"I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. Okay have a good day."
Now, how could that kind of reaching out possibly work?
October 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
72 comments:
Anita probably still makes most of her income off of that story. No way she's backing down, except possibly on her deathbed.
Hill turned it over to the FBI. If Hill were telling the truth, she'd have a simpler reaction - No, your husband owes me an apology.
There's something Hill doesn't want to be brought up for reconsideration.
As I've written, it's very likely Hill was lying.
Though it may be a delusion of Hill's as easily.
Stranger things have happened.
On the "delusion" part... expecting anyone to catch on that their way of expressing themselves is upsetting by carefully never mentioning it or letting on simply isn't fair.
By now Ms. Hill believes all of her allegations. Either that or she is evil and true evil is pretty rare.
It takes two to reconcile. Scripture says to first go to your brother/sister alone and ask for a correction. Then second to take along one other witness with you. And finally to tell everybody what they did. When nothing has worked, that is when you call me, the attorney, to get them to listen in a Courtroom. My job security came from the stubborn irreconcilable folks.
Anita Hill was and is a liar. May she rot in hell along with her democrat enablers.
This subject will cause some cons to question some of their earlier beliefs.
Remember when you thought that Specter was 'all that and a bag of chips'?
It's possible that Ginny remains offended and bugged by what Hill did, and would like the question back in public play again for a resettling.
Hill didn't take the gentleman's way out, so it's onwards to the games now.
Specter was correct to rip her a new one. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
I used to be able to see Anitas nose above ground level....now I can't.
This all probably came up again because Mrs Thomas opened her husband's investment statement and found out he was going long on silver.
The key to winning anything in life in Lib Speak is to make an assertion of a fact, and go on from there whether there is any truth in it or not. The Sincere Belief in a Lib doctrine wins the other members of the Lib church's total support. And then they all say to back any conservatives..."well you cannot disprove it". It works. Anita Hill's act was on its early learning curve. Today the method can win AlGore and gang hundreds of millions of dollars no pure lies. And the Sincere Beliefs gang is still hard at work. That means that the Tea Party has its work cut out for it.
The royal chicken - I see what you did there...
WV: snontra - ol' Blue Eyes.
Anita Hill could ask Mrs. Thomas why she married a porn-watching perv, I suppose.
Clarence Thomas is an embarrassment and his opinions are poorly written.
Just ask former senator Harry Reid.
Being a lying liberal douchebag means never having to say you're sorry.
The people that believed Anita Hill particularly those that used her to "get" a potential Supreme Court Justice disqualified - are hateful and hate-filled people. Then and now.
Anita Hill defenders who defended Bill CLinton - almost every woman in America on the liberal side - should hang their heads in shame at their lack of backbone and integrity.
When I explained what was happening during that part oif the Thomas confirmation heari
ngs to my children, I told them the world would be a far better place if we could lose the Anita Hill type liberal supporters somewhere on a fruitful desert island where they would have everything they needed to sustain life but would surely kill each other because of their inner hateful natures. Ah . . . the dream . . .
Anita Hill was Tawana Brawley with a JD, and Ted Kennedy in the Al Sharpton race pimp role orchestrating the whole sordid thing.
As for Ginny Thomas? She's just offering Anita Hill a chance to come clean and clear her conscience. I'm sure Anita is blubbering that it's a hate crime or some such...
Chase wrote that : ...the world would be a far better place if we could lose the Anita Hill type liberal supporters somewhere on a fruitful desert island...
Aye Aye. Like Treasure Island. Shiver me timber.
Royal Chicken is on a roll. Mmm, chicken on a roll...
D'oh!
Is Ginny Thomas naive enough to think Anita Hill has a conscience? Apparently.
Waitaminute...
This was a voice mail left to Anita Hill?
So this wasn't Ginny Thomas making a public statement?
So it was Anita Hill and only Anita Hill who brought this voice mail to public attention?
Is she feeling neglected or something?
I don't see where Ginny Thomas admitted to leaving the message.
The last time Thomas baited Hill, she had this to say on a CNN interview: "There have been several books written since then by independent journalists. They have all investigated those charges that were raised in 1991 and that he raises now, and they have all found them to be false," she said. "They haven't found one connection between me and someone who was politically motivated to keep him off the court."
And of course if Angela Wright had been allowed to testify, I doubt Thomas would have been confirmed. now I would not call Thomas, evil, just dishonest.
Ginny Thomas sounds like a woman in search of a cage and 3 minute rounds.
1jpb said...
This subject will cause some cons to question some of their earlier beliefs.
Remember when you thought that Specter was 'all that and a bag of chips'?
No, and neither does anybody else.
RV, I'm willing to consider that Thomas was inappropriate. It's hard for a lot of people to get past the fact, though, that Hill's testimony amounted to "there were these events where he did these abusive things, *and then after I went to work for him at this new place* there were these additional instances of abuse."
People can understand, I think, that someone might be intimidated and not want to lose their job and so put up with behavior they don't like. Far fewer can understand someone with apparent options following a harasser to a new position.
Also, having been trained to pay attention to such lawyer-speak from hanging around this place... I notice that your quote from Hill doesn't say a thing about her actual testimony or events ONLY that independent journalists had come to the conclusion that she did not have connections with people motivated to keep Thomas off the court.
Also, a person might understand Ginny Thomas holding a grudge.
What's up with Anita Hill publicizing a voice mail to her? Ginny hasn't forgotten about her. Is she concerned that the rest of us have?
Classy. Sounds like a drunk dial.
"No, and neither does anybody else."
Some do.
I know some big time con donors. They have always been cons (and they've always had a lot of dough), but the very first time they started donating was when they gave money to Spector because they loved the way he attacked Hill.
Today they despise Spector. And, they regret ever giving him a penny, even though they still think Thomas rocks.
specter
What kind of person talks about "reaching across the airwaves" when they leave a voicemail on someone's machine? Strange.
I'm looking forward to David Brock's coverage of this story over at Media Matters.
Could never understand how anyone would give credence to Anita Hill. What kind of person would stay working for someone who did what she claimed Clarence Thomas did, especially at that time a black woman with a high lever law degree like hers. And then to follow that same person to a new job and when he became a judge to go to him for career advice, a reference and job assistance. Then she sent gifts and cards on the birth of the kids and on holidays and even celebrated holidays with this family. She even went back to him for advice on whether to change academic jobs. And then when he gets nominated for the SCOTUS she comes out of nowhere with the claims of harassment that she testified about. This does not even begin to pass the smell test for a sane person.
Consider:
"The Lying Woman/Innocent Man stereotype haunted the recent hearings on the confirmation of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Supporters of Judge (now Justice) Thomas generated a stream of innuendo that encouraged their constituents to visualize Anita Hill through the overlay of the Lying Woman stereotype. Clarence Thomas presented himself as the outraged victim of injustice, the Innocent Man, and left it for the senators to imagine themselves endangered by the power that women could wield if only they were believed, power the Lying Woman stereotype safely constrains."
"In the Senate confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas, one Senator after another used a male standard of behavior to generate doubt about the truth of Professor Anita Hill's testimony. Why would anyone continue to work with a man who had sexually harassed her? Why would she follow him to the next job and maintain cordial relations with him over the years? Why would she not file a legal complaint at the time the events occurred? Hearing these questions raised over and over, one felt a sense of futility. The problem was not the evidence, but the frame of mind of those who would interpret it."
If you follow the links within the post that I linked to, you'll see that Virginia Thomas confirmed that the message was from her.
"What kind of person talks about "reaching across the airwaves" when they leave a voicemail on someone's machine? Strange."
Someone calling from a cell phone?
I hope Ms. Thomas is OK. This is the sort of thing you don't say unless...
So she released a private voice-mail to the FBI and then the press. Looks like she wants the spotlight and to play victim again.
She's basically pond scum. Based on her own testimony she never said a cross word to Thomas about his supposedly "abusive" talk, followed him to another agency and only left when HE got her a professor job. She then used her connection with him to help her score points with her boss and called Thomas every year to wish him well. And never brought up the allegations at his Appeals Court confirmation.
Its only when he was up for SCOUTS, the dream of a lifetime, that she stabbed him in the back. First, trying to do it anonymously and then when forced into the daylight in front of the country.
Except for a women that he fired, all the other women in the office supported him - not her. She's pond scum.
Cell phone signals certainly go across the airwaves, but no one I know talks that way. Just seems like an odd phrase...more like something a radio host would say.
Odd but there's pretty much no doubt that Anita Hill is a lying bitch. She made it up and it was absolutely ridiculous what they did to Clarence Thomas.
How is it that every woman in the office except for her said he was the perfect gentleman? She made it up because she's a political whore.
Dick,
I wish I'd read your comment before posting, you made the point better than I did.
What the heck is the "lying woman/innocent man" stereotype? Wasn't the "fear" being played on a reaction to an assumption (a *stereotype*) that women never lie about this stuff and they ought to be believed no matter what? If the default assumption was that women lie and men are innocent, then where was the threat to Thomas?
And am I to interpret a "male standard of behavior" to be contrary to following one's harasser around to further jobs, maintaining a relationship, sending cards, asking advice, and then later claiming he was horrible?
What then is a "female standard of behavior?"
Is it possible they're both right, from their individual points of view? This won't explain it, but some women are hypersensitive to any friendly human behavior that looks to them like sexual harassment. Once, a middle-aged woman came to work dressed up. I told her she looked nice that day. Next thing I knew, I was in the HR office -- she had told HR I had made her uncomfortable.
Maybe Thomas invited her to lunch because he's social. And maybe he talked a bit risque with the office folks, forgetting Hill was on the periphery absorbing it all like a sponge.
For a take on the subject that avoids the standard side-taking, I recommend Wendell Berry's essay, "Sex, Economy, Freedom, and Community." Here's an excerpt:
"In the government-sponsored quarrel between Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, public life collided with private life in a away that could not have been resolved and that could only have been damaging. The event was depressing and fearful both because of its violations of due process and justice and because it was an attempt to deal publicly with a problem for which there is no public solution. It embroiled the United States Senate in the impossible task of adjudicating alleged offenses that had occurred in private, of which there were no witnesses and no evidence."
The only thing I think Berry misses, in his attempt to not get hung up on blame as he moves to the broader philosophical point, is that there is blame to be assigned, even in his own formulation.
The it that embroiled the United States Senate wasn't the quarrel, it was the partisans who promoted the quarrel, with "no witnesses and no evidence," to the public forum.
Still, I think Berry's point that the issue was (a) fundamentally irresolvable and thus (b) a violation of due process and justice is well taken.
@fls -- that's always been my own personal opinion. It doesn't reflect well on Ms. Hill.
I think that's possible, FLS. I think it's very possible.
And maybe that's the "male standard of behavior" thing...
If you don't like something you're expected to say so.
And maybe the "female standard of behavior" thing is to avoid confrontation.
But even the "female standard of behavior" is stretched too thin, far too thin, when you finally get rid of the nasty boss and then you voluntarily go to work for him again - unless you can show unmitigated need for the job - and if you finally don't *have* to socialize but continue to do so above the occasional unavoidable social function.
I mean *really*...
Women are very good at avoiding the people they don't like.
It's like an olympic sport or something.
I must have been disengaged from politics in 1991 [when I was 39]cause I don't remember this as a huge deal like most of you who recall so many details of the hearings, etc.
The comments on the NY Times story about this are hilarious. There is something extraordinarily amusing watching all the OFFENDED OFFENDED crowd get themselves all het up again over Hill and Thomas after prostrating themselves for Clinton's womanizing for eight years.
I suddenly find myself liking Ginny Thomas.
Hill wronged her husband. She's pissed. Still. And instead of doing some cowardly, circumspect thing, she just calls her. I love it.
"but some women are hypersensitive to any friendly human behavior that looks to them like sexual harassment. "
Thanks to Miss Hill.
Why did Ginni (with an i?) say "what you did with my husband" instead of "what you did to my husband"? I suspect she felt it was more polite, but it makes it sound consensual!
wv caststab heh
If it was consensual it explains a lot of the timing and the fury. Scorned woman and all that.
Is the context that Virginia Thomas has lately been getting more actively involved in politics relevant in this discussion?
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/14/nation/la-na-thomas14-2010mar14
Living well is the best revenge.
Ginny, Clarence, let it go. You are both better than that.
One of the best SNL skits ever was about the Thomas hearings. Anita Hill (and the press) left the Senate hearing room, and then the Senators proceeded to give Clarence Thomas private advice on how to pick up women. The Democrats leading the way.
Ted Kennedy said chicks did boats.
Good times. Good times.
Fred, if I recall, in that skit Ted Kennedy was sweating buckets. LOL.
k*thy, that was exactly my reaction.
she called the FBI. no, Anita Hill's not nuts at all.
Living well is the best revenge.
Ginny, Clarence, let it go. You are both better than that.
Exactly.
My reaction was that the call was religiously motivated -- although the language wasn't. I think both of these women are religious. It was an odd call and perhaps the overture better made by letter or email, but often these attempts at reconciliation are awkward. Creeped HIll out, though.
How passive-aggressive of Ginni Thomas. Her explanation was uttered in completely bad faith.
It was a 100% inappropriate call to make.
Have to agree with Synova at 8:41.
Why didn't Ms. Hill simply ignore the call and move on?
As an aside I remember this all too well. I felt dirty watching those hearing as if I/we were peering into a "he said/she said" private argument.
I also felt like George Sr had played an uncharacteristic (for him) trick:
You want a black SCOTUS judge, I'll give you one!
If campus security and the FBI both reacted to the message with anything other than "Whatever!...", then that would be chilling indeed. Since when is leaving someone a voicemail asking for an apology a matter for a criminal investigation?
Oh, wait, I get it! Ms. Hill has said she didn't initially realize the call was from Mrs. Thomas. So she must have thought the call was from some other disgruntled wife asking for an apology for what Ms. Hill "did with my husband." She had security issues to consider.
I found the contrast between the commenters here and at Volokh interesting. There, it seemed pretty well assumed that Hill was telling the truth all along, and that Thomas had lied. Which never made sense to me.
I don't buy that, especially since Clarence Thomas has held this hurt for coming on two decades now. I think that the better answer is probably that something he said made her a little uncomfortable at one time, but not enough to not stay friends with him, follow him to another job, etc. And then, during his confirmation, those doing opposition research on him asked her about working with him, dug deep, found this, and then pushed Hill into testifying against him. And the tale seemed to grow by the telling.
By now, everyone believes their own story, regardless of how accurate they were at the time. Justice Thomas remembers the wrong done him, and she remembers the hurt that his (likely) inadvertent statement did her.
Memory is a funny thing. Test after test show that eye witnesses very often do not see what they swear they saw. And, their recollection can be significantly biased by the way that they are questioned (which is why, now, how line ups are done is so critical). And, the farther you get from the actual events, the more sure that the witnesses are as to the accuracy of their recollections.
Also, keep in mind the stakes involved here. Hill got national attention, likely a bit of money, and, ultimately a job as a law school prof as a result of her testimony, while Thomas got a seat on the Supreme Court. Both had an incentive to believe their own story.
Finally, I don't begrudge Ginny Thomas one bit here. She has been living with her husband's hurt for quite some time. She knows him, and likely cannot believe that he would do such a despicable thing. She is being protective of him, in her own way, and that is something that a lot of us think that spouses should do.
I listened to the Anita Hill hearings on a portable radio (AM) in the middle of the Everglades. A fitting place too, in the company of snakes and alligators. Because there she was rising from the swamp, the creature from the black lagoon.
And I couldn't drink another can of Coke for nearly five years.
An odd call to make, but equally (at least) weird to turn the voice mail over to authorities.
Actually, according to news reports, Hill waited several days and then reported it to the campus police. She said she thought it was a hoax. On other occasions, she said that she has been threatened with bodily harm on more than one occasion since 1991, so caution is not a completely implausible response. The campus police turned it over to the FBI.
former law student wrote:
Anita Hill could ask Mrs. Thomas why she married a porn-watching perv, I suppose.
How come republicans who supposedly hit on their coworkers, porn watching pervs, but presidents who get bj's from the intern, and have feminists getting out their kneepads to service him, considered the best democrat ever if not the first black president?
I bet Clinton watches some pretty raunchy porn. I bet Clinton's been IN some pretty raunchy porn. I wonder why hillary married him.
isn't getting an early morning phone call two decades after an incident from someone from your past advising you to pray and then apologize for your twenty-year-old comments just..a WEE bit creepy ?? ..and what's so hard to believe about some guy exhibiting boorish behaviour in the workplace? isn't the wife usually the last to know?
The transcript for the voice mail doesn't contain anything remotely threatening.
Post a Comment