It’s no surprise to the folk who read my articles that I am waging something of a campaign against Google.  I would imagine there are those who believe my campaign is borne from jealousy or envy; really, who wouldn’t want Google’s money “problems”, eh?  In truth, I don’t envy it its successes though what it has done, on the surface, is what the American Dream is all about.  From the lofty height atop its mountains of treasure Google could inspire many to dream, to greatly dream, and doggedly pursue that dream.

Google does not, however, represent the American Dream.  From where I stand, it represents all that is immature, selfish, and hubristic about success; it is a greedy behemoth seeking to shape the world in its own image instead of working for the world’s benefit.  Propping itself as a neutral conduit of data it is anything but; for when facts are no longer conveyed, but shaped, they become something less than information and something more like propaganda.  Propaganda is a tools used by despots and tyrants to deceive, manipulate, and control.

It is because of these things that I no longer use any of Google’s services and encourage everyone I know to do the same.  Google cannot be trusted and it should not be rewarded for violating the trust of its customers, subscribers, and the world.

I’ve premised this thought before in these posts (here and here) and have recently come across more evidence supporting my thesis.  The first item, an article by Chelsea Schilling posted on WorldNetDaily describing the dichotomy in Google’s YouTube policies.  The second item is Google’s demonstrated disrespect for the American soldier from every generation.  Oddly, the first and second items are twined, together illustrating a Google more sinister than either item alone.

Sure, did Google or any of its “fanbois” deign to notice my single voice, I’d be dismissed as a right-wing, religious zealot who’s raving diatribes are best to be ignored lest I be given legitimacy.  To be certain, Google grants legitimacy to those who support its agenda -- like terrorists.

In Schilling’s article, she explains how Google enforces a ban on animal cruelty on YouTube, but it will allow the videos showing American soldiers being shot and blown up by IED’s in Iraq and Afghanistan under the guise of “free speech”.

I am an ardent supporter of the U.S. Constitution and will be among the first to defend anyone’s right to free speech, American or not.  Google is not defending anyone’s right to “free speech”, nor is it defending its own.  It is using the First Amendment as a shield to defend its nefarious purposes, among them is the anti-U.S. and anti-U.S. military policies which it pushes at every turn.

If it is a “free speech” issue to show American military personnel suffering at the hands of our enemies, then how is it not “free speech” to show a dog, cat, horse, or any other animal suffering at the hands of the emotionally decrepit?  If it is “free speech” to show a terrorist’s film showing an IED detonating under a Humvee killing all the soldiers within, how is it not free speech to show a cat with a firecracker tied to its tail or a dog being fed a lit M-80?

Is Google really saying that the rights of animals are more precious than the rights of the American G.I. giving the last full measure of devotion to his or her country?

Let’s not forget, (most of) those men and women in uniform are Americans.  So when Google says it’s ok to injure, maim, and kill soldiers, it’s also saying, in effect, it’s ok to injure, maim, and kill Americans.

By allowing such material on its website, Google is doing nothing short of supporting terrorists and abetting terror’s efforts by publishing, defending – and let’s not forget profiting from – these videos.  Aiding and abetting an enemy of the U.S. during a time of war is called …

Did I slice that item fine enough?  My second postulate is somewhat less sensational but underscores the first dramatically.

Monday, May 26, 2008 was Memorial Day in the U.S.  Americans have three days on which to celebrate the men, women, and families of its armed services; Memorial Day, to honor those who have died; Armed Forces Day, to honor those who are currently serving; and Veterans Day, to honor those living who have served.

Irrespective of how one feels about the current U.S. military engagements in the world, it would be foolish to forget those who have come before and died to ensure this country’s freedom.  Without such brave men and women who cared less for themselves and more for their families and countrymen, there would be no United States of America.  Without the U.S., the world would be a vastly different, vastly darker place.  For all its mistakes, inconsistencies, and travesties, consider a world ruled by Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Show me someone who’d rather live under one of these tyrants instead of any U.S. President and I’ll show you someone terrified of earning one’s way, personal accountability, and freedom.

Before I stray too far from my thesis, let me get back on track by pointing out that Google did not acknowledge Memorial Day with a customized logo.

It is Google’s practice to recognize certain events by changing its standard logo to an image customized for the particular occurrence.  We’ve seen Google logos for Valentine’s Day, Madam Curie’s, Picasso’s, Andy Warhol’s and Martin Luther King’s birthdays, the fiftieth anniversary of Lego, Shichi-go-san and Children’s Day (Japanese holidays), Groundhog Day, National Teacher Day, National Library Week, International Women’s Day, and many, many others.

For Memorial Day, Google did – nothing.  In my research, when I found all the things for which Google has changed its logo over the span of its existence (1999 forward), I’m left wondering why Memorial Day was ignored – but I don’t wonder for long.

Google would rather expend its resources defending the rights and life of an animal than defending the rights and life of an American by banning videos infringing on the former’s rights and allowing videos celebrating the deaths of the latter.  Further, it defends those deaths by purposely misapplying the principles of free speech.  When Google treasonously allows videos showing the assassination of Americans and then refuses to tribute the slain on the single day set aside for just such an observance, it shows just how little regard it has for the conviction and sacrifice executed on its behalf every single day, world-wide, by those better than it will ever be.  It will “benevolently” and “conscientiously” regard an animal while indifferently and callously disregard Americans stalwartly defending its right to choose whom it regards.

An Earth Day logo but no Memorial Day logo?  “Save the animals” but kill American soldiers?  Is this some upside-down world where fiction has supplanted fact?

Nope; it’s just how Google makes a buck.

First, let me get the full disclosure out of the way; I believe marriage should be defined as the union between heterosexual partners – that is, one man and one woman; I’m against gay marriage; I think gay marriage is an overt attack on the sanctity of the family. Since the family unit is the bedrock and smallest cohesive unit of society, I view gay marriage as an attack on the American way of life. Now, I don’t care if a gay couple wants to cohabitate and do whatever it is gay couples do; what happens in the privacy of a home should remain private. That privacy does not extend to birthing (in the case of lesbians) or adopting (either gender) children; children are the fruits of a heterosexual union and should remain that way; so you could say I’m against gay couples having children, too. 

Basically, I’ve always felt that each should be true to him or herself; I’ve only asked for that same courtesy in return. But we’ve gone beyond that now. Gays not only want me to tolerate them in their aberrance, but they are demanding I approve of their lifestyle and choices. This I will never do. 

So we have another gross miscarriage of justice in California this week. Voters in California decided that gay marriage was not for them; in 2000 61% of them voted to ban the practice. This week, the California Supreme Court decided to ignore the will of the voters. Instead of sending the law back to the Legislature to be rewritten, four of the seven justices took it upon themselves to not only overturn the ban, but to legalize gay marriage.

Guess those judges were asleep during the civics classes describing the separation of powers. But I stray.

In thinking about this news and discussing it with my girl, it occurred to me that gay marriage, as ugly and disgusting as it is, will actually be a boon to heterosexual divorce. Follow along with me, reader, and you’ll see where I’m headed in a moment.

Traditionally, when heterosexual couples marry and divorce, the wife is given preferential treatment. The treatment is so preferential that some fathers never get to see their children again. But, in the less extreme, courts have forced fathers to give up the majority of their pay to support the children and ex-wife, subjected the father to supervised visitation if the ex-wife even hints there’s something improper about his relationship with his children, and the list goes on. I challenge you to do a little research into it and read with the dismay of millions of fathers who are being treated like criminals – because they are male.

But now, gay marriage will save all that; it will right the justice system in a way that the men’s movement never could; it will end the prejudice against men and fathers and force a judge to award custody and support based on merit instead of gender roles.

How is gay marriage going to do all this? Easy – gay divorce.

It is a sad fact of our society that over half of all marriages end in divorce. I don’t think gay divorce statistics will be much different (not the honest ones, anyway). So when a gay couple stands before a judge to divvy up the estate, custody, who pays how much in child support, he or she will be forced to view the partners based on merit. Merit here means the ability to contribute to the support of the children. In a male gay couple divorce, there is no woman to automatically prefer with ridiculous child support requirements and draconian visitation rules imposed upon the father. The judge will have to drop this blatant sexism in favor of something more fair; from each according to his ability.

Similarly, in female gay divorces, a judge can’t automatically favor one female over the other – he or she will again be forced to view the case based on the merit of each partner.

We have in our judicial system a preference for previous decisions. The term used is stare decisis, in effect, ‘let the decision stand’. For example, if it was decided in 1967 that ‘separate but equal’ was not Constitutional, any other case that was similar would consider the judge’s decision and usually rule in a comparable manner. 

This is where I bring the tractor-trailer all the way around. Given that merit will be the requirement in gay divorce, it will only be fair and just for heterosexual divorce. No longer will men be treated as a criminal, as nothing more than the gene donor and pocketbook, as nothing more than a dalliance from which the ex-wife can be supported for the rest of her life. True justice will finally – finally – be granted to fathers and ex-husbands, justice that has previously been withheld for a myriad of reasons ranging from prejudice to outright disdain for the male gender. 

I don’t think gay marriage is right for our country or its future and I oppose it in any form it takes. If we are to have this travesty in our society perhaps there’ll be something good borne out of this evil; fathers will once again be respected, sought for more than his paycheck, and put on equal ground as mothers.

It’s about time.