April 9, 2008 by Ian.

It’s not often that I see something in the news that makes me think that a liberal (possibly communist company like Google does the right thing. Fortunately (I think), this is a good for us, bad for you example. For quite some time, Google ads have generated a ton of money for their company by placing advertisements next to the items that are searched for. For instance, if you were to go to Google.com and search for “fish tank” you’ll likely get something like this:

It’s based on your location by your IP address and they can find regional and specific things for what you’re searching for. It’s a great idea and it works very well. You can give people what they are looking for and, for a fee, you can make sure that your paid sponsors are able to keep their content on top. This is how it works for them throughout the world on each of their many varied servers. See how it works in the UK?

Unfortunately, Google doesn’t really stick to that practice when it comes to things that they have problems with. Abortion, for example. What happens when you want to put a notice up about support for those who have had abortions or for people who are in trouble and seeking help? Apparently, if you’re in the UK, you’re screwed! Google is now getting sued in by a non-profit Christian group in the UK because they refused to place their ads, using the same process detailed above, next to the results on the word “abortion”. The Daily Mail is carrying this story and it looks like a standard “you’re not giving me what I want so I’m going to sue you” case but on further investigation there’s a lot more behind this.

The Christian Institute, a “non-denominational Christian charity”, wanted to pay Google so that whenever the word “abortion” was typed into the popular search engine, its link would appear on the side of the screen.The link would have read: “UK abortion law - news and views on abortion from the Christian Institute. www.christian.org.uk.”

But Google refused the advert because it said it had a policy of declining sites which mixed the issue of abortion with religious views.

Its Dublin-based advertising team replied: “At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain ‘abortion and religion-related content’.”

Google does, however, accept adverts for abortion clinics, secular pro-abortion sites and secularist sites which attack religion.

~ Daily Mail :: Emphasis mine

That’s when I decided to see what they meant by “Google does, however, accept adverts for abortion clinics, secular pro-abortion sites and secularist sites which attack religion” so did a little digging and here’s what I came up with:

Googling “Abortion” in the US I get the following:

It’s fair and balanced; one site to help those who are searching and the other is an abomination from hell.

Now, in the UK:

… huh? A provider, a financier, and a link to feed your lust? Remember, these aren’t RANDOM - you have to PAY for each item you are searched under. Someone actually PAID MONEY to have their company show up for CASH LOANS when you’re looking for ABORTIONS! Worse is the sick freak who thought people were looking to get off on abortions. What kind of people live in the UK?

Next, I thought I’d give it a go at searching “religion”. Here it is in the good old US of A:

This actually warms my heart. I didn’t think I’d see this at all. All in all I’m very pleased!

Here’s the result for the UK:

Y’all are off my “visit” list. Seriously. Buy “religion”? “Scientology”? To quote great preacher on a completely unrelated topic, “Are you kidding me?”

After reading this, there are a couple things that come to mind. First is that, as Christians we know that we are only promised persecution and troubles if are sold out to Christ and that our gain comes in the life to come but the other thing that I think about is that the UK is often leading us by only a short scale in public policy. If this passes as acceptable for them, how long before it passes here? Are we only one bill away? If Google won’t post the picture, I will. Here you go, Christian Institute and keep fighting the good fight!

God bless America. Not as a song title or an idea but as a real command. God has given a lot for us thus far, why can’t we acknowledge that and turn back to Him?

Posted in Technology, Ian, Religion, Pointless Lawsuits, Coherent Thoughts, Politics | Print | 5 Comments »

April 9, 2008 by Jeremy.

Years in prison that is… Texas Teacher Accused of Trying to Marry Student, 17

I will bet that by the time you’re done reading my “opinion piece” here that it will surprise you a little.

This man is 27 and this woman (by all account at the age of 17 is every bit of a woman) is 17 leaving only 10 years of age between them. Given the matter of months it would probably have taken her to turn 18 this blog wouldn’t even it exist

I think the court takes an extremely hard line on pedophilia. In this situation the sexual encounter was obviously consensual, even the mother was willing to ok the marriage. That doesn’t mean I agree with what they were doing.

I think this man deserves to, at the least, lose his job. I don’t, however, think he deserves 20 years in prison. In the job that I come across a lot of men looking for jobs that find it difficult because when they were younger say 20-22 they had sex with a 15-16 year old girl consensually. So the court sent them to prison for several years and then labeled them for the rest of their lives as sexual predators.

Again I don’t think that these relationships are good and/or healthy for the individuals. But these men will have their lives ruined and the girls will get off with no repercussions at all.

So to avoid all this problem I suggest that you use some major Common Sense and wait until your 18 and wait until your married.

If not you’ll have to remember that…17 Will Get You 20!

Posted in Jeremy, Coherent Thoughts, Current Events | Print | 6 Comments »

April 2, 2008 by Jeremy.

Well that’s what some in a Wisconsin school would have you believe. Full Story

According to the lawsuit, the student’s art teacher asked his class in February to draw landscapes. The student, a senior identified in the lawsuit by the initials A.P., added a cross and the words “John 3:16 A sign of love” in his drawing.

His teacher, Julie Millin, asked him to remove the reference to the Bible, saying students were making remarks about it. He refused, and she gave him a zero on the project.

Millin showed the student a policy for the class that prohibited any violence, blood, sexual connotations or religious beliefs in artwork. The lawsuit claims Millin told the boy he had signed away his constitutional rights when he signed the policy at the beginning of the semester.

The boy tore the policy up in front of Millin, who kicked him out of class. Later that day, assistant principal Cale Jackson told the boy his religious expression infringed on other students’ rights.

So at what point to “religious individuals” get to have rights. It would appear to me(under the guise of common sense) that is was the boy who was told to alter his artwork had his rights infringed. Why are his rights of expression any less valuable than the rights the others students have?

I applaud the young man for his courage and fortitude. I especially love that he tore the policy letter up in front of the teacher.

We need to stand up for our Constitutional Rights and stop letting this P.C. world tear us down.

So I say down with the P.C. and up with C.S.

Who’s with me?

Posted in Religion, Jeremy, Coherent Thoughts | Print | 5 Comments »