THE NEW YORK TIMES KNOWS EVERYTHING
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 26, 2010
How on earth are they able to pull off the feats of derring-do-do that they do?
How does this belly-button-lint of a news organization, with about as much objectivity as President Obama has apology-free trips abroad, manage to get to the heart of the matter? After all, without the Times, mankind would never have known that what happened at Abu-Grahib in Iraq was, arguably, one of the worst catastrophes ever to befall human-kind – one notch above The Holocaust, one below George Bush’s re-election in 2004. Without them, the enemy would never have been able to know how the United States was prosecuting the War on Terror. (Who knows how long it might have taken them to figure out these things without the Grey-Haired Lady). And don’t forget the largest scandal in all of human history – the Iraqi Oil for Food Scandal.
The New York Times barely covered that one.
Fortunately for all of us, we are alive to witness such journalistic brilliance as it shines like a million suns above us once again. The New York Times has risen above the pack, pulled ahead of the field, reminding the planet – and, indeed, the universe – why their newspaper makes the best puppy potty training paper around, exposing the true, Neanderthal undercurrent of supposedly liberal Massachusetts. They’ve uncovered the good-old-northern-boy, bean-eating, Cape Cod sexism that has covertly had blue Massachusetts in its patriarchal clutches for centuries.
The truth is now known.
Martha Coakley lost the Massachusetts Senatorial race to Republican Scott Brown because she has a vagina.
Clay Waters at News Busters writes:
On Monday, the New York Times joined other media outlets in suddenly uncovering sexism in overwhelmingly liberal Massachusetts, after the shocking takeover by Republican Scott Brown of a seat held by Democrats for almost 60 years. Katie Zezima reported from Boston: “After Senate Race, Some Say Barrier for Women in Massachusetts Still Stands.”
Not mentioned in the laundry list of accusations of “macho” politics: The womanizing and worse committed by the late liberal Sen. Ted Kennedy.
“The defeat of Martha Coakley in last week’s special election to fill the Senate seat that was long held by Edward M. Kennedy has reignited the debate over whether there is a glass ceiling for women in Massachusetts politics.
“Welcome to liberal Massachusetts — we’re not,” said Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic political consultant. “And if you didn’t believe it before, anyone who thinks that Massachusetts is liberal in light of Tuesday’s results need only look at the record and lack of success women have had in Massachusetts politics. That should just put it away for good.”
For decades, women have been unable to gain a solid political toehold in Massachusetts, a state long dominated by male political figures. Five women in Massachusetts’s history — including Ms. Coakley, the attorney general — have been elected to statewide constitutional office, and four have been elected to the House of Representatives.”
Coakley in fact beat three men in the Democratic primary, which enabled her to lose to Brown in the first place.
If, indeed, there was such a thing as a liberal playbook that existed in physical form, it could, by now, be scrapped altogether. Everything in it has been memorized every which way known to man, and has been summoned and used endlessly in every conceivable situation.
Liberals never lose because of their ideas. Liberals are never defeated because their policies are unpopular. Liberals never lose elections because of what they stand for.
They lose because they have ovaries, or speak with an accent, or have higher levels of melanin in their skin, or haven’t had their fair share of radio time, or are misquoted and taken out of context.
And the New York Times is all over it.
Without a doubt, if the person who said that Curt Schilling was a Yankees fan had a penis, there’d be a filibuster proof Senate in place right now.