Well, when doughnuts cost more than a dollar, we'll just reverse the bet. It's that in-between time, when doughnuts actually do cost about a dollar that's going to be annoying.

And I think we have to talk a bit more carefully about what "fake" means: the thread you linked to makes it pretty clear that the authors were witnesses and participants, in spite of (or perhaps because of) their professional and political affiliations. Large portions of the story have, as you point out, been corroborated independently. Most of the "inconsistencies" being pointed out could easily be results of sloppy terminology rather than fabrication ("Never attribute to malice....") and the rest mostly fall into the "It's inconveniently harsh and I'm not going to believe anything that isn't notarized" variety.

Perhaps more to the point, why are we spending time picking at inconsistencies instead of dealing with the issues?

If further clarification be necessary, here it is:

"Fake" means "not being what it purports to be".

The authors may have been caught in New Orleans during the hurricane and its aftermath; but if they were "witnesses and participants", was it of the events they describe? Or have they improved their tale with incidents borrowed here and there, in which they had no actual part?

This account is fishy to the core, and it goes well beyond "sloppy terminology". The overall picture is ridiculously cartoonish, with everyone in uniform evil and every proletarian virtuous.

For historians, who should be assessing sources critically, the proper maxim here isn't "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity" (which certainly has its applications!), but rather "don't put your trust where it isn't earned" or perhaps just "don't take any wooden nickels". As my original post points out, the fact that real events have been incorporated into this narrative doesn't offer much assurance for its veracity at all. Rather, this is where the authors overplay their hand, claiming to have been participants in just about every worst-case incident reported to date out of New Orleans. And what are the odds of that?

Why are we "picking at inconsistencies?"
Because two active members of the Socialist Workers' Party are getting wide play for a skilful bit of inflammatory, ideologically-driven propaganda. Their craven attempt to exploit this recent disaster is itself part of "the issues".

Well, *I'm* willing to credit their account. Kevin on that thread justified everything the Gretna PD did, and Tim Scheer elsewhere backed up the whole account up to about mid-afternoon.

This is Louisiana, remember. One of the crookedest, meanest states (and, I'd wager, with the worst race relations) in the nation. The Gretnans didn't want no Nawlins trash in their fair town, and by gum, they weren't gonna have none.

Note that the account didn't paint just Louisiana in such a bad light -- Texas officials got blasted, too.

And though the incident with the Gretna police may indeed be represented accurately in the Socialist Workers' account, that is the essence of good propaganda: take pieces of the truth to build a "greater truth". It is demonstrably working here.

I give their account zero credibility where not backed up 100% by other, less obviously ideologically-driven sources.

When the price of donuts exceeds dollars, then bet donuts to dollars, instea dof the other 'way 'round.

Meanhwile, why not bet Euros to Donuts?

- The Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com

Mmm, donuts. I like mine with lemon filling...

Seriously, though, I want to see some indictments and some serious prison time (if not capital punishment) for this crime against humanity. Unless there's a better term for keeping different-ethnicity refugees cooped up in a septic post-apocalyptic wasteland...

I've seen elements of this from people I believe - but not these. Sorry, it looks like a pastiche of things I have read, with additions that serve an agenda. The Walmart, for one: not only would people have broken in, but where food and liquid were concerned the police themselves would have forced entry as they did in other places and stood by to discourage other types of looting. And "clearly visible" - through sheets of plywood over the windows and doors? There are sites where people have posted pics: by the time the storm first hit, in fact by a day before, the whole Quarter (except some bars) was boarded up.

OTOH, as I said, I have seen most elements of this as bits and pieces coming from other people in the area, especially about the bridge being blocked by Gretna.