From today's WaPo op-ed page, this bundle of distortions, half-truths, and mis-rememberances from Kathleen Parker. I'd hoped her association with Eliot Spitzer was leading her out of the wing-nut wilderness, but despite her contrived persona of "reasonable conservative" on CNN's Parker Spitzer, this proves she is an amoral fool.
For Clarence Thomas, an ordeal is renewed
By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
In 1991, the world divided itself into two camps: those who believed Anita Hill and those who didn't. I fell somewhere in the middle: She may have told the truth, but so what?
On bended knee, give thanks if you are too young to remember. A brief summary: Hill testified that then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her by verbally sharing his enjoyment of porn films and his sexual proficiency.
Yes, yawn if you must. This was scandalous, of course, because . . . well, I'm still not certain. You see, to be scandalized, one must be deeply sensitive to the mention of anything sexual. Indeed, in this case, one needed to be scandalized for an indefinite period of time.
Hill's testimony came several years after she worked for Thomas at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where the alleged harassment took place. In other words, she didn't protest at the time of these conversations, which were boorish, assuming they happened as she described. Or were they merely lame attempts at humor?
The context has never been clear. In any case, other options available to Hill included telling Thomas to get over himself. Or, at the very least, assuming deep offense, complaining to a higher authority. She did neither, apparently.
In fact, nothing was mentioned until Thomas was nominated to the highest court. Would an African American nominee of the liberal persuasion have been subjected to the same kind of interrogation? Only as precedent to riot.
Clarence Thomas's "offense" had nothing to do with whether he did or did not say something off-color to a subordinate. Rather, his offense was being a conservative black man who had the audacity, among other things, to suggest that affirmative action ultimately might do harm to those it was intended to help.Now we are revisiting the Thomas hearings, sadly owing to the poor judgment of his wife, Ginni. As all surely know, she recently called Anita Hill and left a voice mail suggesting that Hill apologize for what she did. This jaw-droppingly odd lapse has prompted an unwelcome and sordid review of the past and a deluge of theories to explain Ginni Thomas's action.
-edit-
kathleenparker@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/26/AR2010102605154.html