M

aybe those who get their news from TMZ and E! will believe Obama’s rising, repeated rhetoric about how he inherited the economic mess from Bush, but everyone else knows Jimmy Carter planted the ticking time bomb and Bill Clinton packed economic C-4 all around it.

Infidels are Cool just tweeted this link - http://twitpic.com/23h1a - to a 1999 NYT article that lays it out quite grandly. Included:

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenominal growth in profits. …

“Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990s by reducing downpayment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer.  “Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.” …

In moving, even tentatively into this new [subprime] area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose difficulties during flush economic times.  But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s.

Given how clearly this sets the blame and how prescient it was, I wonder if the NYT editorial board would consider re-running the article in its entirety. … Nah.

Art: Savannah Red

L

iz Robbins, writing on the NY Times’ “The Lede/Notes on the News” blog, is by all indications a woman. As such, I’m sure she finds the cause of fighting domestic violence worthy of promoting tp the NYT’s readers. Heck, she can even focus on the particular problems the Muslim community has with men degrading their wives:

Even as Mr. [Mozzammil] Hassan, 44, [who beheaded his wife Aasiya] sits in jail under a suicide watch that has been considered only a precaution, said his attorney, James Harrington, the gruesome murder has provoked some soul-searching within the Muslim-American community about the role of women and domestic abuse within Islam.

Soul-search they must, as they’re believers in a religion created, expanded and propagated by men who treated women as not much different than livestock. (No wonder females are becoming popular as suicide bombers - they hurt the enemy with no discernable loss to the terrorists’ side!)

But Robbins must soul-search herself as well because she is giving Islam a pass on the larger issue of the despicable act of “honor” killing. Without even bothering to find a compliant Muslim to quote directly, she writes:

The Muslim-American community in Buffalo and around the United States has reacted with outrage over suggestions that this was a religiously motivated killing, an “honor killing” brought on by the shame of Mr. Hassan’s wife seeking a divorce. The Hassans were originally from Pakistan. Although some Muslim fanatical extremists have justified “honor killings” because of shame brought on a family, Islam is a peaceful religion, and does not condone such violence, Muslim-American leaders have repeated in the last week as the case drew more attention.

Not to put too fine an edge on it, but screw the Muslim-American community in Buffalo and around the United States. Who do they think they are, killing two daughters in Texas, one daughter in Georgia and now disgracing our shores by beheading a wife in New York just because they refused to become compliant cows? The Texas girls, shown here, dressed wrong so their dad shot them both.  The Georgia daughter wanted to divorce an abusive husband, so her dad killed her.  And Muzzammil Hassan, rather than face his own shortcomings (this would have been his third divorce), hacked off the head of the woman who, were he a Christian, he was bound by oath to God to protect.

We are America, not Pakistan or Yemen or some other sorry excuse for civilization. If our wives or daughters stray from the straight and narrow, we don’t kill them in the name of our righteous God . (Yes, all too often wives die at husbands’ hands in America - but in the name of anger and ego, not God, and we certainly don’t say their murder honors our God; we call it what it is - a vile and disgusting sin.)

We also don’t think much of newspapers that are so swift to attack the Catholic church for child-abusing priests, but are so completely unable to confront the evil in Islam.  Fortunately, the 50+ commentors on Robbins’ post aren’t buying her coddling of Islam; overwhelmingly they are tired of this religion and those who make excuses for it.  For example:

“Many Muslim-American organizations insist that honor killing is ‘Un-Islamic.’” Yet, many scholars of Islam equally assert that the Qu’ran as well as custom permits grave punishment for “disobedient” women.” The argument that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’ has grown so tiresome in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. - MPCT

True enough.  To true for the NYT.

Hat-tip: Soccer Dad

O

ne week too late, the New York Times has finally published a story on the brutal beheading of Aasiya Hassan by her husband, owner of a TV network dedicated to proving that Islam is indeed moderate, a faith that’s ready for prime time in a civilized world.

The coverage starts off well, but rapidly deteriorates. Here’s the lead:

A man who founded a Muslim-American television station to help fight Muslim stereotypes is to appear on Wednesday in a suburban Buffalo court on charges that he decapitated his wife last week.

Kudos to the NYT; they put the newsworthy significance - beheadings and Muslim stereotypes - right in the lead, casting the story as it should be cast.  But then the story breaks down into a senseless defense of positive Muslim stereotypes:

The gruesome death of Ms. Hassan prompted outrage from Muslim leaders after suggestions that it had been some kind of “honor killing” based on religious or cultural beliefs.

Dr. Sawsan Tabbaa, a Muslim community leader who teaches orthodontia at the State University at Buffalo, said, “This is not an honor killing, no way.”

Dr. Tabbaa added, “It has nothing to do with his faith.”

They are not outraged that she was beheaded. They are not outraged that Islam tolerates such behavior - it is, after all, the only religion in the world whose followers routinely behead people in the name of its god. They are merely outraged that someone would consider Aasiya Hassan’s death an honor killing.

But let’s look at it, shall we?  Aasiya was divorcing Muzzammil, and that’s just not allowed in enlightened Islam.  Men can divorce women easy as pie, but women divorce men? No way.  So she - she, a mere woman - was bringing shame to Muzzammil.

Now, he could have shot her, or strangled her, or crushed her skull with a tire iron or done any of a number of other well established American ways to kill in a fit of passion.  But instead, he did something almost unique to Islam - he beheaded her.  This is no easy feat.  It’s time-consuming, difficult, and very, very personal.

You behead someone not to kill them, but to send a message.  And the message Mazzammil Hassan was sending was simple:  I will not be dishonored!

The NYT, after waiting a week to cover the story, has made itself complicit in covering up the true nature of the crime.

A

s I reported this morning, the NY Times is not covering the beheading of an upstate NY Muslim woman by her husband - even though it’s a state story, even though he owns a TV network designed to overturn “stereotypes” of Islam … and even though IT’S A BEHEADING FOR GOODNESS SAKE!

My lib friend Dan Chmielewski chides me for chiding the NYT:

Being from Upstate NY, I hope you’ll give me some creds here. But unless is a major story, like the plane crash, the New York Times is not going to cover a local crime story which is what this is. Wonder why you didn’t blog on this story …

… and he links to a Fox News story on Jim Adkisson,a Tennessee truck driver who pled guilty last Monday to killing two people and wounding six others at a church because he considered the liberal church “a den of un-American vipers.”

Not wanting to disappoint Dan (who, I’m sorry, gets no cred for being from upstate), I am blogging on that story, but not as he would want me to.  I just re-checked the NYT, and it still has not posted a story on the upstate beheading murder, but lo and behold, it has run no fewer than three stories on Jim Adkisson’s case … way the heck out there in Tennessee:

• Hatred Said to Motivate Tenn. Shooter (July 28, 2008)

• Hate for Liberals and Gay People Drove Gunman, Police Say (July 29, 2008)

• National Briefing - South - Tennessee - Guilty Plea in Church (Feb. 10, 2009)

The July 28 article dedicated a full 28 paragraphs to the story, and the rehash on the 29th managed to come up with 16 more. Last week’s update on the guilty plea was just a paragraph.  Here’s the lead of the the first story:

A man who the police say entered a Unitarian church in Knoxville during Sunday services and shot 8 people, killing two, was motivated by a hatred for liberals and homosexuals, Chief Sterling P. Owen IV of the Knoxville Police Department said Monday.

“It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred for the liberal movement,” Chief Owen said of the suspect, Jim D. Adkisson, 58. “We have recovered a four-page letter in which he describes his feelings and the reason that he claims he committed these offenses.”

The Chmielewski theory that the NYT doesn’t bother with local crime stories elsewhere falls apart here, since two killed with a shotgun, even in a church, isn’t as newsworthy as one person killed by beheading, Muslim or not.  No, what makes it newsworthy is that Adkisson had a “stated hatred for the liberal movement.”  Had a Unitarian shot up a Baptist church because of a “stated hatred of the conservative movement” - newsworthy as that would be on its face - rest assured the NYT wouldn’t have covered it.

The conclusion is irrefutable:  The NY Times will take any opportunity it can to discredit conservatives, particularly conservative Christians, and it will avoid any opportunity to paint Muslims in a negative light.

T

he Mainly Marginalized Media are hesitantly stepping up to the plate on the B-Rod scandal, noting the depth of B-Rod’s depravity, the longstanding, close-enough relationship between Obama and the scum-gov of Illinois, and the crossed messages within Camp Obama.  Just witness this morning’s headlines, courtesy of memeorandum:

• Obama tries to stay out of Blagojevich Fray - WaPo
• Obama:  Steered clear of scandal - ChiTrib
• Questions arise about the Obama/Blagojevich scandal - ABC

But the NY Times, for lack of a better expression, is busy this morning putting lipstick on a pig, proclaiming in its lead headline that Obama is really the hero of the story! Oh joy! Oh stretch!

Obama’s Effort on Ethics Bill Had Role in Governor’s Fall

In a sequence of events that neatly captures the contradictions of Barack Obama’s rise through Illinois politics, a phone call he made three months ago to urge passage of a state ethics bill indirectly contributed to the downfall of a fellow Democrat he twice supported, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich.

Mr. Obama placed the call to his political mentor, Emil Jones Jr., president of the Illinois Senate. Mr. Jones was a critic of the legislation, which sought to curb the influence of money in politics, as was Mr. Blagojevich, who had vetoed it.

I know, I know. It was a federal prosecutor and the FBI that busted B-Rod, not some state guys enforcing a state ethics law. Heck, there were enough federal laws violated to ensure headlines and punditry around the globe. So what’s with claiming a role for the Prez-O?  The NYT, which has sold the Brooklyn Bridge a few times in support of Obama’s cause has it covered: B-Rod sped up  his scamming in order to rake in as much cash as possible before the new Illinois ethics law went into effect Jan. 1.

But shucks, folks, with Congress starting up shortly after the first, the assumption was that B-Rod would fill the seat by the end of the year all along, ethics law or no ethics law, take or no take.  No problem; if there’s a positive point to make about Obama - no matter how obscure - the NYT stands ready to make it.

Providing nifty cover for its hero seems to be what the NYT is all about nowdays, and it’s better at it than any other news outlet. So in a way, it is still the leader in journalism.

Zombieland is at it again, this time with a speculative but fascinating reconstruction of Barack Obama’s “mystery days” in New York - a reconstruction that shows it’s likely, or at least possible, that Obama knew Bill Ayres as early as 1981.

He begins with a piece of math we all - MSM included - should have done long ago:

Barack Obama would have you believe that the bombings by the radical domestic terrorists known as The Weather Underground were something that happened “when I was eight years old” and with which he had absolutely no connection. And while it is true that their bombings started when Obama was eight years old, they actually continued until he was twenty years old.

And that means they continued until Obama’s mysterious New York years - and that he was in New York when Ayres & Co. set off one of their last bombs!

And, incredibly, the life of Barack Obama and the terror campaign of the Weather Underground nearly intersected on the evening of September 26, 1981 at an anti-Apartheid protest which turned violent at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York.

I’m tempted to say they may have intersected, rather than just “nearly.” But I don’t know for sure.

What I do know is that Obama had the same political interests as the final remnants of the Weather Underground at the exact same time in the exact same place. That as an adult he was living in the same city where and when they conducted their second-to-last terror attack, which was a protest against the Apartheid polices of South Africa — the very topic to which Obama has said he was devoted at that time. So because of all this, Obama must have known about the Weather Underground and their tactics while he was still in college. So when he met Weather Underground founder William Ayers 13 years later, Obama certainly had to have known exactly who Ayers was and what he had done.

Especially if he (Obama) is as bright as he wants us to believe he is.

Zombieland’s piece is an investigative tour de force, complete with analyses of phone books, various radical student organizations, and what is known of Obama’s life and interests while he was at Occidental, then Columbia.  It also digs into what Ayres and his wife Bernardine Dohrn were up to at the time, and concludes:

They were in the same city as each other, at the same time.
They lived near each other.
The went to school near each other.
They had the same political interests.
Their circles of friends and associates intersected.

By sheer coincidence, a decade later in Chicago, they were in the same city as each other, at the same time; they lived near each other; they had the same political interests; their circles of friends and associates intersected.

Or was it not a coincidence at all?

It’s the sort of work the New York Times should have done, but its analysis of Obama’s NY years was basically a quick shrug and a “Dunno.”  If the NYT had done this research and had hounded Obama like its hounded Palin, we might know for a fact that Obama and Ayres have known each other for 17 years, and that they met as fellow radicals waaaay back when.

But they didn’t, so we don’t.

hat-tip:  Okie on the Lam

Cloward-Piven, Obama And The Fall Of America

J

ust drop everything and click on over to American Thinker and James Simpson’s Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis.

The article delves into the Cloward-Piven strategy, spawned in 1966 by two radical socialist professors from Columbia University, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. The strategy was promptly - and accurately - described in The Nation, a publication that would like to put an end to our nation:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

The strategy’s first big success came in 1975, when New York City was forced into bankruptcy by Cloward-Piven acolytes who stormed welfare offices demanding their “rights,” quickly overburdening the welfare system. Simpson makes the point that the current financial crisis appears to be a classic Cloward-Piven strategy, this time with the poor and underqualified demanding their “right” to homownership.

There are so many hard-left radicals linked in the article that at times it seems you’re reading more blue type than black - and all these names link ultimately to one Barack Hussein Obama:

As Simpson says:

The chart puts Barack Obama at the epicenter of an incestuous stew of American radical leftism. Not only are his connections significant, they practically define who he is. Taken together, they constitute a who’s who of the American radical left, and guiding all is the Cloward-Piven strategy.

Conspicuous in their absence are any connections at all with any other group, moderate, or even mildly leftist. They are all radicals, firmly bedded in the anti-American, communist, socialist, radical leftist mesh.

Remember “Obama, the empty suit?” This article shows that the suit Obama wears is not empty; rather, it is a Trojan horse, filled with the most vile ideas about - and plans for - America.

Don’t believe it? Well, what if we told you that the Dems want to set up the financial bailout so radical left wing groups like Acorn get any funds generated through bailout paybacks? It’s true.

hat-tip: Okie on the Lam

A

fter the McCain camp’s lash-out at the NYT earlier this week over its reporting on campaign manager Rick Davis’ relationship with Freddie Mac, the NYT proved the old adage today about not picking fights with businesses that buy their ink by the barrel:

McCain Aide’s Firm was Paid by Freddie Mac

WASHINGTON — One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The disclosure undercuts a statement by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.

It goes on for two clicks quoting several anonymous sources … and proves nothing. First, after 17 paragraphs, deep on the second page of the posted story, we see the buried body:

Mr. Davis was hired as a consultant, not a lobbyist, the officials said. Davis & Manafort in recent years has filed federal lobbying reports for a number of companies but not Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.

Well, why didn’t you say that in the first place, NYT? As we all now know, Davis’ firm headed up an outfit called the Homeowners Alliance that advocated - not lobbied - for more homeownership. Here’s a news release about them from the Freddie Mac site:

Cities across the country are taking action to make housing more affordable for American families, according to a report released by The Homeownership Alliance, a coalition of almost 20 organizations committed to ensuring support for the American housing system of which Freddie Mac is a charter member. The report, Affordable Homes: Best Practices for America, is a survey of affordable homeownership programs in the top 20 municipalities nationwide.

Programs in the following cities in the study are highlighted as best practices for increasing affordable homeownership: Atlanta; Baltimore; Chicago; Minneapolis, Minn.; New York; Philadelphia; Phoenix; Pittsburgh; Riverside, Calif.; San Diego; Seattle and Washington.

By identifying existing best practices for increasing homeownership opportunities, the Alliance hopes to foster information sharing among state and local housing officials that will encourage widespread, lasting progress on this pressing issue.

Did you notice? The Alliance had 20 nonprofit members; it’s not just Freddie Mac. The National Association of Homebuilders, of which I am a member, was one of them. The NYT article makes it sound like all the payments Davis’ firm received for running the coalition came from Freddie and Fannie. Maybe; but in not mentioning the other members, the NYT is being deceptive.

Immediately, the McCain camp fired back:

Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis — weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual — since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times‘ reporting, Mr. Davis has never — never — been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with…Paul Begala.

But the most telling passage is this:

The New York Times has never published a single investigative piece, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod, his consulting and lobbying clients, and Senator Obama. Likewise, the New York Times never published an investigative report, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson and Senator Obama, who appointed Johnson head of his VP search committee, until the writing was on the wall and Johnson was under fire following reports from actual news organizations that he had received preferential loans from predatory mortgage lender Countrywide.

Therefore this “report” from the New York Times must be evaluated in the context of its intent and purpose. It is a partisan attack falsely labeled as objective news. And its most serious allegations are based entirely on the claims of anonymous sources, a familiar yet regretful tactic for the paper.

Then there’s this little fact: While all this was going on, McCain was railing against Freddie and Fannie as risky businesses that required greater oversight. Here’s what he said in the Senate in May 2006, the same time the NYT is focused on in its Davis story:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

How does the NYT deal with this advocacy by the candidate? In the next to the last paragraph, the NYT quietly whispers an admission:

Mr. McCain and his advisers have argued that whatever connections Mr. Davis and other McCain campaign officials have had to the mortgage giants, Mr. McCain in the Senate has been an advocate for reforming them.

Stellar placement, eh? It’s one of the best examples ever of my long-held view that objectivity (defined by journalists as “telling both sides,”) has nothing to do with fairness. But that’s hardly the worst of it. Here’s the very last paragraph, tacked on the end where few will see it:

Since his first campaign for the Senate in 2004, Senator Obama has received about $126,000 in contributions from employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while Senator McCain, over the last decade, has received about $22,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Oh. Help me out here. Are we electing a campaign manager or a president?

I

n responding to Steve Schmidt’s criticism of the NY Times for being “150 percent in the tank for Obama,” the Obama campaign issued a list of 40 “probing” stories the NYT has published on Obama.

I got a copy of the list from The Page, added live links to all 40 stories and reviewed them.  The long and short of it:  There are four stories among the 40 that qualify as “probing” in a negative sense.  The other 36 pretty much probe into just how wonderful a human being and candidate Barack Obama is.

Did they release the list because they thought no one would look at it?  And they’re supposed to be with it?  Of course the list is going to get scrubbed!  Kind of like this:

In Law School, Obama Found Political Voice [1/28/07] - Let’s start of the list of pointed stories with a hero-worship piece, shall we?  His peers call him “a natural leader, an impressive student, and a nice guy.”  Ouch, that hurts.  It may not be pointed, but it does offer up this spoof of Obama from the Harvard Law 1990 Review:

“I was born in Oslo, Norway, the son of a Volvo factory worker and part-time ice fisherman,” a mock self-tribute begins. “My mother was a backup singer for Abba. They were good folks.” In Chicago, “I discovered I was black, and I have remained so ever since.”

So Far, Obama Can’t Take Black Vote For Granted [2/2/07] - This piece was back in the day when, as the NYT had to ask, “So why are some black voters so uneasy about Senator Barack Obama?”  It basically goes on to say they shouldn’t be.

Obama Had Slaveowning Kin [3/3/07] - OMG, that’s so TODAY!

Disinvitation by Obama Is Criticized [3/6/07] - Talks of black leaders criticizing Obama for disinviting Jeremiah Wright to an event; discussion of what Wright said from the pulpit is not included.

Obama, in Brief Investing Foray In ‘05, Took Same Path as Donors [3/7/07] - Obama “did not know” he had invested in the companies in question.  Don’t we all feel better?

Obama Says His Investments Presented No Conflicts of Interest [3/8/07] - An actual follow-up piece on the one above.  This must have been before the NYT was all the way to 150% in the tank.

Charisma and a Search for Self In Obama’s Hawaii Childhood [3/17/07] - You can tell from the headline that this one does not exactly rip him a new one.

Clinton Camp Challenges Obama on Iraq [3/22/07] - Hint:  The second paragraph, the one after the Clinton alegations that Obama is not all that tough in his opposition to the war, begins with “But:”

But a review of Mr. Obama’s statements on Iraq since 2002 shows that he has opposed the war against Saddam Hussein consistently, calling it ”dumb” and ”rash.”

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.”