Shorter Demented, Chinless Beaver:

…Why won’t the media stop talking about Clarence Thomas?  Here, read this 750-word essay I’ve written about what a shame it is that the media won’t stop talking about Clarence Thomas.

Besides, that Anita Hill bitch obviously made the whole thing up.

Who put this pubic hair in my WaPo?

 Every 20 years or so, some woman surfaces to accuse the now-Supreme Court justice of being a male chauvinist pig — to resurrect an old term from the tie-dyed era — but falls frustratingly short of making a case for true sexual harassment….

…McEwen’s remembrances are at least two decades old and have no bearing whatsoever on the present-day Clarence Thomas and how he conducts himself on the High Court.

In fact, they have nothing to do with anything — unless it is to prove that nothing about Thomas and his initial accuser, Anita Hill, makes any sense. Her charges fell somewhat short of blatant, coercive, sexual harassment — or, if they didn’t, then why did she follow her abuser, Thomas, from one job to the next? A black, female Yale Law School graduate was not lacking in employment opportunities….

…I was young and boorish once myself and have turned out to be a veritable saint. I venture to say we all did and said terrible things when we were young, which is why nature protects the elderly with failing memories. I want to forget both Hill and Thomas. Let us media types let go of this story. It no longer says anything about them. But it says nothing good about us.

 Speak for yourself, Dick.  Those of us who recognize that the latest of Hill’s corroborators was prompted to speak out thanks to Thomas’ wife drunk-dialing Hill to suggest she apologize for Thomas’ misconduct of 20 years ago are at least sentient enough to recognize that this latest “accuser” didn’t just materialize out of the ether.  Also, too, that the number of accusers has only grown over the past 19 years, particularly if you count the women who were prepared to step forward and corroborate Hill’s testimony at the time of Thomas’ confirmation hearings, only to be told by the Senate Judiciary Committee that their testimony wasn’t needed or wanted.  I’m not sure that a Supreme Court justice who received a lifetime appointment on the basis of perjury ever stops being a story so long as he sits on the court, but even if it does, isn’t it time to let go of this tired “boys will be boys” trope about Thomas’ regrettable “youth”?  The events in question occurred when he was in his mid-thirties to early forties.  And excusing his actions under the rubric of falling “somewhat short of blatant, coercive, sexual harassment” doesn’t get you off the hook for similar behavior in your own similarly extended “youth” – though at least in your case your judgement clearly isn’t central to your job, regardless of how much we all might wish it were so.