This may not seem like "news" to you, but the evidence presented to me so far has been remarkably weak. The attacks on the memos started within hours from someone who was not any kind of expert on fonts or typography (but was a known GOP operative), several witnesses have confirmed that the content of the memos is accurate about Lt. Bush, and we know that National Guard outlets of the time had typewriters capable of producing proportional type.

It was entirely possible that Col. Killian sat down one day and typed the memos for his own CYA file at some Guard typewriter. No one submitted definite proof otherwise, and all CBS has said is that it can no longer verify the authenticity of the memos - not that they were definitely forgeries.

Now I can say that they are forgeries, and we know this from the expert work of Adobe's Thomas Phinney. The question is whether the equipment of the day could have produced these exact memos, and Phinney says they could not.

Making Headlines, Not Setting Them: The incredibly bad reproduction of the memos makes it hard to state many things definitively. These things were first faxed, then scanned back into a computer, then exported back at really low resolution (about 120 dpi). At this point, it's hard to judge subtleties in letterforms. I've had debates about what the font was, based on this, and it's hard. But one thing that is not degraded by the reproduction is the simple question of relative line lengths. Where does each line end, relative to the lines above and below it? What letter lines up at the end of the line, between one and the next? Given proportionally spaced fonts, and a large enough sample (as the full set of four memos are), how each line aligns against its neighbors offers a sort of digital fingerprint of the widths of the font used. The degradation of the copy is no longer important.

Bottom line? The memos precisely match current digital versions of Times (and previous phototype and hot metal typesetting versions).

[...]The only two machines that have been touted as possible sources of the memos, which did not use monospaced fonts, were the IBM Executive typewriter, and the IBM Selectric Composer typesetter.

Now, the Executive did not offer switchable fonts, so you literally had to buy a different typewriter to get a different proportional font. None of them is particularly close to Times in design, and the one that I've seen which is closest is just much, much wider. Nobody would confuse it for Times. Somebody who claims to have worked for IBM at the time wrote that any font IBM had available was available for the Executive. This is a lie, unless you change the definition of "font" to somehow mean a general appearance similarity, not including the specific and exact widths and design. Any typographer uses it to mean the latter. I'll get back to this later, regarding widths...

Now, this eliminates all typewriters of that time. What remains are the low end of typesetting machines. First, one has to understand that these were not typewriters. They took more training to use, and were slower and less efficient. They also cost a lot of money, even the cheaper ones cost $4,000, which would be like $15,000 today. But these machines did offer justification, centering, and most of them had proportional spacing.

[...]Today's digital versions of Times have widths that descend from those used in Linotype's phototypesetting and earlier hot-metal versions. Monotype had previously had an even more original version, with different widths, but when Microsoft licensed Monotype's version, they wanted it to be compatible with Adobe's, so the widths were changed to match the Adobe/Linotype versions.

Thus not only do all the main digital versions of Times used today have the same widths, but they are all based on an earlier 18-units-relative-to-height ("to the em" in font-geek-speak) system, with common characters being 5 to 17 units wide. But the IBM Composer has letters that are 3 to 9 units wide, where 9 units is around 3/4 of the point size (the "em square" to typographers). So while current versions of Times have relatively discrete widths for common characters, these widths are at a "finer grain" than early typewriters or low-end typesetters of the '70s, such as the IBM Executive and Selectric Composer.

So what? Well, there's just no way you can get consistent matches between the line endings (indicating the relative line widths) of an IBM Composer and the common version of Times, when you look at exactly how things line up from one line to the next, and have a lot of lines of text -- like, say, four memos' worth.

[...] Finally, although I don't feel any need to promote my personal political views when talking about typography and forgery; those who know me well will be well aware that my own politics clearly had no influence on this analysis.

At the most generous, you could call the memos "reproductions" if you believe they are new versions of documents that actually exist or existed. If you don't, you have to call them "forgeries." The question of who created them and why remains open (it seems unlikely to me that Bill Burkett, who has spent so much of the past few years on Bush National Guard documentation, would shred his own credibility like this), but the question of whether they're genuine is now closed. They're not.

The content is known to be accurate, though, and it's still pretty telling how many media outlets and righty bloggers find they prefer typographical minutia to that relevant but inconvenient story.

Fourteen Congressional reps push PCUSA to rescind divestment decision: LOUISVILLE - Led by Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), an ecumenical group of 14 members of the House of Representatives has implored the Presbyterian Church (USA) to rescind its July decision to selectively divest from companies who profit from Israel's occupation of the Palestinian Territories - describing the action as causing "terrible distress."

The stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, responded in kind - citing "terrible distress" as well: The failure of the U.S. Congress to be a balanced arbiter for peace in the region or condemning the illegal expansion of settlements in the West Bank.

Now, these congressmen are not fundamentalists themselves (the list of signatories includes five Jewish members of Congress, including Berman, Henry Waxman, and Barney Frank, who's not high on any fundamentalist's list of favorite representatives). But the PC(USA) decided not to invest in companies that profit from Israel's policies toward Palestinians, and fundamentalists loathe anything that might promote peace in the Middle East at the cost of Israeli territory, because that will delay Armageddon and the Second Coming.

The Congressional leaders write: "We believe very strongly that the efforts of the Church to divest from companies doing business in Israel - thus penalizing Israel for acting in its own self-defense - are irresponsible, counterproductive, and morally bankrupt. Rather than contributing to peace, this approach will only provide encouragement for those that seek to de-legitimize the very existence of the Jewish State."

Kirkpatrick replies: "It has been very disappointing to us that the U.S. Congress has not proven to be an ally or a balanced arbiter in the negotiations for peace in the region. While Congress has passed repeated statements against the Palestinian Authority, it has never passed a resolution condemning the continuous illegal construction of settlements in the West Bank. There has been nothing done by Congress to pressure Israel to adhere to international law. Rather, Israel has been encouraged by Congress to violate international law. The recent passage of House Resolution 713, which condemns the International Court of Justice and supports a wall that is in blatant violation of international law, is one case in point."

It gets better:

About security, the Congressional leaders write: "As long as Palestinians and their extremist allies continue to seek the destruction of Israel, then the Government of Israel has a fundamental obligation - as do all democratically elected governments - to provide security for the Israeli people. Unlike the U.N. peacekeeping force advocated by the Church in its divestment resolution, the fence will provide real physical security and - because Israel will have the ability to redeploy its forces from much of the West Bank when it is complete - will help create the conditions necessary for a two state solution in which the legitimate aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians can be satisfied."

Kirkpatrick answers: "The unconditional support of Israel and Prime Minister Sharon, while the continuous assaults on Palestinians and their leadership by the Israeli army are broadcast all over the world, does nothing to protect our security as a nation. It also does nothing to bring the security so needed to Israel. It is the occupation, not our move to consider divestment that threatens the existence of Israel. The 216th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted to begin a process that might lead to divestment from companies profiting from the occupation because there is a strong feeling among many people, and most likely many people in your district, that the occupation needs to end in order that all people - Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans - can live in peace and security."

Fundamentalists within the Presbyterian Church (USA) have disliked Kirkpatrick for such strong statements since he first won the job eight years ago, and at this year's General Assembly, they tried to unseat him with a variety of challengers. Kirkpatrick still won re-election, and God bless him, because this all really isn't his idea:

Kirkpatrick told the Presbyterian News Service that non-Presbyterians keep pressuring the clerk to alter a decision that is out of his hands.

"The clerk can't change this," he said, noting that changing this decision would require action by the 2006 General Assembly, the body that will, ultimately vote on whatever divestment recommendations MRTI identifies.

He urged Presbyterians in Congress who want to alter these decisions to use church channels, by having sessions propose overtures to presbyteries, and then, onto the General Assembly for consideration and debate.

The church is taking a lot of the heat over the General Assembly's decision to divest from only those companies "who profit by causing harm to either Israelis or Palestinians," including from Presbyterians who disagreed with it but lost the 431-62 vote at GA. The General Assembly Council, in fact, has authorized a pastoral letter to explain what the GA directed it to do and how it's going to about it.

Does a move to divest destroy years of dialogue with the American-Jewish community? Some say yes, that’s a risk. Others say it deepens a dialogue that has deliberately avoided questions about peace between Israelis and Palestinians out of fear of stirring up too much emotion. Does it open new avenues of dialogue with Muslims? That, seemingly, was a new idea for some. Does it move justice for Palestinians from the back-burner to the front, something that’s long overdue? There were yes’s to that, too, and to voices insisting that the church needs to stick to its long history of socially responsible investing.

It's not easy trying to do God's work as you understand it.

(Via Presbyterian News Service.)

Reuters.com: "With [The Daily Show] running hot, sources say Comedy Central is eager to find a more fitting companion piece for the series. Although rookie series "Crossballs" and "The Graham Norton Effect" both had recent test runs at 11:30 p.m., neither will likely inherit the time slot or even get a second season because of poor ratings."

The 10:30 PM (CT) program was a half-hour mixdown of Norton's full one-hour show, and therefore was only reruns - it had all appeared before on the full Thursday-night program and therefore didn't interest me. The original program, though, was uproarious fun, the kind of stuff you think they wouldn't allow on television and yet there it was.

I hope it's only the mixdown that may not come back, and that the full hour gets at least one more season. It was fabulous.

Fox Tuning Up Barenaked Ladies: LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Barenaked Ladies' blend of music and comedy is coming to television.

Fox Broadcasting Co. has ordered a pilot presentation for a comedy/variety show starring the members of the popular Canadian pop group, known for its playful music style of tongue-in-cheek humor, pop-culture lyrics and upbeat tempos.

The project, tentatively titled "The Barenaked Ladies Variety Show," is set to expand upon the comedy sketches that have become a staple of Barenaked Ladies' concerts, along with the quintet's stage banter and improv bits with the audience.

The five band members -- Steven Page, Kevin Hearn, Tyler Stewart, Jim Creeggan and Ed Robertson -- will star in the skits as exaggerated versions of themselves, joined by guest actors. The show, in which a story line will run through each episode, connecting the sketches, also will include musical performances by the group and musical guests.

I think my sister will have an aneursym.

(Via Reuters: Entertainment.)