Fox News Discusses Climate Change. Insanity Ensues.

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

• Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
• Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
• Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.

Fox News Discusses Climate Change. Insanity Ensues.

Real Reporters Can"t Be Shielded From Real Insanity

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has been working on a bill to shield reporters from heavy-handed federal officials who seek to use their power to uncover information about whistle-blowers and leakers. Given the Obama Department of Justice’s recent adventures in surveilling reporters’ phone logs, you might think that for her trouble, Feinstein would be the object of much praise and many hosannas from the ink-stained-wretch community. But no, you can file this one under: No good deed goes unpunished.

DiFi, you see, made the mistake of insisting that a proposed reporters’ privilege law, the Free Flow of Information Act, apply only to journalists. At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, she distinguished between professional journalists and “a 17-year-old who drops out of high school, buys a website for $ 5 and starts a blog.” Quoth Feinstein: “This bill is described as a reporter shield bill. I believe it should be applied to real reporters.”

Big mistake, that “real reporters” line. Columns and blogs rained down the wrath of the overwrought. The far-left Truthout accused Feinstein of wanting “to strip independent journalists’ rights.” Drudge Report founder Matt Drudge tweeted “fascist.”

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, complained the measure “leaves out citizen bloggers.” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, charged, “Any carve-out of particular media for protection and special treatment is, in effect, government licensing of legitimate media.”

Nice try, but because the law is designed to protect journalists from federal snooping and because journalists aren’t licensed or certified, Feinstein is right to maintain that a shield law should define who qualifies for protection as a journalist.

“To me, there’s not really a need to define the world of journalism,” David Greene, senior staff attorney of the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, told me. A shield law, Greene argued, is designed not to

“protect journalists” but to protect the dissemination of information.

But then a terrorist group can — wink, wink — (SET ITAL) report on (END ITAL) and broadcast a violent attack for the purpose of intimidation and then claim the mantle of reportage.

Likewise, an anarchist could broadcast classified information just for the fun of it.

Does EFF think WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is a journalist? To that question, Greene responded, EFF has no opinion.

What really frosts me is how many journalists and journalism organizations rejected Feinstein’s belief in “real reporters.” It’s a throwback to 2007, when the San Francisco Chronicle and other news organs called blogger Josh Wolf, then 24, “the longest-imprisoned journalist” in America.

Was Wolf imprisoned? Yes. Unjustly? You bet; he didn’t commit a crime. But he wasn’t a journalist.

He was a self-described artist, activist and anarchist who recorded a 2005 demonstration against the World Trade Organization, at which a protester broke the skull of San Francisco police officer Peter Shields. Wolf was not a real reporter; he had no confidential-source agreement. He was an activist and an amateur who later became a real journalist when he was hired by a newspaper and had to adhere to professional standards.

Back to the proposed shield law. The Society of Professional Journalists urged members to protest earlier Feinstein language that defined journalists as “salaried” staffers of news organizations or “independent contractors.” I don’t understand what SPJ leaders were thinking.

Organizations that represent professionals usually try to protect the craft, to set standards that enhance standing in the community, and also, not coincidentally, to help their practice thrive economically.

Journalists? Many have voiced their outrage that Feinstein dared suggest that they’re more polished than a 17-year-old blogger.

SPJ now supports the shield law in part because it includes so-called improvements, such as dumping the compensation requirement. Yes, journalist groups actually pushed for Washington to pass laws that protect competitors who don’t pay their people.

Do you think maybe real reporters have a real death wish? 

RealClearPolitics – Articles

Real Reporters Can"t Be Shielded From Real Insanity

Real Reporters Can"t Be Shielded From Real Insanity

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has been working on a bill to shield reporters from heavy-handed federal officials who seek to use their power to uncover information about whistle-blowers and leakers. Given the Obama Department of Justice’s recent adventures in surveilling reporters’ phone logs, you might think that for her trouble, Feinstein would be the object of much praise and many hosannas from the ink-stained-wretch community. But no, you can file this one under: No good deed goes unpunished.

DiFi, you see, made the mistake of insisting that a proposed reporters’ privilege law, the Free Flow of Information Act, apply only to journalists. At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, she distinguished between professional journalists and “a 17-year-old who drops out of high school, buys a website for $ 5 and starts a blog.” Quoth Feinstein: “This bill is described as a reporter shield bill. I believe it should be applied to real reporters.”

Big mistake, that “real reporters” line. Columns and blogs rained down the wrath of the overwrought. The far-left Truthout accused Feinstein of wanting “to strip independent journalists’ rights.” Drudge Report founder Matt Drudge tweeted “fascist.”

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, complained the measure “leaves out citizen bloggers.” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, charged, “Any carve-out of particular media for protection and special treatment is, in effect, government licensing of legitimate media.”

Nice try, but because the law is designed to protect journalists from federal snooping and because journalists aren’t licensed or certified, Feinstein is right to maintain that a shield law should define who qualifies for protection as a journalist.

“To me, there’s not really a need to define the world of journalism,” David Greene, senior staff attorney of the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, told me. A shield law, Greene argued, is designed not to

“protect journalists” but to protect the dissemination of information.

But then a terrorist group can — wink, wink — (SET ITAL) report on (END ITAL) and broadcast a violent attack for the purpose of intimidation and then claim the mantle of reportage.

Likewise, an anarchist could broadcast classified information just for the fun of it.

Does EFF think WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is a journalist? To that question, Greene responded, EFF has no opinion.

What really frosts me is how many journalists and journalism organizations rejected Feinstein’s belief in “real reporters.” It’s a throwback to 2007, when the San Francisco Chronicle and other news organs called blogger Josh Wolf, then 24, “the longest-imprisoned journalist” in America.

Was Wolf imprisoned? Yes. Unjustly? You bet; he didn’t commit a crime. But he wasn’t a journalist.

He was a self-described artist, activist and anarchist who recorded a 2005 demonstration against the World Trade Organization, at which a protester broke the skull of San Francisco police officer Peter Shields. Wolf was not a real reporter; he had no confidential-source agreement. He was an activist and an amateur who later became a real journalist when he was hired by a newspaper and had to adhere to professional standards.

Back to the proposed shield law. The Society of Professional Journalists urged members to protest earlier Feinstein language that defined journalists as “salaried” staffers of news organizations or “independent contractors.” I don’t understand what SPJ leaders were thinking.

Organizations that represent professionals usually try to protect the craft, to set standards that enhance standing in the community, and also, not coincidentally, to help their practice thrive economically.

Journalists? Many have voiced their outrage that Feinstein dared suggest that they’re more polished than a 17-year-old blogger.

SPJ now supports the shield law in part because it includes so-called improvements, such as dumping the compensation requirement. Yes, journalist groups actually pushed for Washington to pass laws that protect competitors who don’t pay their people.

Do you think maybe real reporters have a real death wish? 

RealClearPolitics – Articles

Real Reporters Can"t Be Shielded From Real Insanity