Month: October 2010

Virginia Doubts

Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, said she was “extending an olive branch” when she called Anita Hill to ask her to apologize for accusing Thomas of sexually harassing her, nineteen years ago. She also wanted “some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband…”

Clearly, this is no “olive branch”; it is only a little short of demanding that Hill admit to fabricating the harassment charge—in other words, it is an attack. In response, Hill publicly restated that her testimony was “truthful.”

What is interesting here is not the respective statements of Thomas and Hill, but the reason why Virginia Thomas chose to act as she did. What was her motivation?

The answer is that it is not about Clarence Thomas or Anita Hill, so much as it is about Virginia. It seems very likely that she knows in her heart, or at least suspects, that Clarence Thomas was not truthful, even if she consciously does not admit to it.  What she wants is to have her suspicions put to rest, and the only way to do this is for Anita Hill to retract the accusations.

Well, the accusations will not be put to rest, because Hill reaffirmed them. So, poor Virginia will have to continue with that doubt in her heart.

Added Later:

It looks like Virginia Thomas has her confirmation after all. Lillian McEwan, Clarence Thomas’ one time lover has now confirmed that Thomas had an obsession with pornography and that he ogled women’s breasts and was preoccupied with bra sizes—in other words, she backed up what Anita Hill said in 1991.

Yes, Virginia, the worst Supreme Court justice ever is indeed the pervert as alleged. You should have kept your mouth shut.

Legalizing Marijuana – Again

Before when I wrote on California’s Proposition 19 (“Legalizing Marijuana” July 14, 2010), I said, “If the latest proposition is passed, the main benefit would be the decriminalization of marijuana together with a steep drop in prices that would make trafficking the drug unattractive to criminal elements, and there would be some state income from taxes.” This is an argument that has been made in favor of the proposition. But the monetary benefit is actually illusionary.

There cannot be any income from taxes on pot under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court has already ruled (unanimously) that it is unconstitutional to require anyone to pay taxes on marijuana because to do so is to admit to a violation of federal law (Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 1969). Even if Proposition 19 passes, the use of marijuana remains illegal under federal law. It would not be long before a tax case comes to court and cities like Oakland, who are banking on income from taxes on pot, will find that those coffers will remain empty.

Any savings from decriminalizing marijuana will have to be redirected to the demands of regulation, which are part of the proposition. Drug enforcement will still be required not just for the regulation of marijuana, but also for the increased trafficking of other drugs. The “criminal elements” are unlikely to enter the legitimate marijuana business, but they will find an increased market for harder drugs, given the legal availability of such an excellent gateway drug.

There is no need for this proposition. Under the present policy in California, all you need is a doctor’s note and you can buy your “medical” marijuana. Most people who buy medical marijuana don’t actually need it. Ask around. In the past, I have used a doctor who would give me a “note” for the price of a beer. As it happens, not one note was for pot, but had I wanted one, he would have written it.

Meg Whitman’s Housekeeper

What is the typical politician’s reaction when he is caught out? Deny, lie, shift the blame. This appears to be Meg Whitman’s strategy when the story came out that she had fired her housekeeper of nine years for being an illegal immigrant. Whitman had taken the stand that employers of illegals should be held accountable, so then she had to get rid of the evidence that she was one of those employers. When her dirty little secret came out, she began to deny, and apparently lie (in the face of evidence), and she blamed the housekeeper and her lawyer, and her opponent, at having conspired to make political capital out of her actions.

How much effect this incident will have on the campaign is not easy to predict. The Whitman camp has doubled her ads on Hispanic television in an attempt to counter negative effects. I believe that the fact that she hired an illegal immigrant is not the main issue. What is the most important aspect of this incident is how she treated her housekeeper of nine years. That part is clear. She fired her without compassion, told her that she never knew her, cast her off like one would throw away garbage. Then it was cover up time until the word got out, and the strategy changed to deny, lie and blame others.

Whitman would have been much better off to have taken the initiative in the first place, admitted to having made a mistake, and given some hope to the dismissed housekeeper, perhaps even helping her attain legal status. That is what a compassionate person would have done. We know now what Whitman is not.