DESPERATE FOR AMMUNITION

Did you ever notice that if a critic has a prejudice for or against something – a painting, a piece of music, an article of literature, a scientific theory – he can always invent reasons to justify his “a priori” conclusion? The New Yorker magazine, for example, is invariably chock full of laughable, hyperbolic praise for works of “art” in various media that sensible people would flush down the toilet or refuse to see.

The same illogical bigotry is focused by the more rabid Democrats against Sarah Palin. Lately I heard imaginative reasons to dislike her offered by two mature – at least in years – women.

One was that, whereas Sarah would be quite capable at handling the affairs of a state, the person couldn’t picture her dealing with foreign statesmen (statespeople?). Surprisingly, this same thinker had been able to visualize a womanizing clown from the same level of government in Arkansas fulfilling that role.

The second odd proscription came from a woman with a B.O. banner stuck in her front yard. It was that women with children should not occupy the office of President, nor Vice-President, either, now that she’d thought about it.

This, too, was a strange thing emanating from a devout feminist, but, then, unreasoning women, inaccurately calling themselves “feminists,” flocked to vote for the womanizing clown from Arkansas. Liberals, isn’t it, that favor dads that stay at home while the moms work outside and baby-changing stations in men’s rooms? Consistency is never a strong point with the rabid.

She’s the only one of the four top candidates with experience at governance, and, if it came to it, whom would you rather see face to face with a foreign head of state; Sarah Palin or a wimp that shouts “present” and hides his head?