Why re-read history when you can re-write it?

Most schoolchildren know the phrase "One if by land, and two if by sea" is associated with Paul Revere and the American Revolution. By the time they become adults, most will have long forgotten the details as vividly demonstrated by Sarah Palin last week. True, if asked out of the blue, most adults would recall that Revere warned fellow patriots that the "British were coming." (He actually said "The Regulars are coming out" according to eye-witnesses and his own account, but never mind.) More to the point, most of us would not have said, as Palin did, that Revere warned the British that they couldn't take "American" guns away. (After Revere was arrested by a British Army patrol on the road to Concord, he did tell his captors that people had been "alarmed" about the approaching Redcoats, but never mind.)

Yet, on Fox News this morning, Palin boldly said "I didn’t mess up" and promptly doubled-down on re-writing history instead of re-reading it. In addition to (twice) repeating the myth that Revere shouted the "British are coming," Palin said, "Part of his ride was to warn the British that we were already there, that hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not gonna take American arms. You are not going to beat our own well armed persons, individual private militia that we have. He did warn the British.” So, given the chance to amiably say, "oops, I goofed, folks" and correct the record, Palin vehemently insisted: "I know my American history." Then, playing the victim-card (again), she dismissed the Revere query as another "gotcha" question sprung on her by the evil "lamestream" media. Wow.