“Libral Press” my big-fat ass:

Google’s methods for recommending Web sites are being reviewed by the Texas state attorney general in an investigation spurred by complaints that the company has abused its power as the Internet’s dominant search engine.

The antitrust inquiry, disclosed by Google late Friday, is the latest sign of the intensifying scrutiny facing the company as its enters its adolescence. Since its inception in a Silicon Valley garage 12 years ago, Google has gone from a quirky startup to one of the world’s most influential businesses, with annual revenue approaching $30 billion.

A spokesman for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott confirmed the investigation. He declined to comment further.

The review appears to be focused on whether Google is manipulating its search results to stifle competition.

The pecking order of those results can make or break Web sites. Google’s search engine processes about two-thirds of the search requests in the United States and handles even higher volume in some parts of the world.

That dominance means a Web site ranking high on the first page of Google’s results will probably attract more traffic and generate more revenue, either from ads or merchandise sales.

But being buried in the back pages of the results, or even at the bottom of the first page, can be financially devastating and, in extreme cases, has been blamed for ruining some Internet companies.

I knew you were curious.  Or at least you didn’t care.

Read on:

Google says its closely guarded search formula strives to recommend Web sites most likely to satisfy the needs of each user’s request. If it didn’t keep users happy, Google argues, people would become disgruntled and switch to search engines offered by Yahoo, Microsoft and IAC/InterActiveCorp’s Ask.com.

Regulators and lawmakers in the United States and Europe have also been looking into Google’s privacy practices and its acquisitions as the company tries to fortify its power.

What a disappointing joke.

Capitalism is a failure because those in control fail to present opposite-viewpoints.  If the “free market” was the true answer, capitalism would be thrilled to rush to the opportunity to discuss itself.  Google Inc is an example of capitalism’s failed “free-market” failure.

They failed at discipline.

They failed at a “free market” system.

They failed!

<object width=”640″ height=”385″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/pCdh2qFl7JI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1″></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowScriptAccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/pCdh2qFl7JI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=”true” allowScriptAccess=”always” width=”640″ height=”385″></embed></object>

Alan Grayson, D-FL, cooks Obama’s front-face Robert Gibbs:

Crowned presidency and patronizing those who worked very hard for that crow deserves consideration. The bigger question is asked whether “the crown” will behave as deserved!

This is fun.  The old goat, George Will, is upset by the idea that the GOP is the party of racists.

The beauty in this piece is how Bill Mahr turns stereotypes on its ear.

George Will is upset by stereotyping the GOP as a party of racists: But little is noted that Fox News does nothing but stereotype the gays,  blacks, progressives or Jews.

Enter Bill Mahr: He won’t stereotype the GOP – but he will stereotype the racist.

This is fun. It proves how far the Progressives are in Europe and Americans are still Cave-Dwellers on the the topic of Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions:

A heterosexual couple in Austria is fighting for the right to enter into a registered civil partnership – introduced for homosexual couples in January 2010. Under current law the couple will be denied that right – but they have vowed to take the case to the country’s constitutional court to overturn what they says is a discriminatory legislation.

I’m hoked already: Hetero’s?  Whining about being in the minority?

Austria introduced civil unions for gay couples on January 1, affording them some of the rights enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts. The new legislation, passed after weeks of wrangling between the ruling Social Democrats and their conservative coalition partner in government, gives same-sex couples a status similar to traditional marriage but different in a number of respects. For instance, there are less strict rules in the event of a divorce.

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: ‘The issue is equality – nothing but equality,’ the couple argues

The heterosexual couple in question argues that this is a more modern form of union – which simply suits them better than a traditional marriage. And if it’s offered to gay couples, why shouldn’t it be an option for them as well? The issue at stake, they argue, is standing up against discrimination.

“Everyone should have the same rights, and there shouldn’t be different rules for different people,” the couple’s lawyer, Helmut Graupner, told Deutsche Welle.

“Regardless of how many different forms of union a state provides to couples, all of those forms should be available for everyone and must not be restricted on the basis of race, class or sex or gender or other criteria, which are traditionally the very criteria for discrimination,” Graupner said.

I like it!  “Tittie-Chasers are on-the-run!”

A Little Bit “Equal”

“The issue is equality - nothing but equality,” Graupner said. “You can not be ‘a little bit equal.’ Just like you can’t be ‘a little bit pregnant’ or ‘a little bit dead.’ Unless you’re entitled to the same kind of institutions and forms of law you’re not being treated equally and that’s discriminatory. That’s what we are fighting against – we’re fighting for the rights of both heterosexuals and homosexuals.”

Graupner is not only trying to help the heterosexual couple to get a ‘gay’ marriage. He’s also representing gay couples who want a traditional marriage – rather than the registered civil partnership that lawmakers have agreed on. The current legislation provides same-sex couples with equal rights to heterosexuals with regards to pensions and alimony – but the law for instance continues to ban adoption. It also does not allow civil partnership ceremonies at the civil registry office, where heterosexual couples can marry.

Yet Graupner is up against strong resistance. The country’s conservative party – the Austrian Peoples Party – only reluctantly agreed to the civil partnership in the first place. The conservatives insists that significant differences between the two forms of union must remain.

Ah!  Since we’re unequal, we’re worthy of a law-suit because you’re not unequal-enough under federal law?

The entire design is hysterical.

The Catholic Church isn’t amused by the entire epic.  Austria is like 900% Catholic and the entire subject of Church v. Law lays in question on the subject and it appears that the Church is on the Outs.

It sucks to be “Church”!

You were curious about the retarded-baby issue? I have a clue-phone I can sell you.

Like you missed the whole “crucifix” design and expected that only Jesus-Freaks had a “right” to the design.