Didn’t know if your post is some type of subtle humor or you are honestly asking for a definition of MILF.

This is an acronym reserved for females who have experienced maternity and generally have certain characteristics about their physical features that incite certain amorous desires in males.

While, by strict definition, a MILF is determined by subjective test, popular use of the label has morphed it’s meaning to where some women are considered MILFs empirically (sometimes even by other women).

If you hold the Ten Commandments dear, that whole coveting thy neighbor’s wife could complicate your enjoyment of the MILF but I’m not a particularly religious dude.

The acronym consists of the words “Mother I’d Like to…” (think other word for shtup).

To avoid testing WAW’s censor police (which we already know would likely let this pass) you could go with “Mother I’d Like to Fraternize with” (carnally!)

A quick search of the N&O archives for “mary” and “easley” and “salary” produces 120 hits. I don’t have time to go back through them all but, to provide evidence that your facts are wrong, one only needs to go back to September 2008 (pretty sure that precedes Purdue’s victory) to find this article headlined “Easley pay would be in top 3%.” One only need read the lede paragraph to see it is not an article in support of the excessive salary… “If Mary Easley’s $170,000 N.C. State University salary is approved this week, the state’s first lady would make more than all but 94 of 3,455 NCSU faculty and administrators made last year, according to a News & Observer analysis.”

July 10, ‘08 has this headline in a news story “Easley raise skirted rules.”

Looking through the archive results, you will find multiple editorials blasting the outrageous pay.

“…they couldn’t ignore the provost’s resignation.”

I believe a fair analysis of the events and the reporting would conclude that the resignation would not have occurred in want of the News & Observer reporting. How else would anyone know that the provost lied?

Funny, I also came across another Easley fiasco covered in the N&O prior to a Purdue victory I had forgotten about — the European vacation.

So I guess Anne Faircloth deserves a pass not paying 30 farmers for products she used in her business? She owns one of the largest pork operations in the country and she’s not paying her bills. Should the story be ignored?

I would sure hope a republican would be called out on a seemingly sweetheart deal just like their democratic colleagues. But I guess you can tell Jim Black and Meg Scott Phipps that only Republicans are targeted by N&O investigative reporting.

You can make a compelling case if you bend the facts to suit your argument and directly contradict the historical record with your claims — just not a fair one.

With respect to Walter Abbott’s hypothetical test, it’s not hypothetical. Ever heard of Katie Rouse? Didn’t think so. There’s a reason why. Google that name to find out.

And I’ll repeat that if the N&O really wanted to get to the bottom of the Easley scandal they would have. The fact that Mary was never on campus is easily verified and would have been a good start.

Maybe your search skills are better than mine, but in a search of the N&O archive, the earliest mention of “mary” AND “easley” AND “NCSU” is May 2009

http://www.newsobserver.com/search_results/?&page=10&category=news&sort=pubsys_pubobj_publish_dt%20desc&sf_pubsys_story_body=mary%20AND%20easley%20AND%20ncsu

with this article

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/state/story/85957.html

Too late to really have any practical impact on the election. Please feel free to point out an earlier instance of coverage in the N&O questioning her job.

I find I was mistaken. She was hired in May 2005. So that’s four solid years it took the N&O to catch on and they only published because they couldn’t ignore the provost’s resignation.

Sure everyone knew about Edwards cush deal. My point is, where were the outraged howls from the N&O? You can bet they would have been there if a Republican had done that. Not that a Republican would have been able to get a sweet deal like that.

Hell, they’re still trying to beat up on Lauch Faircloth through his daughter’s hog operation. Think that’d be in the news if it were a Dem? Not a chance.

Of course it does, because the critical component of your test is your own subjective (and totally biased) opinion of what would happen based on your selective memory of historical events. If you want it to pass, so it shall — no need to let anything like objective facts get in the way.

I have already stated that I found the coverage of the Duke lacrosse case an embarrassing series of missteps. Yet, if I asked myself whether things would have been different if the accuser was white, I would say that (particularly if she was an attractive white girl) it may have been worse. It wouldn’t matter if it was AA, division 3 or high school — anyone recall a story from Glen Ridge, NJ? While the accusations and facts are somewhat different, many believe this too was based on a false accusation. And that white girl wasn’t even particularly attractive.

As far as Easley is concerned, I’m just not familiar with a prominent NC republican with comparable circumstances for your test, but feel free to provide one that proves your point if you have one. If not restricted to NC pols, let’s say Dick Cheney. In both cases there was much media scrutiny while each was in office but not much in the way of incriminating evidence till both were out of office.

Personally, I think the Edwards love child rumor was, on its face, totally tabloid and warranted no call for serious media inquiry regardless of party affiliation. However, if your argument is about timing of sleaze stories with campaign activities then how come we didn’t read about Mark Sanford’s mistress (or Ensign’s) until after elections were over?

Loco, I’ll just say again that I believe you have your facts wrong. Mary Easley’s hiring was covered ad nauseam while it was happening with front pages that screamed the the exact amount of her excessive salary (and even editorials that called it excessive). What kept the gates holding the flood back was the lack of serious public outcry to those running the university. What finally opened the floodgates on this story was the email evidence that showed the actual facts were different than what university leaders had explained. Email evidence which was requested repeatedly and withheld or delayed until Easley was out of office. Go back and check the N&O archives and argue with them.

Same is true of Edwards sweetheart UNC gig. Job was completely reported with salary and all in the N&O. Problem was, nobody gave a crap about cush jobs and outlandish salaries until the economy itself was in the crapper.

The thing that really opened the floodgates on Easley was Mary being hired by NCSU. This was a mater of public record and was not and could not be suppressed from the governor’s office. The gov’s wife being hired ANYWHERE funded by the state should set any decent newspaper’s antenna twitching.

The hiring happened with about two years left in his term so they had plenty of time to look into it before the election. Her excessive salary easily discoverable. (I was formerly on the faculty at NCSU. We were warned that our salaries could be obtained if someone really wanted to.) The N&O was disinclined to be interested until after Easley was out of office.

If you don’t want to talk about John Edwards love baby, let’s talk about his losing the VP election in 2004. UNC created an entire new phony baloney institute to give him a place to hang out and advocate his signature issues while he planned his next run for office.

http://www.law.unc.edu/centers/poverty/about.aspx

“The Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity was started in February 2005 as a joint effort between the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the UNC School of Law and Senator John Edwards. Sen. Edwards directed the center until December 2006.”

No one seemed to find anything fishy with that either.