|
|
|
|
Friday, September 30, 2005
And that's the way it is? A "great excuse"?
Watching Larry King a few minutes ago, I saw Walter Cronkite opine that "we now have a great excuse to get out of Iraq." The "excuse"? "Natural disasters," of course. "We cannot afford both." Which means, according to Cronkite, that we should now tell the world that "we're terribly, terribly sorry" and simply get out of Iraq. A few weeks ago, Dean Esmay anticipated the Cronkite argument: From my perspective, it is far, far too late to start bringing up questions about funding priorities now, except maybe in the sense of bringing them up if another war is proposed. For this war, the die is cast. Furthermore, there is no denying the truth: if we pull up stakes and abandon those people in Iraq, we will have done something more immoral and more terrible than we ever did by going there in the first place. The power vacuum we would leave behind would result in a crushing blow against human rights. It wouldn't just be a great shame to the United States, it would be a great shame to the entire human race.A shame? But what about the great Walter Cronkite saying we now have a great excuse? Unfortunately, Dean doesn't think Walter's excuse is much of a moral argument: People who attack the war effort don't like being questioned on moral grounds, but too bad! This is a fundamentally moral question. I never stopped phrasing my support for this mission in moral terms, and I won't stop now. Because I meant it then and I mean it now: opposition to liberation of Iraq is and always has been morally vacuous. One could argue against it for purely pragmatic reasons--we can't afford it, we have other priorities--but we cannot pretend those are moral arguments. They're also irrelevant--we committed to this almost three years ago and can't go back in time and undo it.If history ends up recording that "the War in Iraq was lost in New Orleans," ("and that's the way it is"), we will have lost a lot more than Iraq and New Orleans. Excuse me, but I don't think I want to live in a great excuse. posted by Eric at 09:19 PM | Comments (3)
| TrackBacks (0)
Race just isn't sexy
I really didn't want to write a post defending Bill Bennett (about whose politics I share roughly John Cole's opinion), because there are plenty of people in need of defending and because he'd probably never do the same thing for me. But Jeff Goldstein (in a wonderful post linked by Glenn) did such a good job of defending Bennett against the charge of racism -- especially the more complicated charge that one shouldn't say things that might be misunderstood or misinterpreted -- that I feel emboldened. Why, it's almost as if I can defend Bennett without feeling susceptible to being attacked as a racist myself! To back up a bit, via John Cole, here are Bennett's remarks in context: BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don’t know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don’t know. I mean, it cuts both—you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well—(BTW, I'd rather credit John Cole than that mean Media Matters place he got it from, lest I be misunderinterpretated. But I will supply the Inquirer link.) It's real obvious (to me, anyway) that Bennett isn't proposing the abortions of black fetuses any more than he's arguing that blacks cause crime. He's just extrapolating from statistics to show the monstrous results which can be created if we rely on them. But to show how ridiculous the charge against Bennett is, let's turn off the race meme, and switch to the sex meme. Suppose Bennett had said the following: But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could—if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every male baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.Indeed it would. And if the extrapolated statistics are correct, it would go down a whopping 90% -- because that's the percentage of crime which is committed by males. (Men also comprise 95% of the prison population.) Would that have been a sexist remark? By the same logic applied to Bennett, of course it would. But would Bennett have been slammed for it? By anyone? I think not. (More likely, he'd have been praised -- at least by organizations like this.)
(Bennett's statement was not racist, but few will care. Truth is an increasingly losing venture -- even in context.) posted by Eric at 05:33 PM | Comments (4)
| TrackBacks (0)
Secrets of the garden variety . . .
Sean Kinsell and I had an email exchange earlier this week, and as Sean pointed out in a post titled "Secret Gardens," it resulted in my earlier post about blogging. While Sean didn't quote from the email exchange (phew!), he offers some additional thoughts about blogging under his real name: Since I write under my own name, I have to use content and tone that are compatible with my job, but that doesn't bother me. It's not as if people who try to make their points forcefully but civilly were overrepresented in the public discourse or anything. I also have a few teenaged readers and try to keep my occasional bawdiness mild and good-humored, the better to serve as a thrilling contrast with the latest Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson video.As I'm self-employed, I don't feel the same restraints others might, but there are a few factors which cause me to restrain myself. One is a primary reason I started blogging, and that is my distaste for the rude, name-calling, ad hominem style of political (and even non-political) debating. I think people are intimidated by insulting rhetoric, especially personal attacks based on things like culture, age, race, background, or tastes in clothing, food, or sex -- and they should not be. I'm not perfect, and I do get emotional at times, but I do try to remain logical and polite, and I try to refrain from hurling personal insults and irrelevant characterizations at people. Respecting what little privacy exists in my largely irrelevant personal life and in the privacy of others' personal lives is another consideration, which makes certain things off limits for discussion. (For example, I abhor the merging of the political with the personal, and this is epitomized by the practice of "outing" by the left, as well as the characterization of all homosexuals as being part of a sinister "gay agenda" by the right.) There's also the issue of taste. What some might like, others might find threatening. (Or even disgusting.) Finally, while I know I wouldn't survive being subjected to a Google scrutiny test if I wanted to work for, say, a stodgy Philadelphia law firm, I try to always keep in mind that anything I say in this blog might have to be defended later. So I try to aspire to a sort of personal rule that I must be ready, willing, and able to defend anything I have said in this blog. Anytime, anywhere -- even publicly. This is not to say that I'm confident of the rightness of everything I say, because I have often made mistakes and been wrong. What it does mean is that I don't want to succumb to emotion and write things in the heat of passion I might later regret. Otherwise, I do not consider myself bound by conventional wisdom or anyone's political agenda -- which makes me free to be as opinionated and as crazy as I want. posted by Eric at 10:57 AM | Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
Arms are for hugging!* And for politeness!
According to the Brady Bunch, it's now open season on tourists in Florida. Tourists are being warned that Floridians now have the dangerous right to self defense: Florida's £30 billion tourism industry is under threat from a campaign launched by a gun-control group which warns visitors they could be killed.They are? Merely because the Brady people placed an asinine ad? If an anti gay marriage group placed an ad warning them that they would not be allowed to marry a partner of the same sex in Florida, would this mean they'd be "caught up" in the gay marriage dispute? The Florida law, supported by the National Rifle Association, was approved by the state legislature in April.So, not only are you unsafe in Florida and all "caught up" in an ongoing row, but when crazed Florida rednecks shoot you to death, it'll all be the fault of the evil Bush Dynasty! The Brady Campaign to Control Gun Violence, based in Washington DC, has pledged to "educate" tourists by placing adverts in US cities, and in key overseas markets such as Britain.Thanks to the Bush Dynasty and the NRA, armed Floridians might now have dangerous feelings? Is that the message? Apparently so. There's also an erroneous assumption that armed citizens are rude. To the contrary; they're much more likely to be polite. But let's assume that someone, somewhere in Florida, now has a "feeling" that there's a "right" to use deadly force to settle a road rage argument. Legally, the notion is preposterous, as the Florida statute conveys no such right, nor does it provide justification for such feelings. It merely resuscitates the common-law "man's home is his castle" doctrine which had (along with self defense generally) been under attack. What the law actually says is explained in detail here. Basically, if attacked with deadly force you have no duty to retreat when you are in your home, or at your business. As to "road rage," the following excerpt explains that the law does not allow someone in that situation to settle a dispute by shooting: Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?I don't think European tourists traveling to Disney World have much to worry about from Florida's armed law abiding citizens. Why, unless they're planning on invading homes and businesses, they're free to act like total assholes and even start fights, and still, Floridians will not be allowed to shoot them. But "feelings" may persist. The Brady Campaign would conveniently have us forget about the notorious tourist shootings which plagued Florida in the early 1990s. What fewer people recall is that they were preyed on because they stood out as tourists, and local criminals knew they were unlikely to be armed. In 1993, as research by Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has shown, Florida crime rates were actually plummeting, due to new laws which allowed far more law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. As that beneficial change took place, the only motorists who criminals could be assured would be unarmed were newly-arrived tourists driving rental cars with big fluorescent rent-a-car stickers. Once the airport rental lots started removing those stickers, Florida's "tourist murder crime wave" disappeared virtually overnight.With history in mind, I think it's reasonable for Florida to consider a sensitivity outreach program for European tourists who feel threatened. In conjunction with the NRA, they could offer fearful tourists welcome and safety kits consisting of NRA bumperstickers to place on their rental cars, and NRA hats to wear. That way, they could not only blend in with legally armed Floridians irrationally suspected of harboring "feelings" about shooting tourists, but the hats and stickers would tend to intimidate criminals who'd be inclined to prey on tourists -- not because of mistaken feelings, but because of the logical assumption that tourists are unlikely to be armed. An "arm the tourists" pilot program might not be a bad idea either. Tourists are already pre-screened when they enter the country, so the background checks wouldn't be too much of a problem, and they could be issued temporary right-to-carry permits which would allow them to rent guns for the duration of their trips. Tourists would be safer, Florida would be safer, and everybody would be more polite. And when they returned home to Europe, the tourists would have something to talk about with their friends that might be more interesting than Mickey Mouse. MORE: Jeff Soyer cleverly spoofs the ridiculous Brady "warning" poster by offering one featuring Chicago, where self defense is disallowed -- and where gun control has worked (to increase homicides, that is....) UPDATE (10/01/05): I'm delighted to see that Michelle Malkin liked this post and gave me a link! Many thanks. AND MORE: Why are there no tourist warnings about Switzerland -- described as "awash in guns" and where even children have guns: At all major shooting matches, bicycles aplenty are parked outside. Inside the firing shelter the competitors pay 12-year olds tips to keep score. The 16-year-olds shoot rifles along with men and women of all ages.(HT Justin.) Sounds at least as dangerous as Florida. UPDATE: My thanks to Tammy Bruce for linking this post and for her kind words. I also enjoyed her comments on the irony of Floridians being targeted by a smear like this in England: Ironically, England implemented its own gun control legislation in 1997 with disastrous repercussions. They now have a higher violent crime rate than not only New York, but every state of the union, including of course, Florida.
posted by Eric at 09:30 AM | Comments (7)
| TrackBacks (1) Thursday, September 29, 2005
Spanish intolerance of multiculturalism
What's the best way for a man to beat his wife without getting caught? The blows should be concentrated on the hands and feet using a rod that is thin and light so that it does not leave scars or bruises on the body.So advises Imam Mohamed Kamal Mustafa, who officiates at a mosque in Fuengirola, Spain. For his advice on practical application of what he considers Islamic doctrine, Mustafa is in trouble with Spain's socialist government: The judge told Mohamed Kamal Mustafa, imam of a mosque in the southern resort of Fuengirola, to spend six months studying three articles of the constitution and the universal declaration of human rights.Via G. Gordon Liddy. (I can't find the Imam's book at Amazon.com.) While wife beating is taken very seriously in the United States (and is of course illegal in every state), Mustafa's how-to manual might very well be protected under the First Amendment. (I'm still recovering from abdominal pain, and just too tired to put in a call to the ACLU right now, OK? But take my word for it; banning his book, while it might be possible under certain theories, would by no means be a slam-dunk.) What is not protected, though, and what never should be protected, is a religious privilege to commit crime, or advocacy which crosses a certain line. As I've said, if freedom of speech grants no right to yell fire in a crowded mosque, neither does freedom of religion. To which I'd add that neither does "multiculturalism." But I had no idea the Spanish were so culturally intolerant. Imagine, requiring Imams to understand human rights! And making them learn Spanish! What would CAIR say? posted by Eric at 07:12 PM | Comments (6)
| TrackBacks (0)
Anarchist alternative to selling your soul
Via Glenn Reynolds, I read of problems with the iPod Nano. Apparently, these highly fashionable gadgets crack too easily, among other things. Does that mean if you shell out hundreds of dollars and the thing breaks, you're just another "fashion victim?" Is there any alternative to these high fashion, expensive, electronic devices which are still, um, "cool"? That depends on what you consider cool. One of the few things I liked about the 1970s was that at the peak of rock and roll arrogance (in which musical tyranny and pompous musical complexity reigned supreme), young people rebelled, and simply said "enough is enough!" The result was punk rock -- a startlingly simplified return to the homemade roots of rock. (And fashion!) I'm wondering whether similar factors might be at work in the introduction of DIY (do-it-yourself) MP3 players like these. ![]()
"Must-have" devices seem to instantly lose their charm for me when they're adopted en masse -- even when it comes to the iPod."There's also the matter of pride of ownership -- in that if you build it yourself, it feels more yours than if you bought it: For those with curiosity, diligence and a rebel's spirit, it's quite possible to get your hands on a unique MP3 player and avoid selling your soul to tech conformity.It looked cool! That statement alone ought to drive terror into the heart of the Apple's But when he was through, he had an incredibly cool device that he'd made himself -- and that no one else had. Plus, it worked! The player sounds great, looks cool and, thanks to my clumsiness with power tools, it's quite unique looking. The memory card can hold about 120 songs (comparable to an iPod Shuffle) but can only play linearly and has no file system.Maybe a Nano? Hey wait a second! I thought rebellion was the whole idea! Besides, who wants a cracked Nano? (I probably shouldn't pose such questions, because if the DIY coolness takes hold, and the 1970s "New Wave" revolution is any guide, pretty soon the manufacturers will be selling pre-cracked "hacker" style players all patched together with duct tape.....)
posted by Eric at 10:29 AM
| TrackBacks (0)
Exactly what's engraved in granite?
I'm having a conceptual problem with the term "graven image," and I don't find the literal words especially illuminating: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.According to this liberal Episcopalian site, the words have to be interpreted: Despite what God seems to say in the King James translation, he is not really forbidding representational art -- just representation of divine things. Among all ancient deities, Yahweh is uniquely abstract, and the most insistent not only on his ineffability but also on his singularity (all other gods are "false"). As he famously puts it in verse 5, "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God" -- a claim he will prove over and over again in the Hebrew Bible.Now that's really puzzling. I mean, I could see prohibiting only statues of Yahweh, but if that's the intent, then why not say so? And if statues of pagan deities are prohibited, to whom is their manufacture (making) prohibited? Everyone? Or just the ancient Israelites? In other words, is it a total ban, including possession? And for everyone? Surely the Israelites did not consider their laws to be binding on the world at large. It seems to come down to interpretation. I'm wondering whether the fundamentalist interpretation is helpful, or whether there's a rule against any interpretation. Because, if the latter is the case, then there's no way anyone who is under the jurisdiction of the rule against graven images can be allowed to make any graven image of anything. Right there I should back up for a second. Is it a rule, or is it a law? I don't mean to be facetious here, but the language I am attempting to analyze is popularly known as the "Second Commandment" and there are a number of people -- in unorganized as well as organized groups -- who maintain that it should somehow be considered part of the laws of the United States. The "Organic Laws" or something like that. So I don't think asking what it might mean is an entirely idle act. Nor should it be considered an irreverent one. After all, if we are to be ruled by something (or placed under its jurisdiction), is it not reasonable to ascertain what it means if its language is not plain on its face? This Second, um, "Commandment" gets even more complicated in light of the additional language omitted by the liberal Episcopalians. As far as I can determine it, here's the full text: 2nd Commandment; Verses 4-6: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."What's this about "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"? How can such a law be followed? It reads more like a threat. And an unconstitutional one at that. (Reminds me of Philadelphia's $5 million "Slavery Mall" scolding at taxpayers' expense....) According to ReligiousTolerance.org, there are a number of interpretations of the phrase "graven image," and a split between liberals and conservatives over whether the additional language was original or tacked on. The conservative view is that "God wrote the Ten Commandments as they have been passed down to us." Really? Then why is it that the commonplace depictions (Roy Moore's sculptural depiction will do fine as an example), omit the extra phraseology? To abbreviate? And what's with engraving them on stone, anyway? Why isn't that an image? Why isn't a photograph of them an image? The Amish consider photographs to be graven images, and violative of the Second Commandment. Austin Cline doesn't think that it is reasonable to "pick and choose" which parts of this "commandment" should be enforced: Picking and choosing what parts of the Ten Commandments they will endorse is just as insulting to believers as endorsing any of them is to nonbelievers. In the same way that the government has no authority to single out the Ten Commandments for endorsement, the government has no authority to creatively edit them in an effort to make the as palatable as possible to the widest possible audience.This is making less and less sense to me. I don't understand what the Commandment means, how to interpret it, anything! Let's compromise, and suppose for the sake of argument that the Commandment only prohibits images of deities, whether or not the deities "exist." The same courts which are said to be under its jurisdiction often have statues of the Roman Goddess Justitia in and in front of their courtrooms. (She's the one wearing the blindfold and holding the scales of justice.) If the Commandment means anything and if we are bound by it, I can't think of a clearer violation than its presence in thousands of courthouses around the country. Are we bound by Justice, by Justitia? Does that mean we are ruled by a pagan goddess? (Ought to provide food for thought, for those who believe in "organic law"....) posted by Eric at 09:11 AM | Comments (6)
| TrackBacks (0) Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Why I avoid the appearance of caring about certain things . . .
I've never cared for Tom DeLay, and I don't see why I am supposed to be jumping up and down over his indictment. The way some people are carrying on, you'd think the fabric of the Republic were at stake. Yet from what I can see, he's accused of some conspiracy to commit campaign finance violations. If he's guilty and they have a case, I suppose it'll be the end of him politically. If the whole thing is as bogus as DeLay contends, he'll gain in strength, a la Karl Rove. It all sounds so typically political that I'm afraid I can do little more than yawn. To illustrate how much I care, I'll switch to someone I loathe on the other side. The gun-grabbing Charles Schumer will do. Were Senator Schumer facing the same type of charge (say, a Republican prosecutor got him indicted for campaign violations), I might be relieved at seeing an enemy of the Second Amendment hobbled, but I'd hardly jump up and down screaming that it was a vindication of all America stood for, or all I believed. Besides, if it all turned out to be nothing, I'd have had my time wasted, and precious energy levels depleted unnecessarily. posted by Eric at 02:03 PM | Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0)
"Depraved disregard"?
At the risk of looking like a simpleton, I'd like to pose a simple question: What is a rumor? Is there a difference between a rumor and a lie, or does a lie become "laundered" into a rumor when it is repeated by someone other than the original liar? For example, if I state that I served in the Vietnam War (something I never did), and that I saw Marines skin a Vietcong suspect alive in a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan, that is precisely the sort of thing we could expect to be repeated, especially by people who wanted to believe it. For some reason, the repetition of it has the effect of lessening the lie, even though there's no logical reason why it should. My lie about Vietnam remains a lie no matter how many thousands of times it might be repeated or believed. Yet we call it a rumor, and those who repeat it are not said to be liars, nor are they liars. That is because it cannot be a lie to merely repeat what someone else told you. (Unless, of course, you know it is a lie....) Considering that lies can be so easily transformed into rumors and then spread like computer viruses (Internet hoaxes telling people to delete program applications are close to being just that), it would seem to me that those entrusted with delivering the truth to the public would have a greater duty of care to ensure that they do not become agents of transmission. It is doubly important, therefore, that when those entrusted to transmit the truth discover that they have transmitted lies, that they acknowledge their error. If there is one thing I can't stand, it's the idea that I might help spread such hoaxes. Unfortunately, when I linked to Brian Thevenot's story, I did just that. I spread someone's lie, which Thevenot had apparently failed to check. Unlike me, Thevenot was right there, talking to the Guardsmen about the dead bodies stacked inside the freezer. Apparently, he never bothered to look inside. I'm cynical, but something about Thevenot's proximity to the freezer prevented my cynicism from suspecting a lie. On the other hand, my familiarity with alligators immediately made me highly suspicious of the Charmaine Neville tale (widely repeated -- by Daily Kos, CounterPunch, and Editor and Publisher). Still, I had no reason to doubt the central point of her story, which that she'd behaved heroically by commandeering a flatboat, then breaking into a bus and driving countless people to safety. I now see an admission by the editor of Editor and Publisher that Neville never drove the bus: In an interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Channel, A Current Affair correspondent Arthel Neville, of the famous musical family, said she had heard that a man was beaten to death by an angry mob in the Dome after he raped and killed a 7-year-old.Is Mitchell's remark a retraction? Then why doesn't his story make any mention of it? Instead, Editor and Publisher still features the same story, same headline ("Charmaine Neville's New Orleans Story: Horror and Heroism") and same misleading text: (September 07, 2005) -- Every time you think you've heard it all about the horrors of New Orleans in the past week, something like Charmaine Neville's experience comes around the bend, or the blog, and smacks you over the head like a club. It's a story of dead babies in the water, alligators eating people, heroism (she commandeered a bus to save dozens) and despair (she was raped).I agree that it's a tale everyone ought to ponder, but not just in thinking about the depraved disregard for life. I'm wondering whether there might also be a depraved disregard for facts, and whether this depraved disregard might play a role in the initial creation of fiction by attention seekers. Who knows, it might also play a role in a sort of cycle of transformation -- of lies into rumors, of rumors into "facts."
MORE: Via Glenn Reynolds, Gateway Pundit has a nice collection of Katrina MORE: I've written previously about the somewhat related issue of whether lies can become true with age (especially when they serve the interests of those promoting them). posted by Eric at 08:46 AM
| TrackBacks (0)
Comments
Here are the comments from "Another Tragedy Of Higher Education". I've edited (a bit) for continuity and brevity. An extended response to these arguments is available here... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, aren't we feeling a little smoldering resentment today? What, did poor Justin get personally snubbed by Kass? And we can't touch Kass personally because he couldn't care less about us and has a real job, so we snipe at random bloggers who give him one sentence of credit instead? Well, I'm honored that my two sentences have recieved such thorough scrutiny and close reading. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps she thought we weren't taking her seriously? posted by Justin at 01:07 AM | Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0) Tuesday, September 27, 2005
A tale of three freezers?
I think Brian Thevenot's changing story of the Convention Center freezer is worth a post all its own. As of yesterday, Mr. Thevenot was complaining about "rumors" which led to a "widely circulated tale" about dead bodies in the freezer: One widely circulated tale, told to The Times-Picayune by a slew of evacuees and two Arkansas National Guardsmen, held that "30 or 40 bodies" were stored in a Convention Center freezer. But a formal Arkansas Guard review of the matter later found that no soldier had actually seen the corpses, and that the information came from rumors in the food line for military, police and rescue workers in front of Harrah's New Orleans Casino, said Edwards, who conducted the review.But the two Arkansas National Guardsmen were Thevenot's sources for the "tale" he now says was based on "rumors." They were presented almost as if they were his war comrades -- the type of people who'd never lie. Here's the AJR version of the freezer tale -- from Thevenot's "Apocalypse in New Orleans": One of my first stops was the Convention Center. I tried to walk through the food service entrance near the back when two Arkansas National Guardsmen stopped me.Reading about scenes that will live in his head for a long time, would you get the impression that this is a tale? Or a rumor? That the reporter has been had? I wouldn't. There's a distinct sense of being there, being led directly through the carnage, of the reporter on the scene being so horrified that the images are literally seared into his memory. Likewise, returning to the first version (Thevenot's September 6, story, which I was gullible enough to link), one doesn't get a sense of tales or rumors, but gruesome atrocities, factually and courageously reported: Arkansas National Guardsman Mikel Brooks stepped through the food service entrance of the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center Monday, flipped on the light at the end of his machine gun, and started pointing out bodies.And now we are told that this scene -- so articulately portrayed by Thevenot, was a tale based on rumors. I am not impressed. And I am even less impressed by the heavyhanded references to scenes of war carnage which Thevenot repeatedly invoked. It would be one thing had he limited himself to Iraq. After all, he was under stress and he'd been there. But Rwanda? Yes. Rwanda: The similarities were striking: days that bled one into another, the constant whirr of helicopters, death, the heavy weight of history.(I don't think I need to get into detail about Rwandan genocide, but Rwanda was not a place where hundreds of people died in flooding from a hurricane.) Considering that such extreme hyperbole was based on rumors, I'm troubled by Thevenot's claim to ownership of the story: ...we've cranked out better journalism in the last two weeks than we have the last two years, and we're getting stronger every day. And Katrina remains our story to own, and we mean to own it.Well, he did write it, so I guess it's fair that he should own it. (Story, tale, rumor, whatever.)
(In either place, of course....) MORE: Tom Maguire wonders whether we can "look forward to a story praising Bush for refusing to put troops in New Orleans on the basis of phony intelligence." UPDATE (10/02/05): In an email to me, Brian Thevenot admits his own mistake, and says he has repeatedly admitted the mistake before. This is news to me, because I have not seen any clear admission by him of his own mistake, nor have I seen anything confirming that he exposed himself, as he says. Here's the email from Brian Thevenot: From: "Sports laptop" (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.net) To: escheie@yahoo.com Subject: Classical Values Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 02:47:22 -0500 From Brian Thevenot: Did you somehow miss the portion of the follow-up story in which I debunked my own myth about the 40 bodies in the freezer? Did you not bother to read the whole story? I admitted my own mistake, under my own byline, and in again in interviews with news stations and newspapers that interviewed me about myths at the Dome and Convention Center. And now you purport to expose me after I exposed myself? xxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.com I replied as follows: I'll note your response in an update to my post, but I reread the last report carefully and it's not clear to me where you admitted your own mistake or exposed yourself.There may very well be an admission by Brian Thevenot somewhere that I have missed. If and when I find it, I'll update this post again, with my apologies to Mr. Thevenot. In any event, he's certainly admitting his mistake now, which is good. MORE: I have no way of knowing whether the above email was in fact sent to me by Brian Thevenot, but I am assuming -- as I should in good faith -- that it was. However, for the record I think I should note that the originating IP -- 12.16.159.38 -- seems to be from a hotel in San Diego, California: OrgName: STARWOOD HOTELSThis raises my suspicions (because there's urgent reporting still to be done in New Orleans), but it's certainly possible that Mr. Thevenot was in San Diego yesterday, or that his email was routed through a San Diego hotel IP. MORE: Earlier today on CNN, Glenn Reynolds said, "journalists ought to tell us what they know." I agree. Shortly thereafter, Howard Kurtz asked Glenn about the bad reporting in New Orleans: KURTZ: Glenn Reynolds, the dilemma for reporters is that in some cases -- New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin said 10,000 people could be dead, the police chief, Eddie Compass, said there were babies being raped in the Superdome. Did bloggers play a role in either knocking down some of these reports or at least being more skeptical about them?As I said, I should have been more skeptical. And right now I couldn't possibly be more skeptical. MORE: As a courtesy to Mr. Thevenot, the email identifiers have been deleted. posted by Eric at 10:19 PM
| TrackBacks (0)
Afraid to say what you think?
If so, you are not alone. But if such fears have prevented you from writing a blog, your chances of finding gainful employment are much improved -- at least according to this post from Daniel Drezner. Of course, if you're tenured or have job security for other reasons, you're lucky. The not so lucky are finding themselves not hired because of a blog, or even being fired. I'm hoping this will change over time, as the fear of blogs wears off. But for now, bloggers who think they're safe because their blogs avoid controversial topics (or are limited to specialty interests) should think again. What most fascinated me about the philosophy behind moral disapproval of blogging is that it's not what you say that matters as much as the fact that you say anything: The content of the blog may be less worrisome than the fact of the blog itself. Several committee members expressed concern that a blogger who joined our staff might air departmental dirty laundry (real or imagined) on the cyber clothesline for the world to see. Past good behavior is no guarantee against future lapses of professional decorum.In other words, there's no such thing as a "good" blogger? I have a logical problem with this because it's just as silly to assume that someone without a blog won't start one (or might not already have a pseudonymous one) as it is to assume that a "good" blogger will continue to be good. Blogging is not an inborn or genetic condition. It takes fifteen minutes -- and zero money -- to start a blog, anonymous or otherwise. Daniel Drezner quotes from this anonymous blogger, who explains that "blogging is dangerous because hiring committees are paranoid, conservative, and illogical." (I've touched on the folly of Internet/blogging confidentiality here.) I think blogging -- whether anonymous or otherwise -- is good for the soul of the individual blogger and of the country. I think that one of the reasons so many bloggers are drawn to this medium is that in too many ways, America has become a country in which people are afraid to say what they think. Blogging gives a voice (if not a loudspeaker) to those who'd normally be silent, but the downside is that it gives them an opportunity to be heard by the very people who'd normally intimidate them into silence. I think there are people who've taken up blogging precisely because thoughts like "I could never say this at work!" or "You just can't discuss issues like this in public!" ran through their minds. And yet (especially if their blogs stay there long enough and are read by enough people) they can end up finding themselves in a position of being intimidated by the very people (that collective entity known by the euphemism of "society") who intimidated them into blogging in the first place. I think that's a paradox. And maybe it's a good paradox. posted by Eric at 08:21 PM
| TrackBacks (0)
Gag! Retch! Barf!
I fear that my blogging's going to be light today because I'm having a bout (hopefully temporary) of severe abdominal pain. Too bad really, because I was getting all worked up about the New Orleans "bad reporting" scandal, which I see has now made Drudge: ![]() (Sorry to leave Shepard Smith out of the picture, but he's supposed to be off to the right somewhere and got cut off because my nausea affected my, um, crop.*) This "bad reporting" reporting also made today's LA Times: The National Guard spokesman's accounts about rescue efforts, water supplies and first aid all but disappeared amid the roar of a 24-hour rumor mill at New Orleans' main evacuation shelter. Then a frenzied media recycled and amplified many of the unverified reports.Not a word about the role the Times-Picayune (via Brian Thevenot) played in "reporting" these unsubstantiated stories! Instead the Times-Picayune's abrupt turnaround and condemnation of the bad reporting is now reported as news. Without passing go, without any retraction, correction, or any mention of the lead reporter's own role in the bad reporting, the coverup of bad reporting by bad reporters is passed along as "news." What's next? A Blue Ribbon Commission comprised of bad reporters to investigate bad reporting? (If thine reporting offends thee . . .) Forgive me if I spend the day being sick to my stomach.
UPDATE: Not everyone shares my dismal view of Brian Thevenot's reporting. He's been highly praised for the comparisons he made between New Orleans and Iraq: Just inside the door lay a man under a blanket, his decomposing arm sticking up in the air. Next to him, a child. A few yards away, an old woman in a wheelchair Brooks had carted in himself. Next to her lay an old man with his head bashed in.Thevenot is an Iraq veteran, for which he deserves the highest praise. But does that make his reporting necessarily accurate? MORE: I think it's worth informing readers who don't like to click the links that Brian Thevenot's AJR piece is titled "Apocalypse in New Orleans." (Whether that might be called suggestive depends on whether there was an apocalypse. And even that depends on which definition is used.) MORE: I called Thevenot an Iraq veteran, because he was clearly in Iraq with the U.S. military, as his military weblog shows. But I am not 100% sure whether "on assignment in Iraq with the Louisiana National Guard's 256th Brigade Combat Team" means that he actually served in the military or was merely embedded as a reporter. (I see only evidence of the latter.) AND MORE: There's been serious discussion about whether Brian Thevenot's reporting deserves the Pulitzer Prize. For what? For not letting facts get in the way of the heart of the story? MORE: Via Glenn Reynolds, John Podhoretz says MSM praise will go to "the the early reporters for their 'commitment' and the later correctives for their honesty." Even when they're the same reporters whose "correctives" don't mention their own errors? Podhoretz also opines that "everyone was very credulous." Being credulous is one thing. (I was credulous.) But are there no limits? UPDATE: Dean Esmay's reaction to this was about as visceral as mine. posted by Eric at 09:14 AM
| TrackBacks (0) Monday, September 26, 2005
Who's complaining about whose exaggerations? Everybody makes mistakes, and I try not to dwell on assigning blame because it isn't generally productive of much. Usually when someone tries to avoid responsibility for assigning blame to others, I'm not terribly impressed, unless it appears that the person trying to shift blame helped create the problem. And I'm wondering what's going on with the Times Picayune's Brian Thevenot, who's taking a hard line in condemning earlier gruesome reports of crime which he now says were untrue: As floodwaters forced tens of thousands of evacuees into the Dome and Convention Center, news of unspeakable acts poured out of the nation's media: evacuees firing at helicopters trying to save them; women, children and even babies raped with abandon; people killed for food and water; a 7-year-old raped and killed at the Convention Center. Police, according to their chief, Eddie Compass, found themselves in multiple shootouts inside both shelters, and were forced to race toward muzzle flashes through the dark to disarm the criminals; snipers supposedly fired at doctors and soldiers from downtown high-rises.(Via Glenn Reynolds.) The above is certainly good news by any standard. But what's troubling to me is that some of the bad news was reported by Thevenot himself. By implication, he's now saying that his own story, which I was unfortunate enough to link before in the assumption that it was accurate, was either lying or exaggerated. The link I posted to Thevenot's earlier Times-Picayune story now goes nowhere except to the story Glenn links today. But via the Kansas City Star, here's the earlier Times-Picayune story [edited version, unfortunately] which still bears Thevenot's name: The Times-Picayune of New Orleans, on its Web site, reported on an Arkansas National Guardsman, Mikel Brooks. It followed him as he stepped through the food service entrance of the convention center on Monday, flipped on the light at the end of his machine gun, and started pointing out bodies.Contrast that to Thevenot today: A Washington Post report quoted another soldier who concluded that three of the four people appeared to have been beaten to death, including an older woman in a wheelchair.I'm a bit baffled by this. It's one thing to correct your own story, but the earlier one appears to have been pulled, without a retraction or correction ever being issued. Instead, the reporter who wrote it seems to be attacking bad reporting -- and completely failing to point out that his own story played a key role. Something isn't right about this. I didn't save the full text of the original Thevenot story, and I'm now sorry that I ever linked to it. Regardless of who was responsible (and regardless of who refuses to accept responsibility) I find myself in full agreement with Glenn: THE PRESS'S PERFORMANCE DURING KATRINA wasn't any better than the governments involved.But didn't the governments involved have special privileges which allowed them to avoid accountability and instead assign blame elsewhere? Yeah, I guess there are a lot of similarities. MORE: I am not the first to raise these concerns about Thevenot's reporting. Here's a letter to the Editor of the Times Picayune: To the Editors of the Times-Picayune: MORE: Hugh Hewitt has a more complete version of the Thevenot text: "Don't step in that blood - it's contaminated," he said. "That one with his arm sticking up in the air, he's an old man."Again, I am sorry I linked Thevenot's story, and I am glad he has at least implicitly discredited it now. But couldn't Thevenot have avoided this tone of what comes close to moral sanctimony? (Really, it's as if I should apologize to him for relying on his own story and linking it in my blog....)
AND MORE: I have located what appears to be the full text of the Thevenot story, and the link works. I'm sure Thevenot wouldn't deny writing his own story, but I still haven't been able to find a retraction. (And in any case he isn't saying anything about it.) UPDATE: Via Glenn's update, I see that John Cole thinks that money ($250 billion) might explain some of the hurry by journalists to shun any honest discussion of factual errors: I can see why we wouldn’t want facts to get in the way of the ‘story.’John refers to an earlier post titled "A Backlash for Correcting the Record?," pointing out that hysteria fuels power grabs: a large part of the movement to engage in these power grabs and re-organizations was fueled by the hysteria immediately following the disaster, much of which has turned out to be false.I'm with John. If there is to be a power grab, I'd rather not have it based on journalistic hysteria, which I don't think should be swept under the rug (even by those who played a part in generating it). "Get it right and make sure the rest of us d[o] too." MORE: Was there an attempt to foment (or exploit) racism by circulating these bogus stories? Who would do or encourage such a thing? Reporters? Government officials? The mayor and the chief of police? Oprah? Why? ...why was everyone so quick to believe (and report) that a mostly black group of mostly poor gathered together would turn to such violence? Even early reports on cannibalism? These are people like you and me, not some sub human race. When I watched the news reports I wasn't fully buying into the wildest stories, but of course the wildest stories made the news. And they made the news often, without being questioned or fact checked.The more I look at this thing, the stranger it looks. One thing is abun |