customers at risk. I am fearful that he will act out again and target me. I am now uncomfortable seeing him come into the car where I am seated. I feel on edge and have my iPhone at the ready, to record any further bullying whether it be directed at me or at [redacted], should I ever see her again, or at some other woman. Ms.[redacted] told me she witnessed him demand that a young woman open her wallet and prove to him that she really didn't have the money that she was short for her fare. That is illegal search. It's not his place, uniform or not, to do that. But as I understand it, that victim was young, female, and compliant. It appears that Mr. Duffy sees women as weaker and vulnerable and is a bully and he uses his job as a means to treat them as lesser people.
Harassment is no joke. It is emotionally painful. Your employee hurt me, hurt Ms. [redacted], and yet he wears your uniform. This is a problem. My purpose in writing to you today is to ask you to make it stop. Don’t let Mr. Duffy bully me again, or any other woman. My very real fear is that now that I have become associated with Ms. [redacted], he will continue to pick on me. What I thought was irrational and random, I now believe was Christopher Duffy’s associating me with Ms. [redacted]. He may have thought I knew her. No matter, he definitely zeroed in on the set of seats where she sat, and confronted the occupant [me] of the area where she sat. It definitely was personal. It definitely caused discomfort. It has all the appearances of being gender biased. I can’t do anything about being a female. You have to do something about Mr. Duffy.
I have provided you with details and in return, I ask that you let me know if this is a concern to you and what will be done to restore my confidence in [redacted] railroad’s commitment to customer service.
Even now, I want to thank Michael in Customer Service with assisting me this morning with the website I am using to submit this complaint. Michael was every bit the professional, he made me feel that I am valued, and he made me laugh. If I had his last name, I'd give it to you.
You know, as I re-read it, I'm still angry at Mr. Duffy, but I'm even more angry about the attitude that is coming out in this election year. There are white men (not all- but too many) who think they are better than the rest of us, and while that's always been around, this year it's becoming a Republican theme. Look at the men in congress who at first, refuse to even hear that young woman speak on the issue of birth control. And then there is the voter suppression movement underfoot, trying to keep minorities and poor people from voting.
Oh yeah, I'm mad. And I'm not gonna take it quietly. Why aren't men speaking up, too? None of the candidates has taken a stand against Rush. He was vile. Speak up! There is a movement underway to let sponsors know you disapprove of his hate-speech on the airwaves. Join the movement, contact his sponsors.
If you see a Mr. Duffy character in your workplace or his, bullying someone, for heaven's sake speak up!
Did you think of the word used most often to describe a man has an active and spontaneous sex life? You know, the guy who has sex with women he isn't involved with emotionally - no commitment. Any words coming to mind for the male equivalent of what some people call a slut?
It was a trick question. The answer is actually two words. Does that help?
Okay, here's the answer. She's a slut and he "got lucky."
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Shailey Tripp's Three Goals for Boys Will Be Boys
Shailey Tripp is one classy lady.
Say, what?
Shay is kind, honest, and humble.
Shailey Tripp –the former prostitute – honest?
You betcha!
I can say without hesitiation, this is one amazing woman and a fine human being. I know this because we’ve been corresponding often. With a purpose. In January, Shailey Tripp asked if I could and would help edit her book. She was honest and humble and right up front about the fact that she couldn't pay for my time or my work. I didn’t blink, I jumped in.
Of course I promised to keep anything I learned out of my blog and confidential until it was released in print format. I kept that promise. I’m not going to give details now, either. But I will say, this isn’t just a story, it's a set of documents and a list of names. There are police documents. There are letters to and from Shailey’s attorney and other parties. There are names of wealthy, successful businessmen who work in Alaska. Men who hold positions of power in companies that employ over 1,000 people, people who might be surprised to see these names.
There are emails that establish a long relationship, part personal, part business. There is one email that is dated during Bristol and Sarah’s October, 2007 visit to New York City – that was when Bristol was at an MTV taping and some of us think she looked big around the belly. Interesting to me because we know where Sarah was at this specific time, and Todd’s doing his “thing” getting in touch with Shailey and he happens to mention things are “tense at home.” You know, I always thought Bristol got added to that trip to New York because her parents had finally noticed that girl was pregnant and she and her mom needed to get away and make plans. Now, Shailey wasn’t tuned in to any Babygate stuff, and she doesn’t comment or point out any connections like I just did here, but I’m going to tell you, that wasn’t the only time I read something that made me go hmmmm.
There will be time for informed discussions of such revelations after people have read the book.
On some sites people are letting Shailey know that they prefer electronic books. Electronic is very popular.
I have to say, though, that traditional publishing makes the book available to everyone -nothing prevents a Kindle owner from reading a print version – while the opposite is not true. Here’s a bigger point, however. Shailey Tripp wants us to buy and read her book for three reasons. One, of course, is to get her story out. Two, she needs the money. And three, equally as important according the Shay (it's in the introduction), she hopes her own book falls into the hands of people who are leading the life of a prostitute and need to see there is a way out.
Think about that third one. If they are as desperate and broke as Shailey was being the sole supporter for her family (she has two disabled children) those people aren’t going to have an e-reader. They won’t have the $22 for the book, either. But if you order a print copy of Boys Will Be Boys, read it, and donate it to a homeless shelter, a library, or a women’s center, you will not only be helping Ms. Tripp and her children, you may be the unseen angel in the life of some other single mom being prostituted for profit by a man like Todd Palin.
Here’s where you can purchase Boys Will Be Boys by Shailey Tripp.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Levi Johnston Edited Sarah Palin's 2009 State of the State Address
Levi Johnston has never been known for his way with words, he was once called "practically monosyllabic" by a national reporter. Bristol made fun of his grammer and spelling in her memoir. So why would the governor who prides herself on her journalistic and political prowess email Levi Johnston her 12 page 2009 State of the State address to be "edited"?
That redaction goes on for 12 pages. There is nothing more to see. The State of the State is not personal nor private. This is clearly an abuse of the system, and we won't get to see Levi's three-minutes-before-midnight "editing," but we can find the final product on US4Palin.com. I looked, it was 12 pages (but barely - the last page having only one line where Sarah gives everyone God's blessing). The word count, finalized at 3743.
There was nothing in there about Levi. There was nothing in there about Tripp. What was it, then, that Sarah forwarding this at one o'clock in the morning, told Michael Nizich to "squeeze in"? Well, unless Levi was a consultant on education, energy or taxes, it must have been this:
One of the great privileges given to me last year was the chance to be a witness for the truth that every child has value; to say to special needs children that they are beautiful and loved. And needed. We learn more from them than they from us. Across America, a great change is coming in public policy affecting these children, and Alaska can lead the way. This is a part of the culture of life where every child is cherished and protected.
If this is what Levi edited, and it must be, he did not allow Sarah to say she was the birth mother of Trig. That would be my best guess of what he edited out. She was "a witness." Sarah probably did witness Trig's birth, from the bedside, not the bed.
And just because it's so fitting, here's a picture from that same website, showing Todd, Trigg, and Mike Nizich and Kris Perry during that speech.
If Trig weren't a prop, he wouldn't be at that speech. He'd have been home with his real mother and his new baby brother. Or with his real father, whom I suspect is 18 year-old high school dropout who was consulted as an editor for the governor's speech.
There's more to glean from this. How did Sarah explain having Levi edit the speech to her staff copied on the email? What are Mike Nizich and and Kris Perry and Katryn Morgan to think about that? Until now, I thought people turned a blind eye to Sarah's poorly faked pregnancy and Bristol's absence from the public eye.
But by being forwarded the Levi Johnston email, right out there for them to see his involvement and his edits, Sarah shows that they knew. They knew! That "open secret" we hear about sometimes - yup, they knew.
I wonder if the staff also knew on that day in January, 2009 that Levi had been kicked out of the Palin house 10 days earlier. Levi was not important enough to be allowed to bond with his newborn son Tripp, but yet he was important enough to have a say in what the Governor of Alaska would present to the public in the annual state of the state.
Redacted or not, this email is a smoking gun. What it implies about what Levi thought his relationship was to Trig, what Sarah wanted Levi to think his relationship was to Trig, and what Sarah's staff thought of that relationship, too is the stuff Babygate is made of.
Is there any other way to interpret this?
(If you haven't yet read yesterday's post, I encourage you to do so. It's an important one.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)