Chutzpah – a.k.a. Balls, by Mike Gold Brainiac On Banjo #193
October 25, 2010 Mike Gold 22 Comments
There’s a reason why many Yiddish words have become common to the English language. For some reason, Yiddish has mastered the use of single words that express certain emotions and actions that cannot be as easily or as thoroughly expressed in the American tongue. Bupkes, feh, glitch, kibbitz, klutz, kvetch, mentsh, shlep, shmooze, shtick, tchatchkes… the sound of these words convey their meaning.
In my opinion, no single Yiddish word has been more useful than “Chutzpah.” Dictionary.com defines it as unmitigated effrontery or impudence, gall, audacity, nerve. Hey, that sounds like my job description. But when it comes to chutzpah, I bow to the master – Virginia Thomas.
Nineteen years ago, her husband Clarence was nominated to the Supreme Court. In the Congressional confirmation hearings, Anita Hill, one of his aids, said Clarence Thomas subjected her and other women to harassment by making sexual remarks and references to pornographic movies. “He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes… On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess… Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office, he got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, ‘Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?’”
Hill only made those accusations after congressional investigators contacted her and subsequently leaked her interview, and by that point in time she had been working for Thomas for ten years. You could argue that if she had been able to swallow it for a decade, it wasn’t a big deal. Well, you could argue that if you had not been subjected to sexual harassment in the 1980s. On the other had, she did have the job for ten years and her performance was not challenged until she after was questioned by investigators.
So now, 19 years later, Virginia Thomas is demanding an apology from Ms. Hill. According to ABC News, Thomas said on her phone message “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.” Thomas told the Associated Press she was “extending an olive branch” to Hill.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is chutzpah. That’s a full 10.
Anita Hill declined the extension. “I have no intention of apologizing because I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony,” she said.
Anita is now a Brandeis University professor. Virginia is the founder of Liberty Central, which opposes “the leftist tyranny of the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.” She’s also a darling of the tea bagger circuit.
Seeing somebody perform at an unprecedented level is always a moving experience. One-time Batman teevee writer Stanley Ralph Ross explained this feeling as “the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat; the human drama of athletic competition.” It takes real chutzpah to make such a stand, and Virginia Thomas performed to a level reached only by the Michael Jordans of this world.
Damn, and I thought I had balls.
Fellow-traveler, anarcho-syndicalist and www.ComicMix.com editor-in-Chief Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking bizarro music and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com, every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, replayed three times during the week (check the website above for times). Likewise, his Weird Scenes Inside The Gold Mind political and cultural rants pop up each and every day at the same venue.
Vinnie Bartilucci
October 25, 2010 - 10:39 am
There are just too many lines of this piece that I could point to and make Beavis and Butthead noises. I’ll just go with…
“if she had been able to swallow it for a decade, it wasn’t a big deal”
That’s friggin’ poetry.
The way I figure it, if Ginny Thomas were drunk or on Ambien when she made the call, we’d have heard it by now. So it’s to be assumed she knew what she was doing (for a narrow definition of the term) and actually thought the call would do some good. Either that, or the exterminator had done too good a job of getting rid of all the ants in their yard, and she just had a mad urge to kick one over.
This is one of those things that had all but forgotten by the public. Nearly twenty years ago, tons of decisions since, even the media didn’t bother to bring it up any more for fear of looking like they couldn’t let something go. And Ginny goes and sends everybody a shovel and a brand new pair of sure-grip work gloves.
Justice Thomas has been unavailable for comment. And when he finally is, he’ll sound very hoarse, as he’s spent the last week and change screaming into a pillow.
Reg
October 25, 2010 - 12:38 pm
Vinnie…great last line, but with sexy Clarence’s apparent appreciation for a lil’ bestiality are you sure that he won’t be biting that pillow? 🙁
As others have opined, I think that Ginny and da judge had become privy to Lillian McEwen’s impending memoir about her scandalous trysts (not to mention alleged acts of lying under oath) with Big Daddy Clarence and tried to take a page out of the GOP tricks bag. IF by some malevolent Jedi mind spell Dr. Hill was brainwashed into acquiescing to Ginny’s pimp game, her ‘apology’ would have been used to discredit the memoirs’ nasty talk.
HERE COMES DA JUDGE!!
Vinnie Bartilucci
October 25, 2010 - 1:02 pm
Well, certainly Lillian McEwen looks suspect now, coming back into the spotlight with a memoir under her arm. But indeed, if SHE had been the one to drag this mishegas (Mike’s right; Jewish words work best) back into the light, it might have been easier to shoo both it and her away, simply by saying that she’s just trying to cash in one something almost two decades old. Ginny bringing it up first seems a poor move. It’s bad press for everyone. Anita Hill, who may have built up some good will as a teacher at Braindeis, drops back to being “that woman”. Ginny comes off as a borderline psycho that doesn’t know when to leave things alone, and all of Justice Thomas’ decisions in the past decades are now being viewed with a hairy eyeball. Indeed, should someone decide to bring him up on perjury charges, it may put them all in jeopardy.
I’m rather amazed that Ms. Hill chose to escalate the issue by bringing the campus police and then the FBI in. As I say, it only serves to put her back in the spotlight for something that, as I understand it, she was loath to do in the first place. Were I in her shoes, I’d have just ignored it. Whether or not it was really from Ginny (at the time she wasn’t sure) it was an isolated call, with no malice or threat stated or implied. I’ll lay odds she still gets far more unpleasant calls from people unconnected to the case; if she wasn’t before, she certainly is now. Since there was no threat, why make a thing of it? Two of many possibilities come to mind – to get herself back in the spotlight (tho again, no idea why she’d want that) or to embarrass Ginny and Justice Thomas. That’s a viable option, but is it worth the aforementioned return to the spotlight and functional erasure of all she’s done in 20 years?
The only person to potentially benefit from this is Ms. Mcewen. A book about something that happened 20 years ago is of questionable marketability. But once it came back into the eyeline, it became a potential hot property again. My own clever theory was that Lillian gave Ginny a Roofie Colada dialed Anita’s number and handed Ginny the phone.
Reg
October 25, 2010 - 1:50 pm
I suspect Dr. Hill is cognizant that today’s media climate is a heckuva lot more sympathetic towards her than the one she faced 20 years ago.
Not to mention that her record at Brandeis and other academia will stand up to scrutiny far more than the redolent CT.
Mike Gold
October 25, 2010 - 2:35 pm
I think Dr. Hill is on safe ground with Brandeis, which is still well-known for churning out thousands of little liberal activists each year. I haven’t been up there lately, but I did four or five guest lecture turns at Brandeis and had a lot of fun.
However, I don’t think her credibility is on the line. By now either you believe her and like her and are in favor of her, or you think that the near-comatose Justice Thomas and his time-and-space defiant wife are the bee’s knees.
Nobody shoves Republicans out of the Republican party more forcefully than Republicans.
Rick Oliver
October 25, 2010 - 5:20 pm
Perhaps Ginny should examine her own question: “…why you did what you did…?” Indeed, what possible motive did Hill have for making up what she said? To this day, I haven’t heard a plausible one. So I remain inclined to believe her. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
MOTU
October 25, 2010 - 8:58 pm
Living proof that some black men will marry a fat ugly bitch just so they can have a white woman.
Yeah, I said it.
John Tebbel
October 26, 2010 - 6:14 am
Today’s media climate more sympathetic?
Brandeis “known for churning out thousands of little liberal activists each year”?
Just asking.
Reg
October 26, 2010 - 7:08 am
@ John… I’d definitely say that the modern day Olbermann’s, Maddow’s, Stewart’s, Maher’s and Huffington’s of the world would provide arenas where Dr. Hill would find succor.
Vinnie Bartilucci
October 26, 2010 - 7:25 am
“Yeah, I said it.”
Wow, I just looked the MOTU up on my GPS, and it just points to “there”, cause that’s where he went.
Be fair, she might not have looked that frumpy 20 years ago, or whenever the hell they got married. I know your Asian women don’t age (all that magic pearl cream I’ve seen advertised on the TV, I assume) But most wives do.
I mean, she was probably never a Christine O’Donnell, but hey.
Reg
October 26, 2010 - 7:31 am
@ Mike and Vinnie…Whatever the reason’s behind Ginny’s call, it definitely has served to open up a crypt full of skeletons that’s making Clarence look very, very, very bad.
Ms. McEwen basically filleted Thomas’ career on Larry King last night. If he wasn’t an embarrassment before (which he was), he has now truly been relegated to ‘Invisible Man’ status as far the Justices are concerned. One can only hope that he will exercise his exit option by resigning in the near future.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/25/scotus.thomas.mcewen/index.html?hpt=C1
Mike Gold
October 26, 2010 - 8:25 am
John, from my associations and observation, Brandeis continues to churn out thousands of little liberal activists each year. It’s their tradition. Liberal kids go there because it’s a good liberal school. Liberal parents send their kids there for the same reason. Conservative kids go there to bitch about how colleges are oh-so-fuckin’ liberal, which strikes me as a black woman suing the Klan for discriminatory recruitment practices.
Vinnie Bartilucci
October 26, 2010 - 10:00 am
It’s not even “making Clarence look very, very, very bad” as much as reminding people how bad he looked twenty years ago. And that’s got to be the most infuriating part. Here he thought he’d gotten past all this stuff, only to have rear its head like a 15-year cicada.
AFAIC, if the worst they had on the guy is he was a bit of a horndog, they really have nothing. And it’s pretty much all they could get on Clinton. But for both sides, it was enough, and they tried all they could to turn it into a big enough thing to bring the men in question down. And a percentage of the populace were offended, but the majority went “meh”. They’ve kept bashing Clinton all these years, but Thomas got a pass (a term I choose advisedly). But now they can start the whole mess up again. And to be fair, Thomas doesn’t actually have to do anything. He’s in for life, and I really don’t think the Democrats want to put all the decision he was involved in under review, because it would mean ALL the decisions would be under review, not just the ones they lost.
This will pass, and relatively quickly. It will return to the bubbling mudpit of political ammunition and be traded off for the next big diversionary accusation one side or the other will come up with. And Justice Thomas will explain to Ginny, using small words, the fine art of Letting Things Lie.
Reg
October 26, 2010 - 2:01 pm
Sooooo, having a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court being accused of being unstable, probable lying under oath, circumstantially considered as being a sexual harasser while leading the EEOC, surely should fall within the realm of said Justice lacking “good behavior”… which is a conditional requirement, does it not?
And whereas it’s quite possible that the majority of the Bench are freaks underneath the robes, they’ve exercised sufficient restraint that said alleged freakiness has not come into the light of day. Just how seriously can he be taken from this point as a Jurist?
John Tebbel
October 26, 2010 - 2:03 pm
@Reg, I’ll see your Olbermann’s, Maddow’s, Stewart’s, Maher’s and Huffington’s and raise you a Beck, Scarborough, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and Williams. Which cable propaganda network leads in the ratings?
@Mike, Like the New York Times, it’s my experience that Universities are no more liberal on a whole than Grocery Stores or cobblestones. If you’ve got rightwing nut jobs saying middle is left and left is socialism, you get today in America.
Mike Gold
October 26, 2010 - 2:27 pm
John, I appreciate your point, particularly as applied to the New York Times. But Brandeis has, to my experience, long been the exception to that rule. My libdar first went on when Abbie Hoffman (who would be 74 now… jeez!) told me that’s where he got his B.A. in psychology, joking that he was the most conservative guy in his graduating class. Then again, Herbert Marcuse was one of his teachers, so I see where he was coming from.
Which cable propaganda network leads in the ratings? Well, Fox, with an audience that is bigger than MSNBCs and CNNs combined. But there are two important caveats:
all three COMBINED attract an average of 2,500,000 viewers, the three network news shows average a combined viewship of 20,560,000. And, second, all six attract a heavily geriatric audience. Like, you know, me.
One more statistic: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart averages almost two million viewers each night. That’s more than Fox News.
Mike Gold
October 26, 2010 - 2:29 pm
Reg, under the robes them justices might be complete freaks, but since they’re appointed for life, I think what you’ll find under those robes — just like the lesser federal judges — would be stuff like Depends and colostomy bags.
I’ve seen some federal judges who you wouldn’t let walk across the street alone, let alone pass judgment on people.
Reg
October 26, 2010 - 3:41 pm
Mike…yeah..I know they have the life appt (which is a problem in itself imo), and it’s a pipe dream to wish that CT had the personal integrity to tuck his robe behind him and disappear…but I do feel that sufficient reasons exist for certain folks to to push hard on the matter of impeachment. Although Vinnie’s previous arguments against exercising that option certainly have merit.
I just despise the fact that he occupies the spot of the great Thurgood.
MOTU
October 26, 2010 - 8:26 pm
Vinnie,
I’m sure she was ugly all her life. She may have looked better 20 years ago but ugly goes much deeper than looks my friend.
MOTU
October 28, 2010 - 6:01 pm
Random thought-Michael Stelle is a fucking uncle Tom Nigger of the highest order. I’m just saying.
Mike Gold
October 28, 2010 - 6:19 pm
Master Dude, that’s not an original thought. I mean, I know guys who swear that dumb fuck is wearing blackface. But even blackface would be too black for that jerk.
I never knew Uncle Tom’s last name was really Nigger. Shit, that explains a LOT!
MOTU
October 28, 2010 - 8:11 pm
Mike,
You are SO right. This guy makes the ‘N’ word sound good.