So, Google is integrating its websites more. As a result, some privacy settings will apply network-wide, and one site will be able to use data from another site. People are flipping out, naturally. People have been giving Google this data for ages. People have known that Google was watching them, and yet they chose to keep using Google and in fact use one account for many Google services.

Note that the new policy changes nothing about what Google already knew about you. It just changes what certain Google sites will use about you. As Marsha Blackburn and other members of Congress begin to look into it though, Google isn’t helping its case by pleading that it’s alright because certain users are excluded, which just furthers the premise that there’s something wrong with it.

But ultimately, you’re in control of what you do online. Personal responsibility: it’s not just for breakfast anymore.

I feel vindicated though in having about a dozen Google accounts for the limited times I had use for their services, usual in the course of helping somebody else. Different accounts for different uses and different sites. It was never hard. You just had to do it. Oh, and not use their email.

Read More →

So, Google is integrating its websites more. As a result, some privacy settings will apply network-wide, and one site will be able to use data from another site. People are flipping out, naturally. People have been giving Google this data for ages. People have known that Google was watching them, and yet they chose to keep using Google and in fact use one account for many Google services.

Note that the new policy changes nothing about what Google already knew about you. It just changes what certain Google sites will use about you. As Marsha Blackburn and other members of Congress begin to look into it though, Google isn’t helping its case by pleading that it’s alright because certain users are excluded, which just furthers the premise that there’s something wrong with it.

But ultimately, you’re in control of what you do online. Personal responsibility: it’s not just for breakfast anymore.

I feel vindicated though in having about a dozen Google accounts for the limited times I had use for their services, usual in the course of helping somebody else. Different accounts for different uses and different sites. It was never hard. You just had to do it. Oh, and not use their email.

Read More →

Ezra Klein responds via Twitter. See below.

There’s so much wrong in this column from Ezra Klein’s blog at the Washington Post that it’s hard to know where to begin. Ezra is waxing partisan about the recess appointment of Richard Cordray to be President Obama’s head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, trying desperately to find some justification for this unprecedented flouting of the Constitution. But Master Klein plays too fast and loose with the facts, even for a liberal wunderkind.

Let’s try to take them one at a time.

Read More →

Power Line’s John Hinderaker has done the heavy lifting on a case of journalistic incest by Dan Eggen at the Washington Post.

The Obama mouthpiece Center for American Progress did a hit job on Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS) who happens to represent that part of Kansas in which Koch Industries is located.

The Center for American Progress had one of its employees run against Pompeo and, in all their unsuccessful hit jobs against Pompeo before the November election, failed to mention the conflict of interest.

The attacks have continued as a way to not just hurt Pompeo, but go after Koch Industries.

Dan Eggen, who I think we can deduce is an avid reader of Center for American Progress nonsense, took up the hit job and placed it in the pages of the Washington Post.

Among other things, Eggen tries to portray Mike Pompeo as a pawn of Koch Industries because of its financial contributions to Pompeo’s campaign via the Koch PAC and, when Pompeo was in business, a Koch venture capital firm contributing 2% of the overall money to Pompeo’s business. Eggen wholly ignores, in bringing up the accusation, that Koch Industries is a legitimate constituent of Pompeo’s.

More troubling, Eggen uses as objective sources for his story individuals who actively worked against Pompeo in the 2010 political campaign and are tied to far left interest groups. Eggen never bothers to disclose this.

There are many examples of the media picking up far left attacks and recycling them into “objective” journalistic pieces. This is just another example of the incest between left-wing interest groups and the mainstream media.

John does a fantastic job of breaking it down.

Power Line’s John Hinderaker has done the heavy lifting on a case of journalistic incest by Dan Eggen at the Washington Post.

The Obama mouthpiece Center for American Progress did a hit job on Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS) who happens to represent that part of Kansas in which Koch Industries is located.

The Center for American Progress had one of its employees run against Pompeo and, in all their unsuccessful hit jobs against Pompeo before the November election, failed to mention the conflict of interest.

The attacks have continued as a way to not just hurt Pompeo, but go after Koch Industries.

Dan Eggen, who I think we can deduce is an avid reader of Center for American Progress nonsense, took up the hit job and placed it in the pages of the Washington Post.

Among other things, Eggen tries to portray Mike Pompeo as a pawn of Koch Industries because of its financial contributions to Pompeo’s campaign via the Koch PAC and, when Pompeo was in business, a Koch venture capital firm contributing 2% of the overall money to Pompeo’s business. Eggen wholly ignores, in bringing up the accusation, that Koch Industries is a legitimate constituent of Pompeo’s.

More troubling, Eggen uses as objective sources for his story individuals who actively worked against Pompeo in the 2010 political campaign and are tied to far left interest groups. Eggen never bothers to disclose this.

There are many examples of the media picking up far left attacks and recycling them into “objective” journalistic pieces. This is just another example of the incest between left-wing interest groups and the mainstream media.

John does a fantastic job of breaking it down.

The Washington Post’s leftwing mouthpiece, Greg Sargent, who they ostensibly pay to be an objective reporter is on twitter demanding that unions in Wisconsin get violent to get their way.

In what we can presume is unrelated to Greg Sargent’s call, a Fox News reporter was attacked by union thugs in Wisconsin.

Once I pointed out on Twitter that Sargent was calling for unions to get violent in Wisconsin, Sargent declared he was not promoting violence despite actually writing on twitter:

Dear union thugs: Will you please get violent in Wisconsin already? Pretty please?

Note also that Sargent is calling union members “thugs”.

Read More →

The Washington Post’s leftwing mouthpiece, Greg Sargent, who they ostensibly pay to be an objective reporter is on twitter demanding that unions in Wisconsin get violent to get their way.

In what we can presume is unrelated to Greg Sargent’s call, a Fox News reporter was attacked by union thugs in Wisconsin.

Once I pointed out on Twitter that Sargent was calling for unions to get violent in Wisconsin, Sargent declared he was not promoting violence despite actually writing on twitter:

Dear union thugs: Will you please get violent in Wisconsin already? Pretty please?

Note also that Sargent is calling union members “thugs”.

Read More →

As anyone who has spent any time reading them knows, left-wing bloggers and activists tend to live in a world of their own, in which the most outrageous sorts of allegations against conservatives and Republicans are not required to be supported by any evidence. This is especially true when it comes to accusing conservatives and Republicans of bigotry and other improper motivations; left-wingers feel free to lecture us on how they know better than we do what motivates us and how we think, and leave conservatives and Republicans stuck attempting to disprove a negative.

In theory, the Washington Post is supposed to be a reputable newspaper and above this sort of thing. But Greg Sargent, the former Talking Points Memo blogger and the Post’s current in-house left-wing activist, doesn’t see himself as bound by such mundane considerations as having evidence before slandering an entire movement. Consider this Tweet today from Sargent:

Hah! RT @Redshift4 TP leader compares Tea Party to abolitionism, civil rights, & women’s suffrage. // 3 things they want to reverse

Read More →

As anyone who has spent any time reading them knows, left-wing bloggers and activists tend to live in a world of their own, in which the most outrageous sorts of allegations against conservatives and Republicans are not required to be supported by any evidence. This is especially true when it comes to accusing conservatives and Republicans of bigotry and other improper motivations; left-wingers feel free to lecture us on how they know better than we do what motivates us and how we think, and leave conservatives and Republicans stuck attempting to disprove a negative.

In theory, the Washington Post is supposed to be a reputable newspaper and above this sort of thing. But Greg Sargent, the former Talking Points Memo blogger and the Post’s current in-house left-wing activist, doesn’t see himself as bound by such mundane considerations as having evidence before slandering an entire movement. Consider this Tweet today from Sargent:

Hah! RT @Redshift4 TP leader compares Tea Party to abolitionism, civil rights, & women’s suffrage. // 3 things they want to reverse

Read More →

From Kansas Progress:

Analysis: Chris Cillizza tries way too hard, misses with his pro-Democrat angle on Tuesday’s Pennsylvania race

Chris Cillizza on Tuesday’s special election in Pennyslvania’s 12th Congressional District, where Democrat Mark Critz beat Republican Tim Burns 53% to 46%:

• “House Republicans try to stop bleeding from PA special election loss”
• “House Republicans are trying to quickly pivot away from a devastating loss earlier this week in a Pennsylvania special election”

Yet, later in the same article, Cillizza writes this: “On Thursday, Public Opinion Strategies pollster Gene Ulm, who handled the survey research for the NRCC in the race, sat down with the leadership team of the committee to explain what had happened and why. (Short explanation: Turnout was driven heavily by the primary races, which were on the same day as the special election.)” Which seems to acknowledge this: the extremely-competitive Democratic primary between incumbent Arlen Specter and successful challenger Joe Sestak increased turnout… which would have helped any Democrat in a special election against a Republican on that same day.

Here’s Jay Cost on PA-12:

“Let’s begin with the political demography of the district. In 2004, George W. Bush won 255 congressional districts. PA-12 was not one of them. From 1994 to 2006, the Republicans held the United States House of Representatives, controlling as many as 232 seats. PA-12 was never one of them.”

Click here to read more.

Read More →