November 27, 2009

Google: Don't be...whatever.

Update: Holy crap, I had no idea this (not this blog post, just this kerfluffle) had actually made NEWS.  I was just looking for some photographic inspiration when I found it.  If I read, well, any blogs today, I would have realized everyone's already talked about this.

A few weeks ago, I sent a note out to my fellow moronbloggers that the first image that came up when ImageGoogling for pictures of Michelle Obama was, well, kinda shocking.  I didn't post about it, as I didn't want the swarming hordes appearing here accusing us of being RACISSSST!!!! for noticing that Google had some kinda strange search results. 

This was the image that came up as the absolute number one image hit when searching for pictures of Michelle Obama:

Apparently Google noticed this too. 

Google, in their infinite fuckitude, has apparently determined that having a picture of Michelle Obama primatized might not be the best strategy if they want to avoid getting FoxNewsed. So now when a person searches for a picture of our most beautiful First Lady, they won't get assaulted by the violation of Michelle's fair visage.  Instead, they'll get prompted to search for Michelle Obama, as an ape.

I suppose the saddest part of this is, if you go ahead and do that search for 'Michelle Obama ape', most of the pictures are unretouched photos of our pulchritudinous princess.

Hey, at least Google isn't all up in arms about someone doing a bad pshop of M'Shell the Klingon Princess.

Posted by: Alice H at 10:00 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

November 24, 2009

Editors? We don't need no steenking editors!

Um, dude, I think the word you're actually looking for is rummaged...

FBI agents in blue gloves recently converged on a single-story brick mosque on the rural outskirts of town here and pillaged through the giant green trash bin outside in search of evidence.
Um, I could be wrong, but I kind of doubt the FBI agents stripped the dumpster "ruthlessly of money or goods by open violence, as in war."

Posted by: Sean M. at 04:04 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

November 22, 2009

The Ft. Hood terrorist attack is our fault

And by "our," Robert Wright (Warning: link goes to NYT, but you should read it for a peek into the typical leftist mind) means American foreign policy in general and conservatives (natch) in particular.

Keep fucking that chicken, Bob.

Posted by: Sean M. at 01:24 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

November 21, 2009

"How did we live without it?"

Have you ever wondered how or why the big three networks' nightly newscasts became irrelevant? Look no further than the source for the title of this post.

Posted by: Sean M. at 06:11 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

November 16, 2009

An Open Challenge to The Atlantic Monthly

You continue to employ a man by the name of Andrew Sullivan who, on your website, has engaged in the most "gob-smackingly vile" conspiracy theories about the parentage of Trig Palin, the son of the former Governor of Alaska.

He writes...

Well, she has now thrown down a gauntlet that the Dish will be very eager to take up in the next few days.
We don't link to Sullivan here as a matter of editorial policy seeing as how he's a delusional crank, but your response as to why you would continue to employ an individual who unapologetically writes about ridiculous Palin conspiracy theories while other news outlets castigate the "Birthers" who have been characterized as part of the mainstream of Obama critics would be appreciated.

The "Open Challenge" is yours to respond to.  I hope other blogs whose participants are interested in rational debate about public affairs will take it up.

Posted by: Sean M. at 06:03 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

November 14, 2009

After the jump

The title refers to something Patterico has pointed out that MSM organizations like the Los Angeles Times use again and again when they want to smear conservaitves or help liberals on any given issue. Namely, if something cuts both ways but actually helps the former or hurts the latter, they bury it in the back pages, where people aren't likely to bother to read, having skimmed the front page and come to their conclusion from the information contained there.

But it ain't just the print media that does this. Witness painting GOP Senators as pro-rapist on the front page...

When Al Franken ran for the Senate last year, the former “Saturday Night Live” star had to reassure skeptics that the fierce partisan attacks he lobbed at Republicans as an author and radio host wouldn’t define his style as a legislator.

But because of one of his first pieces of legislation, Democrats now have their most brazen attack line of the emerging 2010 campaign season: that Republicans are insensitive to rape victims.

The charge stems from a Franken-sponsored amendment that would prohibit the Department of Defense from contracting with companies that require employees to resolve workplace complaints — including complaints of sexual assault — through private arbitration rather than the courts.

Thirty Senate Republicans voted against the amendment, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, liberal commentators and state Democratic Party chairs have been merciless.

Angry letters denouncing Republican senators have appeared in newspapers from Tennessee to Idaho. Unflattering videos of senators trying to explain their votes have gone viral on the Internet, including one of Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) swatting away a hand-held video camera held by a liberal blogger questioning his vote against the amendment.
...before going on to mention some inconvenient truths (so to speak) on page two, after the jump:
“I think the whole purpose of that amendment in my opinion was to create a vote which they could use to attack Republicans,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who was himself confronted by a liberal blogger with a video camera questioning his vote. “And if you look at it, it was the Obama Defense Department position that we were supporting. And so that to me, really takes a lot of the winds of the sails of the political argument.”

The Pentagon did, in fact, oppose the Franken amendment, saying it could lead to the “debarment” of existing and future defense contractors and arguing that, at the time it enters into contracts, the Department of Defense may not be in the position to know about the specifics of contractors’ arrangements with employees.

In light of the Pentagon’s opposition, it’s possible Franken’s amendment will be stripped or diluted by Democrats on the House-Senate conference committee. Several Senate conferees told POLITICO that it was far from clear whether the language will ultimately survive — which could provide some cover for GOP senators who now find themselves under attack

So, the Obama DOD opposes this, too, and the GOP senators voted the way that they did to support that position, but that wasn't something you felt compelled to mention on the front page? Gee, I wonder why not.

I like that language there at the end, too, where the fact that this could be killed by both Democrats and Republicans "could provide some cover" for the Republicans, rather than exposing the Democrats as the rank political opportunists that they really are.

Posted by: Sean M. at 01:45 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 572 words, total size 4 kb.

November 05, 2009

I know times are tough for newspapers...

...but has the situation become so desperate that the Houston Chronicle can't afford spell check anymore?

Related: Um, how much of a fucking sellout is Lindsey Graham when Allahpundit is calling him too much of a RINO?

Posted by: Sean M. at 03:48 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
26kb generated in CPU 0.62, elapsed 0.5536 seconds.
60 queries taking 0.4775 seconds, 143 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.