Of course, then it would be tone deaf. Agreed completely.
But the OP’s comment was, in essence, “There’s no possible way this is anything other than tone deaf.” I disagree. There IS a possible way; how you feel about this depends entirely upon what you feel Ms. Hill did. If she told the truth, was mistaken, or related in good faith events that she completely misinterpreted, then it’s ludicrous to imagine she’d change her story now.
But if she deliberately fabricated her testimony, then it’s not.
Because, under those circumstances, it’s not anything resembling an “olive branch”. It’s more of a “fess up to your crime of lying to Congress and trying to ruin my husbands career 20 years ago.”
If she described the communication as trying to clear her husbands good name, not tone deaf. Olive branch, I think not.
Yes, that is *exactly *what I am saying. Regardless of what actually happened, if Ms. Thomas had no reason to believe that Ms. Hill’s position had changed at all, then asking for an apology the way she did, even if coming from a position of deeply-felt correctness, is tone deaf.
Why not? “Extend an olive branch,” means generally an offer of peace or good will. If in fact Ms. Hill completely fabricated her testimony, than why is it unreasonable to ask that a predicate for peace and good will be her admission of that fact?
I wouldn’t say that. If Anita Hill made everything up from whole cloth (which I don’t believe for one second she did) and has maintained this position for 20 years, then asking her to recant and apologize to a man whose career she would, in essence, have attempted to destroy through falsehoods isn’t tone deaf.
However, given that I don’t think Ms. Thomas even believes that was the case, it was incredibly tone deaf.
Yes, because the EVIDENCE has not changed. Ms Thomas has no first hand knowledge of her husband’s behavior before he married her, she’s merely operating off of her own personal opinion that her hubby is teh awesomez and would never, ever have done anything so wrong and therefore Ms Hill MUST be lying, in spite of much greater evidence (such as testifying under oath on multiple occasions where perjury penalties would have been a substantial disincentive to mendaciousness) that she is not. Ms Thomas is also as stupid as a fried popsicle if she thinks that a moronic voice mail message would be sufficiently compelling to cause Ms Hill to recant her testimony under oath. Ms Thomas is, quite frankly, a bit of a dumbass IMO.
I can’t imagine too many people would take that position. I thin kthe vast majority of observers, if it were proven that Ms. Hill’s testimony were wholly fabricated, would describe the request for an apology as “tone deaf.”
Just to further clarify your thinking, suppose a tape came to light, made between, say, Florynce Kennedy and Anita Hill over the July 4th holiday in 1991. In the tape, we hear Ms. Kennedy urging Ms. Hill to say that Thomas harassed her. Hill objects, saying that nothing like that ever happened, and Kennedy persists, telling her that it’s for the good of the country to make sure a man like Thomas doesn’t replace Thurgood Marshall and all the good work he’s done. The tape would go on to reveal the two of them constructing the story, adding and changing details based on what they thought was believable. Let’s say that this tape exists and is made public.
Would that change your calculation that Thomas’ call was tone deaf?
As I see it Mrs. Thomas is saying, “Enough time has passed so that you, Ms. Hill, should come forward, do the right thing and apologize to my husband and myself.”
IMHO, that is a pretty third class thing to do. The classy thing to do would be for the supposedly wronged parties, the Thomases, to forgive Ms. Hill for her alleged transgressions and not to demand an apology now. Live and let live, let bygones be bygones, forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us and all that stuff.
Refer back to my post quoting the Washington Post article. Another woman is writing a memoir that includes her period of dating Clarence Thomas, which occurred during the same time period Anita Hill interacted with him, in which she asserts that Hill’s report of his behavior is absolutely consistent with her own experience of Mr Thomas’ habitual conduct. Ms Thomas is obviously not happy with the corroboration of Ms Hill’s assertions and is doing a hamhanded maneuver to force Hill to “confess” that it was all a big old lie. Good luck with that, Ginni, you moran.
Perhaps not tone deaf, but self serving as hell. Virginia is in need of publicity for her tea party style lobbying group.
This gets her name out there again, in a Glenn Beck, ‘sell us your gold’ kind of way.
Since the circus surrounding his wife reflects badly on the court as a whole, judge Thomas really should school Ginny in appropriate behavior, or resign from the court.
Why not? “Extend an olive branch,” means generally an offer of peace or good will. If in fact Ms. Hill completely fabricated her testimony, than why is it unreasonable to ask that a predicate for peace and good will be her admission of that fact?
I’d say it’s tone deaf just because it seems to have come out of the blue after 20 years. She called Hill’s office at 7:30AM on Saturday, when it’s unlikely anyone would be there. She left a message. This is not something you leave a message about.
Now we’re all being subjected to the “pubic hair on the coke can” again in the news. Nice.
Ha. Yes, I missed that bit. Yeaahhhh, good luck with that.
As for Bricker’s increasingly contrived scenarios, I will just say that if Jesus Christ came down from on high and personally affirmed that Anita Hill was a big lying liar from Liarville, then sure, I suppose that would change my opinion about things. But since I am operating in reality instead of the land of bizarre hypotheticals, my opinion is not in fact changed. I think Mrs. Thomas is acting like a crazy person who is obsessed with something that happened two decades ago, and needs to let it drop.
Well, if the OP had said, “Regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event, how self-serving can an individual be?” I don’t think I’d have any complaint about it.