 |
| 8:57 p.m.-2003-06-16 This just in from the wire: "President Bush countered those questioning his justification for the invasion of Iraq on Monday, dismissing "revisionist historians" and saying Washington acted to counter a persistent threat. "Now there are some who would like to rewrite history; revisionist historians is what I like to call them," Bush said in a speech to New Jersey business leaders." Wow. I'm reminded of the popular kid on the playground, when confronted with evidence that frogs do in fact NOT cause warts if you kiss them, accusing the one with the encyclopedia article of being a fag. It makes one wonder...what does proving someone has incorrect information have to do with being homosexual? Exactly. What does pointing out that so far, all the 'evidence' that was used to excuse the war in Iraq have to do with revising history? For the record, historical revisionism "refers to the reexamination and reviewing of the stories told as history, with an eye to updating them with more recently discovered, more unbiased, or more accurate information. Broadly, it is the approach that history as it has been traditionally told may not be entirely accurate and may be subject to review. The term historical revisionism is also, however, used by propagandists who wish to rewrite history to tell an ideological (and thereby less accurate) story" (my thanks to http://www.wikipedia.org for the synopsys). Thus...a historical revisionist is someone who a) changes recorded history to be more accurate when new information is discovered, or b) changes history to reflect their own views or agenda. Huh. So...really, a historical revisionist is an oxymoron. They're a truth telling liar. A lying truth-speaker. It's a police detecive announcing that they think the three young women raped and murdered in the last week don't seem to be connected, only to come back three days later and report an 'inaccuracy' in his statement due to a lack of information. Historical revisionists...hell, it's not even history yet, and we're already squabbling over how we should cross all the Ts. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's PROBABLY a duck...but maybe, just maybe, it's a fag.
 The Internet's Mood: The Captain Recommends Dogcessorize 2006-08-13 - Movie Review: Monster House 2006-08-07 - Movie Review: The Descent 2006-06-09 - Movie Review: The Omen 2006-06-03 - She's here, She's here! 2006-05-22 - Blame the Cabin-Boy for playing 50 questions.
|