|
September 19, 2004
If the truth hadn't been forged, who would have believed it?
It's official now! Via Michael Graham, I see that the terms of the Rathergate debate have been formally redefined. Today that venerable guardian of the word "Gate", the Washington Post, presents the case that it's time to lose the forgery debate -- fast -- and get down to the real issue of the memos' underlying truth! First, says the Post, concede the silly forgery: While Glennon continues to insist that the documents could theoretically have been printed on a Vietnam War-era IBM Selectric, no one has been able to demonstrate this . Leading font developers say the technology simply did not exist 30 years ago.And now that the forgery's out of the way, it's time to move on. We must recognize that the issue of the forgery obscured the greater truth of what the documents said! As conservative critics called for Rather's scalp, the spotlight turned to who provided the documents to CBS and whether that person was part of a hoax, or even a political setup.How silly we bloggers are! Imagine thinking that this was going to be about forgery. In our obsessive compulsive mania to elevate form over substance, we just couldn't see the forest for the trees, could we? We all owe the Old Media an apology! UPDATE: Not so fast! There are still a few staunch suporters of the documents who know how to write, and who deserve a pat on the back for their loyalty and stamina: It's pretty funny, really, how right-wing bloggers are serially breaking their arms patting themselves on the back for having exposed "Forgerygate." Actually, all they've really managed to prove is P.T. Barnum's famous adage, perhaps recast as "There's a blogger born every minute."I'm in hysterics. No really. But I wonder..... Might that make me a pseudo fascist? (Gee, I was just getting used to being a pseudo libertarian.....) posted by Eric on 09.19.04 at 09:24 PM
Comments
We readily concede that "The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion" are a forgery, but surely you can't dispute their underlying truth. And while typographical experts may quibble over the font used in my copy of "The Homosexual Agenda to Corrupt America's Children", surely you must admit that is factual in a post-modern sense. Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato the Elder) the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · September 20, 2004 12:16 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Imagine if scholars conducted themselves this way. What if Bentley, having proven the letters of Phalaris to be spurious, spent the remainder of his thesis exploring the underlying truth of the documents?
"We now know that these are not in fact the letters of Phalaris, but still they raise serious questions about what Phalaris was thinking when he didn't write them."