Go 19!
Is it wrong for the wife of a sexual harasser to contact his victim and ask her to apologize for reporting the harassment?
The conservative activist wife of Clarence Thomas doesn’t think so.
[quote]Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, recently contacted Brandeis University professor Anita Hill, who had accused Thomas of sexual harassment 19 years ago . . .
Hill had received a message on her voicemail at work that said, “Good morning, Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas. 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.”
Hill told ABC News, “I have no intention of apologizing, and I stand by my testimony in 1991.”[/quote]
usatoday.com/news/washington … 0_ST_N.htm
Maybe Ginni should apologize first, for being such a c#nt. :loco:
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Is it wrong for the wife of a sexual harasser to contact his victim and ask her to apologize for reporting the harassment?
The conservative activist wife of Clarence Thomas doesn’t think so.
[quote]Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, recently contacted Brandeis University professor Anita Hill, who had accused Thomas of sexual harassment 19 years ago . . .
Hill had received a message on her voicemail at work that said, “Good morning, Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas. 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.”
Hill told ABC News, “I have no intention of apologizing, and I stand by my testimony in 1991.”[/quote]
usatoday.com/news/washington … 0_ST_N.htm
Maybe Ginni should apologize first, for being such a c#nt. :loco:[/quote]
You don’t necessarily need to be a “c#nt” or “conservative activist” to believe that Judge Thomas was falsely accused. From the sworn testimony by Judge Thomas’s female colleagues at the DOE:
[quote]TESTIMONY OF LORI SAXON
Ms. SAXON. I worked at the Department of Education in the Office for Civil Rights from September 1981 until September 1982. I was 24 years old at the time. I was the confidential assistant to Clarence Thomas. In that capacity, I handled congressional relations and public affairs. My office was just down the hall fromAnita Hill’s during her tenure at the Department of Education. I never saw any harassment go on in the office. The office was run very professionally. Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill were
always very cordial and friendly in their relations. There was never any evidence of any harassment toward any of the female employees. I dealt with Anita Hill on a daily basis in performing my duties. She was happy in her position and she liked working for Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill never indicated to me that he was harassing her. Clarence Thomas generally left the door of his office open, so if he had any meeting with Hill or any other employees, they were in view. He operated with an open-door policy with every member of the staff, regardless of gender. I never saw him meet in private with a female employee, without someone else present. Unless it was a group meeting and there were many staffers present, the door would be open and his secretary would be right outside the door. Anita Hill was the only special assistant who accompanied Clarence Thomas to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, upon his appointment in August of 1982. Anita told me that she
was very excited about the opportunity to work for the Chairman of the EEOC. She related to me that she was pleased that Clarence was taking her with him. I believe Anita Hill’s statements that she felt pressures to accompany Clarence Thomas to EEOC, because of fears of losing her job, are simply untrue. I and the rest of the senior staff of the Office for Civil Rights found other positions within a few months. That is how the process of being a political appointee worked. I was Clarence Thomas’ confidential assistant for a year. My job required that I meet with him at least once a day. He never made an inappropriate advance, uttered an off-color remarks, or used coarse language in my presence. I was younger and more politically active than Anita Hill. I introduced him to my friends in Washington,
the political community and very social settings. I was the first person to bring and introduce him to a luncheon with Thomas Sowell and others at the Capitol Hill Club. During this entire period, he never made any inappropriate actions toward me or any other female with whom I saw him.
I understand what women in this country go through in the area of sexual harassment. There is no place for sexual harassment in the workplace. I experienced perhaps a different kind of harassment, by being a victim of a violent crime. I know what it is to have one’s face violated. I know what it feels like to feel helpless and humiliated. Let me assure you in no uncertain terms that no harassment took place in the workplace at the Office for Civil Rights.
TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA C. ALTMAN
My name is Nancy Altman. I consider myself a feminist. I am prochoice. I care deeply about women’s issues. In addition to working with Clarence Thomas at the Department of Education, I shared an office with him for 2 years in this building. Our desks were a few feet apart. Because we worked in such close quarters,
I could hear virtually every conversation for 2 years that Clarence Thomas had. Not once in those 2 years did I ever hear Clarence Thomas make a sexist or offensive comment, not once. I have myself been the victim of an improper, unwanted sexual advance by a supervisor. Gentlemen, when sexual harassment occurs, other women in the workplace know about it. The members of the committee seem to believe that when offensive behavior occurs in a private room, there can be no witnesses. This is wrong. Sexual harassment occurs in an office in the middle of the workday. The victim is in a public place. The first person she sees immediately after the incident is usually the harasser’s secretary. Coworkers, especially women, will notice an upset expression, a jittery manner, a teary or a distracted air, especially if the abusive behavior is occurring over and over and over again. Further, the women I know who have been victimized always shared the experience with a female coworker they could trust. They do this to validate their own experience, to obtain advice about options that they may pursue, to find out if others have been similarly abused, and to receive comfort. Friends outside the workplace make good comforters, but cannot meet the other needs. It is not credible that Clarence Thomas could have engage in the kinds of behavior that Anita Hill alleges, without any of the women who he worked closest with—dozens of us, we could spend days having women come up, his secretaries, his chief of staff, his other assistants, his colleagues—without any of us having sensed, seen or heard something.[/quote]
Anita knows better than Ginni. Anita was there, Ginni wasn’t. Anita has first-hand personal knowledge, Ginni doesn’t. Anita testified under oath about what happened to her, Ginni is merely taking her husband’s side. Ginni had no right whatsoever to reopen this old wound 19 years later and accuse Anita of lying, which is precisely what she did.
If she had gone on a date with him back then and accused him of raping her, would you – who were not there and have no personal knowledge of the facts – dare to call her a liar to her face?
Ginni is free to believe internally that Anita is a liar, or tell her friends that, but for her to call Anita on the phone, completely out of the blue, and ask her to apologize for reporting that her husband harassed her – that was rude, tacky and completely inappropriate.
Anita stands by her testimony and I stand by my statement: Ginni is a classless c#nt.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Anita knows better than Ginni. Anita was there, Ginni wasn’t. Anita has first-hand personal knowledge, Ginni doesn’t. Anita testified under oath about what happened to her, Ginni is merely taking her husband’s side. Ginni had no right whatsoever to reopen this old wound 19 years later and accuse Anita of lying, which is precisely what she did.
If she had gone on a date with him back then and accused him of raping her, would you – who were not there and have no personal knowledge of the facts – dare to call her a liar to her face?
Ginni is free to believe internally that Anita is a liar, or tell her friends that, but for her to call Anita on the phone, completely out of the blue, and ask her to apologize for reporting that her husband harassed her – that was rude, tacky and completely inappropriate.
Anita stands by her testimony and I stand by my statement: Ginni is a classless c#nt.[/quote]
Judge Thomas’s colleagues were there and not one supported Anita Hill’s allegations. They all – under oath – supported Judge Thomas’s version of the facts.
Apparently they weren’t there. Apparently they were at the copy machine or in the restroom or chatting by the water cooler or speaking with a colleague or eating lunch or out of hearing range or just not paying attention when he harassed her. I would imagine most sexual harassers attempt to do so without being witnessed by people other than the victim.
As I said, anyone who disbelieves her is free to disbelieve her. But the matter’s been dead for 19 years. To re-open it now and gratuitously accuse the victim to her face of lying – well, that’s just tacky and rude.
What can be gained by accusing her to her face of lying, now, 19 years later? Nothing. On the other hand, what harm can be caused? Plenty. Particularly if the accusation of lying is wrong. And, if one has no personal knowledge of the facts, it seems particularly offensive for one to make that accusation.
Apparently they weren’t there. Apparently they were at the copy machine or in the restroom or chatting by the water cooler or speaking with a colleague or eating lunch or out of hearing range or just not paying attention when he harassed her. I would imagine most sexual harassers attempt to do so without being witnessed by people other than the victim.
As I said, anyone who disbelieves her is free to disbelieve her. But the matter’s been dead for 19 years. To re-open it now and gratuitously accuse the victim to her face of lying – well, that’s just tacky and rude.
What can be gained by accusing her to her face of lying, now, 19 years later? Nothing. On the other hand, what harm can be caused? Plenty. Particularly if the accusation of lying is wrong. And, if one has no personal knowledge of the facts, it seems particularly offensive for one to make that accusation.[/quote]
I think it’s tacky and rude to wait until someone is in the middle of Supreme Court nomination hearings to accuse them of sexual harassment. If said sexual harassment actually occurred the accusations should have been made by Attorney Hill years before when or shortly after they occurred. What could be gained by accusing Thomas in the midst of Supreme Court nomination hearings other than to damage his career?
[quote=“politbureau”][quote=“Mother Theresa”]Is it wrong for the wife of a sexual harasser to contact his victim and ask her to apologize for reporting the harassment?
The conservative activist wife of Clarence Thomas doesn’t think so.
[quote]Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, recently contacted Brandeis University professor Anita Hill, who had accused Thomas of sexual harassment 19 years ago . . .
Hill had received a message on her voicemail at work that said, “Good morning, Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas. 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.”
Hill told ABC News, “I have no intention of apologizing, and I stand by my testimony in 1991.”[/quote]
usatoday.com/news/washington … 0_ST_N.htm
Maybe Ginni should apologize first, for being such a c#nt. :loco:[/quote]
You don’t necessarily need to be a “c#nt” or “conservative activist” to believe that Judge Thomas was falsely accused. From the sworn testimony by Judge Thomas’s female colleagues at the DOE:
[quote]TESTIMONY OF LORI SAXON
Ms. SAXON. I worked at the Department of Education in the Office for Civil Rights from September 1981 until September 1982. I was 24 years old at the time. I was the confidential assistant to Clarence Thomas. In that capacity, I handled congressional relations and public affairs. My office was just down the hall fromAnita Hill’s during her tenure at the Department of Education. I never saw any harassment go on in the office. The office was run very professionally. Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill were
always very cordial and friendly in their relations. There was never any evidence of any harassment toward any of the female employees. I dealt with Anita Hill on a daily basis in performing my duties. She was happy in her position and she liked working for Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill never indicated to me that he was harassing her. Clarence Thomas generally left the door of his office open, so if he had any meeting with Hill or any other employees, they were in view. He operated with an open-door policy with every member of the staff, regardless of gender. I never saw him meet in private with a female employee, without someone else present. Unless it was a group meeting and there were many staffers present, the door would be open and his secretary would be right outside the door. Anita Hill was the only special assistant who accompanied Clarence Thomas to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, upon his appointment in August of 1982. Anita told me that she
was very excited about the opportunity to work for the Chairman of the EEOC. She related to me that she was pleased that Clarence was taking her with him. I believe Anita Hill’s statements that she felt pressures to accompany Clarence Thomas to EEOC, because of fears of losing her job, are simply untrue. I and the rest of the senior staff of the Office for Civil Rights found other positions within a few months. That is how the process of being a political appointee worked. I was Clarence Thomas’ confidential assistant for a year. My job required that I meet with him at least once a day. He never made an inappropriate advance, uttered an off-color remarks, or used coarse language in my presence. I was younger and more politically active than Anita Hill. I introduced him to my friends in Washington,
the political community and very social settings. I was the first person to bring and introduce him to a luncheon with Thomas Sowell and others at the Capitol Hill Club. During this entire period, he never made any inappropriate actions toward me or any other female with whom I saw him.
I understand what women in this country go through in the area of sexual harassment. There is no place for sexual harassment in the workplace. I experienced perhaps a different kind of harassment, by being a victim of a violent crime. I know what it is to have one’s face violated. I know what it feels like to feel helpless and humiliated. Let me assure you in no uncertain terms that no harassment took place in the workplace at the Office for Civil Rights.
TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA C. ALTMAN
My name is Nancy Altman. I consider myself a feminist. I am prochoice. I care deeply about women’s issues. In addition to working with Clarence Thomas at the Department of Education, I shared an office with him for 2 years in this building. Our desks were a few feet apart. Because we worked in such close quarters,
I could hear virtually every conversation for 2 years that Clarence Thomas had. Not once in those 2 years did I ever hear Clarence Thomas make a sexist or offensive comment, not once. I have myself been the victim of an improper, unwanted sexual advance by a supervisor. Gentlemen, when sexual harassment occurs, other women in the workplace know about it. The members of the committee seem to believe that when offensive behavior occurs in a private room, there can be no witnesses. This is wrong. Sexual harassment occurs in an office in the middle of the workday. The victim is in a public place. The first person she sees immediately after the incident is usually the harasser’s secretary. Coworkers, especially women, will notice an upset expression, a jittery manner, a teary or a distracted air, especially if the abusive behavior is occurring over and over and over again. Further, the women I know who have been victimized always shared the experience with a female coworker they could trust. They do this to validate their own experience, to obtain advice about options that they may pursue, to find out if others have been similarly abused, and to receive comfort. Friends outside the workplace make good comforters, but cannot meet the other needs. It is not credible that Clarence Thomas could have engage in the kinds of behavior that Anita Hill alleges, without any of the women who he worked closest with—dozens of us, we could spend days having women come up, his secretaries, his chief of staff, his other assistants, his colleagues—without any of us having sensed, seen or heard something.[/quote][/quote]
My 2cts—yea if she’s not a c&t then it was a c&tish move. Who calls someone at 7-something in the morning to get an apology? Someone who’s on the war path, not to mention a very passive aggressive personality. Why not call during office hours? Nevermind…it’s gonna be a redundant argument in a few days.
[quote=“Namahottie”][quote=“politbureau”][quote=“Mother Theresa”]Is it wrong for the wife of a sexual harasser to contact his victim and ask her to apologize for reporting the harassment?
The conservative activist wife of Clarence Thomas doesn’t think so.
[quote]Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, recently contacted Brandeis University professor Anita Hill, who had accused Thomas of sexual harassment 19 years ago . . .
Hill had received a message on her voicemail at work that said, “Good morning, Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas. 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.”
Hill told ABC News, “I have no intention of apologizing, and I stand by my testimony in 1991.”[/quote]
usatoday.com/news/washington … 0_ST_N.htm
Maybe Ginni should apologize first, for being such a c#nt. :loco:[/quote]
You don’t necessarily need to be a “c#nt” or “conservative activist” to believe that Judge Thomas was falsely accused. From the sworn testimony by Judge Thomas’s female colleagues at the DOE:
[quote]TESTIMONY OF LORI SAXON
Ms. SAXON. I worked at the Department of Education in the Office for Civil Rights from September 1981 until September 1982. I was 24 years old at the time. I was the confidential assistant to Clarence Thomas. In that capacity, I handled congressional relations and public affairs. My office was just down the hall fromAnita Hill’s during her tenure at the Department of Education. I never saw any harassment go on in the office. The office was run very professionally. Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill were
always very cordial and friendly in their relations. There was never any evidence of any harassment toward any of the female employees. I dealt with Anita Hill on a daily basis in performing my duties. She was happy in her position and she liked working for Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill never indicated to me that he was harassing her. Clarence Thomas generally left the door of his office open, so if he had any meeting with Hill or any other employees, they were in view. He operated with an open-door policy with every member of the staff, regardless of gender. I never saw him meet in private with a female employee, without someone else present. Unless it was a group meeting and there were many staffers present, the door would be open and his secretary would be right outside the door. Anita Hill was the only special assistant who accompanied Clarence Thomas to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, upon his appointment in August of 1982. Anita told me that she
was very excited about the opportunity to work for the Chairman of the EEOC. She related to me that she was pleased that Clarence was taking her with him. I believe Anita Hill’s statements that she felt pressures to accompany Clarence Thomas to EEOC, because of fears of losing her job, are simply untrue. I and the rest of the senior staff of the Office for Civil Rights found other positions within a few months. That is how the process of being a political appointee worked. I was Clarence Thomas’ confidential assistant for a year. My job required that I meet with him at least once a day. He never made an inappropriate advance, uttered an off-color remarks, or used coarse language in my presence. I was younger and more politically active than Anita Hill. I introduced him to my friends in Washington,
the political community and very social settings. I was the first person to bring and introduce him to a luncheon with Thomas Sowell and others at the Capitol Hill Club. During this entire period, he never made any inappropriate actions toward me or any other female with whom I saw him.
I understand what women in this country go through in the area of sexual harassment. There is no place for sexual harassment in the workplace. I experienced perhaps a different kind of harassment, by being a victim of a violent crime. I know what it is to have one’s face violated. I know what it feels like to feel helpless and humiliated. Let me assure you in no uncertain terms that no harassment took place in the workplace at the Office for Civil Rights.
TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA C. ALTMAN
My name is Nancy Altman. I consider myself a feminist. I am prochoice. I care deeply about women’s issues. In addition to working with Clarence Thomas at the Department of Education, I shared an office with him for 2 years in this building. Our desks were a few feet apart. Because we worked in such close quarters,
I could hear virtually every conversation for 2 years that Clarence Thomas had. Not once in those 2 years did I ever hear Clarence Thomas make a sexist or offensive comment, not once. I have myself been the victim of an improper, unwanted sexual advance by a supervisor. Gentlemen, when sexual harassment occurs, other women in the workplace know about it. The members of the committee seem to believe that when offensive behavior occurs in a private room, there can be no witnesses. This is wrong. Sexual harassment occurs in an office in the middle of the workday. The victim is in a public place. The first person she sees immediately after the incident is usually the harasser’s secretary. Coworkers, especially women, will notice an upset expression, a jittery manner, a teary or a distracted air, especially if the abusive behavior is occurring over and over and over again. Further, the women I know who have been victimized always shared the experience with a female coworker they could trust. They do this to validate their own experience, to obtain advice about options that they may pursue, to find out if others have been similarly abused, and to receive comfort. Friends outside the workplace make good comforters, but cannot meet the other needs. It is not credible that Clarence Thomas could have engage in the kinds of behavior that Anita Hill alleges, without any of the women who he worked closest with—dozens of us, we could spend days having women come up, his secretaries, his chief of staff, his other assistants, his colleagues—without any of us having sensed, seen or heard something.[/quote][/quote]
My 2cts—yea if she’s not a c&t then it was a c&tish move. Who calls someone at 7-something in the morning to get an apology? Someone who’s on the war path, not to mention a very passive aggressive personality. Why not call during office hours? Nevermind…it’s gonna be a redundant argument in a few days.[/quote]I agree. Cuntish. She is probably a nice lady and all, but geez…
And to those who doubt Anita Hill: WTF would you think that Thomas would do such things in the presence of others? People who engage in that kind of behavior know it’s wrong. He could be totally innocent-it was a he said/she said. But we will never know. He was no more credible than she was when talking about it. That others saw nothing means nothing.
He may be totally innocent. That’s why I questioned the assertion that he’s a “sexual harasser” rather than accused sexual harasser. Such distinctions are important to fair-minded people.
He’s a crappy justice.
Republican candidate Joe Miller cites Communist 
East Germany as model for border security:
“The first thing that has to be done is secure the border… East Germany was very, very able to reduce the flow. Now, obviously, other things were involved. We have the capacity to, as a great nation, secure the border. If East Germany could, we could.” - Joe Miller
Uh, Joe:
- East Germany put up the wall to keep people in.
- East Germany’s method of security included landmines, guard towers, spies and armed guards with standing orders to kill border crossers on sight.
- The way oppressive Communist dictatorships did things is a not a model for the way a free, democratic country should do things.
- Republican icon Reagan said “Tear down this wall”. You are going against that sentiment.
[quote=“Chris”]Republican candidate Joe Miller cites Communist East Germany as model for border security:
“The first thing that has to be done is secure the border… East Germany was very, very able to reduce the flow. Now, obviously, other things were involved. We have the capacity to, as a great nation, secure the border. If East Germany could, we could.” - Joe Miller
Uh, Joe:
- East Germany put up the wall to keep people in.
- East Germany’s method of security included landmines, guard towers, spies and armed guards with standing orders to kill border crossers on sight.
- The way oppressive Communist dictatorships did things is a not a model for the way a free, democratic country should do things.
- Republican icon Reagan said “Tear down this wall”. You are going against that sentiment.[/quote]Well, this is the same Joe Miller who hosted a “town hall meeting” where:
[quote=“Christian Science Monitor”]a longtime local journalist who tried to question Miller about the ethics breaches was handcuffed by Miller campaign security guards…The incident – in which beefy, buzz-cut bodyguards dressed like Secret Service agents shackled Alaska Dispatch editor Tony Hopfinger and threatened to do the same to other journalists – was captured on video. It has shocked a state where the population is small, politics is extremely local, and citizens are accustomed to having unfettered access to their elected leaders.[/quote]If Murkowski can beat him as a write-in candidate, that will be the ultimate embarrassment for the tea party. Things may be heading in that direction…he is a fucking :loco:
So apparently, Christine O’Donnell was surprised that the notion of “separation of church and state” is imbedded in the US Constitution…
npr.org/templates/story/stor … pPageNum=4
This is what happens when you have a popular culture that prides itself on being “anti-intellectual”. Makes it easier to control the sheeple, I suppose.
That’s pretty amazing, lol. Here’s the exchange…but the video is rich 
[quote]
“Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked him.
Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O’Donnell asked: “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?”[/quote]Wow. Fuck me wow
[quote=“Jack Burton”]So apparently, Christine O’Donnell was surprised that the notion of “separation of church and state” is imbedded in the US Constitution…
npr.org/templates/story/stor … pPageNum=4
This is what happens when you have a popular culture that prides itself on being “anti-intellectual”. Makes it easier to control the sheeple, I suppose.[/quote]
Wow is right. Jesus even we Canadians know that about your constitution. Appalling does not begin to describe this. I truly feel sorry for America at the moment.
Stupid woman probably also doesn’t know that there’s something in the Constitution somewhere that gives the government the power to force everyone to buy health insurance even if they don’t want to.
:boo-hoo:
Seriously. I never plan on going back. Anyone know any Canadians who will marry me? Male or female, doesn’t matter
What is even MORE frustrating than what she said is how republicans are coming to her defense, saying that the first amendment doesn’t EXACTLY say “separation of church and state.” But that’s not the issue…the issue was her SHOCK at what the First Amendment actually does say…she didn’t know what it actually said. The audience was appalled that she didn’t know what it said. Now of course, people can debate the meaning of it, but debating the meaning begins with knowing what it says. Lord Jesus help us… 
[quote=“politbureau”]Stupid woman probably also doesn’t know that there’s something in the Constitution somewhere that gives the government the power to force everyone to buy health insurance even if they don’t want to.[/quote]What are you on about? We are talking about what the constitution says. It doesn’t say a lot of things, but negation is not automatically a prohibition of something. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is a pretty strong statement that most 8th graders learn.
The worst part is that the Democrats are losing to these people.
These shocking revelations are causing people to rethink their choices. The Dems’ polls have been improving over the last couple weeks.