Lawmakers call for trade commission to investigate Facebook

I suspected as much from all social networks and online sites.

(Hill) Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) on Wednesday called for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Facebook's practice of tracking users even after they log out of its site. (IHatetheMedia) ...Zuckerberg is a spying little weasel. Too bad someone doesn’t kick his weaselly ass. (Daily Mail) ...when you sign up to Facebook it automatically puts files known as ‘cookies’ on your computer which monitor your browsing history. Some cookies remain on your computer after you log out, and report back when you visit a site connected to Facebook. This covers millions of websites and refers to anything with a Facebook ‘like’ or ‘recommend’ button on it. This covers millions of websites worldwide and refers to anything with a Facebook ‘like’ or ‘recommend’ button on it. Monitoring all: Facebook founder and chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg The data that is sent back is the IP address, or unique identifier of your computer, and a log of what you have been viewing. Mr Cubrilovic wrote: ‘Even if you are logged out, Facebook still knows and can track every page you visit. ‘The only solution is to delete every Facebook cookie in your browser, or to use a separate (web) browser for Facebook interactions. ‘This is not what ‘logout’ is supposed to mean’. The admission is the latest in a series of privacy blunders from Facebook, which has a record of only correcting such matters when they are brought to light by other people... (MORE PAIN)(Pretty Much Everything Related To You And Facebook Is Recorded In Your Facebook Permanent Record | Techdirt)Thanks to European data privacy rules, some folks have successfully requested and received a detailed list of all the data that Facebook has kept about them. They've released a redacted version of the document for one person, which comes in at a hefty 880 pages. To be honest, nothing in this is all that surprising, but it does highlight just how much data Facebook ends up with and that it appears to not delete very much, if anything, ever. The parts that seemed a bit questionable to me were things like recording every computer from which you'd ever logged in... as well as a list of all other Facebook people who have logged in from that same machine. I'm assuming they use this for security/anti-phishing, but it's still a bit creepy to keep all that information. The other part that's a bit strange is that Facebook keeps deleted messages. That's a bit more troubling, since most people expect that when they delete things, they're really deleted. Still, while a lot of people may make a big deal out of this, it still doesn't seem particularly surprising or really bad. At best it's just a reminder of how much info you're giving out, and that Facebook is hanging onto... forever. Perhaps your "permanent record" is becoming a real thing. (MORE PAIN)

The Tragedy of John Mearsheimer

(American Power) Gilad Atzmon, whose book Mearsheimer blurbed, is a despicable and ugly Hitler apologist and Holocaust denier. What's also particularly disturbing is that Professor Stephen Walt joined the debate to explicitly defend Mearsheimer against the allegations of anti-Semitism.

Related: The title at Goldberg's entry is not subtle: "John Mearsheimer Endorses a Hitler Apologist and Holocaust Revisionist." David Bernstein, at Volokh, "A Challenge to John Mearsheimer", Bernstein links to Pejman Yousefzadeh, and here's another from Pejman that's vital: "John Mearsheimer Further Beclowns Self. Film at Eleven.", And here's this from David Rothkopf, "Mearsheimer picks a winner: Finally, a revealing book jacket blurb", Rothkopf's reference is the the post by Mearsheimer at Stephen Walt's blog at Foreign Policy, "Mearsheimer responds to Goldberg's latest smear.", this Harry's Place entry is probably the most precise examination of Gilad Atzmon's anti-Semitism: "Mearsheimer and Walt defend antisemite who thinks Hitler will be proved right."

Al Qaeda to Iran: Stop Spreading 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

A shocker from the liberal media!

(abc) The terror group al Qaeda has found itself curiously in agreement with the "Great Satan" -- which it calls the U.S. -- in issuing a stern message to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: stop spreading 9/11 conspiracy theories.
In the latest issue of the al Qaeda English-language magazine "Inspire", an author appears to take offense to the "ridiculous" theory repeatedly spread by Ahmadinejad that the 9/11 terror attacks were actually carried out by the U.S. government in order to provide a pretext to invade the Middle East.
"The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al Qaeda was behind 9/11 but rather, the U.S. government," an article reads. "So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?"
Though Iran was the first of the two to use the "Great Satan" as a synonym for the U.S., the author claims that Iran sees itself as a rival for al Qaeda when it comes to anti-Americanism and was jealous of the 9/11 attacks.

"For them, al Qaeda was a competitor for the hearts and minds of the disenfranchised Muslims around the world," the article says. "Al Qaeda... succeeded in what Iran couldn't. Therefore it was necessary for the Iranians to discredit 9/11 and what better way to do so? Conspiracy theories."

Iran continues to spread the conspiracy theory, al Qaeda says, because doing otherwise would expose their "lip-service jihad" against the U.S.
The magazine also includes a short article allegedly written by al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden before his death at the hands of U.S. Navy SEALs in early May in which bin Laden advises his fighters not to let American soldiers "become great in your eyes."
Apparently looking to bolster their ranks of the "Inspire" news desk, al Qaeda included at the end of the magazine a solicitation for contributors to the magazine "with any skills – be it writing, research, editing, or advice."

Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on 9/11

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. was behind the 9/11 terror attacks, recently during the somber observance of the tenth anniversary of those attacks and then again in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly last week. That speech triggered a walk-out by the U.S. and several other delegations.
Ahmadinejad's UN Speech Triggers US Walkout

Obama Scolds Hispanic Roundtable: Stop Complainin’

What Obama should say to Latin America is that the U.S.A. will reform it's immigration laws when they do. I really don't get this hypocrisy. A Democratic Republic's very definition is to have borders to protect from arbitrary jurisdiction which is tyranny.

(Weaselzippers.us) They have no reason to complain, Obama flaunted his power and granted de facto amnesty to millions of illegals.

(Politico) — President Barack Obama showed some frustration Wednesday as he responded to questions about stalled immigration reform, chiding a Hispanic roundtable that “we live in a democracy.”
“This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is not true,” Obama told Hispanic journalists at an “Open for Questions” White House roundtable. “The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books I have to enforce. And there is a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and comprehensive immigration reform passed by perpetuating the notion that somehow by myself I can just go and do these things.” Obama’s brief moment of pique highlights his struggle to maintain Hispanic support amid disappointment over his failure to push immigration reform aggressively and the inability of Democratic lawmakers to pass the DREAM Act through Congress. The act would offer a path to citizenship for some young illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. Just 48 percent of Hispanics approve of the job Obama is doing, down from 60 percent in January, according to Gallup. Hispanics, meanwhile, comprise potentially decisive voting blocks in key 2012 states including Colorado, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico.

Solyndra Executives Wrongly Claim Fifth Amendment at House Hearing

(CSPAN) Executives from the solar power company Solyndra were on Capitol Hill today to testify in front of a House Energy Committee. CEO Brian Higgins and Chief Financial Officer Bill Stover invoked their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent anddid not answer any questions asked by the members of the committee. Solyndra got more than $535 million in loan guarantees from the federal government, and President Obama visited the company's factory in Fremont, California, to express support for their efforts to create "green" jobs. Solyndra filed for bankruptcy and laid off over 1,000 workers at the end of August. The FBI later raided their headquarters. A criminal investigation is currently underway into whether Solyndra misled the government about its financial situation in order to receive a refinancing loan earlier this year.

Misusing the Fifth Amendment at the Solyndra Hearing:

(National Review) Waxman’s assertion that it was inappropriate for members to continue asking questions is... legally incorrect. The Solyndra executives sought to use the Fifth Amendment as a broad shield to refuse answering any questions. However, the Fifth doesn’t work that way.

You can use the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions designed to criminalize, but not political questions in a political forum. Subcommittee members MUST establish whether they were properly invoking the privilege or misusing it as an over broad shield to avoid answering non-incriminating, but politically embarrassing questions.

(National Review) Rep. Diana DeGette (D., Colo.) unwittingly confirmed this misuse when she accused the Republicans on the Subcommittee of  “a cheap gimmick to lob out political questions designed for press and not to actually get to the bottom of an investigation.”

Saudis Afraid to Say Their Mother's Maiden Name In Fear of Offending Their Mother's Honor

(memri.org) I wonder how much of the rest of the world we just did not understand because to the rest of the world a woman's identity is to be protected. The so called liberal feminist need to protect women and their reputation... where does it come from? Not as progressive as progressives like to think.