>We're getting our facts from satire? How can I be sure, reading from
>that genre, that the conclusions aren't hyperbole? The emotion not
>demagoguery? (I suppose it's better to see that stuff in satire than
>in some kind of serious book, tho, and we *do* get our best
>observations from the court jester...)

Actually, though Franken is a satirist, he's also a cogent observer, and more
to the point, a relenteless researcher. He knows full well that if he got
*anything* wrong, the other side would be all over him in a second. So he (and
his graduate class of helpers) went into excruciating detail to get their facts
right...which is why they weren't able to go after the Rush book.

It doesn't take much to be able to point to a person making definitive
statement A, then to proof positive that A never happened. But it takes a
satirist to make us laugh along the way...otherwise there'd be blood in the
streets.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)