September 11th 2008
Lipstick Not Only Pig-Hockey Mom Difference
Y
ou can put lipstick on a bunch of biased, hypocritical ideologues, but they’re still the New York Times political reporting staff.
As discussed in Media Bias 2008 #53, the supposedly objective reporters at the NYT don’t want you to confuse for one moment Sarah Palin’s tough-minded determination to successfully push through a natural gas pipeline deal with an actual accomplishment. They helpfully provide this insight:
The pipeline exists only on paper. The first section has yet to be laid, federal approvals are years away and the pipeline will not be completed for at least a decade. In fact, although it is the centerpiece of Ms. Palin’s relatively brief record as governor, the pipeline might never be built, and under a worst-case scenario, the state could lose up to $500 million it committed to defray regulatory and other costs.
Hate to break it to you, boys, but outside the rarefied air of the newsroom, it actually takes more to do big things than merely carry a skinny notebook, tap on a keyboard, and drink vente triple-shot lattes. Fights to achieve real accomplishments often have more than one round; pieces have to come together; people have to work hard toward a goal with vision and determination.
With that in mind, I offer up this story I found today a bit further back in the Gray Lady:
Experts Deny Palin’s Lipstick Claim
By SERGE F. KOVALESKI and MIKE McINTIRE
ANCHORAGE — When Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska took center stage at the Republican convention last week, she sought to burnish her “hockey mom” credentials by assuring the audience that the only difference between a hockey mom and a pitt bull is lipstick.
While not yet a demographic with the numbers and geographic distribution of soccer moms, hockey moms are a rising force in American politics, and some experts tell the Times that should their support swing strongly toward the McCain/Palin ticket, it may prove decisive in November.
Undeniably, the statement was well received by the Republican faithful in St. Paul and also offered the GOP ticket an added benefit yesterday, as Barack Obama had to deny that his own “lipstick on a pig” statement was a jab at Gov. Palin.
The reality, however, is far from the impression Ms. Palin has left at the convention, an impression she has subsequently reinforced in statements on the campaign trail.
Certainly she proved effective in reaching out to mothers of hockey-playing children, and possibly fathers of hockey-playing children as well - while the possible negative reaction among soccer parents and life partners remains unknown - but scientists and college professors tell the Times that her statement was false.
“Genetically speaking, and therefore anatomically speaking, there are nearly infinite differences between pigs and hockey moms, all of them much more significant than lipstick, which is mere adornment,”‘ said Dr. Ruth Lipshitz of Columbia’s Center for Genetic Studies. “To start with, pigs have 38 chromosomes while humans have 46.”
At the State University of New York’s College of Agriculture in Elmira, pig expert Dr. Hank Straw noted, “Ungulates do have eyes and hearts that are remarkably similar to those of humans, which have made them significant contributors to many advancements in medical research, but there are many more differences than similarities.
“Four legs instead of two, snout instead of nose, curly tail instead of … well, in Gov. Palin’s case, a very nice tail, the differences go on and on.
“But,” he concluded, “it is possible that pigs have contributed to better lipstick through the contributions they have made to advancements in cosmetics research.”
Experts at the American Cosmetics Association speaking anonymously because they are not permitted to talk to the media, confirmed that pigs are sometimes used in research, but refused to specify what role they play in lipstick development, or if pigs are harmed in any way in this research.
So many PETA spokespersons return the Times’ call for comments that telephone services to the newsroom was temporarily disrupted. This story will be subsequently amended with their comments.
Starship Jones, spokesperson of the color white for the Obama campaign, told the Times, “This confirms our earlier statement that Republicans are liars who will bring a repeat of the Bush years, while President … I mean Senator … Obama has shown again and again he stands for a new kind of politics.
“Mr. Obama is change. He will reach across the aisle for compromise, but you can put lipstick on a Republican and he’s still a liar.”
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Yahoo Buzz]](http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-buzz-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Digg]](http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-digg-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to StumbleUpon]](http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-su-micro3.png){kind=icon}
Posted in Humor, Media bias, New York Times, Obama, Palin | 6 Comments » | 
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
September 17th, 2008 at 9:51 am
September 19th, 2008 at 6:20 am
September 26th, 2008 at 9:00 am
October 16th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Comments
September 11th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Barack Obama PLAGIARIZED from the Tom Toles Cartoon in the Sept. 5, 2008 Washington Post. In his speech, where he used the phrase “Lipstick on a Pig” and talked about old stinky fish, the words just before that phrase were taken almost word-for-word from that Cartoon. I saw this posted yesterday morning at a blog called “Stuck on Stupid” and they have the Cartoon right next to the Video of Obama’s speech. I always thought they call using someones words without giving credit PLAGIARIZING and that Newspapers frown on this sort of thing, why does the Washington Post remain silent on this?
September 11th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Shall we take up a collection of used lipsticks and forward them to the NY Slime editorial and Clueless Staff??