Google Explanation Lacks Truth
Nov 25, 2009 Political
Google has taken to explaining why racist and anti Semitic items come up when its search engine is used. Google explained that searches from the internet sometimes produce “disturbing content.” This is true and no one should blame Google because of the results. The company is in the business of producing a list of results that match criteria. It is not responsible for the content, just the ability to find it.
I can’t see why anyone would even blame the company. Google does not put the content on the web it just makes it easy to find content that is there. Google is not responsible for the image of Mrs. Obama that morphs into an ape. The person who put it up is responsible. I understand the whole ape picture racist issue and I know people got upset when Barry Obama was portrayed as Curious George (he does look like him) even though the picture was not meant to be racist. I can understand why people would be upset with a picture of Mrs. Obama turning into an ape though it baffles me.
Does not the left tell us we all evolved from non human primates? Well, that is an issue for another debate at another time.
Besides, Mrs. Obama is a Klingon.
Well Big Dog, why is Google untruthful?
It is because of this statement:
“Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it,” Google said. News 24
The problem is that this statement is untrue. Google owns Blogger, the free blogging platform that allows anyone to publish to the web at no cost. During the presidential campaign blogs, hosted on Blogger, that were critical of Obama in any way, shape, or form were deactivated.
Blogger uses a link that allows people to flag offensive content. Obamabots would visit sites that were critical of Obama and flag them. Google would deactivate the accounts and it took days to weeks before the owner could get the content back up. Many people went to hosted services because of this.
Google claims that it does not remove content because it is unpopular. Admittedly, they are talking about search results, but removing blogs because their content is unpopular is no different. And there have been accusations that Google has removed certain things from search results because of the content. I do not know about that but the company certainly deactivated Blogger accounts because of content.
The folks at Google are unabashed Obama supporters and that is perfectly fine. In America you can support who you want. Blogger belongs to them and if they want to block accounts critical of their messiah then they can do so but it is dishonest for them to claim they don’t block content.
Google allowed several Google Bombs that were disparaging to George Bush to remain up for a long time. When one was put up for Obama it came down pretty quickly. Once again, it is their business but they should not pretend they do not censor certain items or that they do not remove content. Google claims to have fixed the Bush Google Bomb two years ago but searches for miserable failure brought up his bio page (off and on) up to his last days in office. It was not until that search redirected to Barack Obama’s bio that Google fixed it. This article describes the issue in some detail. Suffice it to say that it was fixed after Obama started showing up in the miserable failure Google Bomb.
As for the racist or anti Semitic results, Google is not responsible for them. If you don’t like the content then navigate away from the page.
And Google, try to be more honest.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: ape picture, evolution, google, google bomb
Monday Morning Buffet
Jul 6, 2009 Political
Sheep Grow Contrary to Evolutionary Principle, Blame Global Warming
Evolution is another of the “settled” scientific ideas that is still unsettled. A gene in humans that appears to be the combination of two genes from a primate could be evolution or it could mean that a Creator used the same model for different similar animals and changed the code slightly to give the observed differences. When evolution theory does not fit neatly in the science, an excuse is needed.
In Scotland, a breed of sheep is getting smaller. According to CBC News:
Evolutionary theory holds that species get bigger and stronger over time because larger, more dominant animals are more likely to reproduce. But wild sheep on the Scottish island of Hirta have baffled scientists since 2007 when the animals’ average size appeared to be shrinking.
So what could be the problem here? Well of course it is Global Warming. Scientists believe that “climate change” is responsible for this.
So the questions are, if evolution takes place over a period of time how could global warming since 2007 (a mere two years) effect such a rapid change? Also, if evolution involves adaptation of the sepcies and survival of the fittest, would not the sheep adapt to the warming? I guess one could claim that the smaller size is an adaptation but that brings us back to how it occurred so quickly?
About That Free Government Health Care
The Obama Administration is working on government run health care. It would cost a fortune and it would leave people waiting in line for services. There is no such thing as a free lunch, so the saying goes and this is true with government run health care. The government will use taxes and it will have to tax more. Medicare is poorly run despite claims of a 2% overhead. This is a fallacy resulting from creative accounting practices used by the government. You see, many government agencies perform functions for Medicare and the cost of those functions are not reported (how much does it cost for the IRS to collect Medicare from paychecks) but in private industry those costs must be directly borne and reported. Government has never run anything efficiently. Government will ration care to contain costs and if it needs more money it will raise taxes.
The wonderful British and Canadian systems are the subject of a John Stossel report:
In England, health care is “free”—as long as you don’t mind waiting. People wait so long for dentist appointments that some pull their own teeth. At any one time, half a million people are waiting to get into a British hospital. A British paper reports that one hospital tried to save money by not changing bedsheets. Instead of washing sheets, the staff was encouraged to just turn them over.
~snip
“People line up for care, some of them die. That’s what happens,” says Canadian doctor David Gratzer, author of The Cure. He liked Canada’s government health care until he started treating patients.
“The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting for radiation therapy, waiting for the knee replacement so they could finally walk up to the second floor of their house.” “You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! Just wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air! Just wait six months.”
Polls show most Canadians like their free health care, but most people aren’t sick when the poll-taker calls. Canadian doctors told us the system is cracking. One complained that he can’t get heart-attack victims into the ICU.
Biden Says Everyone Misread Economy
In an ABC interview, Joe Biden stated that the administration and everyone else misread the economy.
“The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy,” Biden told me during our exclusive “This Week” interview in Iraq.
Of course Joe had to say that they misread how awful the mess was that Bush left them but quickly acknowledged that the mess was now all theirs.
Yes there was an economic mess when Bush left office. Bush’s abandonment of capitalism and acceptance of huge government bailouts made the problem worse than it would have been. If it had been left alone it might have begun to rebound by the time Obama took office or not long after. But the government meddled and made the problem it created worse. The government created the mess with the Community Reinvestment Act and government continued to push for practices that were disastrous. While many friends of the Democrats got rich, the country was heading south fast.
Contrary to what Joe Says, not everyone misjudged the economy. Some economists saw the downturn coming (Bush and McCain warned, a number of times, about impending doom with Freddie and Fannie). Others advocated doing little in regard to government intervention and that things would rebound, as they had plenty of times before. It is called an economic cycle for a reason.
The Obama Administration could not wait to get in and start spending. They could not let a crisis go to waste so they passed a nearly one trillion dollar stimulus that has done nothing to stimulate. Unemployment will be 10% before the end of Summer.
In the interview Biden admits they were overly optimistic when they predicted that unemployment would not go over (would peak at) 8% with the stimulus (that should settle the critics on this issue, there was no caveat. He spelled it out plainly for the Obamabots).
This was never about helping the economy. This was about spending for Democrat pet projects. This was about forcing more and more government involvement into the free market. This was an excuse to take over businesses and the banking system. This was an excuse to move us closer to Socialism. Obama did not misjudge anything.
He knows exactly what he wants to accomplish.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: biden, britain, canada, evolution, global warming, health care, Obama
Evolution, Denied
Apr 27, 2009 Political
The Liberal Left just love to trot out old Charles Darwin, at every chance they get, mistakenly believing that his theories on the Evolution of the various species, indeed of man himself, abrogate the belief and even existence of God. The Left love a secular world. They could not be more wrong, but God gives everyone the free will to accept or deny his existence, so if that is what Liberals choose to do, that’s fine with me.
What I can’t understand however, is the way they, like Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane, deny the theories of Darwin, as they relate to businesses and economics. Libs, the rooster is crowing. (For all who didn’t get the reference, read a Bible).
Businesses, corporations, and monetary entities have a life of their own, and when healthy, they grow, they expand, and they can and will gobble up the weak among them. All quite similar to the natural world. Companies grow and evolve, often changing into something different than their original shape, business- wise.This is evolution in a corporate environment, and it’s a healthy thing when business grows- more jobs, more money, more opportunities to advance in a corporate sense- all well and good.
What liberals fail to understand, or accept, ( and here’s the blatant hypocrisy), is that when corporations fail to adapt to changing conditions in the business environment, they begin to fail, to die, as it were. This too, is a part of the natural world of business. The corporation fails, and other corporations swoop in and strip the corpse of all assets that might be valuable, thus making themselves stronger. This is how the business world operates when it is left on its own. Like the dinosaurs, nothing in the business world is too big to fail. Everything has its time, and then fades away.
When, however, you artificially prop up a corporation, and keep it limping along past its lifetime, you do no one any favors, indeed you tend to favor the ill corporation to the exclusion of everything else, and the systemic illness begins to spread to other businesses, because they have been denied and ignored in favor of the sick corporation, so their business has suffered also.
Pretty soon this malaise spreads to the ancillary businesses that served parts of the corporation, and, much as the Swine Flu has begun spreading among the population, so do the effects ripple among the smaller businesses, when the smaller businesses could have been freed up to find another corporation to service if the “too big to fail” corporation had been allowed TO FAIL.
So we come to the very root of the hypocrisy the Liberal Left, of as they like to call themselves, “progressives” ( a term they had to reach back in the past for- a “retro” re-branding). Here, on the one hand, these people worship at the statue of Darwin, saying that we have been descended from monkeys, and there is no God, just random atoms colliding helter- skelter. If someone brings up any weaknesses in Darwin’s THEORIES, these people are ridiculed as weak- minded, ignorant, superstitious country bumpkins. After all, EVERYONE who is wise just knows that religion is SO yesterday.
These same people who grovel at the feet of Darwin blatantly ignore the same rules, or theories when they apply to businesses and corporations, and that is inconsistent, much as saying that gravity is a law, but rubber balls are exempt from following this law. The strongest part of Darwin’s theories on natural selection is the part about survival of the fittest, so why would anyone ignore this part of his theories?
Survival of the fittest- come on, let’s hear all you liberals say this- shout it from the rooftops. What? No? You don’t want to believe this, because you might be scared you are not fit? Maybe not- after all, you are the ones who want to coddle everyone and everything. The unfortunate by- product of all of this coddling, is that now you have immature people, or, in this case, corporations, entities that cannot take care of themselves as they should.
The eagle, the symbol of our country, has a way of raising his young that ensure the survival of the species. As the chicks fledge out their feathers, and begin to sit on the edge of the nest, flapping their wings, and building up their strength, the parents begin to take away the nest. One by one, the sticks that made up the nest begin to disappear, until these chicks are left with no option but to fly or fall. The parents will follow their children on their first flight, but they ensure that their children WILL make their first flight, thus launching their own life. If, for some reason, the chick could not fly, it would have crashed and died, and while the parent might have felt grief, the world goes on.
And so the world must go on, but not with crippled corporations. I drive a chevrolet, but if GMC fails, then that is the fault of the brains of that company, including the unions and anyone who had a part in deciding the direction that company was going in. The same thing applies to Banks and other institutions.
If you wanted to skew business evolution, to give some companies corporate steroids, you would all take your money out of banks that had taken the TARP funds, and put your money in those banks that didn’t take the government bribes. This would reduce the government’s grip on financial institutions, and cause these smaller banks to grow- but that would be good, for these banks didn’t make the bad decisions that led to government control.
Perhaps it’s time we gave the liberal left a lesson on evolution, and survival of the fittest.
This plan will work, and it will give the good banks a good boost. If the Left can mess with evolution, so can we.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Elizabeth Edwards Worries About Huckabee
Dec 16, 2007 Political
Elizabeth Edwards has been brought out on various occasions to attack others on behalf of her husband. Her favorite target has been Hillary Clinton and my belief is that John used her so he would not be seen as a man attacking a woman. Elizabeth has had her go rounds with Ann Coulter as well but probably because John is afraid of Ann.
Now Elizabeth is out attacking Republicans who she says we should all fear. Her named target this time was Mike Huckabee who Edwards ridiculed for not believing in evolution. I am not going to rehash the evolution idea and why it makes no sense or why people hold it as gospel truth despite the fact it has never been proven and that it is a theory. The theory of evolution is much like the theory of Global Warming in the minds of Democrats. They believe it so it must be true and they will repeat it as true so often that it will become ingrained in people. Global warming and evolution are taught in schools as if they are proven science and this is done to brainwash a generation of school kids so they grow up to be little tree-hugging liberals. The libs have to find a way to replenish their ranks because they are aborting their children thus removing future generations of liberals.
Speaking about Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, who recently surged ahead in Iowa polls, Elizabeth noted, “He seems like a nice charming guy,” before saying that Huckabee, “doesn’t believe in evolution and has some nutty views about what it is we should do about ending violence in our inner city — we should make sure all of our young people are armed. Republicans scare me.” Political Radar
Elizabeth also went on to talk about Karl Rove and how he might not be working in the White House but is working in the “back” of the presidential race. It would seem that Rove is the Republican she is most afraid of. Elizabeth said that Republicans scare her and they should. Republicans stand for things that run counter to the liberal psyche. Republicans are against abortion, against universal health care, against socialism and against big government (though you would not know it by the way some of them act). Edwards wants the government to run every aspect of our lives and this is not the way a free society is supposed to be. She wants socialism and her belief in liberal ideals shows that she is a rich elitist who believes she knows what is best for the average person in this country. She can talk about helping the poor all she wants but if she really wants to help them perhaps she can get her husband to stop being involved in things that hurt the poor.
As for Huckabee and evolution. I do not agree with many of the things that Huckabee says and he is not in my first tier of candidates but he has a right to believe or not to believe what he wants. His belief on evolution is based in his religious teachings and using this as a qualifier for office puts a religious test on his candidacy. That is her right as a private citizen but it is not a test that can be used by our government to determine if he is qualified to run. Just as Romney’s Mormon religion does not bother me, Huckabee’s position on evolution does not bother me and it would not even if I believed in evolution.
The bigger question is; why does John Edwards keep running his wife out to attack other candidates? If he so cowardly that he cannot make these attacks on his own or is she a surrogate who he can later say was expressing her own views? It won’t matter because what she says will be tied to him just as Bill Clinton’s words are tied to Hillary. Maybe John figured he needed to have a spouse attacking other candidates just as Hillary is doing.
No matter what the reason, Huckabee is not running against Edwards in the primary and, as it appears right now, Edwards is not close to winning his party’s nomination. Perhaps he and his wife should spend their time attacking those against whom he is running.
He can’t ever take on a Republican if he does not get past the Democrats.
Others with similar posts:
Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Midnight Sun, 123beta, sTIX bLOG, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, Wake Up America, Faultline USA, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Global American Discourse, Right Voices, OTB Sports, Church and State, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: democrat, edwards, evolution, fear, huckabee, republican, rove
Nature Can Just Evolve Some More
Oct 25, 2007 General
The people who believe in evolution are an interesting lot. These folks believe in a theory that one species can evolve into another (though we have never actually seen this) and they believe that humans evolved from lower primates. Darwin’s theory also tells us that only the fittest survive which would include a species and individuals within a species. This seems to be where those who espouse evolution have a problem because every time a species becomes endangered they want it put on a list and they want all kinds of measures taken to protect said species. If the fittest survive and a species is not surviving then that species must not be the fittest. Seems that we would be interfering with the whole natural selection thing by getting involved.
There is a story out that a third of all primates are now endangered and the problem is reported to be that their habitats are encroached upon and they are running out of places to live. The commercial sale of their meat is also reported as part of the problem (who would eat these things). The way I see it, if Darwin was right then these animals should be able to adapt to new surroundings and if they cannot then they are not the fittest and should die off. That is the part of his theory that evolutionists seem to ignore when they decide we need to save a species. Of course, not all that want to save a species believe in evolution but evolution seems to be found among the more liberal people out there and they are also the group that tends to be involved in all the “save the [insert endangered species here]” campaigns. There is a chance we can save the primates as well.
“If you invest in a species in a proper way and do the conservation measures needed, you can reduce risk of extinction,” Mittermeier said. “If we had resources, we would be able to take every one of the species off the list in the next five or 10 years.” My Way News
I have no doubt we can save a species if we try. The thing is, why should we. The people who believe in evolution should be forced to accept the whole thing or else they should stop pushing the evolution agenda and take it out of our schools.
Besides, if Darwin was right, nature can just evolve some new primates.
Tags: endangered species, evolution, evolutionists, extinction, natural selection, primates