Thursday, October 21, 2010

A Woman Eats A Banana at Her Own Peril, Even in the Nicest Offices


I know most of my men-friends on this list are going to say, "Karyl let it go with the Clarence Thomas thing already. What's done is done."

But I say no because the damage is being done TO WOMEN every day by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court and Thomas’ presence on it.

Thomas should be fired based on his lying to get the job. How do I know?

The Facts: Detailed quotes attributed to Thomas.  Even a writer couldn’t make that shit up. “Pubic hair on my coke can?” “Long Dong Silver?” A dignified prof didn’t invent that.

Thomas had other victims - women the court refused to let testify. They could have proved Thomas had a history of crude, annoying and unwanted office flirtations.

Full Disclosure: I've been "harassed" at every male-dominated job I have ever had, but my generation didn't have a word for it. We just called it "work." 

In 1976 we thought endless blowjob jokes, etc. were the price a woman paid for being lucky enough to have a man's job.  Some paid with the act itself and still do. It just depends on the manners and ethics of the boss and how desperate she was/is for that job.

The fact that Hill didn’t report Thomas’ behavior years earlier makes sense because she probably wrote him off as a silly boy and moved on with her life (as most women do.) THEN the Dems recruited her (from among the group he had harassed) in order to try to stop a conservative train wreck the Supreme Court has become. Remember those hearings with those clueless senators? Didn’t they make you mad?
I think Hill took one for the team and she did it with great dignity then and now.

Lastly, what's with Supreme Court judges becoming their own bosses once they're safely in office for life? That's ridiculous. It assumes their job makes them saintly and immune to greed and corruption.

New Rules:  1. Supreme Court judges jobs are for 6 years only.  2. The public (not the judges!) will decide which cases are conflict-of-interest and when the judge MUST recues himself.

PERFECT EXAMPLE : Secret money rolling into Thomas’ wife’s tea party group (one check was for $500,000!) PAC is a direct benefit of the Courts’ Citizen’s United Decision. This is an obvious complete conflict-of-interest and another reason Thomas should be fired! 

Am I right?  Write me! Send a comment on-line.