Let's pick apart Palin's book

  So a Yale PhD historian decides he's going to pick apart Sarah Palin's latest book. 
  He does this piece by piece, finding one actual error and clucking about the context of the historical quotes Palin uses. 
  What it boils down to is that, if Thomas Paine said it, Palin shouldn't quote it because Paine was, in that day, a liberal and would undoubtedly disapprove of her and her right wing philosophy. Communing with the dead revealed to him that one revolutionary would disapprove of another hundreds of years later.
  PhD Michael Shaffer of Yale also is sure that Lincoln wouldn't approve of Palin's contemporary stand on states' rights because, um, things were different when Lincoln was president and states' rights would have presented a problem.
  Also he's sure Martin Luther King wouldn't approve of Palin quoting him either, because Dr. King would obviously hold the same views now that he did when he was alive, and that view is that federal programs provide solutions to social problems. 
  That's worked so well so far. 
  But Shaffer claims, even though he does not know, that King would "vehemently disagree" with Palin. Perhaps in a seance he learned this, but listening to Dr. King's niece and other black American leaders talk about establishing independence from the government teats is enough to make any reasonable person believe that King may have changed his point of view, considering the damage welfare programs have had on the productivity of American citizens and, in particular, the black family.
  Shaffer claims it's "disingenuous" of Palin to "cherry pick" the quotes she does, as if millions of writers around the world don't do the very same thing. Apparently every quote anyone ever uses should have the ponderous back story, context and political beliefs of the quotee included with the use of the quote. To say that she's being "disingenuous" implies dishonesty on her part.
  Cluck, cluck.
  Who's being dishonest.
  Shaffer complains that Palin repeats a story about Ben Franklin wanting to begin each session with prayer at the Constitutional Convention but that she leaves out the fact that the members decide not to do it for a variety of reasons, including that they might be perceived as weak by the general population by praying before each session. So obviously the story about Franklin has no value because they didn't take him up on it. She should have included that, the history professor dictates.
  And he's full of complaints about race (big surprise) and Palin's observation that there are some things better left up to the feds than the states. 
  Now, of course, she says that the Civil Rights Act was good for the feds to have passed, but he calls her rightfully showing "defensiveness" over race and he begins the discussion with the fact her side of the aisle is accused of being racist for opposing Obama's policies.
  Because there was dishonor in the way some states handled racial issues, then obviously the federal government should be in charge of all things racial like, maybe, voting rights for both blacks and whites, DOJ?
  Though Palin "praises" the voting rights act, Shaffer feels the need to add the snide caveat "We hope everyone agrees with her," a slam to Palin's admirers who must be racist because they, um, disagree with Obama or something.
  The problem with the pointy headed liberal elites ensconced in their golden towers is that 
1) they're almost all liberal, particularly in the humanities (well, okay, science too)  
2) they only float in their own circles   
3) they have lots of power over other human beings who just want to get their degrees and move on   
4) they might as well live in cloisters  
5) few people challenge them   
6) most of them haven't held real jobs at all or for very long     
7) they think they're so da#n superior to everyone else 
8) they're so dang condescending  
  Here's hoping Shaffer enjoys glad handing his fellow elites tomorrow morning when he sees them in the lunchroom and remark that his review of Palin's book was so insightful and such a takedown of the obviously wacko right wing.
  I haven't read Palin's book, nor do I intend to read it but this kind of slanderous book review reveals the weakness of their arguments, and the fact that the pointy heads simply do not understand the idea of faith in God. 
  Sure, they have faith in their religions of global warming, and elitism, and socialism, and communism, and anti-Americanism but they really don't understand the idea of faith in a God who understands and who is personal. 
  In this way they justify a book review in which they pick apart every little thing they can think of that doesn't adhere to their own world view. To show that Palin is ignorant is a thing of glee for a professor like Shaffer. Fairness, objectivity and a reviewer's eye are unnecessary for a man like this; all that is necessary is that he proves his point selectively, using his own facts and his own world view.
  Kinda like Palin's method, as most authors, now that I think of it.
  Except he's reviewing HER book, and criticizing her for the same thing he's doing, most of it unfairly.