Google Mocks Christ on Christmas Eve

Confederate Yankee ^ | December 24, 2005

[Jorge]

Heh, from someone who knows a thing or two about how Google works, I can assure you that not only are you completely wrong, but you come off sounding like a stark raving moonbat.

Nice try but no cigar.
Numerous threads here have remarked on the EXTREME anti-Bush liberal bias of Google's News page.
It's so outrageously obvious that I have to believe you've rarely used it to post the absurd denial above.

[Jorge]

Thus, set your default search engines to anything but Google and use other search engines for everything else. I've had to wean my habits off hitting Google for every issue and question and map, but it's proving to be beneficial.

I've tried. But other than the Bush-hating liberal bias, I think Google is a great search engine.

[NJ_gent]

"Numerous threads here have remarked on the EXTREME anti-Bush liberal bias of Google's News page."

Repeating an absurdity does not make it any less absurd, no matter how many times it's repeated. Considering the fact that we often lament about the overwhelmingly leftist 'MainStream Media' outlets of old, I find it exceedingly unlikely that a computer program designed to index the websites of said outlets would produce anything other than an overwhelmingly leftist set of links. What you and others seem to be expecting Google to do is to hand-pick which information it will feature, and which it will not. To do so not only compromises their integrity as an automated engine fine-tuned to give optimal results, but would also enormously increase their overhead in man-hours. In fact, you're accusing them of displaying a bias by simply indexing and displaying what others have written, and then expecting them to 'resolve' what you perceive to be a bias by prejudicially sorting results by hand to match your own worldview.

The problem is not the free website that indexes news sites; the problem is the news sites themselves. All Google is doing is indexing what's there. They have no control over what CNN writes. If CNN is a popular news source, their articles will be more likely to be featured more often on Google news. Fox news stories are featured all the time on Google. I use Google news quite often to pick up more information on obscure happenings that don't get much print. It's an extraordinary resource that does just fine. They're not endorsing a particular story, nor a particular view simply by linking to it via an automated indexing engine's page generation.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Google would do something about Google bombing if there were pro-conservative Google bombing going on. Currently no conservative is that low or despicable, not even Shocking Michael Savage.

[MillerCreek]

I really doubt that. God isn't unknown in motive and behavior -- and requirements for human acts, deeds and thoughts -- as liberals continually try to ridicule believers as being in relationship to Him.

God tells us very clearly what it is He wants and expects and the only people I conclude who experience surprises at their time of judgement are those who opine as you do based upon a human arrogance about what and who God is.

Google's not a blameless, "attitude-less" process. Someone, somewhere, wrote the process and because of that, all that so-called sterility of process used by Google is nothing more than a human process in place by way of software and hardware.

[MillerCreek]

Another thing -- nothing personal, just in reflection to the thread up to this point, using your comment number as a launching point here -- if the entire Google sorting/return process is based upon human popularity of results (the "Google only returns the results the most people want to see" line of philosophy), then I'd venture to conclude that Google capitalizes well upon the fact that the average is almost always defined by nothing spectacular, nothing inventive, little insight, just altogether unremarkable. That's what "average" is.

Many of us not in the average and not anticipating average use searches to find the remarkable and exceptional.

Not that Google or any search process can predetermine for me, those like me, what that actually is, but that Google's process simply provides the dreariness of the anticipated. Most evil is as banal as that.

[MillerCreek]

Yes, agreed, as to Google News...certainly reflects an editing process.

Like I wrote earlier, to and about those who rely on excusing Google for their efforts based upon the "it's software, it doesn't have a political perspective/opinion..." I'd like to remind everyone that software, all technology, IS organized based upon human opinion and perspectives. When it's authored by a human being, it's going to bespeak that human being's (or beings') perspectives.

Google didn't spring forth spontaneously from a tepid ocean pool, it was designed. To wit: examine the values, beliefs and perspectives of the designers and you'll find those amplified and exemplified in the workings of that which they designed: Google search engine.

It's not impervious to manipulation as to the information it's selected to report and how in relationship to what. Those relationships are the key ingredient and are a statement as to who and about who designed how what relies upon what to make what statement, to suggest what 'conclusion' is presented as search engine 'result.'

[SALChamps03]

I merely offered my opinion on your state of mind. Do you honestly believe that Google wakes up and says, "How can we rig our search engine to mock Christ?" The search engine identifies websites by keywords and hits. There is no conspiracy. I agree with you that the item is in bad taste, and completely disrespectful. I just don't think there is a conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists tend to be paranoid.

[Jorge]

"Numerous threads here have remarked on the EXTREME anti-Bush liberal bias of Google's News page."

Repeating an absurdity does not make it any less absurd, no matter how many times it's repeated.

Either you are too stubborn to admit you're wrong about Google or like the leftist liberal Bush haters in this country, you find this sort of bias to be "normal".

Here are just a FEW examples of the so-called Google "News" on Bush within the last 24 hours;

"Bush's Wire Tapping, The Administration is Lying about Wire Taps"
New Republic (in the middle of the article is an ad to buy the book "Deception and Democracy, the Selling of Iraq")

"Bush lied about wiretaps in 2004"
News-Leader.com, MO - 5 hours ago

"Bush overrides authority and deserves to be impeached"
The Free Lance-Star, VA - 4 hours ago

"Act Now To Stop Bush's Grab On A Dictatorship"
TheDay (subscription), CT - 3 hours ago
"President George W. Bush believes that he has unlimited powers to break our laws if, in his opinion, it is necessary to “defend the nation against terrorists ... "

"Shout ‘impeach Bush' From The Rooftops"
TheDay (subscription), CT - 3 hours ago

"A shocking contempt for the law"
New York Daily News, NY - 5 hours ago
"Although he likes to talk about the God-given blessings of liberty, President Bush should be judged by his actions, not his words - and his actions show a man ..."

"Another bullshit defense of Bush's spying activity and an attack on concerned citizens"
(this is an actual title of a link under Google "News")

"Lies, taps and presidential snoops"

"MSNBC poll shows 86% approval for Bush impeachment"
SanFranciscoSentinel.com, CA - 20 hours ago

"COULD IMPEACHMENT HAPPEN?"
Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com
"The idea of impeaching President George W. Bush has finally gained footing within the media, public, and Congress – building the foundation for a national debate.."

"The I-Word Is Gaining Ground"
Katrina vanden Heuvel Mon Dec 26, 3:44 PM ET

"Bush Impeachment Buzz Gains Momentum"
Liberal Politics: U.S. Blog

"Cheney and His Patsy, Bush, Face Impeachment Furor"

"BUSH WHACKED"
Philadelphia Daily News
The media and all the ready-to-quote law experts are doing a fine job examining the absurd and apparent illegal way in which President Bush authorized wire tapping here in the United States.

"FAILURE OF THE YEAR 2005: George Bush"
Monday, December 26 2005 @ 10:57 AM PST
"No one has done more to raise failuremag.com's profile than our President"

"Because Bush Is Not Our Fault"
New York Magazine, USA - 1 hour ago
"... every inadvertent display of incuriosity, every heartbreaking show of incompetence, we can remind ourselves we had nothing to do with Bush’s reelection. ..."

"Bush 'in Retreat' on Almost All Fronts"

"Bush turns on Iraq give columnist whiplash"
By HELEN THOMAS

"Bush`s 6 wrong ideas on Iraq"
By William S. Lind Dec 26, 2005, 17:06 GMT

"Rice Star on Rise as Public Sours on Bush"
San Jose Mercury News
(note; "Public Sours on Bush"...is NOT actually part of article title...Google ADDED that part on THEIR Site)

And on these numerous web sites you will find ads for things like;

"Kanye was right" T-shirts

'F--- Bush' Wristband Bracelet

Link to "RIGHTWINGNUTS" (with photos of Pat Robertson, O"Reilly etc) And Ads by Google on these sites include;

"Hate George Bush"

"Anti-Bush Bumper Stickers"

......This garbage makes up more than 90% of the so-called "News" on Google. Anything pro-Bush is rare.

Please don't tell me this is just a computer randomly finding these articles.
Besides computers don't randomly change titles of the articles they link to in order to make them more anti-Bush on their own web site.

Your denial of this is nothing short of astounding.

[Jorge]

"Google employees gave $207,650 to federal candidates for last year's elections, up from just $250 in 2000 when it was still a start-up.
And 98% went to Democrats, the biggest share among top tech donors, a new USA TODAY campaign finance analysis shows."

Why am I not surprised?

[HiTech RedNeck]

I see stuff like "Bush team backs Anna in fight over fortune"

[mbraynard]

Actually, that is not true. Google staff has redirected searches. For *years* (and who knows why) Google refused to link to the comical site 'somethingawful.com'.

Also, they use to have the 'gothatesfags' type search go to a different site (godlovesfags). There were a few more examples though I can't come up with any current ones.

Regarding the 'baby jesus' controversy, I suggest you change your preferences to turn 'search safe' on and then no more obscene sites will show up.

[ReignOfError]

This would not be tolerated in any other religion except Christianity.

The first hit for "Jew" is an anti-semitic site.

[george76]

Hey, Google! Listen to your own search results:

Christmas .... 436,000,000

"winter holiday" 1,670,000

[george76]