The Huffington Post is very fortunate to have Dan F. Perhaps he may choose to suggest a little more seriousness and a little less tabloid celebrity information in the Post. [The site could also use a better Web interface - perhaps called for in celebration of the arrival of Dan Froomkin]?

This huffington post headline, with the picture below it, conclusively proves there was nothing innately "Muslim" about rioting in Urumqi.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/world/

The more permanent link will be

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/07/china-riots-west-descends_n_226785.html

Oh, and raise your hands if you knew that Austin Heap is looking for donations for HayStack, a new software tool that helps people in Iran foil government filters. Hopefully even so, people know there will be a protest in Washington Thursday? No? Did the CIA filter out your news or something? Poor Baby. I bet you still think Joe Biden was giving Israel a green light.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/07/iran-uprising-blogging-tu_n_226820.html

Huffpo isn't my favorite site, possibly because they need to have a mainstream paper and ink layout artist explain why newspapers have worked for centuries (their front page is a mess). But people carve out niches there that have information that is unique, and I'm sure Dan Froomkin will do likewise. I am getting better at finding things there, I know which authors homepages will crash my computer trying to push too many gigabytes of information. Their search engine works sort of, if you get inspiration from a god or muse about what to query on.

Okay, it's a disorganized mess. But you can find things if you want to.

I didn't think of it that way and will keep that in mind in the future. I thought I was addressing everyone and that I was hitchhiking on your previous post.

RMP - different strokes and all that. I'll keep the hitchhiking thing in mind.

ondelette - point taken. I know there's value there, I just haven't been inspired to make the necessary searches because I can find things other places (usually linked here, your contribution as example).

I guess I just mosey the intertoobz in a different manner.

As someone once told me here (Associative Individualist, I believe), no ham, no fowl. ;-}

Glenn writes:

there are also potential sources of tension. As a practitioner of what he calls "accountability journalism" -- "explaining how Washington works; pulling no punches" -- Froomkin has been a vehement critic of the Obama administration for the last several months, while The Huffington Post frequently trumpeted (some might say "cheerleading") the Obama campaign and even his presidency (though it has become mildly more critical of Obama in recent months; its screaming, red headline today: "White House May Cave on Public Option"). Will Froomkin's harsh criticisms of Obama alienate an Obama-loving HuffPost readership?

Certainly there has been a degree of uncritical Obama worship at HuffPo, as we've seen at other sites like DKos, so it is all the more important that we have Froomkin's voice in that milieu. It is the people who think that Obama is the messiah that need to be exposed to rational and relentless critiques of his many Bushlike behaviors. His base must voice their strong objections to his actions, or he will continue to blithely ignore them.

Anonymust, thanks for the tip. I think I will use that email feature. Like others here, I don't like HuffPo's design at all. And it is very slow loading on my older laptop.

omooex, I can view the IP and email address, so I am just going to assume the writer was having a bad day and let's forget about it, OK?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124699680303307309.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

or linky @ sig

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration said Tuesday it may continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission.

GMTA

Grope My Tiny Ass?

http://www.acronymfinder.com/Great-Minds-Think-Alike-%28GMTA%29.html

or sig for linky

A Republican co-sponsor of Bernie Sanders's companion bill (S. 604) to Ron Paul's House legislation mandating a GAO audit of the Federal Reserve succeeded in offering the bill as an amendment to the Legislative Appropriations Act Monday. Over the recess, however, strings had apparently been pulled [remember that Harry Reid ensures that the Senate majority exists to do the bidding of the President/Prime Minister - via secret solicitation/acceptance of Executive Branch dictates - in flagrant breach of the Constitution's separation of powers].

Thus, this is what happened yesterday:

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I have another amendment I have been informed the majority plans to block consideration of, which is No. 1367 regarding transparency at the Federal Reserve. I wish nonetheless to take a few moments to discuss it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DeMINT. The unelected central bank of the United States, the Federal Reserve, enjoys a monopoly over the flow of our money and credit but has never been completely transparent and accountable to Congress since its creation in 1913. Since 1913, our dollar has lost more than 95 percent of its purchasing power. My amendment is called the Federal Reserve sunshine amendment. It is modeled after legislation sponsored by Representative Ron Paul of Texas in the House and our colleague Senator Sanders of Vermont in the Senate. This amendment amends section 714 of title 31 of the United States Code to remove existing restrictions on how the Government Accountability Office can audit the Federal Reserve. With these limitations gone, the Fed's discount window operation, funding facilities, open market operations, and agreements with foreign central banks and governments would all be finally open to congressional oversight. The Government Accountability Office would be required to audit the Fed by the end of 2010 and to report its findings to Congress.

Unfortunately, the majority has decided to use a procedural tactic to block a vote on this amendment by invoking something called rule XVI. This is a rule that prevents policy being added to spending bills. The majority claims we do not legislate on appropriations bills. Of course, that is false. In fact, there are already rule XVI violations in the bill we are trying to amend. We saw this majority airdrop the cash for clunkers program into the recent supplemental appropriations bill.

The majority may claim this amendment is not relevant to the underlying bill, but in fact there are already provisions in this bill related to Government Accountability Office audits, so this language is quite appropriate on this bill. The legislation has already received the support of more than one-half of the House of Representatives within a few short months of its introduction. It is time for the Senate to show its support.

I ask the majority leader again to allow a vote on amendment 1367 regarding a GAO audit of the Federal Reserve.

I call up amendment 1367.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.

[...snip of text of bill...]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I make a point of order against the DeMint amendment that it is legislation on appropriations.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken. The amendment falls.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I regret the objection. Since the other side is arguing that rule XVI applies here, my amendment contains language to an existing GAO audit of the Federal Reserve. Because it is legislative in nature--in other words, because it actually addresses the audit itself and not just the funds for the General Accountability Office--they say it is out of order. I have a parliamentary inquiry: Is the language in section 1501(b) dealing with an existing GAO audit of the National Transportation Safety Board legislative?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair. Does it violate rule XVI?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It does.

Mr. DeMINT. So the Democrats are suggesting that it is somehow illegitimate for me to offer an amendment dealing with an existing GAO audit when they themselves have included language dealing with other audits that flatly violates rule XVI.

Further parliamentary inquiry: Is the language in section 1501(c) regarding a GAO audit of local educational agency spending legislative in nature and in violation of rule XVI?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair. What about section 1501(d) which repeals a GAO audit of the small business participation in the Alaska national pipeline; is that legislative in nature and does it violate rule XVI?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I have a long list here for which I understand from the Parliamentarian the answers will continue to be yes. We have several provisions, obviously, dealing with the GAO and GAO audits in this bill. The other side cannot stand behind a rule they have flagrantly violated themselves.

[...etc., etc...]

I think I have made my point, and I will not take this any further. Clearly, there is a double standard.

One of the most sought after amendments we have probably brought up in the House and the Senate since I have been here is an audit of the Federal Reserve. Everywhere I went last week people were thanking me for finally looking at what the Federal Reserve was doing and trying to let the American people know what is happening.

This is an audit that has broad support, and I would encourage my colleagues on the Democratic side to allow this amendment to be voted on. But, apparently, the other side has decided to challenge it with rule XVI, which they do not apply to their own language.

But as I said, Madam President, I have probably said enough and I thank you for your indulgence.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&page=S7124&position=all

Goldman Sachs and its Party campaign contributions, with the help of private servants in the White House, quietly wins another round.