Thought for Today

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."

~~~~~~~ Ronald Reagan

Mark Steyn on Teddy's Passing

As he has done so many times before, Mark Steyn says it best in his new NRO column, Airbrushing out Mary Jo Kopechne. Here's a pullquote:

He dared us to call his bluff, and, when we didn’t, he made all of us complicit in what he’d done. We are all prey to human frailty, but few of us get to inflict ours on an entire nation.

Click here to read the whole thing.

A Truly Revealing Moment

Thomas Lifson of the American Thinker brings us this remarkable moment in his story Obama's revealing body language. It's particularly meaningful to me because like Professor Gates, I, too, must walk with a cane. I know all too well what a challenge it is to negotiate a set of steps without a handrail – and how welcome someone's strong, steady arm is under such circumstances.

While his "friend" Obama strides ahead oblivious, Prof. Gates understandably hesitates because he knows all too well that one misstep can send him sprawling face-first onto the concrete steps. Sgt. Crowley quickly realizes his problem, and despite the fact that Prof. Gates had recently slandered him as a racist cop who singles out blacks for mistreatment, offers his arm. As we can see, Prof. Gates gratefully accepts.

Why does Sgt. Gates unhesitatingly offer his arm to this man who had caused him so much unwarranted grief? Because he is a class act – a trained professional and, above all, a kind, decent human being who saw Prof. Gates not as an embittered black activist, but as a fellow human being in need of assistance.

So why didn't President Obama offer Prof. Gates his own arm, or at least arrange for someone else to assist him down the steps? Because at heart, he is a piece of dog squeeze – a thoughtless, vain, arrogant, pompous, self-absorbed excuse for a human being.

And as for you Obamabots who take offense at my words, and who make excuses for their man's atrocious behavior – "You really have to cut him some slack because he's the President, and he's a busy man" or some similar rot – ponder the contrast between Obama's behavior toward his friend and this other president's behavior, under similar circumstances, to a political adversary, the frail, elderly Sen. Robert Byrd.
Hat tips to Thomas Lifson, fellow AT blogger Clarice Feldman for updating his post with the Bush-Byrd picture, and Glenn Beck for widely disseminating this story.

Steyn on Gates

In Obama knows 'stupidly' when he doesn't see it, Mark Steyn addresses the Henry Louis Gates imbroglio with characteristic style, grace, and wit. Here's how he begins:

By common consent, the most memorable moment of Barack Obama's otherwise listless press conference on "health care" were his robust remarks on the "racist" incident involving professor Henry Louis Gates and the Cambridge police. The latter "acted stupidly," pronounced the chief of state. The president of the United States may be reluctant to condemn Ayatollah Khamenei or Hugo Chávez or that guy in Honduras without examining all the nuances and footnotes, but sometimes there are outrages so heinous that even the famously nuanced must step up to the plate and speak truth to power. And thank God the leader of the free world had the guts to stand up and speak truth to municipal police Sgt. James Crowley.

Go read the whole thing.

Thought for Today

That liberals aren’t enamored of real freedom may have something to do with responsibility -- that cumbersome backpack which all free men have to lug on life’s aerobic nature hike. The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors -- psychology, sociology, women’s studies - to prove that nothing is anybody’s fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you’d have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion AND capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal point of view.

~~~~~ P.J. O'Rourke

Jeffrey Lord on Sotomayor – A Real Eye-Opener

Yesterday's American Spectator includes a major article by Jeffrey Lord, Two Presidents and the Court: When Bigotry Takes the Bench. In it, Lord masterfully illustrates the disturbing parallels between the race-obsessed Supreme Court Justice James McReynolds and the race-obsessed Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. His conclusion: both are equally incompatible with our supposedly impartial legal system.

Here's how the article begins:

In a surely unintended bit of symbolism, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, accused of racism, has been named to the Supreme Court seat once held by one of the Court's most fervid racists: Woodrow Wilson appointee James McReynolds.

McReynolds' vividly racist 27-year tenure from 1914 to 1941, obscured by time, has resurfaced in a fashion that can only be less than helpful to Team Obama as Sotomayor's nomination faces Senate confirmation. Why? It forces everyone to focus on two very real questions as this nomination moves forward this week.

First: What does the Sotomayor nomination say about Obama? And second: will Sotomayor deliver what the President expects of her if seated on the Court?

Here's the McReynolds story.

The place: The United States Supreme Court.

The occasion: oral arguments in what would turn out to be the first crack in a famous Supreme Court precedent.

Arrayed behind the raised bench, the nine Justices peer down from their lofty, high-backed leather chairs, their black robes distinct against crimson drapes trimmed with gold.

Rising to his feet to begin his presentation is attorney Charles Hamilton Houston. Houston is one of America's more brilliant members of the bar. Educated at Amherst College, where he was the class valedictorian, he had gone on to graduate cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he served on the law review. Today, the historic courtroom is hushed, with all eyes on Houston as he begins to speak.

Suddenly, silently, without a word, there is movement from the bench.

Justice James Clark McReynolds swivels his chair, turning it around 180 degrees. And keeps it that way. There is a moment of stunned silence as the recognition dawns on McReynolds's fellow Justices, headed by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. So too is there a jaw-dropping understanding in the rest of the ornate, historic chambers as everyone else realizes the import of what has just occurred. The Justice is now staring steadily at the curtains, the back of his tall chair quite deliberately, ostentatiously, and literally turned to Houston.

There was a reason.

Are you curious to know why the honorable Justice McReynolds acted in such a thoroughly reprehensible manner? Then click here to find out. Hint: Sotomayor's words, publicly uttered on at least three occasions, "My experiences will affect the facts that I choose to see as a judge," could just as well have been spoken by McReynolds.

This one's a must-read.

Obama and the Peter Principle

Before our eyes, President Obama is demonstrating the validity of the Peter Principle as stated four decades ago by Dr. Laurence J. Peter:

"In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence."

While he managed to temporarily bedazzle a majority of the voters last November, more and more of his erstwhile supporters are coming to realize that they made a terrible mistake. As a result, we are now burdened with a President who continues to offer new proof every day that he is totally unqualified for the office he holds.


One indicator with a proven track record is Scott Rasmussen's Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll. It shows that for the first time since his inauguration, Obama's Presidential Approval Index – the difference between the percentages of those strongly approving and strongly disapproving of his performance – has swung dramatically negative, to a value of -8%.

Perhaps of even greater importance is the fact that articles highly critical of Obama have begun to appear with some regularity in influential and respected publications which have heretofore been faithful Obama acolytes, such as the Washington Post. For example, consider this piece by former George W. Bush chief speechwriter Michael Gerson, Obama's Iceberg:

Around midnight on April 15, 1912, there were a few minutes when Capt. Edward Smith of the Titanic realized his ship was going down -- six watertight compartments breached, less than two hours to float -- yet his passengers slept in happy ignorance. A historical fate hardened while most of the participants dreamed on.

The jobs report last week opened a long gash beneath the waterline of President Obama's legislative agenda. Few realize it, but a scramble for lifeboats is about to begin.

Gerson goes on to state:

To pass his health proposal this year, Obama would first need to violate his word. As a presidential candidate, he pledged that "no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any type of tax increase" -- the most memorable number of the 2008 campaign. Taxing health benefits would certainly cross this very bright line and add to the public stock of cynicism.

By all means, read the whole thing.

The fact that the Washington Post ran this column, even if only as an op-ed, is quite significant. In the future, we may well look back upon this moment as the turning point when the majority of the public has finally realized that our clueless President has risen to his level of incompetence.

As the Stomach Turns

Normally, I'm a stalwart Fox News fan. The AT&T U-verse TV service I've been enjoying since last February brings me something like 120 channels, but 119 are wasted on me, because I almost never watch them.

Actually, I don't spend nearly as much time watching Fox News as I do listening to it, talk radio-like, from the next room while doing something else. If I hear something particularly interesting, I walk into the living room and watch for a few minutes.

Yesterday afternoon, though, just after 4 PM local time, Fox News ran off the rails. As soon as the rumors about Michael Jackson's demise began to spread, Fox preempted its regular programming and replaced it with 100% Michael Jackson coverage. First there was the sappy, saccharine, sanctimonious Shepard Smith, my least favorite of the Fox anchors.

After three solid hours of Shep running on about Michael Jackson, I couldn't stand it any more. I dashed off this note to Fox's Viewer Comments mailbox:

Enough already!

Among other stories, Congress is about to vote on Cap and Trade tomorrow, Iranians are dying in the streets in quest of freedom, and North Korea is threatening us with nuclear annihilation.

So what is Fox News talking about wall to wall?

Michael Jackson!

Please, let's see some of the maturity and balance for which Fox has been known until now. Stop pre-empting your regular programming. Get Shep off the air. Let your regular programming resume.

Certainly, I don't expect you to ignore the Michael Jackson story, but for Heaven's sake, let's set some priorities. There are other important stories out there, too!

Shortly thereafter, I got part of my wish, anyway. Mercifully, Shep's shift ended – to be followed by the self-promoting histrionics of Geraldo Rivera. Geraldo has long had the reputation of somehow shaping every story to be about him, and he did not disappoint. To hear him talk, he was Michael Jackson's best friend, and the only reporter on the planet to whom the Gloved One would entrust the Real Truth.

This morning, I checked National Review Online's The Corner, and found that I was not alone. Jonah Goldberg (no relation), who often appears on Fox News, was equally dismayed, and far more eloquent. In a post called, simply enough, Some Quick Thoughts on Michael Jackson, here's what he said:

[NOTE: Normally, I just quote the first few paragraphs, but in this case, I'm making an exception. I hope that NRO doesn't mind.]

Generally speaking, I’m a believer in the rule that we should not speak ill of the dead. Or at least we should wait a decent interval before doing so (if we never spoke ill of the dead, history would be meaningless). But, I must say I find the media’s instinctive rush to sanctify Michael Jackson disgusting.

Look, I understand that Michael Jackson was an “icon.” I understand that some people loved his work and that many people who never met him believed they loved the man too.

But I didn't, and I’m hardly alone. If Michael Jackson were just another famous person, I’d probably stay silent and let the pro forma celebration of his memory roll by without comment. (For instance, I have no problem whatsoever with the media taking a moment to pay respects to Farah Fawcett).

Sure, I liked the Jackson Five. I liked “Thriller,” too, when I was a teenager. Michael Jackson was an “icon” for me too.

But let’s pause for a moment on that word “icon.” It seemed the consensus adjective for the news networks. NBC ran a special on two “American Icons” — Fawcett and Jackson. Every cable network (including Fox, for the record) used the word “icon” to describe him as if this was some sort of safe harbor, a word everyone could agree on. “Love him or hate him,” the implied logic went, “he was an ‘icon.’”

Yes, well, maybe so. But that doesn’t let you off the hook. Even though the term sounds neutral, it isn’t. An icon, technically speaking, is a religious symbol deserving of reverence and adoration. The networks may not have intended to use the word that way, but they certainly showed an unseemly amount of reverence and adoration for the man.

I think part of it is the narcissism of our celebrity culture. Here was a guy so many of “us” read about in People magazine for so long. His passing, therefore, isn’t a loss in the sorrowful sense of the word, but in the selfish one. It’s a loss of an interesting subject, a creature to gossip about and to fill a few minutes on E! or Entertainment Tonight.

Everyone likes to invoke Lord Acton’s axiom that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But nearly everyone forgets that he coined this phrase not to indict powerful men, but to instruct the historians who write about them. Historians tend to forgive the powerful their transgressions. Likewise, journalists (for want of a better word) tend to forgive the famous.

Calling Michael Jackson an icon doesn’t let him off the hook for anything. But to listen to the news anchors you’d think it absolves him of everything.

I say: Who cares who his famous friends were? Who cares what a “fascinating” person he was? If you want to talk about his death as an end of an era, have at it. But that’s not what the Barbara Walters set is doing.

I know that Michael Jackson wasn’t convicted of the despicable crimes he was accused of. And that’s why he never went to jail. Three cheers for the majesty of the American legal system. But in my own personal view, he wasn’t exonerated either. Nor was he absolved of his crimes because he could sing, moonwalk, or sell 10 million records. (Though many of us suspect the money and fame he made from those things is precisely what kept him out of jail).

And, while I merely think he was a pedophile, I know he was not someone responsible parents should applaud, healthy children emulate, nor society celebrate.

And while we’re at it, his relatively early death wasn’t “tragic.” He was one of the richest people in the world. He spent his money on perpetual childhood and he was perpetually with children not his own.

Meanwhile, in the last ten days, we’ve seen or heard of remarkable people who’ve given their lives for freedom in Iran. We’ve heard of innocents killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the last decade, America has lost thousands of heroes in noble causes and thousands of innocent bystanders who were denied the simple joys of life through no fault of their own. Those deaths are tragic, and we're hard pressed to think of more than a handful of names to put with the long line of the dead.

If anything, Michael Jackson’s life, not his death, was tragic.

Every year at the Oscars they show a montage of people who died over the previous year. Invariably, the audience only applauds for the really famous people. This has always offended me. Not necessarily because the famous people don’t deserve praise but because it’s so clear that the audience is clapping for the fame. Michael Jackson had many accomplishments. But the press is sanctifying him because he was famous, deservedly so to be sure, but not because he was good. So much of the coverage seems to miss this fundamental point, as if being famous made him good.

I feel sympathy for Jackson’s family and friends who understandably mourn him. But I can't bring myself to mourn him any more than I mourn the random dead I read about in the paper everyday. Indeed, I confess to mourning him less.

Every channel says this is a sad day for America. I agree. But not for the same reasons.

Well said, Jonah!

The Old Jarhead: I'm Tired

I'm Tired is a truly great blog post written 4 months ago by Marine Vietnam veteran Robert A. Hall. It has spread virally all over the internet, and finally made it into my mailbox a little while ago. If you haven't read it yet, you need to. Here's how it begins:

I’ll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I’ve worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven’t called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn’t inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there’s no retirement in sight, and I’m tired. Very tired.

I’m tired of being told that I have to “spread the wealth around” to people who don’t have my work ethic. I’m tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy or stupid to earn it.

I’m tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to “keep people in their homes.” Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I’m willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the leftwing Congresscritters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them—with their own money.

I’m tired of being told how bad America is by leftwing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and women’s rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Gay people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela. Won’t multiculturalism be beautiful?

You can read the rest of it, along with the many comments it has attracted, here.

Media Bias

WorldNetDaily.com reminds us of this oldie-but-goodie media bias joke:

A Harley rider is passing the zoo when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her under the eyes of her screaming parents.

The biker jumps off his bike, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back, letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.

A New York Times reporter has watched the whole event. The reporter says, "Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I saw a man do in my whole life." The biker replies, "Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted as I felt right."

The reporter says, "Well, I'm a journalist from the New York Times, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page... so, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?"

The biker replies, "I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican."

The following morning the biker buys The New York Times to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on front page:

"U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH."

Thought for Today

"If you put garbage in a computer nothing comes out but garbage. But this garbage, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and none dare criticize it."

~~~~~ Anonymous

Know What This Is?

It's Obama all dressed up in his Earth Day suit getting ready to help the planet by burning about 9,116 gallons of jet fuel.

Tolerance and Inclusiveness at Work

Over at Diversity Lane, Zack Rawsthorne skewers the Liberals again:

A Japanese View of the Palestinians

This short piece is outstanding. Here's part of it:

If you are so sure that " Palestine , the country, goes back through most of recorded history," I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine :

1. When was it founded and by whom?
2. What were its borders?
3. What was its capital?
4. What were its major cities?
5. What constituted the basis of its economy?
6. What was its form of government?
7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
8. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
9. What was the language of the country of Palestine ?
10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine ?
11. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.
12. And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

Read the whole thing.

Hat tip: al-Rassooli

Why They Hate Sarah Palin So Much

This new post at House of Eratosthenes on the subject of Why They Hate Sarah Palin So Much is absolutely brilliant, and spot on. Go read it – you won't be sorry. Be sure to check out the comments, too. The early ones, anyway, are most promising. Let's hope the left-wing vultures don't find it for a while, but that's probably a forlorn hope.

BIG hat tip to Gerard Van der Leun at American Digest for calling attention to Morgan Freeberg's outstanding post.

“I couldn’t believe this was happening. I thoughtthis only happened in Third World countries.”

In Hillary Backers Decry Massive Obama Vote Fraud, NewsMax's respected journalist Kenneth R. Timmerman reports that Barack Obama apparently cheated his way to the Democratic nomination.

With accusations of voter registration fraud swirling as early voting begins in many states, some Hillary Clinton supporters are saying: “I told you so.”

Already in Iowa, the Obama campaign was breaking the rules, busing in supporters from neighboring states to vote illegally in the first contest in the primaries and physically intimidating Hillary supporters, they say.

Obama’s surprisingly strong win in Iowa, which defied all the polls, propelled his upstart candidacy to front-runner status. But Dr. Lynette Long, a Hillary supporter from Bethesda, Md, who has a long and respected academic career, believes Obama’s victory in Iowa and in twelve other caucus states was no miracle. “It was fraud,” she told Newsmax.

You'll want to read the rest of it. It's a shocker.

The question now is not whether we can expect these thuggish banana republic tactics on November 4th, but what the rest of us – that is, the non-Obamabots – will do to defend against them.

We will need to be proactive – after all, the best defense is a good offense.

As Edmund Burke said long ago,

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Update: Amanda Carpenter tells us what we can expect in Dem Playbook Shows Dirty Tactics:

Dirty campaign tricks don’t die. They just become more refined with age.

Documents obtained by Townhall show the Democratic Party encouraged party activists to accuse the GOP of intimidating minorities on Election Day even if no evidence of intimidation existed in the 2004 presidential election. The tactic is being used again in 2008, this time to downplay fraud charges against a predominantly minority non-profit supporting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Weeks before the Nov. 4 election Barack Obama’s campaign said the Republicans are attempting to suppress votes by drawing attention to the Association for Community Organizers for Reform Now’s involvement in rampant voter registration fraud across the nation. The nonprofit actively supports Democratic causes, such as minimum wage increases and housing assistance. ACORN endorsed Obama for president last February and has been paid by his campaign to conduct get out the vote activities during the Democratic primary.

ACORN wasn’t a household name in the last election but documents show Democrats were just as eager to accuse the GOP of treating minorities unfairly in 2004 as they are in 2008.

A nine-page section of 66-page 2004 Kerry Edwards Colorado state Election Day Manual titled “Minority Voter Intimidation” begins: “Over the past twenty years, there have been repeated efforts by the Republican party and Republican Party candidates to harass and intimidate minority voters in an effort to reduce the number of African-American and/or Latino voters.” The manual then instructs Democrats how to look for minority voter intimidation tactics and how to publicize it to the media with special tactics designed for mainstream and specialty press.

Click on the link for the rest.

VDH on the Campaign

Victor Davis Hanson, one of the wisest men of our generation, is always worth reading. This time, though, he has outdone himself. In his latest essay for Pajamas Media, The Campaign Takes a Very Strange Turn, he begins by posing four "why?" questions:

Why didn’t Colin Powell and Co. jump ship in, say, June or July, and endorse Obama after many months of campaigning when his positions were already well known? That is, why wait until late October when, after the financial meltdown, Obama surged in the polls? Had Powell come out even in the first week of September, he could have demonstrated that although Obama was down by three points, he was willing to stick his neck out with a principled endorsement that may well have made him persona non grata in a McCain-administration Washington.

Why didn’t the media or McCain just ask Obama a few of the following questions: Why did you keep emailing and phoning Bill Ayers for three years after 9/11, when the country was gripped by fear of terror, and Ayers, like bin Laden, said that he had not done enough bombing, and had no regrets about the terrorism he had committed?

Why did Obama say in 2004 to the Chicago Sun-Times that he went to Trinity Church every Sunday at 11AM, and then later claim he had not been there that regularly once Rev. Wright’s venom was disseminated to the general public? Is Obama for, or not for, a simple yes or no, missile defense, nuclear power, off-shore drilling, and coal-powered electrical generation? There might be legitimate answers, but surely the public could profit by them, rather than worry over the Palin pregnancies, wardrobe, or Tasergate.

Why did the greatest furor against Palin originate with women, both liberals like a Gail Collins, Maureen Dowd, or Sally Quinn, or conservatives such as a Peggy Noonan or Kathleen Parker?

He then proceeds to answer them, and quite a few more, in his usual quiet, understated, eloquent style. Go see what he has to say.

"A Charismatic Demagogue"

Mark Levin, the brilliant attorney and talk show host, just uploaded a very important post to NRO's The Corner. It's obvious that he dashed it off in the heat of passion, so to speak, because while it's tightly reasoned and eloquently written, it's not neatly arranged in paragraphs. He named it "The Obama Temptation." Here's how he begins:

I've been thinking this for a while so I might as well air it here. I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places.

Here's another pull quote:

But beyond the elites and the media, my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization. Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government.

This one is a must-read.

Another Machosauce Production

Remember this? Well, Alfonzo's been busy making more – including this:

He's one helluva talent, isn't he? This man should definitely be on TV. He's better than most of the ones who are there now.

His full name's Alfonzo Rachel, and you can find several more of his videos here.

Hat tip: Jim Treacher

Why They Hate Her So

Sam Schulman has a beautifully written piece in the latest Weekly Standard explaining why certain members of the self-styled elites have been beating up on Sarah Palin so unmercifully. Check out "Class Will Tell." Besides being deadly accurate, it's a superbly crafted essay, and a joy to read.