If advocating the burning alive of a man, strictly on the grounds that you don't like his book, is a 'positive, humanitarian effort, I'm George W. Bush.

Look--maybe he's done lots of good things, and has long since atoned for a rash statement made 20 years ago. I'm willing to grant that, even without seeing the evidence. People shoot off their mouths without thinking things through all the time; maybe that's all it was.

But he said those things, in front of a national audience, and a man's life was endangered. Now he's trying to pretend that is was all a big misunderstanding? Sorry--that won't wash.

If you don't have time to verify statements you present as fact, the best policy is to not make the statement. Or just let your readers know up front, for convenience's sake, that the truth isn't important to you.

It took me all of 30 seconds to pull up that little NYT tidbit. And yet I still have plenty of time left in the day! A search engine is a wonderful thing.