The corrupt media and a joke Rick Santorum did not tell.

For anyone who doubts the legacy media are the handmaidens or the Democratic Party and its propaganda arm, Media Matters, has only to follow the story of the aspirin joke.  In some convoluted logic, a joke told by a campaign contributor has become the responsibility of Rick Santorum.  In typical fashion the multiple voices of the three legacy networks and major papers including the New York Times and the Washington Post are parroting in unison the identical message.  It is shoddy journalism to the extreme.

The joke, poorly told by Foster Friess, is most decidedly not anti contraception.  Quite to the contrary the joke pokes fun at the ill conceived anti-birth control law in effect in New York in the 1930s and 40s.  This law prevented birth control devices from being sold and prohibited doctors from dispensing advice on the subject.  Here’s the joke as I heard it in the 1950s.

A lady goes into the doctor’s office as asks how to prevent pregnancy.  The doctor responds that he is not allowed to give such advice.  But he hesitates and says there is a way:  Aspirin.  The lady asks how it should be taken (the unstated choices presumably being orally or vaginally).  To which the doctor responds, hold it between your knees.

The joke was slightly off color for the 50s, but certainly not offensive in today’s more liberated atmosphere.  It is not anti-female.  It is, as I have said, a knock on the idiotic anti-contraception legislation at the time. 

But this is nothing new.  A year ago Sarah Palin was viciously attacked by Democrats and the media (is there a difference?) first as the murderer of Gabby Giffords, and then when she defended herself against these utter falsehoods, for using the term “blood libel” to depict how she herself had been libeled.  The term blood libel was used by Jews when they had been falsely accused of the murder of a Christian.  It was common practice in the Middle Ages for Christians to blame Jews for just about everything.  Just read Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice. 

Ms. Palin didn’t accuse Jews of anything.  She simply painted herself in a similar situation by using that term.  But the media went full song in the same attack mode, accusing her of anti-Semitism.  They felt safe in assumption that an identical message many fronts would carry the day.  Even though Alan Dershowithz defended the use of the term, not enough came to her defense.

The networks, the New York Times and the Washington Post are correctly described as an arm of the Democratic Party.  Their utter bias disqualifies them from being considered legitimate media.

Amazing! From the NY Times … a positive review of Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue

Stanley Fish in his NY Times blog Opinionator reviews Sarah Palin’s book Going Rogue. It is a very satisfying analysis for those who admire her, of which I am one. But it is totally out of character for the Times. Read it. It finishes with these words:

But run she does (and falls, but so what?), and when it is all over and she has lost the vice presidency and resigned the governorship, she goes on a long run and rehearses in her mind the eventful year she has chronicled. And as she runs, she achieves equilibrium and hope: “We’ve been through amazing days, and really, there wasn’t one thing to complain about. I feel such freedom, such hope, such thankfulness for our country, a place where nothing is hopeless.” The message is clear. America can’t be stopped. I can’t be stopped. I’ve stumbled and fallen, but I always get up and run again. Her political opponents, especially those who dismissed Ronald Reagan before he was elected, should take note. Wherever you are, you better watch out. Sarah Palin is coming to town.

The comments are in many ways more interesting read than the review itself. They paint a picture of total intolerance from the left for any reasonable discussion of Sarah Palin. They attack the messenger and spout talking points a year’s worth of biased drivel they have read in the Times. It’s a revealing look at the mindset of the Time’s readers. Here are some:

Mr. Fish, you do realize that as an educated and thoughtful person you would not be welcomed in Sarah Palin's Republican party? Scalia, Roberts, Atillo, [sic] Reagan etc would also be unwelcome. When you sleep with the dogs the GOP has the last few decades you are going to pick up the fleas. Mr. Fish is one of the most stupid smart people ever to take a pen to paper. For those that don't know this piece forms part of Fish's new monograph "Surprised by Simpleton," wherein an "authentic" voice leads her unwitting audience's to support blithe ignorance and cheery demagoguery. This column is disgusting for many reasons. Here’s one: We just endured eight disastrous years of an ignorant, unqualified lightweight as president. As a result of The Decider’s abysmal job performance, hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives and millions lost their life savings. Now Sarah Palin aspires to become the leader of the free world, and Stanley Fish has written a love note to her in the New York Times. Do you have any sense of responsibility, Dr. Fish? I have absolutely no respect left for you. i'm really surprised to read a deconstructionist former professor of literature opine confidently about what an author actually "believes". isn't it obvious that sarah palin believes most in her own entitlement?

On the other hand there are a few supporters.

What an amazing article to find published in the NYT. An article about Sarah Palin that actually avoids descending into the sexist vile and misogynist hate that one has come to expect as de rigueur in any piece about Sarah Palin in the NYT. As much as Palin has made some decisions and statements that irk and bewilder me, she also has gotten a patently unfair treatment from the media who pounced upon her as soon as they heard a utterly false allegation about her family going on a high-priced clothing shopping spree. As far as I know, no reporter has yet apologized for completely failing to fact check the allegation, and it was only a year or more after the event, as Palin's book was readying for release, that the stylist who had done all of the shopping on the RNC tab without much RNC oversight and with no knowledge of the Palin's fessed up to the real story. A good reporter could have dismissed the rumor with three or four phone calls, but none bothered to do so, and instead launched into maligning Palin every chance they got. And it worked. Palin quickly became laughingstock among all liberals. So it's nice to hear a fair treatment of Palin in the media, even if in a blog, or at least one that openly admits the biases against her and tries to judge her outside of those tired political tropes. This isn't to say that Palin's own political tropes are better, but the bulk of the media judging Palin's every move through the same colored lens is a gross miscarriage of journalistic integrity.

 One thing to note, this is a blog and did not appear on the sacrosanct print pages of the Times. But it still has the leftists screaming.

Is Obama cheating?

To say I was impressed with Sarah Palin’s speech at the convention is an understatement. Her delivery and her ability to land telling body blows on her opponents, with a smile, was simply outstanding. And then to learn she had done this without the full use of a teleprompter is even more impressive. She didn’t miss a beat and appeared more natural in her delivery later in her speech. Curt over at Flopping Aces has the same admiration for Palin and points out the difference in Obama's response in a video when he had similar telprompter problems. Lots of uhhs and errs, and he never does complete the sentence he started. But the more I watch that video, the more the problem isn’t one of a teleprompter. He isn’t working from a teleprompter, he is moving. But he gets totally hung up after saying “…it would cost us.” He gets hung up three or four times and seems to be looking for help on a dollar amount he can’t remember. He glances up and to his right. Finally he finishes by saying “I can’t hear myself.” Could it be Obama is doing precisely what Democrats accused President Bush of doing in the 2004 debates? That was when they thought they saw a “lump” under the back of his suit jacket and said it was a radio receiver. Could it be Obama had a loss of signal or some interference problem that blocked reception and then moved around trying for a clearer signal? Modern hearing aids have 5 mm dia. earpieces that fit loosely in the ear canal. Their batteries are only slightly larger. It is not inconceivable that small radio receive could be made the same size and be totally hidden in the ear canal. Is Obama using outside help in his ad lib talks? Something is funny. You decide.