During nearly four decades on the air, 60 Minutes has had its share of bizarre moments, many coming courtesy of idiotic statements from its correspondents.
In his interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Steve Kroft was the latest 60 Minutes correspondent to sound like a complete doofus. His questioning was racially offensive.
What Kroft had to say is far more racist than what Bill O'Reilly came under fire for saying last week.
He is the court's only African American, and it's most conservative member. He is arguably the most influential black man in the country, yet he is reviled by many in his own race for his opposition to government programs intended to help minorities.
Kroft fails to note that Thomas is reviled by liberals across the board, not just "many in his own race."
Kroft should be embarrassed for the way he handled the subject of Thomas' race.
It was cringe-inducing. I think it's fair to say that Kroft's statements are racist.
"It's fascinating that people, there's so many people now who will make judgments based on what you look like," Thomas says. "I'm black. So I'm supposed to think a certain way. I'm supposed to have certain opinions. I don't do that. You don't create a box and put people in and then make a lot of generalizations about them."
The justice agrees that there are some misconceptions about him, but says, "I think there are misconceptions about all of us."
"There's been an effort over the last 15, 20 years to create this perception of me. And you can't argue that that's been, in large part, successful," Thomas says.
He is often dismissed as a man of little accomplishment, an opportunistic black conservative who sold out his race, joined the Republican Party and was ultimately rewarded with an affirmative action appointment to the nation's highest court, a sullen, intellectual lightweight so insecure he rarely opens his mouth in oral arguments. The problem with the characterization is that it's unfair and untrue.
"These conceptions or misperceptions, you call them, have accumulated because you haven't really addressed them. You haven't talked about them," Kroft remarks.
"My job is to write opinions. I decide cases and write opinions. It is not to respond to idiocy and critics who make statements that are unfounded," Thomas says. "That doesn't mean that people shouldn't have constructive criticisms, but it should be constructive. Whether or not I'm black or not, that's just silliness. That is not worth responding to."
How much of his life is determined by his race?
"Oh, goodness. I don't know. I’m black. How much of your life is determined by being male? I have no idea. I'm black. That's a fact of life. I'm 5'8 1/2" tall. I don't know how much of my life is determined by being 5'8 1/2" tall. It's just a part of who I am," Thomas tells Kroft.
"But you think of yourself as a black man," Kroft says.
"I'm a man. I'm a man, first and foremost. I'm a citizen of this country. And I happen to be black. I am a human being," Thomas replies.
Thomas believes the Constitution is "color blind" and he is part of an emerging majority on the court that believes that laws granting preferential treatment based on race should be struck down.
But it is Thomas who has been vilified by the civil rights establishment in part because he is black, and because he is viewed as having benefited from some of very programs he now opposes. At best they consider him a hypocrite, at worst a traitor to his own people.
"You've been successful. You moved on. You don't care about people and your race," Kroft says.
"Oh, that's silliness," the justice replies.
"You do care," Kroft remarks.
"Oh, obviously I do," Thomas says. "Come on, you know? But it's none of their business. How much does Justice Scalia care about Italians? Did you ask him that? Did anyone ever ask him? Give me a break. Do I help people? Absolutely. Do I help, love helping black people? Absolutely. And I do. But do I like helping all people? Yes. In particular I like helping people who are disadvantaged, people who don’t come from the best circumstances. Do white people live in homeless shelters? Do Hispanics live in homeless shelters? Is disadvantaged exclusive province of blacks? No."
Good grief.
When Kroft says, "But you think of yourself as a black man," it's positively embarrassing.
Kroft is absolutely clueless. He's insulting. He's stupid.
I give credit to Thomas for not ending the interview at that point, then and there.
Kroft is the embodiment of the Left's despicable treatment of Thomas.
He just can't seem to believe that Thomas actually considers himself to be black or that he cares about people of his race. It's bizarre.
Kroft's "silliness" reminds me of that disgraceful episode involving Ricardo Pimentel, editor of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's editorial page.
In fall of 2005, Pimentel ran that infamous editorial about the nomination of Samuel Alito.
Whining about the Supreme Court's diversity, Pimentel dismissed Thomas as not being black.
Another minus is that the nomination lessens the court's diversity. O'Connor herself had expressed the desire that her successor be a woman. O'Connor seems to have grown wiser about diversity as a result of her Supreme Court experience. She came to see the virtues of having a court that looks like America - doubtless a big reason she softened her opposition to affirmative action in recent years.
In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.
Thomas is so NOT black he "deserves an asterisk."
In 2005, Pimentel was interviewed by Editor and Publisher.
Pimentel said he had no regrets about running the editorial, and had no plans for a column or other explanatory note about it. "I let it in as a statement of fact," he said of the editorial. "That Clarence Thomas did not represent mainstream black thought. I think that is demonstrably true if you look at his rulings. A reasonable person could surmise that, saying he would weaken the voting rights act, outlaw affirmative action, dilute black voting power, make it difficult to prove various kinds of discrimination, and approve cruel and unusual punishment."
Like Kroft, Pimentel is skeptical of Thomas' blackness.
He goes so far as to include the asterisk comment as "a statement of fact."
Pimentel thinks it's a FACT that Thomas should not be considered truly black since he has a conservative philosophy. Because of his conservative mindset, he requires qualification. He needs an asterisk.
In other words, a conservative black man is not as black as a liberal black man.
The Journal Sentinel editorial claims:
Black = Liberal
Anyway you look at it, that's a racist position.
All blacks do not think alike. It should not be assumed that if one is to be recognized as black, one may not hold conservative views.
Thomas' race is not debatable. He's black, regardless of his conservatism. No asterisks need apply.
No comments:
Post a Comment