.
.
.
Hey, this looks great! And terrifying. Great and terrifying! I’m not sure that I should do this, because then the government might have easier access to my search information. But … wouldn’t the government already have easy access to it, even if they’re not supposed to? Maybe so? So why not do it? Living in East Germany is so confusing!
Here’s what we’re talking about: you can now download your entire search history on Google, starting from as close as you can come to the days of dinosaurs as possible. (Note: not all that close, really.) And that’s … wow. They can do that?
Of course they can do that. They’re Google. They are nothing if not hoarders.
From the linked article:
Google is tracking all of your searches and storing them. Forever. And you can access that whole log if you want to.
Google Operating System and the Washington Post surfaced a feature on Monday that’s been around for a while, but that hasn’t gotten a lot of attention. Within Google’s Web & App Activity page is an option to download your entire search history. (It’s in the gear on the upper-right-hand corner.) Google writes, “You can download all of your saved search history to see a list of the terms you’ve searched for. This gives you access to your data when and where you want.”
Wha — wha — how? I thought that my searches on Google were anonymous! Well, they sort of are — unless you use Gmail….
The history only includes searches you’ve done while logged in to Google, but if you keep Gmail open on your computer, that’s probably most of the time. The data downloads as a JSON file, which isn’t really meant for human consumption. But even if you have no idea how to manipulate the file, you can still open it in a plain text reader like TextEdit or Notepad and search for “query_text” to get to the part of the data that shows what you’ve searched on Google.
We are still processing this information. But we are no longer keeping our Gmail tab open.
In other news, we are informed that an exchange took place this week on the Cunningblog between Cunningman and his pal Chumley. It seems to also have involved our frequently censored man on the spot — YES ALRIGHT ALREADY I WILL PUT UP A NEW CENSORTOPIA THREAD THIS WEEKEND, YEESH! — Ryan Cantor.
It started at the end of a post about Sharon Quirk-Silva’s impending rematch with Young “the Bigoted Buttkicker” Kim. Sayeth Matt:
Jon Fleischman writes in BreitbartCA that an initiative to repeal the transgendered bathroom law may very well be on the November 2016 ballot. Quirk-Silva voted for that bill (AB 1266), and Young Kim made opposition to that extreme, exotic position a major plank in her campaign. Letting boys use the girls bathroom may resonate in San Francisco, but it’s out-of-touch with the more common sense attitudes of AD65 residents. It’s one of those issues that tells voters a lot about a candidate’s world view even beyond the issue itself, and having it on the November 2016 ballot would be a reminder to AD65 voters of why they made a change in who represents them in the Assembly. [Emphasis added for reasons that will become clear.]
That led to a series of comments: I’ve added the numbers and the boldfacing, as well as “[sic]” where it looks like speech recognition of autocorrect did some mangling. Comments 14 and 15 appear at the bottom of the page, due to some glitch that seems common to many blogs, ours included. “Comment deletion notices” in brackets are Matt’s.
If you talk with high school kids who have a transgender friend, you’d find them very supportive. The Transgender bathroom bill is akin to “coloreds only” drinking fountains..its bigoted and out of step with the times. If Republicans push this initiative forward, my party will thank you for sending more young voters our way
[2] Ryan Cantor
May 5, 2015 at 11:41 am
For once, Dan, I agree with you.
“Letting boys use the girls bathroom may resonate in San Francisco, but it’s out-of-touch with the more common sense attitudes of AD65 residents.”
This sad little sentence summarizes everything wrong with the Republican Party in Orange County. It’s ignorant and spiteful.
[3] Matthew Cunningham
May 5, 2015 at 5:14 pm
Ryan thinks it is “ignorant and spiteful” to want to reserve the girls bathroom for girls, and the boys bathroom for boys.
Let’s put Ryan in charge of the OC GOP, and he can them apply his political genius to launching a registration drive based on having only unisex bathrooms in public schools. That should send Republican registration through to roof.
[4] Ryan Cantor
May 5, 2015 at 10:43 pm
One day you might get it, Matt. I’m sure today isn’t that day. People who hold opinions like yours are going to kill our party in this county.
A little food for thought: AB1266 reserves boys restrooms for boys and girls restrooms for girls.
I know you’re going to have a really hard time with that, but that’s how the cookie crumbles.
Maybe Dan can explain it to you. Ask him real nice like.
[5] Matthew Cunningham
May 6, 2015 at 4:50 pm
You’re adopting the chimps-throwing-excrement approach to debate, Ryan.
May 7, 2015 at 9:04 am
[Comment deleted due to inability to adhere to civilized conduct.]
[9] Matthew Cunningham
May 7, 2015 at 9:04 am
I know that – I’m impressed you do as well. If you read the bill, you’ll note it refers to “sex” throughout – only referring to “gender” in the line I quoted in my previous comment, which strengthens my point and weakens yours. I have to say, it is disturbing to see your adoption of the smash mouth, just-shout-‘em-down techniques of left-wing culture warriors.
[10] Ryan Cantor
May 7, 2015 at 9:12 am
[Comment deleted due to false and gratuitous character attack.]
[11] Ryan Cantor
May 6, 2015 at 8:23 pm
[Comment deleted due to false and gratuitous character attack.]
I don’t think anyone is arguing that point Ryan. Matt is correct on two things. 1) He’s not a bigot. 2), The language of AB 1266 is correct.
AB 1266, Ammiano. Pupil rights: sex-segregated school programs and activities.
Existing law prohibits public schools from discriminating on the basis of specified characteristics, including gender, gender identity, and gender expression, and specifies various statements of legislative intent and the policies of the state in that regard. Existing law requires that participation in a particular physical education activity or sport, if required of pupils of one sex, be available to pupils of each sex.
This bill would require that a pupil be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.
May 7, 2015 at 9:10 am
“use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”
is not consistent with
“Letting boys use the girls bathroom may resonate in San Francisco” (this bill doesn’t do that and what does San Francisco have to do with anything?)
or
“Ryan thinks it is ‘ignorant and spiteful’ to want to reserve the girls bathroom for girls, and the boys bathroom for boys” (Matt doesn’t want to reserve girls bathrooms for girls and boys bathrooms for boys. He wants to define gender based on 6000 year old definitions.)
AB1266 does not let boys use girls restrooms or vice versa. Your buddy Matt is openly denying facts about gender and sex. He’s doing so to support outdated norms and to support a backhanded slander at residents who happen to live in a specific geographic area of the state.
Glad to hear you’re on the record that denying a core tenant of gender science isn’t a bigoted opinion. Make sure you share that with your liberal buddies.
You have a nice wide open path here to do the right thing and advocate for a position that’s right in your wheel house.
[14] Matthew Cunningham
May 7, 2015 at 9:11 am
Thank you, Dan, for being a civilized human being. While you and I hold opposite views on this bill, we are able to do so respectfully like grown ups, without sinking to gratuitous personal attacks.
[15] Ryan Cantor
May 7, 2015 at 9:13 am
[Comment deleted due to false and gratuitous character attack.]
[16] Matthew Cunningham
May 7, 2015 at 9:48 am
I wasn’t aware human nature had an expiration date, Ryan. That would have been news to the Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln. The Ten Commandments are approximately 3,500 years old. Does that make them “outdated norms”?
[17] Ryan Cantor
May 7, 2015 at 1:51 pm
Human nature?
Explain that for our viewers, Matt.
[18] Dan Chmielewski
May 7, 2015 at 8:25 pm
Denying a core tenet of gender science? You’re trying to put words in my mouth. Not going to work. If a person indent infuse [sic] themselves as male, they use the men’s room. If they indentify [sic] as female, they use the ladies room. The only problem I have ever had with the transgendered people I know is pronouns, especially if they identified as a different gender when I first met them. That’s it.
That language I posted on AB 1266 is from the bill. Try Google. It works.
[19] Dan Chmielewski
May 8, 2015 at 11:06 am
Actually, if you talk to many kids in most high schools, they are largely supportive and understanding of their transgendered peers. Most really don’t care who uses what bathroom and locker room accommodations can be easily made for transgender athletes.
Just curious, but how many transgendered people do you personally know? People are people.
More importantly, Ryan seems to have trouble researching the actual language of AB1266; he says it doesn’t say what it does. And worse, he wants to put words in your mouth you’ve never said or don’t believe.
Ryan will, I expect, be able to characterize the supposed personal attacks in what he posted in AnaheimBlog, and readers may then compare them to other fully acceptable posts — anonymous ones, in fact — that routinely make it onto AnaheimBlog. Chumley reads the Cunningblog; he would be aware of this.
What I find fascinating is this: Chumley starts out in comment 1 by characterizing the bathroom bill as bigoted. Matt has taken what I think can be fairly described as an anti-LGBT swipe with his “may resonate in San Francisco … vs. common sense” swipe in his story. But Chumley doesn’t call him on that. And after Ryan — Matt’s fellow Republican — does call him on that bullshit, Chumley — my fellow Democrat — comes along to assure Ryan in Comment 12 to assure him that “(1) Matt’s not a bigot and (2) the language is correct.”
With the first comment, Chumley apparently excuses Cunningham of bigotry on grounds of, one imagines, professional courtesy — Chumley knows that, as “a fellow PR professional.” Matt cannot properly have anything he says attributed to his own beliefs. On the second point: well, I’m wondering if Chumley read only half of his position paper.
There are two views of what makes a child a “boy” or a “girl”: one is objective physical characteristics such as genitalia or hormones (referred to as “sex”) and one is subjective self-perception of one’s “true sex” (referred to as “gender.”) In saying that AB1266 reserves boys restrooms for boys and girls restrooms for girls,” Ryan is using the definition that applies the pronouns based on gender. Matt scoffs at this: to him, it’s all chromosomes and genitals (and where those don’t match, as sometimes happens, who knows what he thinks.)
So the Democrat rushes onto the scene and — agrees with Matt. (Welcome to topsy-turvy Orange County.) And then he apparently, without self-consciousness, denies that he has done so. (Welcome to topsy-turvy “public relations.”)
When Chumley says “More importantly, Ryan seems to have trouble researching the actual language of AB1266; he says it doesn’t say what it does. And worse, he wants to put words in your mouth you’ve never said or don’t believe,” I can’t even figure out what he means. Yes, the bill says that where a child has made a considered determination of gender identity, he or she gets to be assigned to teams and facilities based on that subjective determination rather than based on chromosomes or genitals. And Matt says that that’s ridiculous absurd, and letting “boys used the girls restroom,” etc.
How is that putting words in Matt’s mouth that Matt “doesn’t believe”?
This Democrat will say of the Republican commenter in the debate: you’re right, Matt’s a bigot. (As Young Kim found out last year, it can be good politics.) And of the Democrat in the debate, this Democrat will say: wading into this argument and defending the bigot while attacking the person defending AB 1266 makes Chumley a bigot too — if we don’t agree that PR professionals get to lie with impunity. He should have spoken up on the other side.
And when the bigot thanks you because “[w]hile you and I hold opposite views on this bill, we are able to do so respectfully like grown ups, without sinking to gratuitous personal attacks,” the proper response is not silence, but something along the lines of “I’m sorry that you got the impression that I think that your bigotry is anything but that.” It’s not silence — or, as in this case, defense of him.
This is your Weekend Open Thread. Talk about that, or whatever else you’d like, within reasonable bounds of decency and discretion.
If you’re a Democrat and you know Dan, a quick phone call or email is in order.
His unwillingness to confront an OBVIOUS attack on gender rights is not only a personal embarrassment, it’s an embarrassment to your party.
This is the self proclaimed liberal voice of Orange County . . . Challenging the right wing noise machine, unless it’s a friend of mine spouting bigoted opinions.
Dave should post some more Op-Eds at Voice of OC just to draw the evil walrus out from his ice cave.
More essays are on the way.
But I don’t bear any ill-will. My guess is he was badly bullied as a kid and suffered the constant humiliation of the uncoordinated and oafish guy who never got chosen when the other kids chose up sides in PE.
As an adult he reenacts a more successful (he thinks) childhood by trying to bully others – over the internet.
“Thank you, Dan, for being a civilized human being.”
Translation: for being the only person in OC outside the Kleptocracy who likes me, or who even pretends to like me.
“Matt is correct on two things. 1) He’s not a bigot.”
Everyone who has set a teddy bear on fire and put a Virgin of Guadalupe votive candle next to its charred and mangled remains please raise your hand.
It reminds me exactly of what disgusted me about the relationship between Matt and Dan ever since 2008, when I was fighting against Prop 8 which successfully took away the right of gay Californians to marry for several years.
Matt was the bigot propagandist spouting out nonsense about how allowing gays to marry would soil the instiution of marriage for everybody else – who knows if he believed it or not, as far as I know he did, but at the time it was partly a calculated effort to get more Republicans out to the polls as well. Just as Cunningham now believes anti-transgender bigotry and ignorance will help Young Kim beat Sharon again.
And Dan would register disagreement in a gentlemanly way and they would proceed to discuss in friendly backslapping fashion how the issue might help or hurt their respective Parties. And I was the one who’d get on the comments and rage that this was people’s lives, rights and dignity that they were so cavalierly discussing and that at the least
CunninghamDAN could show a little outrage at his friend for all his anti-gay spewing. And then of course I was the bad guy for not behaving like a gentleman, just as Ryan is now.We lost, for a few years, but there were some good times:
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2008/08/jubals-terror-unfounded-schubert-flint-not-overrun-by-gay-yippie-bloggers/
“…that at the least Cunningham could show a little outrage at his friend for all his anti-gay spewing.”
Did you mean Chmielewski there?
Why distinguish?
I mean seriously, what’s the difference?
I sorta get an image of two desperate characters adrift in the middle of a meaningless ocean clinging to each other in a symbiotic grope of lost cause terror.
That’s exactly how Traitor Trump and Gang Rape Kavanaugh look in their almost sexual embrace of each other politically, like two angry misogynistic idiots going down in flames together in a complete state of denial about their self-caused disastrous debacle for the GOP (Greedy Old Perverts).
# VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO (BE A PATRIOT!)
Well, if everything is black and white, then I suppose you have a point.
But it rarely is.
Perhaps he meant “Chumleyham.”
Hmmm … There’s a term that I expect might get some reuse.
Oh.
My.
God.
“I have passed no judgment on transgendered people.” — Matt Cunningham
“Young Kim made opposition to that extreme, exotic position a major plank in her campaign. Letting boys use the girls bathroom may resonate in San Francisco, but it’s out-of-touch with the more common sense attitudes of AD65 residents.” — Matt Cunningham
Anyone? ANYONE?
. . . and for the record, according to Dan, transgender boys and girls aren’t real boys and girls.
Unfreaking believable.
The great liberal lion of Orange County. Here’s the quote.
You got the language of AB 1266 completely wrong Ryan. Review your May 5 comment. 10:43. Middle paragraph. You. Got. It. Wrong.<– **This is an explicit denial that AB1266 reserves boys restrooms for boys and girls for girls. This can only mean that transgender boys and girls aren't really what they claim to be.**
http://www.bbklaw.com/?t=40&an=23163
Someone’s gender identity and anatomy can sometimes be completely different. (No shit, Sherlock) If an biological male identifies as female, the stall in the girl’s bathroom works just fine. If they are biologically female but identify as male, there are stalls in the boys room too. It shouldn’t be a big deal. And the subject can be debated without shouting “bigot.”
in high school, i found myself in the girls bathroom and/or locker room on many occasions but i do not think that this discussion relates to that
These idiots get WAY more of our screen space and free time than they deserve. But I get that we can’t let this kind of of ignorant drivel hang out there in cyberspace without challenge for fear that future generations reading it might think all of early 21st century humanity was this stupid.
Carry on, gentlemen, you are doing well in representing us to those who come after we are long gone and may no longer speak for ourselves. As long as they have ancient Macs to read the primitive computer code we leave behind.
Wrong! This is perfect stuff to associate with the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce! The more the Kleptoblog is littered with non-storyline issues, the better – regardless of the topic.
Of course I speak in the abstract. I was banned six months ago even though I followed Miss Daisy’s bowdlerized verbal dress code.
*OK. it is a huge happening at a Hotel complex in 1973…..there are 7,000 Rock and Rollers, lots of alcohol, many drugs and two bathrooms. The Female Bath Room has
a line as far as the eye can see. The Male bathroom has guys going in and out like crazy and a line two deep to hit the urinals. We pull up the left urinal, whip it out and some babe walks in and starts using the urinal on the right. She wasn’t even Transgender. So, anything you guys come up with is totally unshocking. Let’s just say that all bathrooms need to be Gender Neutral…..but with a lock from the inside ….for those quiet singular movements….if you get our drift.
In other Anaheim News, a Chinese company wants to spend $500,000,000 to develop land near Anaheim Stadium– with or without the Angels.
http://www.ocregister.com/lansner/firm-661093-high-platinum.html
Rewind back to Labor Day 2013, Kris Murray told the entire city that this land was completely worthless without the Angels.
Not. Qualified. To. Negotiate. Lunch.
I noted that story as well. I haven’t checked closely, but I don’t think that it’s part of the Stadium Grounds Giveaway. But I believe that this land is part of what supposedly could not be developed *without* the Stadium Grounds Giveaway — and its prospective development (and how!) would seem to render the need to let Arte Moreno and his chosen squad develop the stadium lot moot.
I’d still probably favor the City build an above-ground parking structure there, with or without Arte Moreno’s help, with long-term proceeds from parking being commensurate to investment.
*Thank God, they also haven’t given away the other Blimp Hanger in Tustin….to the Chinese…….just yet!
HEY THERE – ANAHEIM RESIDENTS !!!
NO Council meeting THIS Tuesday Night, but Council Chambers will hold the FIRST MEETING of the Public Workshops for Council Districts! 6:30 PM !!! (or on Cable/Webcast !) For more info, see this article on Pedroza’s ‘New Anaheim’ Blog-
http://newanaheim.com/2015/05/09/help-to-draw-anaheims-new-city-council-districts-at-a-public-meeting-on-may-12/
Was anyone able to view the meeting online? I visited the City Clerk’s page at the last minute, BUT there were NO links to THIS EVENT! Will call tomorrow and squawk, will have to catch the archive (?). If anyone DID get in online, can you post here, and the path you took? Thanks-
Chuchua and I, along with some other names you’d know, were there.
Speaking of Google-
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ap-exclusive-self-driving-cars-getting-dinged-california-060413620–finance.html
FWIW-
Upcoming George Zimmerman headline:
“Racist Police Refuse to Charge White Man Who Used His Face to Interfere with Black Bullet”
John Nolte –
Apparently, he has lived — so I thought that they had probably shot him in the heart.
*Is it true that George Zimmerman is dating Jodie Arias? Now that would be a Dream Date!
A relatively local political activist lost his home and its contents in a fire.
http://www.gofundme.com/t2a43u5c
In the last 9 days, 17 people have contributed a total of $1375 out of a hoped-for $10,000. If this seems like the sort of thing to which you would like to contribute, now you know about it.
I passed the word to a friend if mine in the OC IBEW – they are good about helping a brother electrical worker in need.
You might have heard in the media recently that the NFL has decided to drop its “tax exempt non-profit” status. Here’s something else they made the news for-
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-pentagon-pays-the-nfl-millions-to-honor-veterans-at-games-2015-5?nr_email_referer=1&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_content=MarketsSelect