by JAMES TARANTO
Monday, February 12, 2007 2:02 P.M. EST

The Ultimate Cop-Out
"Suicide Rates Jolt Police Culture," according to a headline that appeared in USA Today last week:

The warning signs that police officer Steve Martin was a suicide risk were clear enough in hindsight: erratic behavior, disgust with his job, heavy drinking, a strained marriage. But the lack of foresight is what leaves his wife, Debbie, angry more than a year later.

"When officers came and told me what had happened--and I have a roomful of witnesses to this--they said, 'We knew he was in serious trouble,' " she says. "I remember thinking, OK, so why didn't you do anything about it? How can you sit there and tell me after he put a gun to his head that you knew he was bad off?"

What happened in Wichita is tragically familiar across the country, say psychologists and former officers who have studied law enforcement suicide. The crime-fighting culture is about strength and control, and most officers think asking for help is a badge of weakness. Police are supposed to solve problems, not be the problem.

"These folks are taught to suppress their emotions and soldier forward," says Elizabeth Dansie, a psychologist who works with California police agencies in the aftermath of suicides. "It's very difficult for them to admit they need help."

According to a sidebar titled "Police at Risk," the suicide rate among policemen is 18 per 100,000, far more than 11.1 per 100,000 among the population. (It isn't clear what year these figures are from.) Here's how the newspaper tries to explain the discrepancy:

Police bear the same stress from work, family and illness that civilians do. What's different is the stress of the street and the access to a gun. "Research has always shown that availability of firearms, comfort with firearms, increases suicide rates," Honig says.

Police acquire "image armor," says James Reese, a former FBI agent who started the bureau's stress-management training in the 1980s. "It's their need to always be in control, always be fine, always be right. We never hear cops say, 'I'm afraid. I made a mistake.' "

There may be some truth to this, but not very much. For USA Today and its sources have ignored the key factor behind police suicide rates: sex. The vast majority of policemen are men, and men are much more likely to commit suicide than women.

According to the most recent report by the National Center for Women in Policing (PDF, see page 2), a feminist group, as of 2001 "women represent only 11.2% of all sworn law enforcement personnel in the U.S." That means the remaining 88.8% are male.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (PDF, see page 238), the overall age-adjusted male suicide rate in 2002 was 18.4 per 100,000, while the female rate was just 4.2 per 100,000.

If we assume that the police are a representative sample of the population as a whole (apart from the sex disparity), we would expect a suicide rate of approximately 16.8 per 100,000, not much below the 18 per 100,000 that USA Today reports.

It turns out, though, that the overall nationwide suicide rate is skewed downward because it includes children and teenagers, who have a much lower propensity for suicide than adults. This effect is so pronounced that every age group over 20 has a higher-than-average suicide rate. In particular, the overall suicide rate for 25- to 44-year-old men was 22.2 per 100,000 in 2002, and for 45- to 64-year-old men it was 23.5 per 100,000.

It's possible that other factors are at work here, such as race (white men are far likelier to kill themselves than minority men, except for American Indians). But based on just these numbers, it seems clear that the suicide rate among police is not alarmingly high, and may even be lower than you'd expect among a population made up mostly of young and middle-aged men. Because USA Today's reporters and editors didn't bother thinking the numbers through, the paper ended up publishing a nonstory.

Meanwhile, Byron Calame, "public editor" of the New York Times, has debunked Sam Roberts's front-page piece on the decline of marriage. But you read it here first, and here and here.

Inside the Bubble
Yesterday's "Meet the Press" featured a fascinating discussion of the Scooter Libby trial, moderated by host Tim Russert, who left it to guest Howard Kurtz to disclose that Russert testified last week as a witness for the prosecution. Kurtz, the Washington Post's media reporter, and Post columnist David Broder showed that they've been in Washington way too long. First there was this comment from Kurtz:

When journalists get up there and testify . . . it looks to people . . . out there like we have become too cozy with senior Bush administration officials, not so we can ferret out information about national security, not so we can find out about corruption, but, in this particular case, in some cases, acting as a conduit for White House effort to put out negative information about Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, a big critic of the pre-war intelligence. And I think that the people out there who don't follow this all that closely think that we have become part of the club, too much the insiders. And that is a problem for journalism.

The truth is that Libby wouldn't be on trial had journalists back in 2003 not served as a conduit for Wilson's misinformation, specifically his suggestion that Karl Rove had violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by "outing" his wife to Robert Novak. (In fact, it was Richard Armitage who identified her to Novak, and she was not a covert agent under the act's definition.) Kurtz flatters the press by suggesting it was misled by the White House rather than by a fourth-rate unemployed ambassador.

Then there's this exchange, in which Roger Simon of The Politico makes very good sense:

Simon: This is a nutty trial that nobody except the people involved in it and the people covering it care about. Once again we have a prosecutor who can't get an indictment for the real crime--leaking the identity of a CIA agent--so he goes instead for the crime of, well, people didn't tell him the complete truth when they talked to him. I mean, there's no underlying crime here that anyone has been indicted for. This is just a show trial. . . .

Kurtz: But, Roger, it's a show trial that has put the spotlight on the Bush administration's attempt to make a case about prewar intelligence that turned out not to be true. That matters.

So Kurtz is endorsing show trials for the purpose of embarrassing the White House? Then there's Broder:

Russert: Judy Miller, Matt Cooper and myself, and now Bob Woodward, Andrea Mitchell, Walter Pincus--you're going to have a significant number of journalists going before a court, which will be all covered. What does that do to journalism?

Broder: Well, it hurts. And it hurts because I think it opens up something that has been worrisome, I think, to many of us in the press, which is the way in which relationships between reporters and government officials can be used by those government officials to plant stories, in effect, that are damaging to their political enemies using the reporters, in effect, to carry out their political mission. And that's different from cultivating a source to get information that's of value to you as a journalist. Here you are being used by the government official to carry out their political work.

Broder has worked for the Post for more than 40 years, and has been in Washington even longer than that. Are we really supposed to believe that he's shocked, shocked to learn that anonymous sources often have an agenda other than public-spiritedness?

The Post may not be in quite the same league as the New York Times, but it has been making itself look awfully silly of late. This correction ran in Saturday's paper:

A Feb. 9 front-page article about a Pentagon inspector general's report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith's office producing "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" and that the office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" were from a report issued by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) in October 2004.

Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith's office drew on "both reliable and unreliable reporting" to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [intelligence community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration" were also from Levin's report.

The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith's office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general's report did not draw.

Other than that, though, the story was accurate!

Resolved: America Lacks Resolve
"A non-binding resolution that says Congress 'disapproves' of President Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq is being circulated by House Democratic leaders," the Associated Press reports from Washington. A vote is expected this week, and the AP says "Republican leaders have said they expect at least a few dozen defections when the vote is taken."

Since this is a "nonbinding" resolution, it amounts to nothing more than a show of moral support for America's enemies (though of course that is not its intention, so it's impolite to mention that that is its effect). Unlike in the Senate, the minority party in the House has no power to block a vote, so this is nearly certain to pass.

Over in the Senate, GOP members up for re-election in 2008--including Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, Gordon Smith and John Warner--have said they would support similar resolutions, presumably for fear that voters will punish them if they don't.

In the House, however, the vast majority of Republican members have safe seats for the next six years, since most of those who were in competitive districts lost last year. (Many will be in danger in 2012, the first election after the decennial reapportionment and redistricting, assuming Democrats' recent gains in state legislatures and governorships hold up.)

Thus Republicans, except for the few remaining vulnerable ones (e.g., Chris Shays of Connecticut), will not have the excuse of perceived political necessity if they vote for this obnoxious measure.

Are We There Yet? Are We There Yet?
"A month after the Bush administration announced a 'surge' in troops for Baghdad, Iraqis are still waiting for anything to change," the Los Angeles Times reports:

Fewer than 20% of the additional Iraqi and American troops have arrived so far. And the roughly 5,000 that have arrived have yet to make a visible impact in this sprawling city of 6 million people, where thousands of paramilitary gunmen patrol the streets.

This article ran Saturday under the headline "Added Troops Yield Few Results Yet in Baghdad." Later that day, as the Associated Press reports, Gen. David Petraeus took command in Iraq. The impatient tone of the Times's coverage suggests an overeagerness to persuade readers that the effort is a failure.

Great Orators of the Democratic Party

• "One man with courage makes a majority."--attributed to Andrew Jackson
  
  
• "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."--Franklin D. Roosevelt
  
  
• "The buck stops here."--Harry S. Truman
  
  
• "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."--John F. Kennedy
  
  
• "I know that there is a great deal of frustration and anger and outrage, but we can't just wave a magic wand and make things change. I wish we could. I wish I could give a speech and it would all be different, but that's not how our country works."--Hillary Clinton

Talk Is Cheap
In a letter to the editor of the New York Times, Alan Hoffman, chief of staff for Sen. Joe Biden, defends his boss's characterization of Sen. Barack Obama as "articulate." Turns out Biden says that to all the girls:

In "The Racial Politics of Speaking Well" (Week in Review, Feb. 4), about Senator Joe Biden's use of the word "articulate" to describe Senator Barack Obama, Lynette Clemetson suggests the following rule: "Do not use it as the primary attribute of note for a black person if you would not use it for a similarly talented, skilled or eloquent white person."

During the recent hearings on Iraq that Senator Biden presided over as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he referred to the following people as "articulate":

Leslie H. Gelb
Edward N. Luttwak
Lawrence J. Korb
Robert Malley
Senator Lisa Murkowski
Peter W. Galbraith
Frederick W. Kagan
Ted Galen Carpenter
Gen. Jack Keane
Senator Edward M. Kennedy

While Senator Biden has expressed his regret that anyone was offended by his words, we wanted to make it clear that his reference to Senator Obama was sincerely intended as a compliment.

Well, OK, but did he describe Les Gelb or Teddy Kennedy as "clean"?

Homer Nods
Jerry Lembcke teaches at the College of the Holy Cross, not Holy Cross University as we said in an item Friday (since corrected).

'Uh, Sorry About That'
"Man Pleads Guilty to Murder, Apologizes"--headline, Daily Sentinel (Nacogdoches, Texas), Feb. 9

Must've Been a Convertible
"Mom Allegedly Leaves Kids in Car to Tan"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 9

Generalissimo Francisco Franco Is Still Dead

• "Swiss Still Braced for Nuclear War"--headline, BBC Web site, Feb. 10
  
  
• "Desire for Revenge Still Strong in Gaza"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 11

Good News for Pamplona
"China's Bull Run Too Good to Be True"--headline, MarketWatch.com, Feb. 11

She Was Sweet, if a Bit Nuts
"Little Debbie Nutty Bars Recalled in Chicago"--headline, WQAD-TV (Moline, Ill.), Feb. 8

News You Can Use
"Can't Sing? No Problem. Go On 'American Idol' "--headline, Star Press (Muncie, Ind.), Feb. 12

Bottom Stories of the Day

• "No Plan to Replace Bill With Dollar Coin"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 11
  
  
• "Some Excited by Obama Announcement, Others Not"--headline, WLS-TV Web site (Chicago), Feb. 10
  
  
• "Kerry Raps GOP, Bush's Iraq Troop Surge"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 10

Bambi vs. Global Warming
In response to our item Friday about Ellen Goodman's likening global-warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers, reader Marlon McAvoy sent us a letter he wrote to Goodman, care of the Boston Globe. "I doubt they'll use it, or pass it on to Ms. Goodman, but perhaps you'll like it," McAvoy writes. Indeed we do; here it is:

Dear Ellen Goodman!

Hey, I love your trash talk ("damned Nazi apes," right? Nice). Boo-hoo, Taranto at the WSJ didn't like being bullied; he should learn to pick winners, then.

So anyway, I'm wondering...you got that thing on tape? The debate, I mean. I missed it live; guess I was working that night. But I hear the buzz, such as it is; a million people all yelling, "debate's over." Well sure it's over; who would talk that kind of trash unless she'd already won? Debate's over, right. SO WHERE CAN I GET A COPY OF IT?!

Yes, I know the difference between a debate and a boxing match. My Daddy is an old-school country preacher. He's all into debate. He'll take on professors, priests, authors, atheists; anybody, anytime. That's how these guys are. They pay their respects, there's rules and a referee, but then the bell rings and it's all about yanking the other dude's idea away and strangling him to death with it. Strangling a guy to death with his OWN IDEA...it's so hardcore; you gotta see it to believe it. No one comprehends the intellectual savagery of the unleashed egghead until they witness it for themselves. Those over-the-top displays of reason and logic always happen when a man sublimates the normal human urge to play football.

So, Ellen, you know I gotta see that debate. DVD, VHS, heck, a written transcript would be great. Natch, I'll cover all expenses. I mean, holy cow. It's the greatest drubbing in the history of intellectual warfare; there is not one single word of debate about the entire debate. HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?! The biggest laugher in history, without a single trace. HOW? There's already a zillion Colt tributes from this year's Super Bowl; you're telling me NOBODY YouTubed this fate-of-the-world conflict? And come ON! The whole debate, start to finish, couldn't have run 15 seconds. It's not like this was Ali-Frazier. Not even Tyson-Spinks. Nope, this had to be Godzilla-Bambi.

Well, guess what? I SAW that Godzilla versus Bambi matchup, in Bowling Green, Kentucky, in 1982. Here, I'll share it. Remember this isn't a recap, Ellen; this is the entire dang fight:

Godzilla by squash-out, a quarter-second in.

See? The global warming debate had to be something like that. So...can I see it now?

In appreciation,

Marlon McAvoy

We thought our response to Goodman was pretty good, but this humbles us.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Jack Broeils, Naftali Friedman, John Nernoff, Jimmie Irby, Ben Orlanski, Steve Prestegard, Taylor Dinerman, Chris Scibelli, Edward Schulze, Michael Segal, Thomas Crimmins, Joe Mulligan, Buddy Smith, Geoff Hazel, David Shapero, Dave Reedy, John Neal, Charlie Gaylord, Doug Black, Stefan Sharkansky, Steve Feyer, Marc Young and Jerry Rhoden. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Edmund Phelps: Why European economies lag behind the U.S.
• John Fund: Some pundits and pols think the 2008 election is a sure thing. They've been wrong before.
• The Journal Editorial Report: A transcript of the weekend's program on the FOX News Channel.