Taibbi tells all to Tucker

I listened to the entire 2 hour 20 minute interview of Matt Taibbi on the Tucker show this afternoon (waiting for a call back that never came). By the end I was almost tearful. It's sad when one's dreams are dashed--even for leftists. Taibbi was considered the golden boy of liberal journalism. Worked 10 years in Russia (speaks Russian) as a journalist and had his dream job for 16 years with Rolling Stone. He got the big exposé about Twitter, how it was infiltrated by government intel. He now works as an independent (Substack) and is called "right wing" by the Demedia, his former friends and colleagues. He really dislikes Trump, but has had to acknowledge the Soviet/Russian style justice he has received (and Steve Bannon). He was such a huge fan of Obama it was almost painful to listen to his confession of faith. Oddly, he is such a believer in the values of freedom of speech and a journalism ethic that I don't believe ever existed in real practice, that he's about as MAGA as one could be without knowing it.

One odd thing I learned during the interview is both men have fathers who were adopted. Taibbi is actually of Filipino/Hawaiian ethnicity, adopted by Italian Americans with a Lebanese surname.

Menstrual justice

If you can only make your life feel significant or sell a book by adding an adjective to the word "justice," you're impaired and there may be no hope. I just got an e-mail about menstrual justice.

I've read through the very wordy piece (satire?) and see that the words woman, girl, or female are never used. And that's because of the T in a certain acronym

Ambassador Sondland’s testimony

"On examination, Ambassador Sondland admitted that only his presumptions tied conditions to the aid. His actual exchange with the President offered only, "I want nothing from Ukraine! Tell him to do what he ran on; tell him to do the right thing. I want nothing from them - there is no quid-pro-quo!"

The MSM did not report the examination of the Ambassador to its viewers!

They instead told their viewers that a conviction in the Senate was made inevitable by Sondland's testimony, ignoring altogether, Sondland's admission that only his presumptions tied conditions to the Ukrainian aid." (Patricia Anthone)

It's been shocking to me to listen to Democrat friends who watch and listen to testimony yet only hear "fact" instead of assumption, where people are clearly speculating about and interpreting the mind of someone they hate. They become enraged and unhinged if you point out what wasn't said. FACTS.

Would any of these Democrats, well educated, loyal Americans, want to face a jury this biased and hateful?  Would they agree to marriage counseling or arbitration if this sort of bias were taken as reliable information or fact? Why do people expect justice for themselves but no justice for people they hate?

Should Islam Be Classified as a Religion?

"Concerning the definition of religion for First Amendment purposes, many factors need to be taken into account and compared with the Judeo-Christian religious tradition for which the First Amendment was intended. Religion as we have known it has been good for society. It has nurtured morality, strengthened the family, fostered public service and encouraged social harmony. Islam, on the other hand, is self-segregating, fosters ideas of Muslim supremacy and thereby sows seeds of social discord. Even its tradition of charitable giving is solely for the benefit of fellow Muslims and it utterly destroys the family through its adoption of polygamy.

In addition, Islam is the only religion that requires territorial sovereignty – its laws are laws of the land rather than laws of the heart as we are accustomed to finding in religion. In the Western tradition, legality and morality are two different things. In Islam, they are one and the same. And as Muslims press for their laws to become laws of the land, especially by suppressing criticism of Islam, the clash between these two systems of thought will intensify.

There is, however, a current of modern thought seeking to elevate a laudable personal virtue, that of tolerance, over the greater principle of justice. Is it just to tolerate polygamy in the name of religious freedom? The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 1878, Reynolds v. United States, it is not. Is it just to tolerate the unequal right to inheritance for women? Is it just to tolerate forced marriage? Is it just to tolerate antisemitism? Is it just to tolerate the preaching of hatred toward non-Muslims? Is it just to tolerate the teaching that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims and that men are superior to women? Is it just to tolerate a parallel legal system based on inequality? There are things that our society cannot tolerate and expect to survive. Justice must take its rightful place above tolerance.

If Islam could be reclassified as primarily a social and political ideology, then the Western world would have a powerful tool with which to deal with its spread and could begin the process of containment in the same way the West contained communism, which in the end, seems to be the only realistic option before us with regard to Islam."

Read more: Should Islam Be Classified as a Religion? > Rebecca Bynum