An appreciative hat tip to Southern Appeal for this post. No more Pentiums based computers for me. Not an idle promise for me, either. I'll be in the market later this summer.

But what is as much a concern for me as the embedded DRM, is the explanation in the story about IDE Redirection. That sounds like it's going to be a sieve for hackers.

I'll have to read up on alternatives. It may turn out I'll get a custom built one. I know this guy ....

Enjoy! (ht: Ninja Monkeys!)

(I did run it a couple of times just to see if there was a duck somewhere.)

From Cambodia Morning:

An Australian civil liberties group has criticized the severity of a 13-year jail term given to an Australian-Vietnamese teenager caught trying to smuggle heroin out of Cambodia.

Gordon Vuong, 16, was arrested in January at Phnom Penh International Airport with 2.1 kilograms of heroin strapped to his torso. ...

Do these things come in three's, too?

I haven't finished up an analysis of this commentary column by Linda Foley from October 24, 2003 and have yet to get beyond a draft of one with this column and Ms. Foley's May 11, and May 13 remarks taken together. But I'm posting this now for reference when I do and, also, to give others the opportunity to develop their own impressions without the influence of my comments.

This column, as best I can tell was originally published on October 24, 2003. Also, as best I can tell, it was published in only a few places and exclusively on TNG and CWA websites. (I got it from the TNG's The Guild Reporter, here.) And she received an award for it.

Looking Ahead: Reporters in the Cross-Hairs
By Linda Foley, President, TNG-CWA, ILCA Member

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.-George W. Bush, Sept. 20, 2001, in a speech to a special joint session of Congress.

That rejoinder, delivered in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, drew sustained applause. Millions of Americans engulfed in a swirl of grief and fear that riveted them to their television sets nodded in solidarity from their living rooms. At that moment, most could comfortably relate to a post-9/11 world with two types of people: the terrorists and the rest of us.

Two years and two wars later, it doesn't seem so simple. A world that appeared so stark and crystallized back then now seems a lot greyer and fuzzier. The line between "us" and "the terrorists" likewise has been blurred, depending upon who's defining "us"-and who's defined as "terrorists."

For Bush & Co., however, the paradigm hasn't changed much. Since Sept. 11, this administration is wont to apply the notion of "us vs. them" to every aspect of policy, at home and abroad. Today, the speech's line has morphed into: "Either you agree with us or you are with the terrorists."

Their application of this litmus test ranges from labeling Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and former Democratic Senator Max Cleland (a decorated Vietnam veteran who lost three limbs in that war) as unpatriotic for daring to oppose Bush's policies; to the U.S. attorney general's accusing Iraq War critics of assisting "America's enemies." Even the Dixie Chicks were branded traitors to their country because they expressed chagrin over the actions of a certain fellow Texan.

Because the White House requires everyone to choose sides, bipartisan consensus has become impossible and the public discourse necessary to reach valid public policies is stifled. That puts journalists-whose job is to tell the truth and not champion either a political point of view or promote a particular policy initiative-right smack in the crosshairs of the Bush administration's war on those who don't support it.

The latest volley at the press has come from Bush himself, who has threatened to ignore the "national" media completely by delivering the "good news(!)" of what has become the Iraq morass straight to the regional press corps. Maybe that way Americans will be lulled into ignoring the violence and death facing U.S. soldiers since he prematurely declared the fighting over. (A pretty big insult to the thousands of hard-working journalists of the "regional press" who, like their "national" counterparts, want to report the truth, don't you think?)

More insidious (and more frightening), however, is the way "us vs. them" played out in the press's involvement in the Iraq War itself. There, it was "embedded" vs. "unilateral" journalists. And from what I gleaned from the remarks of Pentagon representatives at a recent conference of Military Reporters and Editors (MREs), there was no question which group the U.S. military considered "us" and which they considered "them." Even the term "unilateral journalist" (chosen by the Pentagon) conjures up a whiff of reportorial imbalance.

At the Oct. 2-4 conference of MREs (the double entendre of the organization's anagram was not lost on its members), many in attendance, including some journalists themselves as well as the military flacks, had high praise for the accessibility brought on by the policy of embedding journalists among troops on the battlefield.

However, none of the journalists was entirely convinced that embedded reporters got or could get a completely accurate picture of the war. The Pentagon folks, on the other hand, were downright gleeful about how well the program worked from their vantage point.

As vice president of the International Federation of Journalists, I participated in a Saturday panel discussion, along with Frank Smyth of the Committee to Protect Journalists and representatives from Reuters and Great Britain's Independent Television News (ITN), both of whom lost journalists to so-called "friendly fire" incidents in Iraq. Pentagon spokesperson Bryan Whitman also joined us. The panel was moderated by Emmy-award winning journalist Arthur Kent, who covered the first Gulf War for NBC.

Members of an ITN crew were killed early in the war when they were attacked first by Iraqis and then mistakenly by coalition forces. A Reuters cameraman was killed when U.S. forces fired on the Palestine Hotel during the assault on Baghdad, and award-winning Reuters reporter Mazen Dana was killed by a U.S. tank while filming outside a prison after major hostilities had ended.

In all, seven media workers have been killed by coalition forces during the latest Iraq conflict. All were considered "unilateral" and were not embedded with coalition forces. "We did not lose one embedded journalist to hostility-related actions," crowed one military spokesman at the conference.

Meanwhile, following its own internal investigations of the Palestine Hotel and Mazen Dana killings, the Pentagon concluded that the rules of engagement were followed in both situations. The major portions of reports on both incidents remain classified and have not been released. Neither, by the way, have the bodies of two missing ITN crew members whose deaths have been confirmed by non-military sources.

For his part, the Pentagon's Whitman, while expressing sympathy for families and co-workers of the slain journalists, was unapologetic for the questionable incidents themselves. "We simply cannot be responsible for the safety of non-embedded journalists," he said. But later in the discussion he sounded a more ominous tone. "I don't know what will happen in future wars," he said. "But it may very well be that news organizations will find it too costly to use non-embedded journalists to cover wars in the future."

Given the price some news organizations have already paid, notably Reuters and ITN, that sounded pretty threatening. It's reminiscent of: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Linda Foley Related Posts:
(Reverse Chronological Order)

Looking Ahead: Military in the Cross-Hairs
"Media credibility is in the toilet, even if the Koran isn't."
Linda Foley's Context and Asides - A Comparison
Still Holding To "Context" But. Where's "Aside"?
More of Linda Foley's Talk
Journalist as Provocateurs
Linda Foley, Provocateur

Thomas Lipscomb has another really nice analysis column of the Linda Foley affair, this time at Editor & Publisher. Points he covers that I gleaned: why it has been barely mentioned in the media; Ms. Foley's efforts to spin and dance her way out while she maintains her original accusation; and what it may mean for the members of the Newspaper guild members she represents.

Don't miss the last two paragraphs; a lot of the observations ought to be recited at the start of every shift in the newsrooms of America.

(I hope Mr. Lipscomb doesn't mind my using an observation he made in the article for the title of this post.)

Update: Fixed an error in a link below.

Linda Foley Related Posts:
(Reverse Chronological Order)

Looking Ahead: Military in the Cross-Hair
"Media credibility is in the toilet, even if the Koran isn't."
Linda Foley's Context and Asides - A Comparison
Still Holding To "Context" But. Where's "Aside"?
More of Linda Foley's Talk
Journalist as Provocateurs
Linda Foley, Provocateur

Damned if I didn't miss this at The 3rd World View.

"Imprisoned Iranian blogger Mojtaba Saminejad commenced a hunger strike on May 14 to protest against his detention" per Chan'ad Bahrani, and today was supposed to be a media fast with links back to The Committe to Protect Bloggers (CPB).



I'm fasting today tonight and tomorrow for Mojtaba

Andi's World has the news that the murder charges against 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano have been dismissed. Follow the link there to Euphoric Reality, who's been following the story closely.

Balloon Juice jumps back to defending Newsweek's erroneous Periscope Koran flushing news ditty. He suggests Newsweek has been somehow vindicated thinking Newsweek is "ordering a big glass of STFU for their critics."

To be fair, I am not sure he is actually defending the substance of it so much as he is defending the general concept that talk of issues/incidents of this type ought not to be squashed entirely just because they are mistakes, or damaging, or whatever. On that I might agree. Anyway, the basis for Mr. Cole's post is this Reuter's article reporting on an FBI memo which was declassified and released by some government agency or department, that Reuters failed to report.

I haven't jumped into this much, but I'll take issue with his post on what I see as the central issues of this Newsweek brouhaha. Here's the first paragraph of Newsweek's Periscope ditty:

"Investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed some infractions alleged in internal FBI e-mails that surfaced late last year. Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash. An Army spokesman confirms that 10 Gitmo interrogators have already been disciplined for mistreating prisoners, including one woman who took off her top, rubbed her finger through a detainee's hair and sat on the detainee's lap. (New details of sexual abuse—including an instance in which a female interrogator allegedly wiped her red-stained hand on a detainee's face, telling him it was her menstrual blood—are also in a new book to be published this week by a former Gitmo translator.)"

I bolded some key words and phrases to make this point. Isikoff and Barry wrote this with the express intention of asserting that allegation(s) by detainees of Koran flushing have been determined to be true and that there is a specific case file for this incident. Isikoff and Barry are careful to not assert someone has been disciplined but do lead the reader to infer that by surrounding this assertion with other allegations that have been found to have some merit and cases where some discipline has been meted out. Isikoff and Barry skated back and forth across the line between assertion with substantiated backup and not so vague implication of equal status for allegations without it.

That Reuter's article in no way vindicates the Koran flushing part of the Periscope ditty, or Newsweek's actions vis-a-vis their ethicial standards/code of conduct, and I'll include their retraction in that. We already knew of this Koran flushing allegation. It was not new. Confirmation by investigators that it did occur, as the Periscope ditty asserts/implies, would have been new, and news. But their only basis was an unnamed government source that has since retracted that basis. Newsweek, while not entirely apologetic, has admitted they did not follow their own rules for reporting news. Reuters has neither reported or uncovered information that should make Newsweek feel relieved. In my opinion, the Reuters article has only substantiated the fact that, so far, Newsweek is still wrong.

And, since Newsweek did fail to follow their own rules, they will always be wrong, even if the story turns out to be true.

Update: I hate forgeting some coding. Excerpt is quoted now.

So The Apples Are Sour (10:49): Per this Media Slander post, the detainee who made the original allegation of Koran flushing by guard(s) has now retracted it. But that hasn't stopped the ACLU and their pocket hankie media buddies from trumping up documents that only record the original allegations while ignoring contrary information.

And let me be clear. When you report news you are suppose to report facts, not plausibilities, probabilities, or possibilities. That stuff is reserved for people who write analysis articles, opinion columns, and, unfortunately, the all too common substitute for newswriting by media hacks -- the 'I'm making a difference stories' and 'snatch and catch' trolling, like Isikoff and Barry's cute little ditty.

As for the ACLU, well, when have inconvenient facts gotten in the way when they're trying cases in the media.

Linda Foley has excused her remarks on May 13 at the 2005 National Conference on Media Reform where she accused the US Military of targeting and killing journalists in Iraq. Ms. Foley has said it was taken out of context and that it was an aside. (For reference, I've posted a transcript of this speech, here.)

The context had been clear, the words are the words, but it may be that Ms. Foley meant the context of media consolidation, which was the topic of the conference. However, the substance of her talk centered on the continuing and growing repression of journalists' ability to do the story, to make a difference. Clearly, her remarks were not outside her overall intention to speak of the problems journalists have in the era of media consolidation.

So, how about her excuse that it was an aside? There are two types of asides as best I understand the term being used. One is an off topic aside, often a tangent and one that is spur of the moment and not originally planned. The other is an aside not meant to be heard by others. This latter meaning of aside is the one often used in theater, where the actor speaks but not to the audience the actor wants to shield the spoken words from.

So, which meaning of aside did Ms. Foley intend? Maybe we should take into consideration her speech at a Conference on Media Consolidation held at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on 11 May, 2005, just two days before she made her more detailed and now more widely publicized, remarks in St. Louis at the 2005 National Conference on Media Reform.

In this earlier speech, Ms. Foley's again had a similar but somewhat less detailed accusation on physical targeting but a much more specific example of targeting with criticism. Here is a transcript of her remarks on targeting:

"And then, finally, this notion, and we heard a little about this last night of targeting journalists, um, both physically, in places like Iraq, where a record number of journalists have been killed, um, 63, I think, was the last count."

"Um, or, um, or even in this country, where there's always, no matter what the story is, if the story is about, um, about George W. Bush, ah, not serving in the National Guard, ah, or missing out on his Guard Service, ah, during Vietnam, ah, and then it turns around, they, they blame the media and all of a sudden, blaming the media and blaming Dan Rather and finding, ah, and looking for mistakes that Dan Rather made, becomes the story."

"So, the journalist, instead of George Bush's service, becomes the target. Ah, there is a blame the media, meaning blame the reporters, ah, feeling in this country that we need to change. You can't keep targeting reporters and news people and expect them to do their jobs in a way that is conducive to public discourse."

(Jackson's Junction should have now has the audio clip of Ms Foley's remarks at this conference. soon. :-o For the record, the original audio of Linda Foley's speech is available, at this time, anyway, at Podcast Directory and can be downloaded by clicking the entry "Conference Coverage: Orville Schell, Linda Foley, Danny Goldberg, and Seymour Hersh". Be careful because there is an error in the description for the DL just above this one which also notes her name but which is incorrect. Anyway, her turn at the microphone begins at 17:00 and the above remarks begin at 28:47 and end around 30:01 on the mp3 file.)

So, this was not unfortunate tangent Ms. Foley got off on. It was a planned part of the speech at both occasions. One difference that is noticeable is that the Conference at UIUC was free and the public was invited to attend this event, whereas the Conference in St. Louis was not. Here are a few of the FAQ's regarding the conference at the Free Press website:

"Who should attend the conference?
The conference is for anybody who wants to be involved in efforts to reform our media. Activists, policy makers, journalists and other media workers, scholars, students, artists, and concerned citizens will all find opportunities to learn, share, network, and engage at the conference.

What are the registration fees?
The regular registration rate is $185, with a reduced rate of $85 available for students, seniors, and lower-income activists. When you register, you can also become a member of the Free Press Action Fund for only an additional $10. Discounted early-bird registration rates ended March 31.

I can't afford to attend the conference. Is financial assistance available?
The deadline for scholarship applications was March 15. If you were not able to submit a scholarship application before deadline, please consider other options for raising funds for your attendance, including through sources such as community foundations or your organization, university, union, or faith group.

Note that we are accepting work exchange applications for individuals who would like to volunteer their time at the event in exchange for a registration fee waiver. You can also reduce your attendance costs by sharing rides and/or hotel rooms using the SpaceShare service"

Maybe Ms. Foley intended her extended and more detailed, unsubstantiated assertions at the St. Louis Conference to be the type of aside she expected only a select few would hear -- the choir.

I find it ironic that much of what Ms. Foley speaks about on both days, revolves around journalistic credibility and ethics with her complaint being journalists don't seem to have much any more.

Update: Jackson's Junction has it up now, here. And give him a hand 'cause it was an ornery sucker to clip. A big tip of the hat from me for all the work Trey put in. (I've update the original, above, too.)

Update II: Welcome JJ viewers. In addition to the my post with the 13 May transcript of Ms. Foley that I linked above, my original rant is here and my rant about some colleaques of Ms. Foley's that have done this is here.

Correction: Added a "not" (in bold) where one should have been. Now the phrase makes sense.

Linda Foley Related Posts:
(Reverse Chronological Order)

Looking Ahead: Military in the Cross-Hairs
"Media credibility is in the toilet, even if the Koran isn't."
Linda Foley's Context and Asides - A Comparison
Still Holding To "Context" But. Where's "Aside"?
More of Linda Foley's Talk
Journalist as Provocateurs
Linda Foley, Provocateur

I enjoyed it. Thanks, Myrtus. While your're there, mosey around. It's a really nice site with lots of things to see, like here or here.

But if you didn't get enough of cowboys, then this is place for you.

From the Chicago Sun-Times (ht: Instapundit):

Candice Johnson, a spokeswoman for the Guild's parent union, the Communications Workers of America, said the comments, made at the National Conference for Media Reform, should be taken in context.

"Foley's remarks were a small part of a much larger discussion about the problems of conglomerate media ownership," Johnson said.

Is it possible tomorrow will be even more interesting? One can plan and hope, can't one? :-)

Linda Foley Related Posts:
(Reverse Chronological Order)

Looking Ahead: Military in the Cross-Hairs
"Media credibility is in the toilet, even if the Koran isn't."
Linda Foley's Context and Asides - A Comparison
Still Holding To "Context" But. Where's "Aside"?
More of Linda Foley's Talk
Journalist as Provocateurs
Linda Foley, Provocateur

Viking Pundit posted a round-up of reaction to the filibuster compromise Monday night and tacked on his comments. I posted this comment there shortly after midnight:

Here's my quick reaction. The big problem I see is basing a compromise agreement the hard fact promise of not nuking the filibuster for a squishy fact of what is the definition of extreme. In that sense, the Dem's come out favorably, particularly since anyone of them or their cattle-herding fringe groups scream "Extremist!" at the drop of a tinfoil hat.

So, much depends on whether the Republicans bother to frame the agreement to offset this imbalance. If Owens, Brown and Pryor are getting a vote and, better, if they all get a thumbs up, then Repubs need to note the confirmation of mainstream nominees -- nominees that did not violate this agreement. This forces the Dem's to let the standard be moved for measuring what the definition of "extreme" is in the future. (Really, were there any on the list more 'extreme' to the Dems than Brown or Pryor?)

Anyway, this might allow for easier sailing for those remaining and, again for any of the current crop which might be on list for potential SC associate justice slots.

Lo and behold here's a Mickey Kaus PPS about the same time early that morning.:

P.P.S.: One question is whether the Dems can yell "extraordinary" and filibuster if Bush in the future names to the Supreme Court one of the three people (Owen, Brown, Pryor) the Dem "moderates" have just agreed not to filibuster for lower federal courts. My reading of the deal is that they can, especially if they are able to latch onto something one of the three writes between now and then. But Republicans would find it easier to yell "bad faith" for these three than for other nominees. If the Democrats have just given Janice Rogers Brown a free pass to the Supreme Court, maybe the deal isn't as favorable to them as I think it is. ...

Mr. Kaus is right that the Dems could yell, but really, the Dems have spent, what 3+ years, digging, arranging and outfitting a permanent foxhole in this battle. And, now they have abandoned it with their weapons but have left all the ammo for the Repubs to use and their standard to put a new flag on. On top of that, they have retreated to lower ground just so they can fight the most important battle with the worst of everything going for them and no standard to hold or flag to wave it from.

The folks in the Democratic Party have no strategists. Strident activists they are, but not strategists. While they were always in a weak position, they had a firm level ground to defend and a standard to rally to. If they had any chance of winning at any level, it was here.

The Repubs now have those, too, and opportunity to overrun any new Dem position at the time of their choosing, with a "moderate" nominee standard for three potential SCAJ's, the ammo of these folks were okay before and don't violate the Compromise Conventions and, finally, a "Constitutional Option" weapon in reserve if the fight gets downright dirty.

See this? It the world's smallest violin.

... I'd have to post this whole thing from Silflay Hraka. Read 'Adventures in Journalism: The Mythic "Blue Hummingbird"'. (ht: Instapundit)

LGF has the video of Newsweek’s Washington Bureau Chief Daniel Klaidman, on Al Jazeera hiding, in way too many words, the retraction they made last week for the now known to be unsubstantiated assertion the US military flush a Koran down a toilet at Gitmo.

LGF has an excerpt of what Klaidman said. I can't imagine how much worse that rambling pile of words that passed Klaidman's lips is to understand once it got translated into Arabic.

Now that I think about it, the thought process prompted that emanation of ambiguity from Klaidman is as convoluted as the original Periscope article.

When it comes down to it, these folks just shouldn't be journalists. But they would be perfect for jobs at the CIA encrypting messages using plain English.

In the Bullpen has posted on two stories regarding Iraq. One links to a report by Hammorabi that the recent engagements in Qaim netted dozens of Syrians, many who have confessed to being Syrian military and in Iraq training insurgents. The later post notes that Syria has cut off coordination and intelligence sharing with the US, ostensibly because we've been brow beating them too much.

Chapomatic posts on Clifford May's article about the ICRC's tendency to be a Janus when it comes to confidentiality -- when it suits their purposes. Guess who's likely to get beaten with one end of that stick and who gets defended with the other. Follow the links.

Viking Pundit had a post I linked to from here on Thursday which reported that Robert Mugabe was now asking for food aid to avert a famine in Zimbabwe. Then Eric posted on a report that Mugabe is pleading for inviting white farmers to come back to save his bankrupt policies and, by extension, his job. I didn't get a chance to link to that but it did spur me to emphasize regions where oppression or freedom is still dreamed about and life is not about enjoying oneself but is about just staying alive.

The country which was formerly the breadbasket of Africa is now just a basket case.

Gateway has a long post today on the situation in Zimbabwe, which covers the deteriorating situation with the amazing news that Mugabe is arresting street vendors by the thousands even as the "UN is sending representatives to assess the food supply situation."

This follows the devaluation of the currency last week by almost a third, as reported in African Tears in her letter of 21 May. So, locally produced food is scarce or next to nonexistent while any imported commercially will now be even more expensive. It is a terrible situation. As Instapundit notes, "It's the Cambodia of Africa" but, I might add , without a reeducation plan.

Stop by Cathy's African Tears site and read her summary of the ecological disaster, that is also taking place as the thugs in control rape the country and everyone else scrambles to survive (which also includes the report of the currency devaluation.)

And if you read through This is Zimbabwe, you can see that aspects of life in every sector are breaking down -- blood supply; farm invasions were continuing as recently as the beginning of the May; getting gas is becoming an occupation in itself; and when it's available, former soldiers from Mugabe's army think they are more deserving than others.

It's Monday and that means left sidebar update time. Not that the former guarantees the letter, but the intentions are there. With some late night work after a grueling weekend, the two do coincide this Monday.

I found shelf space for the sites on my desk (which I hope are in their appropriate place) which allowed me a place on the desk for those stacked on my stairs. That, however, doesn't mean there's no need to step gingerly to get to the attic as there's always more to stack there.

My stack this week is primarily foreign or foreign oriented and, in honor of the inestimably decent motives of Ms. Linda K. Foley to expose wrongs; seek freedom for the downtrodden; and social justice for the underdogs of society (not to mention a host of others which I'll get to in a later post), the group this week is geared towards those sites with the same motives but with one distinct difference, namely that they don't idly toss out unsubstantiated accusations in an effort to get their own way, call opinion, truth or try to hide it as fact, and act in a weasily manner when called on it. In other words, they have an abiding quality -- they are honest.

But before I mark new limits for tangents and without further adieu, there's Babalu Blog, who's been ripping the bearded one, aka, "my bitch" and his small band of brothers (and wannabes) for quite some time now (not to mention covering all things Cuban.) Also from the neck of the woods to his south, there's Barrio Flores, Ciao! and MABB, who've all been doing a great job of bringing the life and times of Bolivia to your fingerclicks and recording events as Bolivians seek liberty and equality even as they work for the opportunities needed to climb out of poverty. All are great reads.

Hopping over to areas where an almost insatiable darkness swallows any small light of freedom, there's two that work to have candles delivered -- The Passion of the Present and Sudan Watch. Further south, This is Zimbabwe (aka Sokwanele) tells of the everyday life in a place where thugs own the government and, having rode to power on the tidal calls for social justice, have substituted their own brand of tyranny and greed, one that is even more distructive and cruel, laying waste to all they touch.

Do what you can to keep their words read by and reported to as wide an audience as possible.

In that vein, The Head Heeb is one who has been writing on these issues and others in the region, or wherever his eyes rove, for a long time, and don't I wish I had been reading him for that long. A great site and well worth frequenting. Lastly there is another, Commentary, which posts today on a quote marking the reason they're stacked on the stairs today with these others and are doing what they can to "make a difference."

If you want to follow the burgeoning efforts for freedom in the sometimes see-saw battle with local tyrannies, one great place is Gateway Pundit. He puts out an amazing amount of information and I sometimes wonder if he sleeps.

Back on the home front and that rather self-righteous agent for social justice with overabundance of opinion that journalists can act with impunity as they seek to make a difference, speak truth to power and accomplish the goals they set out for themselves, though not always in overt ways. Junk Yard Blog was the first I saw to post a link exposing to the wider audience of the net Ms Foley's Freudian slip. A host of others caught wind of the event and followed with their own reports and opinions; Scared Monkeys is one who did, reporting and linking this time but more often than not posting on events with a great and often biting wit. They were also kind enough to blogroll me as a result of the tiny contribution I made to Jackson's Junction's dumping on the net a fuller video of the self-righteous, self-absorbed socialist opening her big mouth (which, by the way, they have done this on many other occasions with many others events while providing a sprinkling of their own useful insights and opinions. But I'm off on a tangent, again. Sorry.) Bookmark and blogroll them, if you haven't already.

I'm just sorry I can't load more sites in a batch but the stairs have only so many steps and it takes me freakin' forever to do the intros!

But there's two last sites that are long past due to be cubbyholed on the left sidebar for they have been buried (organize better, you fool -ed.) among my personal bookmarks for a long time -- Kaus Files and Eject! Eject! Eject!. Kaus Files is among the top tier of those who convey so much in so few words and he always seems to be out front in getting the skinny. Eject!(x3) does so much, and well, in providing in depth looks on a variety of subjects.

Okay, I'm done fawning and ingratiating myself to my betters for another week.