I'm a typical dkos reader, in many respects - I'm in my mid-thirties, single and a working person ever since I graduated college in the mid-eighties. I earned an Associate-in-Arts degree at that time, but financial pressures and the ambitions every twenty-something feels drew me into the corporate world. Although I found a very rewarding and enjoyable career in software (I'm a project manager),  it never provided the intellectual challenge, and the thrill of a new discovery that academia always had for me.

About three years ago, my career had stabilized enough (and my work had become routine enough), to the point where I actively began considering a return to college. I wanted to complete my Bachelor's Degree and perhaps continue on with Graduate-level study. I'd always handled tests and essays well, so I had a lot of confidence that I would pass the admissions tests. I'd tested at high levels when I'd been in school the first time so I knew I could handle the intellectual challenge. I'd always done well in groups and knew I'd be able to handle the culture shock of returning to the 'Ivory Tower' of The Big University.

What I wasn't so sure about was whether I could afford it.

Ever since the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity by Robert Novak in 2003, there has been a tremendous spin game underway, with defenders and critics of the administration warring over nearly every detail of the case. While Patrick Fitzgerald's prosecution team has been extremely tight-lipped in general, more and more information has emerged about the case as the grand jury investigation has continued.

Just this week, in the aftermath of the release of a formerly-secret legal opinion by a judge regarding the Miller testimony, there have been two very important news stories - one that declared Fitzgerald stated Plame was covert as per the IIPA, and one that attempts to take the wind out of that argument. Where is the spin, and where is the fact?

Join me over the flip for the two articles, and their arguments.

My first diary.

In an article in today's "What's Next" section of the New York Times, a new plan was detailed to set up microphones on public streetcorners, for ballistics analysis in case of gun crime. The article doesn't address any personal privacy or public surveillance concerns.

This issue offends me on a few levels, so I'll go thru it one-by-one after the bump. Thanks for your patience, and most of all for your comments...