Media whines about criticism of Palin dumpster digging

Headline!
Palin confers with husband…

Once they finish here, I guess they’ll be moving on to all of Obama’s emails from his State senate and Federal senate days. Maybe they’ll even get around to his college records.

how low can they get, TIMES is trying to explain their miserable conduct on an unelect person,
which is a PATRIOT LOVED BY MOST OF AMERICANS AND PEOPLE ABROAD
ALL OVER THE FREE COUNTYS, WHO RESPECT A PERSON TRULY HONEST AND
WELL EQUIPT TO FIGHT THE BEAST OF ABUSE AND DIVISION INCITING THE VULNERABLES TO FIGHT THOSE WHO KNOW TO TELL THEM IN THEIR FACE HOW WRONG THEY ARE,
PROMOTING LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN DOING IS A TWO EDGE WEAPON THAT WILL TURN ON THEM
WHEN THE PEOPLE GET TO VOTE THEM OUT OF THEIR RECKLESS SPENDING OF THE PEOPLE’S MONEY, WHEN THERE IS NO MORE, AND THAT AN INCENTIVE TO REACT FOR SURE

Greg, where do you get the stuff you spin? Ms. goes back to the 17th Century? Like in the 1600’s? Really? People like you, who are really badly informed should just remain quiet instead of confirming they don’t know anything. Try reading this:

Then you can apologize to everyone here for being such a bullsh!ter.

The interest the lamestream media has in trying to destroy Sarah Palin on a personal level has long since reached insanity. She threatens them because they can’t put her in a box and destroy her. No other woman, save maybe Rachel Jackson, has ever been so disparaged by the press. They don’t just want to discredit her, they want to destroy her, her reputation, her family.

Yet, the LA Times still holds the videos of Obama at the Rashid Khalidi dinner close to the vest. I suspect the LA Times knows that if those tapes are ever released, it would destroy any support Obama gets from the American Jewish community, and deny Obama millions of $$ in campaign donations. The press didn’t do their job, in relation to Obama in 2008, so I don’t look for them to do it now. The press, as a whole, has become nothing more than the printed and video arm of the DNC.

But this is nothing new. Walter Lipmann lied to the American people, telling them what a wonderful experiment Stalinist Russia was, although Lipmann knew that Stalin was murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people.

The fifth rail of our government is dead. It died a long time ago as universities started teaching the Walter Cronkite philosophy of not reporting the news, but creating public opinion via the press. We no longer have journalists, we have political hacks who use their written words to shape opinion, just as Lipmann did with Russian and Cronkite did with Southeast Asia.

You see, in Obama the LSM has finally found its third, and modern day, socialist president, right out of the Frankfort School. Obama is their wet dream. And if anyone questions Obama, and his Marxist/Alinsky views, they fall back on the meme that any dissenters are “racist” against America’s first ‘black’ president (actually, he is a mulatto).

@retire05, #12:

The earliest occurrence is a subject of debate. Ben Zimmer makes no mention in his NY Times article of the use of Ms on Sarah Spooner’s 1767 tombstone. Elsewhere he simply dismisses this by quoting the opinion of Dennis Barron:

As Dennis Baron writes in his excellent book Grammar and Gender (1987), “it is certainly an abbreviation of Miss or Mistress, and not an example of colonial language reform or a slip of the chisel, as some have suggested.”

Baron himself turns up an 1885 appearance of Ms. in an 1885 newspaper. It’s shown at the top of the page here. Again, he instantly insists this must be an abbreviation for Miss. Or maybe Mrs. Because… Well, just because. Nobody back then said “Mizz”, unless they meant it as a definite Miss or Mrs.

Wikipedia goes with an earlier origin, though I haven’t found the references cited in the footnotes.

“Ms.”, along with “Miss” and “Mrs.”, began to be used as early as the 17th century as titles derived from the then formal “Mistress”, which, like Mister, did not originally bear reference to marital status.[4][5] “Ms.” however, fell into disuse in favor of the other two titles and was not revived until the 20th century.[6][7]

I find the idea of an early origin entirely plausible, as I can remember hearing the spoken word “Miz” used in place of both Miss and Mrs. That was long before it became popularly identified with feminists. From the 1901 article Zimmer cited:

“For oral use it might be rendered as ‘Mizz,’ which would be a close parallel to the practice long universal in many bucolic regions, where a slurred Mis’ does duty for Miss and Mrs. alike.”

Actually, ‘Mizz’ was nothing more than a phonetic spelling of the double-duty title itself. ‘Long universal’ might suggest something more to Zimmer than it seems to have done.

I didn’t realize the origins of Ms. was some sort of hot-button issue. What’s the big deal? Does the assertion that Ms. might be a much older form than people have assumed confer some unacceptable merit on it?