The Second Opinion

NC a leader... in the price of gas

According to a recent AAA survey, North Carolina leads the nation in the price of gasoline.  Only DC and Alaska (!) have higher gasoline costs.  Part of this is due to the fact that our state gets most of its fuel from the storm-ravaged Gulf Coast.  However, as noted by the AP:

A key reason for that dubious title here is North Carolina's gas tax. The 27 cents paid on each gallon is the highest among Southern states and fifth-highest nationally. By comparison, Virginia's gas tax is 17 cents per gallon and South Carolina's is 16 cents.

Natch, there have been calls on Governor Easley (known without affection as "Tax Hike Mike") to suspend or at least reduce the gas tax.  One would think that this would be a no-brainer.  After all, politicians seem to spend a lot of time and hot air talking about how much they want to do for 'the common man' or 'working families' and even 'the poor'.  Well, there are a few million people here in North Carolina who could use a little help dealing with the high price of fuel.  What does Tax Hike Mike say?

Even as Hurricane Rita appeared poised to disrupt Gulf Coast oil supplies again, Gov. Mike Easley said Wednesday he has no plans to roll back state gas taxes to curb shock at the pumps.

It seems that our governor has been taking lessons from Gov. Blanco.  Though we elected him to govern our state, he won't do what he can to lower gas prices.  Rather, he whines that the feds ought to do something about it:

Instead, Easley joined other Democratic governors who are pressuring the federal government to solve the problem of higher gasoline prices.

"I hope everybody is waking up, that we've got to do something better than we're doing now on energy in this country," he told reporters. "We want to see Washington take up this issue."

In other words, I and my fellow Tar Heels can get stuffed as far as Tax Hike Mike is concerned.  If we start feeling too much of a squeeze at the pump, we can go to Washington to cry on Uncle Sammy's shoulder.

Just remember to fill 'er up before crossing into VA: Tax Hike Mike needs the money.

Kathleen Blanco, Ray Nagin, meet Katrina

The left is having a ball blaming Bush for 'cutting' funding for the levies, sending the National Guard out of the country to fight in Iraq, failing to respond fast enough to the crisis, hating black people, blah-blah-blah.  Let's look at the what is known about the situation in New Orleans. First, the levees:

1.  The levees that failed were new ones, recently completed.  According to the commander of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Lt. General Carl Strock:

"In fact, the levee failures we saw were in areas of the projects that were at their full project design... So that part of the project was in place, and had this project been fully complete ... [West Bank, Southeast Louisiana, and Lake Ponchartrain] it's my opinion, based on the intensity of this storm, that the flooding of the Central Business District and the French Quarter would still have occurred. So I do not see that the level of funding is really a contributing factor in this case."

When hurricanes are part of the design criteria, the Corps designs against the Standard Project Hurricane (SPH) model, which has a frequency of occurence of once every 500 years.  The SPH is equivalent to a category 3 hurricane.  There is and will continue to be a great deal of criticism about this.  People will ask - with some justice - why the levees were not designed against the worst-case scenario, a direct hit by a category 5 storm.  The answer, obviously, is money: why spend billions to defend against an event that has a miniscule chance of happening?

We might also ask - with justice - why people chose to live and have businesses in an area that might get hit by a category 5 hurricane, just as we might ask why people live in the fire- and earthquake prone coast of southern California or the tornado prone mid-west.  In essence, everybody plays the odds in the hope that something bad won't happen, or at least won't happen on their watch.  What's kind of depressing is that the populations of these regions are INCREASING.  Yep: people are deliberately choosing to move to areas that are liable to be swept away by hurricanes or fall into the Pacific Ocean as the result of a really big earthquake.  Smart.  Very smart.

2.  The Corps of Engineer funding for the New Orleans area has been stable over nearly the past two decades.  Again, General Strock:

"Let me also address the issue of the general impact of the war in Iraq on civil works funding. We've seen some suggestions that our budget has been affected by the war. I can also say that I do not see that to be the case. If you look at the historical levels of funding for the Corps of Engineers from the pre-war levels back to 1992, '91, before we actually got into this, you'll see that the level of funding has been fairly stable throughout that period. So I think we would see that our funding levels would have dropped off if that were the case; so I do not see that as an issue that is relevant to the discussion of the flood protection of the City of New Orleans."

The Corps recognized that the levee / flood control system for Lousiana needed to be upgraded... in 2002:

The study encompasses a multi-parish area in southeastern Louisiana. Funds available in Fiscal Year 2002 are being used to continue a reconnaissance study to evaluate the existing hurricane protection systems in southeast Louisiana and recommend improvements and modifications to the existing level of protection. Hurricane protection for category 4 and 5 storms will be analyzed. The reconnaissance report, submitted for certification on 1 July 2002, determined that there was a Federal interest in proceeding to the feasibility phase. Funds requested for Fiscal Year 2003 will be used to complete the Project Management Plan and negotiate the FCSA.

Incidentally, the existing levee system was started in 1967 and as of September 2003 was 90% complete (see page 11-5 of this report).  I'm not saying that a crash program started in 2001 might not have been able to provide the New Orleans area with category 5 hurricane protection, but given how slowly the government usually works, I wouldn't bet on it.

Now, what about Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin?  The always excellent Captain's Quarters has some good comments about Nagin and the fact that last year's Hurricane Ivan provided a dress rehearsal for Katrina, exposing many flaws with the city's emergency plans... And Nagin did nothing.  Perhaps this news article from September, 2004 will sound eerily prescient:

In this case, city officials first said they would provide no shelter, then agreed that the state-owned Louisiana Superdome would open to those with special medical needs. Only Wednesday afternoon, with Ivan just hours away, did the city open the 20-story-high domed stadium to the public.

Mayor Ray Nagin's spokeswoman, Tanzie Jones, insisted that there was no reluctance at City Hall to open the Superdome, but said the evacuation was the top priority.

"Our main focus is to get the people out of the city," she said.

Callers to talk radio complained about the late decision to open up the dome, but the mayor said he would do nothing different.

"We did the compassionate thing by opening the shelter," Nagin said. "We wanted to make sure we didn't have a repeat performance of what happened before. We didn't want to see people cooped up in the Superdome for days."

When another dangerous hurricane, Georges, appeared headed for the city in 1998, the Superdome was opened as a shelter and an estimated 14,000 people poured in. But there were problems, including theft and vandalism.

...

The main safety measure - getting people out of town - raised its own problems.

More than 1 million people tried to leave the city and surrounding suburbs on Tuesday, creating a traffic jam as bad as or worse than the evacuation that followed Georges. In the afternoon, state police took action, reversing inbound lanes on southeastern Louisiana interstates to provide more escape routes. Bottlenecks persisted, however.

Col. Henry Whitehorn, head of state police, said he believes his agency acted appropriately, but also acknowledged he never expected a seven-hour-long crawl for the 60 miles between New Orleans and Baton Rouge.

It was so bad that some broadcasters were telling people to stay home, that they had missed their window of opportunity to leave. They claimed the interstates had turned into parking lots where trapped people could die in a storm surge.

Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Nagin both acknowledged the need to improve traffic flow and said state police should consider reversing highway lanes earlier. They also promised meetings with governments in neighboring localities and state transportation officials to improve evacuation plans.

By the way, it appears that Nagin spent the hurricane in BATON ROUGE.  Thousands couldn't get out of the city, but apparently he made damned sure that HE wasn't one of them.

CQ reader Lucky Bogey found this article from 2003:

[Hurricane] Isidore also provided Mayor Ray Nagin his first experience with the city's Office of Emergency Preparedness atop City Hall. Nagin noted that an estimated 100,000 residents of the city rely on public transportation, and he said he hopes federal support for a future light rail system will enable the city to evacuate these residents to Louis Armstrong International Airport and points beyond. [emphasis mine - dj505]

In addition, Nagin deplored the "patchwork of networks among the parishes in terms of [emergency] communications and technology." We expect police and emergency agencies to be talking to each other on the same radio channel during an emergency. Apparently, they were not, at least not during Isidore. Nagin is correct to worry publicly about such a lack of coordination, and we share his concern.

He HOPES that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will build a light rail system?  Mayor Nagin, it may have escaped your notice, but the people of the City of New Orleans elected YOU to take care of things like this.  And let's assume that the good people of Alaska and West Virginia DID pony up their tax dollars so you can have a light rail system to the airport.  What then?  Is the airport on high ground?  Has it got adequate facilities to shelter as many as 100,000 people?  Or were you simply sort of hoping that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT would also magically provide hundreds of transport planes to get your people out while you went to Baton Rouge?

PHAGH!

The mayor DID have some assets of his own to get people out.  See how well he used them (hat tip: Jo's Cafe)?

Let's have a look at a couple of key paragraphs from the City of New Orleans Comprehensive EmergenyManagement Plan, Annex 1: Hurricanes.

Part 2, section II: Concept of Operations

Slow developing weather conditions (primarily hurricane) will create increased readiness culminating in an evacuation order 24 hours (12 daylight hours) prior to predicted landfall.

Part 3, paragraph A: Evacuation Order

The authority to order the evacuation of residents threatened by an approaching hurricane is conferred to the Governor by Louisiana Statute. The Governor is granted the power to direct and compel the evacuation of all or part of the population from a stricken or threatened area within the State, if he deems this action necessary for the preservation of life or other disaster mitigation, response or recovery. The same power to order an evacuation conferred upon the Governor is also delegated to each political subdivision of the State by Executive Order. This authority empowers the chief elected official of New Orleans, the Mayor of New Orleans, to order the evacuation of the parish residents threatened by an approaching hurricane.

Part 4, paragraph A: Evacuation time requirements

Using information developed as part of the Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Task Force and other research, the City of New Orleans has established a maximum acceptable hurricane evacuation time standard for a Category 3 storm event of 72 hours. This is based on clearance time or is the time required to clear all vehicles evacuating in response to a hurricane situation from area roadways. Clearance time begins when the first evacuating vehicle enters the road network and ends when the last evacuating vehicle reaches its destination.

Am I misinterpretting this, or does the plan require the governor to issue an evacuation warning twenty-four hours prior to landfall though the city requires 72 hours to evacuate?

Here's a timeline from Fox News:

Wednesday, Aug 24: Tropical depression #12 strengthens to hurricane force.  Hurricane is designated "Katrina".

Thursday, Aug 25: Hurricane Katrina, a category 1 storm, strikes the southern tip of the Florida peninsula.

Friday, Aug 26: 10,000 National Guard troops sent to the Gulf Coast region.

Governor Blanco declares a state of emergency.

Saturday, Aug 27:  New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin declares a state of emergency and urges residents in low-lying areas to evacuate.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour declares a state of emergency. A mandatory evacuation is ordered for Hancock County.

Sunday, Aug 28: Katrina grows to a category 5 hurricane.

Mandatory evacuation for New Orleans ordered.  Ten emergency shelters are established in the city for those unable to evacuate.

Alabama Governor Bob Riley declares a state of emergency.

Monday, Aug 29: Katrina makes landfall at 06:10 CDT near Buras, LA with wind speeds of 145mph.

Tuesday, Aug 30: Governor Kathleen Blanco orders manadatory evacuation for all remaining residents of New Orleans.

Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin issued there evacuation warnings (at the request of the president) on Sunday, August 28 less than 24 hours before Katrina was expected to hit the coast.

But Blanco's on the ball.  Yessir... She issued the following executive order:

Wedensday, Aug 31:  KBB 2005-31 directs that schools around the state inventory their buses to be used to evacuate civilians from New Orleans.

Hmmm... A little late, don't you think?

I can't imagine what Blanco and Nagin were playing at.  They KNEW from recent experience that evacuating New Orleans would take days.  They KNEW that the 'last resort' shelters such as the Superdome were fit only for a few hours occupation.  They KNEW that there were thousands of people in New Orleans who lacked the personal means to evacuate.  They KNEW that the levees were probably going to be swamped by the storm.

They knew all these things... and did virtually nothing.

Baghdad on the Mississippi?

(hat tip: Drudge)

I hope that this story is exagerated or untrue, because if it isn't... Sheesh.

According to the AP, New Orleans police officers shot and killed several men who were SHOOTING AT CONTRACTORS on their way to try to repair one of the failed levees in the city.

Police shot and killed at least five people Sunday after gunmen opened fire on a group of contractors traveling across a bridge on their way to make repairs, authorities said.

Deputy Police Chief W.J. Riley said police shot at eight people carrying guns, killing five or six.

Fourteen contractors were traveling across the Danziger Bridge under police escort when they came under fire, said John Hall, a spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers.

They were on their way to launch barges into Lake Pontchartrain to help plug the breach in the 17th Street Canal, Hall said.

None of the contractors was killed, Hall said.

The bridge spans a canal connecting Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi River.

No other details were immediately available.

William H. Renquist, RIP

Mr. Chief Justice William H. Renquist died last night of thyroid cancer.  He was 80 years old.  Grandson of Swedish immigrants and a native of Milwaukee, Renquist graduated first in his class from Stanford Law School in 1952.  He was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Nixon in 1971 and took his seat on the bench on January 7, 1972.  He was elevated to chief justice by President Reagan in 1986.  A widower since the death of his wife Natalie in 1991, he is survived by his son James and his daughters Janet and Nancy who were all at his side when he passed.

RIP

(official biography)

Acting locally

Captain Ed at the always excellent Captain's Quarters discusses a Washington Post op-ed that displays remarkable and totally unexpected common sense regarding government response to Katrina.  The WaPo notes:

But if blame is to be laid and lessons are to be drawn, one point stands out as irrefutable: Emergency planners must focus much more on the fate of that part of the population that -- for reasons of poverty, infirmity, distrust of officialdom, lack of transportation or lack of information -- cannot be counted on to leave their homes after an evacuation order.

Captain Ed follows up:

The editorial misses two points that complete the loop. First, we can answer the question about the National Guard troops very easily. They get mobilized on orders from the governor of the state in which they serve. All that was needed was a mobilization order from Governor Blanco before the storm hit to get them in motion. Regarding the Superdome decision, that initially made sense -- until the levees broke, local authorities assumed that their stay would only take twenty-four hours or so. However, they wasted that time without moving transportation assets into position for a potential evacuation, hundreds of unused school buses that now sit under water.

We've got to get past the idea that Uncle Sugar has to do everything in this country.  Not only does the idea make our local and state governments unnecessary, it also overlooks the fact that (typically) the best people to deal with a situation are those closest to it.  The government of the City of New Orleans more than any other agency in the country should have known what they might face if a big one hit the city and taken better precautions rather than assuming that DC would do it all... or just hoping for the best.

Now THAT'S inflation!

Yesterday, I stopped at the grocery store to pick up a few things before church.  On my way in, I noticed that the price of gas at the neighboring station was $2.47.  When I walked out about ten minutes later, the price had gone up to $2.55.

Ow.

It's all about the O.

(hat tip: SwineBass)

Stacy at NOT a Desperate Housewife has a great 'letter' to President Bush, demanding to know where all the cheap oil is.  After all, we've been assured constantly since 2002 that war in Iraq was 'all about oil'.  So, where's the cheap oil?

The Stupidization of America

For a change, I'm not grousing about the public schools, although they have their part to play in this.  My beef is with what I call the stupidization of America.  I've heard it referred to 'feminization', but that just doesn't cover everything.  Rather than try to explain what I mean, let me offer a couple of personal anecdotes, news stories, and posts from other blogs:

1.  My friend is a resident in radiology and regales me with stories about the crazy things that go on in her department.  Last night, she told me a story that wasn't so crazy, but rather alarming and disgusting.

Doctors throughout the hospital request various forms of imaging (X-ray, MRI, ultrasound, etc), and it is the duty of the on-call radiology resident to 'read' the films and dictate the results.  It's very tedious work, but also very important.

Seems that a young resident was on-call one morning, and didn't show up.  Unfortunately for him, the chairman of the department was also the attending physician.  Naturally, he wondered where the resident was and attempted to page and telephone him.  No luck.  So, he called in the back-up, who happened to be the deputy chief resident.

THREE AND A HALF HOURS LATER, the young resident finally shows up while the chairman and the deputy chief were reading the films.  To make matters worse, he reeked of booze.  The chairman, understandably, was not pleased with this and informed the young resident that he'd be out on his ear if such a thing ever happened again.  Later, the young resident went to my friend (the chief) to complain about the whole thing.  He felt that it was THE DEPUTY CHIEF'S FAULT for making him 'look bad' in front of the chairman.  When my friend pointed out (more politely than I would have!) that he was nearly four hours later AND smelling of liquor, he grumbled that he didn't see why people had to try to make him feel bad about it.

2.  My brother was telling me about a woman who works in his company who tried to have a security guard FIRED simply because he didn't smile at her when she came in to work one day.

3.  Ambra Nykol has a nice blog, and she wrote once about some of the idiot things she saw job applicants do while working in HR.  Here is her list:

The Requisite Monthly Rant: How Not to Get a Job

Just a few tips as pulled from today's experience in the recruiting department:

1. Write your your cover letter by hand on college-ruled paper with a blue Bic pen.

2. Use the word "pimp" at least one time on your resume.

3. When the recruiter calls you for an interview, forget that you even applied for the job.

4. Use an email address on your resume that includes the word "sexy" (e.g. lilsexymomma@yahoo.com, 2sexy4u@hotmail.com).

5. Make sure the outgoing voicemail message the recruiter hears includes music and the phrase "shake that (insert Biblical word for donkey)."

4.  Dr. Mike Adams of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington writes a regular column at Townhall.com.  This is from his column of April 27, 2005:

I love exam week. It’s the time of year when students start to either a) stress out uncontrollably, or b) pretend to stress out uncontrollably in a plea for special treatment. As you can imagine, I get a lot of stupid questions during exam week from both stressing and pretending-to-be-stressing students...

Dear (deleted):

Sorry you missed the review session because you were stuck in traffic in Charlotte. Since you haven’t been in class in nine days, I am surprised that traffic jam didn’t make the national news. It must have been big! At which intersection were you stuck? Where did you sleep for the last nine days? In your car? What did you do for food and water? And, finally, how much extra credit do you deserve for concocting one of the stupidest excuses I’ve ever heard in my life?..

Dear (deleted):

I’m glad you got my note telling you to skip the final exam. Because you got a “50” on the first exam and missed the second exam, it is now mathematically impossible for you to pass this course. Now you are asking me for extra credit. No problem! But we must be able to justify the extra credit if anyone asks us about it. Should we say that you got extra credit because a) you missed only 35 classes this semester? Or because b) you never participated in class during the seven classes you did attend?

Clearly, we have to do something because, as you said, failing my class will keep you from graduating and attending law school in the fall. Once we jump through this little hoop, you will, no doubt, have a brilliant legal career ahead of you.

I could go on, and I'm sure you have similar stories.

What bothers me about all these things is that they show a level of stupidity that is really unbelievable.  And I think it's getting worse.  The problem is that we've managed to become so 'touchy-feely' in our society that we're afraid to call a spade a spade and tell somebody in no uncertain terms that they're being an idiot.  We don't want to 'offend' them, you see.  We can't set standards of behavior because we can't impose 'our' values on somebody else.  We have to have empathy and understanding.

I went to a lengthy supervisor training course a few years ago.  One day, we were offered the following scenario:

An employee is constantly late and also has a serious attendence problem.  What do you do?

I muttered, "Fire 'em."

If I had stood up in the course and announced that I like to have sex with goats, I couldn't have gotten a more shocked response.  The instructor told me that I should speak with the employee.  Others opined that perhaps the troublesome employee was having trouble at home, or had some other reason his attendence record was bloody awful.

Don't get me wrong: I wouldn't fire an employee out of hand for poor attendance, and I do believe that we ought to temper all our dealings with common sense and compassion.  However, I think you get my point: we're so intent on 'understanding' everything that we're prepared to accept everything, and in turn expect everybody to kow-tow to us.  This is the genesis of frivolous lawsuits... and the idiotic verdicts that see a woman paid millions for spilling hot coffee on her lap or lets a murderer go free because HE wasn't really responsible for gunning down five people.

We're becoming a nation of idiots.

Europe and America

The Riding Sun discusses and article by Andrew Moravcsik from Newsweek's international edition.  Gaiginbiker is right when he calls it 'the article Newsweek wouldn't print' (at least, not in its American edition).  This gives you some idea why:

You had only to listen to George W. Bush's Inaugural Address last week (invoking "freedom" and "liberty" 49 times) to appreciate just how deeply Americans still believe in this founding myth. For many in the world, the president's rhetoric confirmed their worst fears of an imperial America relentlessly pursuing its narrow national interests. But the greater danger may be a delusional America—one that believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the American Dream lives on, that America remains a model for the world, one whose mission is to spread the word.

Oh, it gets better:

The truth is that Americans are living in a dream world. Not only do others not share America's self-regard, they no longer aspire to emulate the country's social and economic achievements. The loss of faith in the American Dream goes beyond this swaggering administration and its war in Iraq. A President Kerry would have had to confront a similar disaffection, for it grows from the success of something America holds dear: the spread of democracy, free markets and international institutions—globalization, in a word.

I could go on, but you get the idea: nobody in the world likes America, we should be more like Europe, we suck, etc, etc.

Certainly the Europeans seem to dislike the United States pretty intensely, and I don't think it's just because of George Bush.  Let's face it: Schroeder in Germany and Zapatero in Spain have both been recently elected thanks in no small part to their anti-American rhetoric, which obviously played well to their people. 

Many Europeans seem to view the United States as arrogant, unilateral, and even a bully.  While George Bush has exacerbated this perception (albeit unintentionally), Bill Clinton had his share of frustrations with Europe, and they with him.  Recall that Clinton did not submit the (idiotic) Kyoto Treaty to the Senate for ratification.  He was also pushing for firm action against Iraq in the late 1990s, and used military force pretty freely though not decisively.  The use of force is a major source of conflict between Europe and the United States, and I think it influences European views of America even in matters not related to defense issues.

I think that European dislike of the United States is a result of their resentment of us, and this goes back to at least the end of World War II when the United States undeniably eclipsed the former leader world powers of Britain and France.  For decades, Europe had to rely upon the United States for its very existence in the face of the Soviet threat.  Once the threat was removed, European defense policy began to diverge sharply from our own.  This wasn't just a case of trying to cash in on the 'peace divident', either.  Robert Kagan writes in Policy Review:

Europe, because of its unique historical experience of the past half-century — culminating in the past decade with the creation of the European Union — has developed a set of ideals and principles regarding the utility and morality of power different from the ideals and principles of Americans, who have not shared that experience. If the strategic chasm between the United States and Europe appears greater than ever today, and grows still wider at a worrying pace, it is because these material and ideological differences reinforce one another.

In contrast:

Americans have no experience that would lead them to embrace fully the ideals and principles that now animate Europe. Indeed, Americans derive their understanding of the world from a very different set of experiences. In the first half of the twentieth century, Americans had a flirtation with a certain kind of internationalist idealism. Wilson’s “war to end all wars” was followed a decade later by an American secretary of state putting his signature to a treaty outlawing war.

The Europeans have come to believe in what can be referred to as 'soft power': the use of treaties, international organizations, and the like to solve world problems.  The United States, on the other hand, has - and uses - 'hard power' or traditional military force.  Europeans as well as many on the American left view the use of hard power with horror, and naturally (though incorrectly) believe that American use of hard power is a consequence of a violent American society.  As Moravcsik writes:

Much in American law and society troubles the world these days. Nearly all countries reject the United States' right to bear arms as a quirky and dangerous anachronism. They abhor the death penalty and demand broader privacy protections... The United States' refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions to certain terrorist suspects, to ratify global human-rights treaties such as the innocuous Convention on the Rights of the Child or to endorse the International Criminal Court (coupled with the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) only reinforces the conviction that America's Constitution and legal system are out of step with the rest of the world.

Ironically, 'violent' America is exactly what has allowed Europe the luxury of its socialist nanny-state, tiny defense budgets, and endless attempts to reach 'diplomatic' solutions with hoodlums and despots like Saddam and the Iranians.  After all, the Americans are always there to clean up the mess.

Great posts from around the bloggosphere - June 6, 2005

THE 'GULAG': A number of bloggers are staying after Amnesty International for its stupid accusation that Gitmo is 'the gulag of our times.'

Ari at Partial Transcripts discusses the ACLU and Amnesty International with regard to the various 'Koran desecration' stories that are causing a collective orgy of delight in the BM:

Instead of praising the United States for having the decency and sensitivity to allow villainous prisoners the right to religious freedom in prison, Amnesty International focuses on our "desecration" of the very book that claims "Death to the Infidels (America)."

I don't think Al Qeada's prisons allow Jews to read Torah. I'm sure if they did though, the ACLU would file a lawsuit against the Jewish prisoners over "separation of church and torture chamber."

Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters discusses  the fact that Amnesty now admits that it really doesn't know that Gitmo is a gulag:

The Exempt Media's love affair with Amnesty International suddenly become more understandable when AI's executive director, William Schulz, responded to questions about the use of the "gulag" analogy to Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo. When asked to defend its allegation, Schulz said he didn't know that it was accurate, but he also didn't know that it was.

Sir George at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler delivers a great Fisking to a typically stupid NYT editorial.  The Times believes that the goons we've got behind bars down at Gitmo should be treated like run-of-the-mill criminals: charge them, or let them go.  As Sir George rightly points out:

Once again, we hit the slippery little problem. We lock up prisoners of war not because there's some particular charge we can make against each individual, we lock them up because they're enemy combatants, and in the case of the Gitmo detainees illegal ones, at that. Yet as prisoners of war, captured on the battlefield, we can't put them on trial just for being extremely violent enemies captured on the battlefield. We can't charge someone in criminal court for being a Taliban jihadist any more than we could charge German soldiers for being Nazis. What we could do was hold them in POW camps. I suppose for that, Amnesty International would've charged Churchill with running "the gulag of our times".

And speaking of the ACLU:

NYgirl exposes some of the hypocrisy at the ACLU.  Yep, the same ACLU that constantly sues to get government files (including secret ones) released in the name of 'freedom of information' has a penchant for shredding its own files:

The "L" in ACLU, stands for liberty, however, this liberty can only be enjoyed by the higher ups of the ACLU: not regular employees or any other organization. It is Ok for the ACLU to shred documents while demanding the retention of documents by the government.

It doesn't end there, apparently, it is acceptable for the ACLU to intimidate it's staff too. But, only the staff, remember, those in executive positions must always be cushioned against all scrutiny & criticism. At no time are they to be held accountable for anything they do. They are free to violate any policy or rule they want at any time (unlike you). The ACLU is an organization dedicated to fighting for the liberties of others, not that of their employees.

The BM:  Always fodder for bloggers when dealing with the BM!

Elephant Man, a regular at the Rott, links to this article about the BM's efforts to 'reform' itself:

... hundreds of journalists were participating in the annual convention of Investigative Reporters and Editors, a group that promotes watchdog journalism.

The convention comes amid efforts at reform within the news business, which many journalists, analysts and academics across the country agree is going through a mounting credibility crisis.

Well, at least they know they've got a problem!  Well, some of them do:

Many at IRE said they believe journalism as a whole is suffering from those and other self-inflicted wounds. Some also accused political and business leaders of deliberately attacking it.

"There is a segment of American society that for commercial or ideological reasons wants to stop individual checks on their power," said David Cay Johnston, a business reporter for The New York Times.

Michelle Malkin has more on the fallout from Linda Foley's unsubstantiated claims that the US military is targetting journalists in Iraq.  Foley's big mouth might just mean she'll lose her job (something I can, regrettably, understand from personal experience!):

Are you keeping up with Foleygate? If not, catch up on all the latest here. Journalist Hiawatha Bray is doing something about the military-slandering head of the Newspaper Guild. He's running against her.

Read 'em all!