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.

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.

Excuse me, but I don't think I want to live in a great excuse.

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—
CALLER: Well, I don’t think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don’t think it is either, I don’t think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don’t know. 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 black 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. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

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.

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.)

AFTERTHOUGHT: Regarding what I superciliously called "the more complicated charge that one shouldn't say things that might be misunderstood or misinterpreted," Roger L. Simon sees Bennett as a big boy astute enough to understand the consequences of his statements. FWIW, I think Roger is just as right as Jeff.

(Bennett's statement was not racist, but few will care. Truth is an increasingly losing venture -- even in context.)

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.

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.

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.

A series of alarming adverts, to be placed in British newspapers, warns potential tourists about a new law allowing gun owners to shoot anyone they believe threatens their safety.

It means thousands of British families who travel to the Sunshine State are now caught up in the ongoing political row over gun control in the United States.

The Florida law, supported by the National Rifle Association, was approved by the state legislature in April.

The state's governor, Jeb Bush - whose brother is the US president - described it as a "good, commonsense, anti-crime issue".

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.

"Warning: Florida residents can use deadly force," says one of the adverts. Another reads: "Thinking about a Florida vacation? Please ensure your family is safe. In Florida, avoid disputes. Use special caution in arguing with motorists on Florida roads."

The Brady Campaign - named after Jim Brady, the spokesman for Ronald Reagan who was paralysed by a gunshot during the 1981 assassination attempt on the then-president - promises to also run adverts in French, German and Japanese newspapers. The campaign officers also plan to hand out leaflets on roads leading into the state.

Peter Hamm, the communications director of the Brady Campaign, said: "It's a particular risk faced by travellers coming to Florida for a vacation because they have no idea it's going to be the law of the land. If they get into a road rage argument, the other person may feel he has the right to use deadly force."

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?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

* trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
* trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

Q. Can't I protect myself if someone starts hitting me?

A. Even if someone starts a fight with you, you must make every reasonable effort consistent with your own safety to avoid the use of deadly force, including retreating from someone attacking you. Running away from someone who has insulted or punched you may offend your instincts to uphold your honor. However, as the Second District Court of Appeal has said: "The use of deadly force against another human being (instead of running away) is not countenanced by law even if that force is in response to conduct of human beings who act like animals."

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.

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.

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.

In fact, let's use the example of Washington, DC. Guns are banned there and as a result it is the murder capitol of the country. Why? Because bad guys know that law abiding citizens of Washington, DC are sitting ducks. That's why the crime rate in London has skyrockted, and why the English will be safer in Miami or any city in Florida than they will in any city in their own country--specifically because the law-abiding are prepared to defend themselves, keeping criminals and other scum at unbalanced and at bay.

* Why can't I find any "I'M A GUN HUGGER!" bumperstickers? Discrimination, obviously.

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.

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.

Mr. Mustafa was sentenced to 15 months in jail and fined about $2,600 last year after being found guilty of inciting violence against women.

A judge released him after 22 days in jail on the condition that he undertake a re-education course.

The Spanish government has set up a commission to find ways for the Muslim community to regulate itself. A central recommendation is that imams speak Spanish and have a basic knowledge of human rights and Spanish law.

In his book "Women in Islam," published four years ago, Mr. Mustafa wrote that verbal warnings followed by a period of sexual inactivity could be used to discipline a disobedient wife.

(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?

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.

While some might call the above pretentious, Wired writer Keith Axline (in a wonderful piece titled "IPods for Anarchists"), decided to build one because he didn't want to be like everyone else:

"Must-have" devices seem to instantly lose their charm for me when they're adopted en masse -- even when it comes to the iPod."

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.

After searching around a bit, I came across an MP3 player kit named EchoMp3, designed by Belgian electrician Michel Bavin. I could buy it online for around $100 (not including a memory card), have it shipped to me and assemble it myself by following the instructions posted on his website. Not only was it sans logo, but it just looked cool. Nothing gives the finger to mass production like duct tape.

That statement alone ought to drive terror into the heart of the Apple's core corps of manufacturers. Except the thing isn't easy to build. You have to know how to perform complex soldering in miniature, and even the writer (who'd built a guitar amp before), had to obtain professional help. (Something I always feel in need of whenever I'm forced to sell my already well-sold soul to "tech conformity.")

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.

This is truly only a labor of love and makes no sense for any other reason than to have made it yourself. You can buy other brand name players with included memory cards for cheaper, and you can even buy this particular kit already assembled for fifteen more dollars. On the other hand, you can't put a price on taking back a little piece of knowledge from the largely unknowable world of technology. I spent far more than 15 dollars in time and trips to the hardware store, but I wouldn't trade it for all the iPods in the world. Well, 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.....)

NOTE: The EchoMp3 site is worth checking out. Great pictures of the assembly project.

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.
-- Exodus 20: 4 (KJV)

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.

Other passages in Exodus (15: 11; 18: 11; and 32: 4, for example) suggest that the Israelites acknowledged pagan gods as real. Yet they saw Yahweh as a greater god and were monotheists in the practical sense, worshiping only him -- except, that is, on those all-too-frequent occasions when heathens enticed them into their loose rituals. And on the matter of "graven images" -- carved statues -- they were absolutely rigorous; no archeologist has ever excavated a statue of Yahweh.

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."

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.

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"....)

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.

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.

Another Neville, blues singer Charmaine, 49, told a story resembling a made-for-TV movie that was broadcast as news on Baton Rouge television. The distraught singer spoke of smashing through a roof with a crowbar to rescue victims, getting raped, watching alligators eat people, and walking through "hundreds of dead bodies" before pushing two legless women in wheelchairs to dry land in the French Quarter and commandeering a bus to drive people to safety.

All the while, troops in helicopters airlifted others to safety and ignored her, and the National Guard refused to help, she said.

The TV station's report was linked by the widely read liberal blog Daily Kos. Greg Mitchell, editor of the trade publication Editor & Publisher, wrote an admiring column about it headlined "Horror and Heroism." Asked whether he believed Charmaine Neville's story, Mitchell replied that Neville later said she didn't drive the bus but was on it. He wouldn't comment further. (Emphasis added.)

(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).

Yes, she is a singer and one of the famous Nevilles. Her father, Charles Neville, performs with uncles Aaron, Art and Cyril in the Neville Brothers band. The Boston Globe has declared that there are "simply no limits to her skills," and The New York Times said she "electrifies audiences." As a frequent visitor to New Orleans, and a JazzFest attendee, I know the Nevilles’ work well. But that connection matters little when you consider her story.

It is just one more tale -- although surely one of the most horrific -- that everyone ought to ponder in considering exactly which officials and agencies failed in their rescue and relief responsibilities, from the top down, in a 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."

AFTERTHOUGHT: Is it mean-spirited to call a lie a lie? Or does that depend on who told the lie? I mean, surely it wouldn't be mean-spirited to say Bush lied, would it?

MORE: Via Glenn Reynolds, Gateway Pundit has a nice collection of Katrina lies folklore.

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).

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.

It's not quite clear to me why I should consult with my friends and family to ascertain Kass's sanity. Do you often ask your parents if your convictions look OK? If consensus is the standard however, you may be out of luck. It seems that many people agree with Kass. If we summarize your nicely contextualized snippets here, we will find that Kass thinks that: giving birth is a part of life, dying is a part of life, abortion might be bad (he's definitely alone on that one, yeah?), it is unusual not to have to experience the death of anyone you know in your lifetime, cloning is bad, etc. Crazy, I know!

Moreover, what kind of deranged lunatic claims individuals don't have rights to their own bodies? "...though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself..." What a nutjob that John Locke was.

But once I read the quote about ice cream, gosh, I just lost all respect for him! There is someone in this great country who thinks eating ice cream in public is unappealing? I am so offended I can barely move. He must be destroyed!

posted by: Rita on 09.15.05 at 11:04 AM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry I said your thoughts were perky, Rita. That was uncalled for. For what it's worth, I only meant to make you a little bit mad, not hopping and blowing mad. Sincerest apologies.

However, since I DO have your attention now, perhaps you might honor me with answers to this impromptu survey?

Do you approve of the anti-research legislation referred to above?

If you do, do the penalties strike you as overly draconian, or just about right?

If, just as a for instance, medical science actually COULD extend your lifespan to 150 HEALTHY years, would you let it?

If not, why not?

Would you want your parents or friends to live that long?

Do you think it should be their decision, or the governments?

Do you think there's a realistic chance that Americans could be persuaded to abstain from such therapies?

Do you value the opinions and insights of your friends and relatives, or are you more of an intellectual soloist?

Does ANYTHING that Doctor Kass has said EVER, strike you as being iffy, or questionable?

If so, what?

And by the way, I would still love to know what your friends and relatives think of Doctor Kass and his notions.

Best Wishes, Justin

posted by: J. Case on 09.15.05 at 10:38 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Destroyed? Leon Kass? I think he must be preserved! (He would disagree, but that's an eternal debate....)

The fact is, Classical Values got more hits from that Leon Kass ice cream quote than almost anything else in this blog's history -- the ice cream licking being only a close second to a beheading video post. (This is not to argue that there's any moral equivalency between ice cream and beheadings, of course....)

As you say, "we can't touch Kass personally because he couldn't care less about us and has a real job." How true.

Sigh.

I can't speak for Justin, but I'm wondering if there's any way for you to possibly get Dr. Kass to touch us? Surely it wouldn't take that much of his time to attack "Classical Values" by name, would it? I really could use the traffic, and I would be forever indebted.

Seriously, I'm blogrolling you now, because you're a free thinker, at a young age, and I think it's an admirable quality. Whether I agree with you is irrelevant.

:)

posted by: Eric Scheie on 09.15.05 at 10:47 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

She's a feisty one.

posted by: J. Case on 09.16.05 at 12:13 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't believe I forgot to include Ron Bailey's thought experiment. (Smacks forehead incredulously). Here's the scenario.

A fertility clinic has caught fire while you are visiting. There's a freezer with one hundred fertilized eggs in it. There's also a single small child. You can save one or the other, but not both. Which will it be?

Bonus question. If you chose to save the child, is there a specific number of eggs that would tip your decision the other way? A thousand? Ten thousand? A million eggs? Or will you always opt to save the toddler? Don't be shy.

posted by: J. Case on 09.16.05 at 12:28 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ooh! A pop quiz, how exciting! With essay questions! Are there word limits? Hold on a minute while I sharpen my pencil and number my paper.

1) I have no position on embryonic research.
2) See #1.
3) Not if life-extension was an end in itself. Over the 20th Century, the average life expectancy (though not life span) has been extended in developed nations, but that extension has been a by-product of medical technology and sanitation practice aimed at controlling specific diseases, largely those caused by external organisms. Diseases of old age (opportunistic infection not included) tend to be illnesses caused by internal breakdown of the body, a sign that the life expectency has caught up with the maximum life span. What medical science has done throughout history has been to assist this process of catching up, and now you suggest that we use medical science to override the barrier itself. But for what purpose? And what is the end of medical science if this is the case?

Acceptance of death is a central aspect of humanity--in both your quotes from Montaigne's Essays and Homer's Iliad above, you ignore the overarching argument being made for the sake of one or two lines taken out of context. The Iliad is a story that revolves around man's mortality; Achilles' triumph is his acceptance of death. It is what separates men from gods, whose immortality is put on display in Book I as a endless life of carnal pleasure in which nothing has any meaning. Hera and Zeus quarrel violently and then sleep together the same night. If you live forever, what is an argument worth? But the argument between Achilles and Agamemnon in the same book is epic precisely because they are men, they are mortal, and they therefore suffer deeply from all the afflictions of passion and pride. Insults matter to men. And the specter of mortality is the driving force behind the desire for glory and honor and fame. Otherwise, why bother? So if we're going to turn down our basic humanity for the sake of endless years living on near-starvation diets, there better be an extremely compelling reason. Do you have one? Is 150 years a magic number, or if we reach that, will we demand 250, and then 350 and so on?
4) Not as an end in itself, no.
5) It is not their personal decision unless they are coming up with the medical technology to extend their lives in their own basements. You're creating a false model of the distribution and use of technology in this country by ignoring the commercial sphere in which such technology is exchanged. This sphere is problematic because at one end stand experts and at the other stand laymen. This is the basic dilemma of industrial revolution-era progressivism. Why does the FDA exist at all? Shouldn't the process of deciding can be consumed be between buyer and seller alone?
6) Sure, why not?
7) I don't take their opinions as the final word. Do you?
8) Unfortunately, not being as eager a student of Kass as you seem to be, I can't claim wide-ranging knowledge of all his past pronouncements. My direct knowledge of him is limited to a summer internship, where I disagreed with him on some issues relating to the report the Council was working on, and he encouraged me to draft my concerns into the report and to present them to the staff. He was quite the opposite of the dogmatic sleazeball you make him out to be, but what can I say? You've spent years cataloguing his every word from afar. I've only encountered him in person. I wouldn't want to let my personal experience get in the way of your obviously greater erudition.
9) I'll be sure to put together a survey ASAP and get back to you with the results.

posted by: Rita on 09.17.05 at 04:15 PM [permalink]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that is truly interesting. Which issues did you disagree on? I'd love to hear about them.

I'm eagerly awaiting your survey results. Also, I've been thinking of bumping this exchange up to the main page, so if you have any additional thoughts or arguments, they're welcome. Here's your chance to put me in my place. Convince me.

Now, about that fertility clinic fire scenario...I realize you're not all that fond of small children, so if you would prefer to substitute an unconscious lab tech (smoke inhalation, worse luck), feel free. What's key there is determining your own attitude toward the relative value of pre-natal vs. post-natal people. Gilbert Meilaender has said "It's not immediately apparent...that one choice must be made."

I hope he doesn't really believe that.

Do you know if he ever changed his mind? If you can find a substantiating cite, I'll put it up. Provide the appropriate URL, and I'll even link to it.

Also, you seem to have omitted your response to the question about realistic chances, persuasion and abstention.

If you should decide to continue this interchange, it needn't be a complete waste of your time. While I intend to be a hard sell, you could end up influencing who knows how many readers. Be a sport. Convince them I'm wrong.

Cordially,

Justin

posted by: J. Case on 09.18.05 at 10:19 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not entirely clear what I should be convincing you of. If I recall correctly, my original post made two points: 1) I found Kass to be admirable and 2) FightAging is deluded. Now, it seems that an argument over Kass's character would be both a rather daunting prospect for us evidence-wise, and probably irrelevant and pointless. You might go in for the ad hominem arguments, which wouldn't surprise me, but they're nonetheless not likely to find much response. If you'd like to further explore the second point, then I suppose it's your turn to respond, not mine.

Unfortunately, being under the auspices of a government agency, information related to drafts of the Council's reports is confidential. Perhaps an unnecessary precaution, but they were nice enough to employ me, so I'll be nice enough to comply and not broadcast to the world. You'll just have to wait until the report is released for your next chance to trash Kass. It's hard; I know. But hang in there, I believe in you.

As for your thought experiment, it's not clear to me how this relates to a debate over stem-cell research or abortion or whatever the embryos are supposed to represent. It assumes that whatever the choice is, it's a zero-sum proposition. Now, the pro-life position is obviously not a zero-sum proposition. Preventing abortion does not automatically result in the death of developed humans. In the stem-cell research case, the implication is that merely allowing embryo destruction will lead automatically to the saving of lives. After all, we're not doing research on the person we save from a burning building to see if different rescue techniques might save him. We're just saving him. In addition, it assumes there are no other possible means to rescue this person EXCEPT to destroy embryos. Is that reflective of the real situation of medical research? Moreover, is there a principle to be found behind the result that most people (I assume) would choose the child? It strikes me that the principle is that majority instinct under duress is universal moral truth in all circumstances. How far are you willing to defend that proposition?

Unfortunately, I'm little inclined to respond cordially to you merely out of the largess of my heart. You might try being polite yourself, and then you might be surprised at how eagerly the world reciprocates. But I don't expect miracles, so don't strain yourself too hard.

posted by: Rita on 09.19.05 at 11:30 AM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"What medical science has done throughout history has been to assist this process of catching up, and now you suggest that we use medical science to override the barrier itself."

Yes, that's the general idea. Why is this surprising? For centuries we've been defeating nature's barriers. Exhibit A: your glasses.

"But for what purpose?"

Because life is like, good and stuff. For those who disagree, there are plenty of tall buildings around.

"Why does the FDA exist at all?"

In theory, to prevent unnecessary deaths due to unsafe products. Please explain what grounds they would have to ban a working life extension treatment. For extra credit, explain how such a ban would be morally distinguishable from mass murder.

posted by: Brian on 09.19.05 at 04:31 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't intend to connect the FDA to the question of life extension therapy. My point was that the FDA serves as a mediator between the market and the consumer in order to prevent the consumer from being duped by the expert (and by duped, in this case, we mean poisoned). Your construction of the question of a "right" to private-sector technologies without government interference oversimplifies the Progressive-era problem that some of these technologies, if allowed to go straight from the producer to the consumer, would actually hurt consumers. ("Do you think it should be their decision, or the governments?") This is a misrepresentation of how the distribution of technology actually happens. It's not as though either you decide all on your own which chemicals to ingest, or the government forces them down your throat. The appropriate role of government regulation in technology is not obvious or simple, but that doesn't mean that either strict laissez-faire or a totally planned economy are better for their simplicity value.

Life is like good and stuff. Is it like good and stuff all the time? So, Terri Schiavo's life was like good and stuff, and she should've been kept alive on that basis? Or, a patient with advanced dementia should have ever medical effort, no matter how invasive, made to save him in his decline--bypass surgery, kidney transplant, etc--because his life is like good and stuff? Furthermore, how much life is good? Just 150 years? What if when we get there, we decide 350 sounds like a more satisfactory number? Why not 600? Eternity, maybe? On what basis are we deciding how much life is good enough?

posted by: Rita on 09.20.05 at 10:26 AM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The key, I think, is that the "I" who decides ". . .how much life is good enough" should be the individual (when possible.)

You (and Kass) clearly feel that the prospect of living longer than 150 years is unsettling. I would ask that you not make policy that actively works to prevent me from ever being in the position to need to decide how *I* feel about it!

posted by: Sean on 09.20.05 at 03:23 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And I suppose we're to ask Terri Schiavo how she feels about it? Or a dementia patient? Moreover, can you simply live as long as you will yourself to live, or would extension require you to use technology created by someone else? Because unless you're working out all those biological dilemmas in your own basement, it seems that at some point, this will necessarily involve commerce. How this affects your access to a technology and the degree of government regulation of it is open, but don't pretend that it's an entirely individual proposition.

Moreover, please do not mistake me for Kass. Despite our strikingly similar external appearances, we are not one and the same. I don't make or propose to make policy. You tread dangerous ground when you suggest that any argument about the morality of a proposition is akin to a legislative argument. It is an essentially relativist position that withholds all judgment based on the premise that each person knows what is good for him. What is immoral is not the same as what is or should be illegal. But it is still immoral, no?

posted by: Rita on 09.20.05 at 04:34 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Life is like good and stuff. Is it like good and stuff all the time?"

No. But how about I decide whether my life continues to be worth living, rather than you or Kass.

"Furthermore, how much life is good? Just 150 years? What if when we get there, we decide 350 sounds like a more satisfactory number? Why not 600? Eternity, maybe?"

Works for me.

What is immoral is not the same as what is or should be illegal. But it is still immoral, no?

So now living past an arbitrary number of years is fundamentally immoral?

posted by: Brian on 09.20.05 at 05:28 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, that evades the question of incompetent patients. Who decides for them and on what basis?

Moreover, please let me know how you plan to decide. Since we're not talking policy, but the fundamental rightness of life extension (unless of course you believe that what is "right" is relative for each person, or is based purely on unreflective knee-jerk decision-making), and you're certain that life extension is good, I assume you have the standard for the good life figured out, and you have concluded that it requires eternal life to achieve. Such answers have only been evading philosophers since the 5th Century, and I'm sure they'd love to hear your conclusion. Please, do share.

posted by: Rita on 09.20.05 at 06:36 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rita, I suggest a compromise. Next time someone is in Terri Schiavo's condition, why not allow scientists to conduct life extension research by keeping her alive as long as they can by trying out new techniques (like Klotho gene therapy)? There'd be no harm done to anyone, as she wouldn't be allowed to die. Would this not tend to rectify the karmic imbalance created by shortening Terri Schiavo's life? Plus, without any brain activity, there can be no claim made that scientists created an immortal being (any more than a blastomere can be called "immortal" for living in liquid nitrogen indefinitely.)

A win/win?

BTW, are you seriously suggesting that living too long should be regulated for having an effect on interstate commerce?

posted by: Eric Scheie on 09.20.05 at 08:37 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, I slip off to the unemployment office for a few hours, and look what happens.

Hi Brian. Thanks for dropping by. Would you be the same Brian who used to leave comments along with Iron Sun and The Living Fractal, over at Chris's place? If so, let me just say I admired your level-headedness and practicality. Do you suppose Kadamose is still living in his parent's basement?

Rita, I'm sorry your experiences in Washington are classified. If you can think of any little anecdotes that wouldn't cross the line, feel free to share them. And I'm still looking forward to your survey results!

Looking at your answers to my questions, I'm struck by your conscientious inclusion of factors that I had simply failed to address. It has certainly been an eye-opener. But, more's the pity, mine is such a simple mind that I cannot handle a multi-factorial response. I'm afraid I'm a bit of a plodder.

Could we have a do-over?

In the interests of clarity, allow me to remove the "essay question" element. I'll add sufficient qualifiers to each question to remove any ambiguity. That way, a simple yes or no will suffice. I'll number them too...

1) If, in the coming years, laboratory research either public or private (or both!), led to the development and marketing of FDA-approved therapies which were safe, efficacious, and affordable...and if such therapies were easy to self-administer, and didn't require the use of controversial embryonic techniques, and even further, were expected to add several decades (six or seven, say) of healthy lifespan while also compressing morbidity, would you personally (and speaking only on your own behalf, not that of society) make use of those therapies?

Yes, or no?

2) If the above mentioned therapies arrived in time, would you want your parents to make use of them?

3) If the above mentioned therapies arrived in time, would you want your friends to make use of them?

4) If the above mentioned therapies arrive at all, do you think there is a realistic chance that most people could be persuaded to abstain from using them?

5) Regarding the burning clinic scenario, that too need not be an essay question. Given the admittedly arbitrary constraints of the scenario you have only three choices.

1) Save the baby.

2) Save the petri dishes.

3) Save neither.

So pick a number.

Don't be shy. You're not being graded. It's not a trick question, and you can't fail. I just want to know what your choice would be. It's actually a fairly important question, but not in the way you seem to expect. Much follows from it.

"So if we're going to turn down our basic humanity for the sake of endless years living on near-starvation diets, there better be an extremely compelling reason. Do you have one? Is 150 years a magic number, or if we reach that, will we demand 250, and then 350 and so on?"

Actually, I pulled the number 150 from Kass himself. The "I would be delighted" quote available above.

As to the near-starvation diets you mention, the hope would be that they're more of a clue to better things than a best possible solution. On the other hand, "we" don't need an extremely compelling reason to do anything together. Gorge or not, as you see fit. Are you seriously suggesting that people need a good excuse to seek a longer healthier life?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Now, you say that I portray Kass as a sleazeball, and I must protest. That's not a word that I would ever associate with him. For readers old enough to remember the Watergate Hearings, the term "overzealous" may trigger a fond smile. I think that comes closer to my sense of the man.

Your admiration for him may have blinded you to this, but I have actually played (relatively) fair with Dr. Kass. More often than not, I've provided links to his own works, or the works of those who approve of him. Should a reader wish to ignore my sophomoric jibes and go form their own opinion, they are perfectly free to do so.

Wonder of wonders, I've even acknowledged his good qualities. Once or twice, anyway. Do I have to do it again? How often would satisfy you?

Indeed, the core of your animosity seems to stem from my lack of respect for him, not from any disagreement over facts or interpretation. Unlike many of his critics, I have actually taken the trouble to read him, and then to take his opinions seriously.

I just think that some of them are pernicious. If implemented, I think they would be bad for the country.

My sense of your tacit, unarticulated argument is that if I would just shut up and acknowledge his manifest superiority, all would be well. He is, after all smarter than me. Well, brains aren't everything. Integrity counts for something too.

More later, I promise. But for now, Mom is making me take out the trash.

posted by: J. Case on 09.20.05 at 11:22 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't let your mother work you too hard, Mr. Case.

posted by: J. Case's Former Personal Secretary on 09.21.05 at 09:26 PM [permalink]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Her days of haughty oppression are nearly done. Once that job at the meat-packing plant comes through, I'll be able to move out of the basement and get a place of my own. Then, oh yes, THEN, I'll live like a meat-packing philosopher king!

Remember me to the gang at the watercooler!

posted by: J. Case on 09.22.05 at 10:19 AM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps she thought we weren't taking her seriously?

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.

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.

"You don't want to go in there," one of them said.

"Why not?"

"There's bodies," said Arkansas Guardsman Mikel Brooks.

"That's actually kind of what I'm writing about," I told him, a bit sheepishly.

"Fine. You want to be a hoss? We'll escort you," Brooks said.

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.

They wouldn't take me to the freezer in the next room, which they said contained 30 or 40 bodies, a figure still unconfirmed amid a swirl of urban myths churned up by the storm. "I ain't got the stomach for it, even after what I saw in Iraq," Brooks told me.
I didn't particularly need or want to see more bodies, either. I'd seen quite enough.

I could tell Brooks had, too. I'd seen his type of agitated mannerisms before in Iraq, the soldier's mind just clicking, clicking, clicking, the mouth spewing out details of death and anarchy. The scenes of bodies would live in his head for some time. I know they'll live in mine.

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.

"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."
Then he shined the light on the smaller human figure under the white sheet next to the elderly man.

"That's a kid," he said. "There's another one in the freezer, a 7-year-old with her throat cut."

He moved on, walking quickly through the darkness, pulling his camouflage shirt to his face to screen out the overwhelming odor.
"There's an old woman," he said, pointing to a wheelchair covered by a sheet. "I escorted her in myself. And that old man got bludgeoned to death," he said of the body lying on the floor next to the wheelchair.

Brooks and several other Guardsmen said they had seen between 30 and 40 more bodies in the Convention Center's freezer. "It's not on, but at least you can shut the door," said fellow Guardsman Phillip Thompson.

The scene of rotting bodies inside the Convention Center reflected those in thousands of businesses, schools, homes and shelters across the metropolitan area.

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.

But a week in post-Katrina New Orleans felt like a month in Iraq. Iraq was Iraq. This was home , suddenly plunged into a scene out of "Hotel Rwanda." We've all run out of adequate descriptors, words we couldn't believe appeared on our screens or notepads even as we wrote them: Armageddon, Bedlam, Chaos, Apocalypse, Hell.

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.

(Story, tale, rumor, whatever.)

AFTERTHOUGHT: Considering Thevenot's statement that the "horrors of Katrina" trumped anything he'd seen in Iraq, I'm wondering whether the horrors now include "widely circulated tales" based on rumors.

(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.

It wasn't my goal to expose you, as if course you wrote the story. Rather, my complaint was that you were not admitting your own role or own mistake, nor had you issued a retraction or correction. Now that you have (at least in this email), I'll certainly note it.

If I am missing something or there is something more recent, please let me know.

Eric Scheie

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 HOTELS
OrgID: STARW-29
Address: 701 A ST
City: SAN DIEGO
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 92101
Country: US

NetRange: 12.16.158.0 - 12.16.159.255
CIDR: 12.16.158.0/23
NetName: STARWOOD43-158
NetHandle: NET-12-16-158-0-1
Parent: NET-12-0-0-0-1
NetType: Reassigned
Comment:
RegDate: 2005-03-17
Updated: 2005-03-17

OrgTechHandle: BH1033-ARIN
OrgTechName: Hassett, Buddy
OrgTechPhone: +1-914-640-8477
OrgTechEmail: xxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.com

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?

REYNOLDS: Some of both. I compared the reports coming out of New Orleans to a disaster novel, and little did I know that was also because they were fiction. I think that there's a lot of accountability. With all the resources that the big media through at this story, it's really amazing how much of it turned out to be wrong. I think it is fine to invoke the fog of war or the fog of disaster. But I think it is funny that members of the press who set such high expectations for everybody else aren't willing to fess up and admit that they were reporting rumor and frequently getting it wrong.

There's one other point, which is, I wonder how quick they would have been to report reports of babies being raped and cannibalism and such if it had been a group of middle-class white people involved. I think even when politicians talk, I think we would have been more skeptical.

MORE: As a courtesy to Mr. Thevenot, the email identifiers have been deleted.

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.

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.

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.

"It just morphed into this mythical place where the most unthinkable deeds were being done," Bush said Monday of the Superdome.

His assessment is one of several in recent days to conclude that newspapers and television exaggerated criminal behavior in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, particularly at the overcrowded Superdome and Convention Center.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune on Monday described inflated body counts, unverified "rapes," and unconfirmed sniper attacks as among examples of "scores of myths about the dome and Convention Center treated as fact by evacuees, the media and even some of New Orleans' top officials."

Indeed, Mayor C. Ray Nagin told a national television audience on "Oprah" three weeks ago of people "in that frickin' Superdome for five days watching dead bodies, watching hooligans killing people, raping people."

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.

*No, I am not making up excuses, and I am not about to say the alligators ate my homework!

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.

They wouldn't take me to the freezer in the next room, which they said contained 30 or 40 bodies, a figure still unconfirmed amid a swirl of urban myths churned up by the storm. "I ain't got the stomach for it, even after what I saw in Iraq," Brooks told me.

I didn't particularly need or want to see more bodies, either. I'd seen quite enough.

I could tell Brooks had, too. I'd seen his type of agitated mannerisms before in Iraq, the soldier's mind just clicking, clicking, clicking, the mouth spewing out details of death and anarchy. The scenes of bodies would live in his head for some time. I know they'll live in mine.

I told them I'd been to Iraq, too, as a reporter in January, in some of the same areas of Western Baghdad they had patrolled for a year, where many of their comrades perished in roadside bomb attacks. Back outside in the sunshine, away from the stench of bodies, we chatted awhile with a group of four or five other guardsmen. All of us agreed: The horrors of Katrina trumped anything we'd seen overseas. Death in war makes sense. Death on Convention Center Boulevard makes none.

I roared off Uptown in the Jeep, and called my editor, Jed Horne, in Baton Rouge, to tell him I'd have a vivid if gruesome story coming.

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.

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.

In interviews with Oprah Winfrey, Compass reported rapes of "babies," and Mayor Ray Nagin spoke of "hundreds of armed gang members" killing and raping people inside the Dome. Unidentified evacuees told of children stepping over so many bodies, "we couldn't count."

The picture that emerged was one of the impoverished, masses of flood victims resorting to utter depravity, randomly attacking each other, as well as the police trying to protect them and the rescue workers trying to save them. Nagin told Winfrey the crowd has descended to an "almost animalistic state."

Four weeks after the storm, few of the widely reported atrocities have been backed with evidence. The piles of bodies never materialized, and soldiers, police officers and rescue personnel on the front lines say that although anarchy reigned at times and people suffered unimaginable indignities, most of the worst crimes reported at the time never happened.

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.

“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.”

Then he shined the light on the smaller human figure under the white sheet next to the elderly man.

“That’s a kid,” he said. “There’s another one in the freezer, a 7-year-old …”

“There’s an old woman,” he said, pointing to a wheelchair covered by a sheet. “I escorted her in myself.”

Of the four bodies that lay just inside the food service entrance, the woman in the wheelchair rattled Brooks the most. When he found her two days before among the sea of suffering in front of the Convention Center where one of the last camps evacuated, her husband sat next to her. He had only one concern when Brooks and some of his comrades carted her away.

“Bring me back my wheelchair,” he recalled the man telling him.

One of the bodies, they said, was a girl they estimated to be 5 years old.

Brooks and his unit came to New Orleans not long after serving a year of combat duty in Iraq, taking on gunfire and bombs, while losing comrades with regularity. Still, the scene at the Convention Center, where they conducted an evacuation this week, left him shell-shocked.

“I ain’t got the stomach for it, even after what I saw in Iraq,” said Brooks, referring to the freezer where the bulk of the bodies were kept. “In Iraq, it’s one on one. It’s war. It’s fair. Here, it’s just crazy. It’s anarchy. When you get down to killing and raping people in the streets for food and water … and this is America. This is just 300 miles south of where I live.”

....
Cain Burdeau, Dan Sewell and Tim Dahlberg of The Associated Press, Judith Graham of the Chicago Tribune, and Brian Thevenot of The Times-Picayune contributed to this report.

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.

But Spc. Mikel Brooks, an Arkansas Guardsman who said he wheeled the woman's dead body into the food service entrance, said she appeared to have died of natural causes. Brooks went on to say that the woman had expired sitting next to her husband, who shocked him by asking him to bring the wheelchair back.

The Post also cited evacuee Tony Cash and three other unnamed sources saying a young boy died of an asthma attack, but multiple officials could not confirm that death.

....

other accusations that have gained wide currency are more demonstrably false. For instance, no one found the body of a girl - whose age was estimated at anywhere from 7 to 13 - who, according to multiple reports, was raped and killed with a knife to the throat at the Convention Center.

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.

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:

* Jim Amoss, Editor,
* Peter Kovacs, Managing Editor, News
* Dan Shea, Managing Editor, News

On September 6 the Times-Picayune published an article by Brian Thevenot entitled, “Mayor says Katrina may have claimed more than 10,000 lives, Bodies found piled in freezer at Convention Center.” The article quotes Mikel Brooks, an Arkansas National Guardsman, as he described a horrific scene in the Morial Convention Center.

Specifically, Mr. Thevenot reported Brooks describing the bodies of children in the Convention Center, one of which he said had been 7, gang-raped, and murdered when her throat was cut. The other body was “estimated” to be that of a 5-year-old.

Mr. Thevenot adds credence to this story by reporting he actually viewed a “smaller human figure under the white sheet.” He does not report that he actually lifted the sheet and saw the body of a child, but the implication is strong that it actually was a child.

This story received widespread circulation all over the world. I followed the links to your archive and when I read the story there, I regarded it as factual.

Unfortunately, CNN and other news agencies have since reported Police Superintendent Eddie Compass’ statement on September 7 that reports of dead children in the Convention Center were merely “vicious rumors.”

So is Brian Thevenot’s story a “vicious rumor” or not? Media accuracy is extremely important, especially during times of crisis. Either the story is true because you printed it as fact, or it is not true and a correction must be printed.

Personally, it is my hope that no children were harmed or killed in the Convention Center, and I would be glad to hear none were. I realize, however, that admitting such an error would be embarrassing for your newspaper, especially since it was such a widely circulated story. But I have faith in the Time-Picayune’s devotion to accuracy.

Sincerely,

Bonnie Wren

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."
Then he shined the light on the smaller human figure under the white sheet next to the elderly man.

"That's a kid," he said. "There's another one in the freezer, a 7-year-old with her throat cut."

He moved on, walking quickly through the darkness, pulling his camouflage shirt to his face to screen out the overwhelming odor.
"There's an old woman," he said, pointing to a wheelchair covered by a sheet. "I escorted her in myself. And that old man got bludgeoned to death," he said of the body lying on the floor next to the wheelchair. (Emphasis added.)

(Really, it's as if I should apologize to him for relying on his own story and linking it in my blog....)

MORE: If allegations about humans are this bad, need I mention the alligator "alligations" again?

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.’

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.

"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.

One thing is abun