News that makes you angry

[Pete Zicato]

A high school cheerleader is sexually assaulted by a basketball player and some of his friends. He gets off with probation. She gets kicked off the cheer leading squad for refusing to cheer her attacker.

http://womensrights.change.org/blog/...for_her_rapist
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/....aspx?id=23416

[footfootfoot]

Basketball is serious business.

[Spexxvet]

"Johnny, Johnny, he's our man,
If he can't rape you,
Nobody can."


Yeah, I'm on her side.

[classicman]

That is totally messed up.

[Lamplighter]

I guess more sad than angry, but still qualifies...

For those of you old enough to remember the live broadcasts of these Hearings, this is a good review.
CBS gives several links to interviews and broadcasts.

CBS News.com
Oct. 20, 2010

Anita Hill vs. Clarence Thomas: The Backstory
Virginia Thomas' Message to Justice's Accuser Rekindles Scandal that Erupted during 1991 Confirmation Hearing

<snip> In the voicemail message, the contents of which were confirmed by CBS News, Virginia Thomas said, "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. OK, have a good day."

In a statement Tuesday, Hill said she "certainly thought the call was inappropriate," and she contacted Brandeis security officials, who later informed the FBI, after hearing it. She said she had "no intention of apologizing because I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony."

In her statement, Thomas said she meant no offense.
"I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get passed what happened so long ago. That offer still stands, I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same."

My wife and I feel that Anita Hill could have responded by suggesting to Mrs Thomas that she instead ask for an apology from her husband.

These pictures capture what I suspect is a reflection of the situation.
Anita Hill as a happy, successful academic
Clarence Thomas as a very angry man whose reputation will not surpass even GWB's

[glatt]

Clarence Thomas is a joke.

Unfortunately, the joke is on us.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah but his dick is as big in diameter as a can of coke.

[Lamplighter]

I just came across this article this morning, and it changes my sadness to madness.

Granted there is criticism all round for this woman putting her career
before the good of the Judicial Hearings process, and for now trying
to cash in with her "tell-all" book.

But, if true and had it been known at the time, Thomas probably could have never been confirmed.
This article seems to provide independent confirmation of what she alleges... too late.

Washington Post article

Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 22, 2010

"I have no hostility toward him," McEwen said. "It is just that he has manufactured a different reality over time. That's the problem that he has."

[classicman]

Wow - Not sure if I believe this one or not. The interesting thing is that it happened right around the time of the phone call. I wonder if the wife was really stupid enough to leave a voicemail if thats the case. Curious to say the least.

[Adak]

They are playing Mrs. Thomas' voice mail message on some of the conservative talk show radio broadcasts.

As a judge, I believe Thomas is surprisingly good. Does that mean that he's not got his failings, as a human? That he never groped or tried to make time inappropriately, with Anita?

No. Our judges, like our Presidents and all the rest of us, are only humans, and we do have our failings. Anita has her failings, as well. By waiting to make her case, just at the moment that Thomas was set to be confirmed, she appears as a stupid tool of the liberals who wanted to shit-can Thomas' confirmation.

If she had an issue with Thomas, she should have raised it, when it happened, not years later, and not to satisfy a political agenda of the left.

We've seen this act by the left before and since. Today it's Meg Whitman's housekeeper, who was hired through an agency, showed proper paper work, and now claims "but they knew...".

Right: Meg Whitmas --- Immigration detective! < ROFL >

Before that it was the left charging Arnold Schwarzenegger with groping a woman 15 years ago, in a gym.

Right: Arnold --- Sexual deviate! < ROFL >

Do you see zee leeetle pattern here?

When it comes to these "oh so timely" skeletons being raised during the run up to an election or a nomination -- sorry. If you don't have 100% foolproof evidence of something MAJOR, you're a put up job, and a whore for being a stupid tool of some political party (doesn't matter which one).

[Flint]

Good post. I wouldn't say that it's just "the left" that does this, though.

[classicman]

What about the other woman that came out against him as well?
If there is corroboration for Hill, that would mean he lied under oath - an inditable(sp) offense.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by classicman

What about the other woman that came out against him as well?
If there is corroboration for Hill, that would mean he lied under oath - an inditable(sp) offense.

I'm not too up on Thomas' confirmation. The point to me is this:

1) he's not being appointed a woman's harassment counselor, or something.
Lots of men have harassed a woman at some point in their life. I might venture to say "most men" have.

2) that's a ridiculously easy charge to make against any heterosexual male. You just TRY to prove you're innocent, once you're charged.

3) If any woman had a complaint against Thomas, they should have brought it up, AT THAT TIME. Not years later, just when (oh coincidentally!), he's up for confirmation before the Senate.

The timing of the whole thing, stinks to high heaven, as bad "old school" politics, carried too far.

I don't expect our leaders and judges to be angels of light, straight from the throne of the most pure One. They're men. They like to make time with women. Anita is a good looking woman. Married or not, any man is lying if he says he's not attracted to a beautiful woman. (rare exceptions).

Let's face it, Thomas is a good judge, but he's no Brad Pitt with killer good looks.

[footfootfoot]

I sort of agree, but I think the difference being that a judge should be noted for his or her judgement and awareness of laws -- the spirit and the letter.

It seems he was well known for inappropriate behavior but the women who were in a position to nark on him were also smart enough to realize it would be at the expense of their careers.

This kind of behavior on his part is really in opposition to his role as a judge and objective interpreter of the law. It shows poor judgement and a dismissal of laws about workplace comportment. A person's motivations for bringing something to light don't make the offender's actions any less offensive, but self serving motivations for whistle blowing may also reflect poorly on the whistle blower.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But don't the judges consider the intent of the law? The workplace sexual harassment law, was not to prevent women from being hit on, or witnessing crude behavior, it was to prevent women from being groped or forced to put out, as a condition of employment.