In 1991, I watched Anita Hill testify before the Senate regarding Clarence Thomas's nomination for the United States Supreme Court. I rarely watch such hearings but felt i should on that one to determine for myself whether she was telling the truth. As I listened, I believed her. It rang true for what I have seen with some men who take delight in taking advantage of women when they have the power, who 'get off' on it. I felt great concern that type of man would be confirmed.
He was confirmed. I hoped then for the best. Maybe he would not be as bad as I feared. Maybe he would rise to his position and put his personal issues behind him for the best of this nation. It didn't happen, and my concern has been validated with his votes ever since.
Worse was to come when I saw excerpts from his recently published memoir, listened to the words he said in interviews. Although I won't be buying the book for obvious reasons (not about to be on a tally of how many right wingers are in this country, encouraging more of this type of book to be published), but enough of it is showing up in reviews, interviews and articles that I really don't need to buy it to know what is in it.
In short, Thomas is complaining about the unfairness of our society's affirmative action program because, even though it got him the job he currently holds, it made it not seem as valuable to him. Maybe it doesn't seem as valuable because he knows he didn't get his lifetime position of power-- honorably. He had to lie about what he had done. Our system forced him to be answerable. He will do all he can to be sure that doesn't happen again for anybody else. How dare anyone be held accountable for misusing power.
Murdock's publication company advanced him $1.5 million dollars for this memoir but there is little chance they won't make it back. Not only have Fox and Rush been promoting it, but we know how well right wing books (even poorly written and full of venom like Coultergiest types) do for books that say exactly what that side wants to hear.
It's kind of interesting that usually people who whine like Thomas, who compare their experience at a government hearing as being the same as a Southern lynch party, are condemned by people like Rush, but guess it changes the picture if you are knocking feminists and liberals while you do it.
Not only Anita Hill, but other women talked about Thomas's interest in pornography, his sexual harassment; but in these interviews, the book, the commentary by right wingers, all of that is ignored as once again the right tries to do a character assassination on Anita Hill treating that uppity black woman, who rose to the top by her intellect and education, as though she was nothing and her only value was to serve at their pleasure.
What scares me a lot more than whether Thomas has some sexually kinky interests (although harassing a woman is a lot more than an individual issue) is the rest of what I am hearing from his book-- i.e. his hatred for liberals, his castigation of feminists, his disgust for affirmative action, his christianist religion. Anyone sitting on the Supreme Court is supposed to be unbiased, apply the law fairly with no personal prejudice. Is it really okay for a Supreme Court Justice to apply the Bible and not the Constitution when he decides whether something is legal in this country? Impeaching him would be the only way to get rid of him now and that won't happen unless he commits a crime. It's obviously not a crime in some minds to have a person on the Supreme Court who is out to get revenge. This man will be one of those deciding whether the Constitution stands against the increasing movement from the government to centralize power into a dictatorship-- all in the name of public safety.
So Americans are being told to accept mercenary armies growing stronger and stronger, gestapo techniques in airports where anyone who questions how they are handled can be arrested without any recourse, secret prisons, torture condoned as just tough interrogation, and games for our youth, like the most recent Halo, that teach killing routinely as though it is fun. Next time someone says don't worry, it's not as bad as you think, tell them they are right-- it's worse. And what are Americans doing about it? Don't even ask.
We have had a system of government that had three branches to keep power from centralizing. Our founders understood the danger of centralized power. How many of us remember that?
The intention was for a Supreme Court, Congress and President, all to have the best interests of all Americans and to protect our freedoms. Does anyone really believe that's what they are doing-- unfortunately any of them? The Supreme Court has four judges already of the fascist mindset (if you think that word is too extreme to describe this polical movement, read the definition in the dictionary). Giuliani has gone on record that he'd be eager to appoint more just like them. Oh joy!
9 comments:
for anyone interested in considering more deeply where we are and how we got here. Was this a mistake or deliberate? read Jane Smiley's piece Who's sorry now? in Huffington Post. Smiley is an author and used to considering character. Her essay is about the motivation behind where we are now.
I believe Judge Thomas. I have no evidence that sexual harassment was ever part of his nature. As for Anita Hill one can only wonder. A lot of Whites and Blacks want to keep a Black men in a nice little cookie cutter image. It pisses people off too that Judge Thomas really doesn't care what they think about him and he said so in the interview.
So, Paul, you were near him when he was around beautiful women? Especially in the case of Anita Hill, beautiful, young, black women? Saw how he treats women at work, not just how he poses in a social setting? Thomas was not questioned because he was a black man who got uppity. The concern was he was a liar, a sexual harasser, and that he would follow the bidding of the right wing to get power. Did you actually watch the testimony back when they held the hearings? Listen to what she said, follow up on the other women also? From his votes since, I have no reason to think he is anything other than a harasser when he can get away with it and quite polite, playing up to the powerful, like Rush Limbaugh and the senator who got him his positions that led to the Supreme Court position. There was a black there before him and did you hear anybody putting him down? Unless it'd be the right for him voting wrong.
Here is Hill's comments on Thomas for those who won't deign to read the NYT Anita Hill replies to the smear job by Thomas You know some like to put down uppity women and a lot of a harassment is not visible to anybody but the ones experiencing it. He did it to more than one woman but a lot feared what was done to Hill during, after and including today when she dared speak up.
I am glad you voiced your opinion. It's good that both sides of any issue be expressed. Thomas's votes since he got in have been solid evidence. What a woman says about how a boss treats her is just one person's word against another. A joke about a possible pubic hair on a coke can doesn't last as evidence. Monica would not have been believed either except for a semen stained dress.
How is this any different than Clinton. I thought a persons personal life didn't relate to the job they did as president, etc? And Jane Smiley's piece just sounds like it was written by a bitter whiny loser and the comments on her article are amazing. I can't beleive there are people that still want to go back and re-count the 2000 Florida ballots using different rules.
So you were one of the few right wingers against impeaching Clinton, Ingineer? I have long ago accepted that 30% of the people in this country are on the road to fascism or already there. Patriotism and their version of religion are more important than the Constitution which only gets in their way. The subject of this blog was whether a christianist, such as it would appear from his recent book excerpts, Justice Thomas is, is a good person for the Supreme Court, one of three equal branches of the government. Should someone's religious view impact their interpretation of laws? That's the issue. I think that since sexual harassment and lying before a hearing are criminal matters, as they were for clinton, they become a matter for the public. You right wingers have this thing about winning at all cost and I have said for along time, sometimes you can win and still lose.
So back to the point-- do you want someone using their religious beliefs (whatever it might be) to interpret American laws? If you are a christianist, you do.
and even more, if you come into the Supreme court hating feminists and liberals, can you fairly decide laws. Did you read the fact that this new terminology for torture from the Bush people is not new but part of the gestapo wording to justify the same thing as well as torture that doesn't leave marks. Interesting how similar so much of this is and not like it's the first time in our country either that we started down this road. McCarthy worked this way too and tried to use fear to keep people from speaking up as we see today.
As for the way the left feels about the election in 2000, Thomas was instrumental in ignoring the fact that those ballots had been either purposely ruined by the people counting them marking twice-- for Buchanan and for Gore, which nobody could do on purpose. or was the result of a different preliminary ballot. Do you really believe they might not have been tampered with? Did you know they were in the Kennedy Nixon election also only the other way around? You must have a lot more faith in the right wingers in this country than I do.
Rain, Judge Thomas was never convicted of sexual harassment and allegations are just that-allegations-until they are proven in a court of law. There is good reason that a person is presumed to be innocent until he,or she, is proven to be guilty. The Left had an agenda in going after Thomas and any reasonable person knows it. The Senate confirmation hearings were like a witch hunt. The man's reputation was besmirched. Of that there is no doubt.
I wrote a lengthy comment to what you said, Paul, but blogger lost it and I hadn't saved it. Thinking more on it, I will eventually write another blog on the topic-- when I have the heart for it which is not today. This country is bitterly divided into thirds with one third in the middle ignorant and not caring what goes on. The political battle is to get that middle third galvanized. Personally I would like to see it also-- that government would be from the middle but too many in the middle are too uncaring to become galvanized about anything except who won American Idol or their latest TV show. I don't think we benefit from extremes in power as we have seen the last 7 years with Bush. I would like to see a supreme court with 1/3 conservative, 1/3 liberal and 1/3 moderate. No political party today wants that.
As I said, I believed Anita Hill back then and believe her today. Whether he got charged with it or not, and without a semen stained dress, that would have been unlikely, I believe Thomas lied. If that's okay with you in a Supreme Court Judge, well that's your choice. We will never agree on it and maybe some is I have seen harassment from a woman's perspective. Men rarely suffer the same problems. And my experience is that harassers look just fine, like a wolf running down through the woods, until prey is in sight and they know it's safe to go for it. It's not a crime committed in public.
I believed Anita Hill then, I believe her now. She has always been noted for her professionalism and integrity. Her courage to come forward against a powerful man because it was the right thing to do, has always inspired me.
The court has been going right for years....course the extreme right doesn't think they're RIGHT enough. Just depends on your point of view, but I agree that it's the constitution that should be their guide, not their private political views. But how can one's private deeply held views not sway them in their interpretation of the constitution?
I dunno....
Post a Comment