Incindentally, my conclusion on the LSAT: it would be trivially easy if it weren't for the friggin' time limit! Of course, I guess that's the point. Lawyers are supposed to think quickly, or something like that.
So, like I said, my first thought was, "At least she didn't attribute it to Caesar." Rather, she was suckered into believing that it was penned by Shakespeare. However, after about two seconds of reflection, I decided attributing it to Shakespeare makes her even more of a moron. Why? My first reason stands. "Whips into" is not consistent with Shakespeare's writing style. The second reason stands too. Why would Shakespeare have Caesar cautioning against rulers like himself? Most importantly, Barbara Streisand is a supposedly professional actress. You would think she would have studied some Shakespeare in her time. After all, Shakespeare, to the field of drama, is like the physicists' Newton, Einstein and Hawking all combined. He was the master playwright. So, since we're assuming Streisand has studied some Shakespeare, even if the phrase "whip into" didn't trigger a question mark, how is it that she didn't notice that this stupid quote is not anything like iambic pentameter, Shakespeare's favorite meter? Granted, "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war" is almost iambic pentameter (replacing "leader" with "man" should do it), and since Shakespeare was not religious about it, that line could maybe pass. But the rest does not even resemble metered verse. It doesn't sound like Shakespeare at all. It sounds like the ramblings of a pacifist weenie. The quote, that a "friend" found somewhere on the internet (a questionable resource that should always be double checked), should have immediately set off alarms in her head. She should have gotten out her copy of The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (every actor should have one) and looked for the quote, or downloaded one of the e-texts from Project Gutenberg and done a quick text search of the play for a key phrase. Then she would have found that the quote has nothing to do with either Shakespeare or Caesar. It was fraudulently penned, and apparently quite recently, since nobody seems to be able to find an occurrence of it prior to 11 Sept. 2001 (please correct me if you find a prior reference). This would have saved her a good deal of embarassment. Since she wasn't bright enough to see big, red, flashing alarms when the quote was attributed to Shakespeare, I am forced to openly mock her, as I do all pacifist weenies who jump all over this quote the first time they see it. Like others, she ended up whining about how, okay, maybe it wasn't written by Shakespeare or Caesar, but it's still important and relevant, blah blah, sob, sob. The truth is, it's not important or relevant. People with an agenda trying to prove their points by citing other people with the same agenda is a very weak form of argument. Pacifist weenies referring to quotes by other pacifist weenies only works for pacifist weenies (which is why the pacifist weenies at the Democratic fund raiser applauded her so excitedly), just like Microsoft FUD about Linux (and Linux FUD about Microsoft, while we're on the subject) only serves to whip the apologists and devotees into an OS-Pride fervor. It is not at all persuasive. If the Democrats want to convince people there is something wrong with Pres. Bush's Iraq policy, they need to use some logic and reason, not clueless entertainers.