AllahPundit's on the case.

I'm obviously not an expert in handwriting or forgeries. But I can tell the difference between the two signatures.

One -- the one we know is authentic -- looks like a man's scrawl.

The other -- the one on the dubious document -- looks much the same as my Aunt Hazel's signature on my birthday cards, except she's not as fussy about her handwriting. I'm half-suspecting that white-out was used to delete the smiley-faces from inside the heart-shaped dots over the i's.

Posted by: Ace at 12:13 PM | Comments (5)
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE MUST-READ. It's not only devastating, it's genuine blog reporting-- he's not linking to someone else. He himself called up a typeface/typewriter expert and asked him to check the documents.

Bill from INDC slices the documents like an f'n' hammer:

I asked him to put a percentage on the chances that this was a fake, and he said that was "hard to put a number on it." I then suggested "90%?" Again he said it's "hard to put an exact number, but I'd say it's at least that high, sure. I pretty much agree that that font is Times New Roman."

Times New Roman is a modern font, unavailable before computer word-processors became common.

Wow. Nice job, Bill.

Thanks to Phil for the tip.

Posted by: Ace at 11:59 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

it's not only devastating for Kerry and his liberal media Spirit Squad. This could end Dan Rather's career-- this is no minor screw-up. If these documents are forged, it demonstrates that Dan Rather is decidedly credulous when it comes to allegations against Republicans made by shady Democratic operatives.

This is worse than Peter Arnett's bullshit poison-gas story, and much, much worse than Dateline's faked rear-collision explosions.

And this would be the blogosphere's biggest scalp yet. In fact, one could make the argument that this is the first real scalp. This would be the first time the blogosphere has completely scooped the mainstream liberal Spirit Squad media-- and not only scooped it, destroyed it.

David writes:

Consider: if such documents had surfaced even as recently as the 2000 campaign, their analysis and refutation would have most likely taken days, possibly longer, depending on when copies of the documents were made available. Talk radio would have been the main mechanism for spreading the information. If the documents had surfaced in 1996, the refutation would have taken weeks or possibly not happened at all. In 1996, it might have been sufficient for the Boston Globe to claim that “an expert” had evaluated the documents and concluded that they were genuine. The source documents might never have seen the light of day.

Contrast that to what has happened today. The pdf files for the alleged Nation Guard memos were linked and circulated via the internet. They were viewed within hours by literally thousands of individuals with direct experience relevant to assessing their validity. This included experts in typesetting, forgeries, the National Guard, or any number of other aspects germane to the controversy. (I’m not one of those experts, but some of the points they raise, like the suprascript “th”, seem pretty convincing). Depending on what the major media do tonight, it is possible that the story will be laid to rest in less than 24 hours. Incredible.

There are two stories-- the story and the story of the story. Both are huge.

Posted by: Ace at 11:56 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

Goldfinger told Bond, "Mr. Bond, we have a saying in Chicago. The first time is happenstance. The second time is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."

Goldfinger's "Rule of Three Strange Events Makes Enemy Action" has never been scientifically proven, of course. But it seems like a good rule of thumb to me.

The documents in question have three odd features.

They're variable-spaced, something that was available on some hard-to-work with typewriters, but is of course common in word processors/inkjet printers.

They have "smart quotes" -- quotes that angle the right way, rather than the straight up-and-down dumb-quotes found on typewriters. Again, this is something word processors do (using a simple program for trying to figure out which way the quote should slant), but typewriters do not.

Yes, a special typewriter could be built featuring both forwards and backwards-leaning quotes, and yes, a typist could train himself when to use one or the other.

This is possible.

It is, however, unlikely.

The document also features small superscripted "th's" after numbers, like 187th. That is something that word processors do automatically when they see a "th" or "st" or "rd" or "nd" following a number. But typewriters don't do this. Again, one could put special font faces on a typewriter's ball -- a superscripted "st," "nd," "rd," and "th" -- and the typist could manually select these characters when called for.

But who the hell has ever done this? My guess -- no one, ever, except perhaps for typist-tinkerers and engineers working for IBM and Brother.

Now, one can say, for each of these objections, some typerwriter out there could have done all this. But it seems astonishingly unlikely that a military man would go to this effort to build himself a typewriter that so closely mimics typeset.

So: Do we have here a military man who had some inordinate lust for creating typeset-perfect pages?

Or do we have something much simpler-- a modern computer word-processing program which automatically does all these cool things?

Which of those is the more likely?

Check out, once again, Little Green Football's demonstration of what the "document" looks like when typed up in MS Word 97. It's astonishingly similar, no?

Where exactly did Dan Rather get these documents from?

Could his source have been, by any chance, a Democratic politician with a shady past -- involved in a bribery and stock fraud scandal in the 70's -- who shares the same initials as Barry Bonds?

The penultimate chapter of Goldfinger, incidentally, is titled "The Last Trick," if the James-Bond-trivia lobe of my brain isn't deceiving me.

Posted by: Ace at 11:36 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.

First, John "The Genius" Kerry proposes the creation of an, I shit you not, "Department of Wellness."

Then Terezzzza "I'm so courageous for having the bravery to voice my opinions to my butler, my chauffers, and my cooking staff" Heinz-Kerry gives us another sweet, sweet dose of candor-candy by instructing us that anyone who doesn't support her husband's health-care plan -- including the Department of Wellness, we must imagine -- is an "idiot."

Thanks to Aaron Burr for the first bit and Nick S. for the second bit.

Posted by: Ace at 10:20 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

First, James at American Barbarian pointed out that the docs had superscripting, which other docs from the same man and the same typerwriter don't.

I thought, "Um, nice try, but don't be silly. They wouldn't do that. And they'd check."

But Powerline and Little Green Footballs agree with Barbarian.

I don't know if the evidence is conclusive.

Some are pointing out that the documents came from the Pentagon and are therefore authentic. That, of course, is ludicrous. There are political partisans everywhere in the government. It is not a difficult trick for a clerk to insert a couple of juicy pages into a file.

As Yours Digitally snarks in the comments-- if Sandy Berger could take away codeword-clearance documents in his underoos, presumably one could smuggle in a forged Bush doc the same way.

Update: JHF asks, "Why do you say they came from the Pentagon?"

I got that from the second comment to this report.

But that comment appears to have been in error.

Here liberal Kevin Drum walks back from his previous assertion that the White House had "released" two of the docs (which would presumably have come from the Pentagon originally). The White House didn't have its own copies of these docs-- just what CBS faxed them.

So forget all that-- these docs weren't from the Pentago, but from "the personal files" of a dead man.

Posted by: Ace at 10:08 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

Reagan said it. Bush says it. Everyone who isn't a lefty says it.

But now someone who ought to know admits it: terrorists are encouraged by the left.

Says who? Says the terrorists.

I expect that Oliver Willis will be writing an angry post that he's "Sick of Hamas' Crap" soon. He may even call Hamas unamerican. (Actually, I guess he'd be right on that count.)

Posted by: Ace at 09:52 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

DTLV tipped me to these old David Brooks columns, which are kinda-sorta related to my screed about Andrew Sullivan's PBS tote-bagism.

Interestingly enough, he sees the phenomenon -- which he calls bourgeoisophobia -- in not just the feeling shared by all academics and reporters and Hollywood types that it's just not fair that people don't take their opinions more seriously, but in European and Arab rage at America.

And, of course, at those pesky Jews. Jews are to hatred what the Vatican is to conspiracy theories. At some point, a conspiracy theory is going to include Pope Pius X, and at some point any system of hatred is going to have a special place for Jews.

Here's part 1.

And here's part 2.

I'm only half-finished, but they're very interesting.

Posted by: Ace at 06:33 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

Here.

Ohio: 52-43 Bush

Missouri: 55-41 (!!!) Bush

Penn: 48-47 Bush

And he's consistently ahead in Wisconsin, and he will probably win Minnesota and New Mexico too.

I'm not going to say a word about the media's sudden spike in interest (previously at a ridiculously high level as it was) in the Bush AWOL bullshit or Kitty Kelly's "Gay Bush" crap.

Not going to question the timing. Nope, not me.

Posted by: Ace at 06:21 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 92 words, total size 1 kb.

Okay, he didn't say that, but he demonstrates the typical kneejerk liberal denigration of watching television:

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "You have to watch TV. It's great! Every New YearÂ’s I make a vow to watch more TV." - Ann Coulter. [Sullivan's comment:] Says it all, doesn't it?

Liberals say an awful lot of things, and many of them are, let us say, incongruous with the actual facts. One of the things liberals like to say is that they never watch TV, and yet they're forever nattering on about Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Sex & the City, etc.

In this painful confession, Michael Kinsley admits his secret shame -- that his almost-certainly-archliberal "power woman" wife endlessly watches Law & Order repeats on A&E.

I don't get it. If liberals don't watch TV, how on earth can they talk about it all the time? If they don't watch TV, how can it be, exactly, that The West Wing is (was) a top-rated show? Since all these enlightened, educated, urban liberals don't watch TV, shouldn't the schedule be dominated by The Dukes of Hazzard: The Next Generation and Butchering Deer and Other Game With Power Tools?

Are they reading TV-- the transcripts, I mean? Is Andrew Sullivan telling us he prefers reading sitcom teleplays because he is "free to imagine the scenes, rather than having a visual interpretation forced upon him"?

Or perhaps he and his Provincetown buddies take a more interactive approach, and actually act out select episodes of Queer as Folk in delightful home theatrical productions. In between dramatic readings of Proust's Remembrance of Things Past, I mean.

I know why Coulter said this, because I say something similar. I'm fond of saying Every moment spent away from the television is a moment wasted. I don't really believe that, of course, but I enjoy pricking at cherished liberal self-delusions.

The aristocracy has always sought to differentiate itself from the hoi polloi by signalling other aristocrats via the conspicuous display of manners and opinions marking them as elite. In the 1920's, for example, the highborn would talk about opera and symphony, but never popular music-- popular music was for the lower classes, and if you enjoyed a pop song, it was best to keep that to yourself. They would discuss live theater but never filmed features-- again, the first was accpetable, the latter declasse. And of course there is all that stuff about eating and drinking.

Gosford Park catalogued much of this, especially in the screenwriter's commentary, which, for my money, was more interesting than the actual movie.

We still have a moneyed aristocracy, of course. And I imagine that many of those old rules still apply (although, quite frankly, I wouldn't know for certain).

What I find interesting from a sociological standpoint is liberals' aping of the opinions and manners of the aristocracy, usually with a healthy infusion of kneejerk progressive politics, as a new form of differentiation from the masses whom they so clearly despise. Just as the old middle classes would also attempt to mimic the behaviors of the wealthy, so too do today's liberals -- even those who aren't very wealthy at all -- seek to emulate the codes and mores of the leisure-class to show that they, too, belong in the company of the elite.

Quick proof: Go find any liberal. Ask him what he thinks about USAToday. If he does not immediately say "McPaper," I will buy you a Filet-O-Fish or McRib (your choice; supplies are limited).

Now, USAToday is neither an especially good paper nor an especially bad one; it's not really remarkable in any way. But the word has come down from the liberal aristocrats that the proper attitude towards USAToday is that it is a McPaper, and so that's what they all say, even if (as is usually the case) they've never so much as read the paper before in their lives.

They call it McPaper because of a series of faux-aristocratic biases -- the "mom and pop" local operation is always more virtuous than the national franchise, anything that smacks of mass-appeal is to be automatically despised, etc. -- and they say it's a McPaper, over and over again, for the same reason 1920's aristocrats all talked about the operas they usually slept through-- to signal to other "Progressive Elites" that they Belong, that They Are Part of the Higher Class.

That's why Ann Coulter made her joke, and that's the same reason I make my joke.

And that's why Andrew Sullivan cannot wait to turn this minor bit of joshing into some sort of crime of character -- because, by doing so, he broadcasts far and wide that he is a member of the New Nobility.

And those DVD's of The West Wing: The Complete First Season he has on his book-shelf? Oh, ignore those. They were a gag-gift. He just leaves them up there for the kitch value. Isn't that terribly funny and campy?

Honestly, he never watches TV. Ever.

Except for PBS, of course.

And he's got the umbrella and tote-bag to prove it.

Posted by: Ace at 12:47 PM | Comments (31)
Post contains 858 words, total size 5 kb.