Salon, which, Alas! gets far more readers than The First Street Journal, swims in hypocrisy:
Gini Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, wants to lead a pro-Trump grassroots organization
In an email chain, Ginni Thomas said she wanted to start a group that would counter the resistance from the left
By Taylor Link | Thursday, February 16, 2017 12:30 PM EST
In an email chain, Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, asked how she could start a grassroots organization that would support President Donald Trump and combat the resistance coalescing against him.
The emails, uncovered by The Daily Beast, were posted to a conservative listerv this month. They revealed an eager Ginni Thomas determined to make sure Trump’s policies were enacted.
“What is the best way to, with minimal costs, set up a daily text capacity for a ground-up grassroots army for pro-Trump daily action items to push back agains the left’s resistance efforts who are trying to maker America ungovernable?” she wrote.
“There are some grassroots activists, who seem beyond the Republican party or the conservative movement, who wish to join the fray on social media for Trump and link shields and build momentum,” she added. “I met with a house load of them yesterday and we want a daily textable tool to start.”
Naturally, there’s more at the original.
It’s true enough that Mrs Thomas is something of a conservative activist, but, in reading the entire article, I failed to find a single mention of the fact that Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was vociferously opposed to Donald Trump’s candidacy, and said, in her judicial chambers, “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” or that Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor has said, more than once, that a “wise Latina” would reach different, “better (judicial) conclusions” than “a white male,” a statement which can only mean that she believes in taking legal decisions based upon race and ethnicity rather than just on the law. Those weren’t the spouses of Supreme Court Justices; those were the Justices themselves.
The term ‘salon’ is defined as “ ” or “a fashionable assemblage of notables (as literary figures, artists, or statesmen) held by custom at the home of a prominent person,” or “a gathering of people under the roof of an inspiring host, held partly to amuse one another and partly to refine the taste and increase the knowledge of the participants through conversation. These gatherings often consciously followed Horace’s definition of the aims of poetry, “either to please or to educate” (“aut delectare aut prodesse“). Salons, commonly associated with French literary and philosophical movements of the 17th and 18th centuries, were carried on until as recently as the 1940s in urban settings.”
But, while the definitions would seem to include people of different political persuasions or beliefs, Salon, the “progressive mainstream media website” certainly does not: you must be a political leftist to be a contributor to Salon,1 and any commentary that does not fall within the liberal paradigm will engender nothing but vociferous criticism and mockery; there are no attempts at actual discussion.
Salon has become pretty much of a joke, but that’s what one would expect of any ‘journal’ which includes Amanda Marcotte as a contributor.
Cross-posted on RedState.
- For the record, I have never contributed or attempted to contribute to Salon. ↩