CNN should fire Kathleen Parker: "For Clarence Thomas, an ordeal is renewed"

[chimpymustgo]

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-

[e-mail]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/26/AR2010102605154.html

[otohara]

1. She Obviously Didn't Watch The Ex-G-Friend on Larry King

Thomas was OFFENSIVE to every woman with big breasts.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Are ALL Conservative women idiots?????????????? ?????????????

or is it that women who are idiots are all conservatives?????

[FiveGoodMen]

19. Actually, yes.

They have to be.

Neo-cons are very clear about the second-class (or worse) status of women. They are all supposed to be submissive.

Only an idiot would shoot themselves in the foot by supporting that.

[BootinUp]

3. The lying rude little perv is not fit to sit on the highest court! nt

[WinkyDink]

4. The Audacity of Affirmative Action.

[BolivarianHero]

5. Huh?

"She may have told the truth, but so what?"

I agree...Who cares if a semi-qualified (and I'm being generous here) Supreme Court justice sexually harassed a university professor 25 years ago? :sarcasm:

[KeepItReal]

8. Clarence Thomas was not qualified to be Justice Thurgood Marshall's intern

...much less REPLACE him on the Supreme Court.

This is his judicial philosophy: "Er, what did Antonin Scalia do?... OK then, me too!"

[BolivarianHero]

18. No disagreements there...

The right whines about affirmative action and then plays the race card to saddle us with Black Bork.

[phantom power]

6. For her next act, Parker will now defend Head Stomping Guy's demand for an apology

It's all an "ordeal" for his shoe, I'm sure.
:eyes:

[Swede]

7. How nuts do you have to be to yawn at atrocious sexual harassment.

:shrug:

[northernlights]

9. apparently Kathleen Parker has never experienced the joy of sexual harrassment

Otherwise, she would understand that if Anita Hill had:

1. told thomas to eff off, he would have likely used his position to punish her career-wise (been there, had it done to me)
2. complained over his head, the old boy network would have closed ranks around Thomas (been there, had it done to me)

She also would realize that it wasn't likely just offensive, lame attempts at humor. It is a power-play, period. And if you complain you must be prepared to deal with the career repurcussions. Maybe Ms. Parker, as a writer, has the luxury of working mostly at home and "out of the office?" so is less likely to be subject to experiencing such behavior.

And maybe, just maybe, Ms. Hill understood these things and preferred to suffer silently for the sake of her career.

Something Ms. Parker wouldn't understand, seeing as it takes personal investment -- in financial, time and effort -- to land *her* career. Especially since most jobs of her type go to the extra-connected, rather than the extra-competent.

[xxqqqzme]

10. The audacity of affirmative action

'forced' him to play the ultimate race card by claiming "...it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks...".

Disgusting, petty, little man.

[TonyMontana]

11. CNN should fire themselves

[gratuitous]

12. Apparently lying under oath is no big deal to Ms. Parker

I personally hold government officials, particularly nominees for the Supreme Court, to a slightly higher standard than I would a four-year-old. But that's probably just me, and I don't understand the subtle ways of the corridors of power like Ms. Parker of the Washington Post does.

[Blue_Tires]

13. Parker knows that if she doesn't come to Thomas' defense

she's out of the "insider's club"

So she's being an obedient soldier

[Contrary1]

14. "She may have told the truth, but so what?"

:wtf:

That would mean Thomas lied under oath, moron. And, with your obvious disregard for all women, you should never have written this article.

[lunatica]

15. Her racism is showing

She obviously hated Equal Opportunity laws.

[Mojorabbit]

16. I sent her a note

I remember what it was like in those days and she has betrayed all the work of women over the years to make the workplace free from this type of behaviour with this column.

[affrayer]

17. I guess I belong to the third group.

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?

I never believed Clarence Thomas. I knew he was of the lowest of character. Why else would republicans pick him to serve on the USSC?

[spanone]

20. arrogance extraordinaire

[Ramulux]

21. Shes gonna take down Spitzer with her

and its a damn shame. Hes awesome and needs to get his message out, but nothing he says gets through to her. He makes these great points and she just smiles and moves on like she understands, but she obviously doesn't. It literally makes me sad watching their show, knowing that failure is in their imminent future.