"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Pitch in with the Prince William Young Republicans and help defeat Obama in 2012!
Google Bans BVBL
By Greg L | 7 August 2007 | National Politics, Blogs | 33 Comments
Minutes after I went to Google Adsense in order to try to filter out ads for Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama which have been appearing on BVBL, I got this curious email from “The Google Adsense Team”:
From: adsense-support@google.com
To: xxxxx@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Google AdSense
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:46:39 -0700Hello,
Our program specialists regularly review sites in the AdSense program. We have reviewed your site, http://www.bvbl.net/, and found that we are unable to display ads that would provide a valuable experience for your site’s users or our advertisers. As we feel that the site isn’t a good fit for the AdSense program at this time, we have disabled ad serving to the site.
Your account remains active, and you can continue to display ads on other sites. Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
The Google AdSense Team
The email headers definitely indicated this this was authentic, so I shot back this reply, which has gone unanswered:
I’m pretty stunned. Before I share this with the thousands of readers of Black Velvet Bruce Li, perhaps you can be a little more specific about the reason why Black Velvet Bruce Li fails to “provide a valuable experience for … our advertisers”?
It would only seem fair to give you this opportunity before the most visited Republican blog in in the Commonwealth of Virginia proceeds to utterly trash your reputation.
Regards
Greg Letiecq
So apparently the criticism of Google’s demonstrated political bias all these years actually has some merit. They’ve banned political ads criticizing Hillary Clinton, and similarly cut off pro-gun bloggers in Arizona. Now, a site that has caught the attention of the Washington Post, the DC Examiner, MSNBC and WTTG Fox 5, to name just a few, and is the most-visited Republican blog in Virginia fails to provide the sufficiently valuable experience that advertisers seem to desire. What, don’t they want people to actually see their ads?
If Google Adsense is going to start picking and choosing the sites it will allow to participate in the Adsense program based on political considerations, this should really enrage the internet community which has a decidedly libertarian bent. How will the many websites that promote free speech on the internet in good conscience continue to enrich a company that acts in a manner inconsistent with this important principle? It’s not likely to impress a lot of the Virginia blogosphere, either. They probably missed the clause in the Adsense Terms Of Service that either specified that conservatives aren’t allowed to participate, or that sites are required to shill for Barack “Let’s Invade Pakistan” Obama.
If Google wants to selectively enrich itself and it’s internet partners on the basis of political beliefs, it’s probably time to sell stock in Google. The marketplace doesn’t typically care much care for politics over profitability. As far as Barack Obama is concerned, the dollar a day or so in lost revenue this results in is probably nothing compared to what this will cost his presidential campaign in negative publicity. This is all so spectacularly stupid.
Meanwhile, there’s still Blogads, which I prefer.
UPDATE: Apparently, they’ve reconsidered after seeing this post. I got this on Friday, August 10th:
Hello Greg,Thanks for following up with us. Our AdSense representatives monitor all sites participating in Google’s AdSense program according to our Terms and Conditions and program policies. It appears that we sent the prior warning message in error. I apologize for the confusion.
We have now re-enabled ad serving to www.bvbl.net. Please note that because ad serving to your site was temporarily disabled, there may be a delay of up to 48 hours or more before ads begin appearing on your site
again. We appreciate your patience.Sincerely,
Sandor
The Google AdSense Team
I’m going to have to think about this a bit. After this little escapade, I’m not sure I want to have anything to do with them.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
33 Comments
Views: 1772
Loading ...
I feel offended and discriminated against by their actions. Will the ACLU stand up for me?
Whenever I saw the Obama ad on you site, I’d just click on it so they’d have to pay you.
http://blogs.chron.com/immigration/archives/2007/08/presidential_de.html
This is going to happen next on a regular basis.
While I would almost never presume to do so, I think I can speak for Charles Reichley here by noting that getting banned isn’t much fun, is it, Greg?
Actually, were I you, I would have dropped them long ago. Adds for homosexual “marriage” hardly seem appropriate on a post about certain former Dem candidates for County Supervisor.
Patriot,
Stop-you are to funny! Nice afternoon giggle
sorry, that was me redawn…(above)
Whenever I saw the Obama ad on you site, I’d just click on it so they’d have to pay you.
Yeah — me too!
me too
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8QS9I980.htm
I feel discriminated against on this one too!
Published: Aug 2, 2007
Author: JON GAMBRELL
Post Date: 2007-08-02 05:28:50 by out damned spot
LITTLE ROCK — Mexican immigration experts visiting the United States to see how this country deals with illegal immigrants say the U.S. is not the only country with a porous southern border.
In Mexico, immigration officials struggle to handle a growing number of immigrants from Guatemala, Honduras and other countries who seek low-wage Mexican jobs that have been abandoned for better-paying jobs in the United States.
“Mexico is a country of both transit and destination,” said Gabriel Perez Duperou, deputy director of Sin Fronteras, an immigrants rights group based in Mexico City. “But for Mexico, it’s not logical to demand a policy from a country to respect human rights if we are not respecting the human rights of immigrants.”
In part to learn and critique, a group of Mexican governmental officials and academics visited Arkansas as part of a three-city tour of how the United States handles immigration enforcement. The group traveled to El Paso, Texas, to see how officers patrol the border and to visit a jail for those arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The group also visited Washington, D.C., visiting with officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
In Little Rock, the group met Tuesday with the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation to discuss a report it conducted about the economic benefits of Arkansas’ burgeoning Hispanic immigrant population. Census estimates show more than 141,000 Hispanics now live in the state, which has one of the fastest rates of growth in the nation.
“It is a lot of immigration. But what is more — the resources they use from the government or what they are making?” said Guadalupe Pena Trigueros, a professor of immigration studies at Mexico’s National Autonomous University. “I see a positive result (here), that they are giving more to the state than what they are consuming.”
Overall, most Mexicans see that positive effect and wonder why the U.S. Congress struggled in trying to pass a recent immigration package to create some form of a guest worker program.
However, Mexican President Felipe Calderon acknowledges the need to provide better treatment to the migrants, said Ana Cecilia Oliva Balcarcel, director of international affairs for Mexico’s National Institute of Migration. Oliva acknowledged many of those migrants end up staying in Mexico’s southern states, working construction jobs and other menial labor.
Mexico created a program to provide documentation for those working in the southern state and is working to decriminalize being an illegal immigrant, Oliva said. However, she said police and labor abuses do continue.
“We’ve been working to eliminate the corruption,” Oliva said. “We still miss some.”
Officials have pledged to improve Mexico’s own detention centers for immigrants, responding to criticism that illegal Central American migrants are denied the respect Mexico demands for its citizens in the United States.
“It’s important to regulate immigration through our country,” Oliva said. “We can’t put up walls. We’re never going to put them up.”
Off topic, but has anybody read anything about Robert Putnam’s studies on diversity? Apparently, this social scientist whom is a self described liberal academic has been studying civic decline over the decades. He partook in a massive study to find out why, and to his dismay, found that diversity in communities contributes largely to overall loss in quality of life. Fascinating stuff. A very inconvenient truth that he tried to spin but results are results. A quote from an article:
“Higher diversity meant lower social capital. In his findings, Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to “distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”
“People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ — that is, to pull in like a turtle,” Putnam writes.
In documenting that hunkering down, Putnam challenged the two dominant schools of thought on ethnic and racial diversity, the “contact” theory and the “conflict” theory. Under the contact theory, more time spent with those of other backgrounds leads to greater understanding and harmony between groups. Under the conflict theory, that proximity produces tension and discord.
Putnam’s findings reject both theories. In more diverse communities, he says, there were neither great bonds formed across group lines nor heightened ethnic tensions, but a general civic malaise. And in perhaps the most surprising result of all, levels of trust were not only lower between groups in more diverse settings, but even among members of the same group.
“Diversity, at least in the short run,” he writes, “seems to bring out the turtle in all of us.”"
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/04/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=1
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56838
We must watch for this!
I googled Jim Young’s name and THIS is what I got: http://www.w7ftt.net/photos.html - well, one look caused me to think…this is JUST like the fight scene in Star Wars between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader (http://www.netpath.net/~cyberric/darluk.htm)!!!
I don’t know why this surprised me. I’m sure it shouldn’t.
More likely you got hits about cases I’ve litigated, scholarly articles I’ve written, and congressional testimony that I’ve given.
Oh. And several references to the guitarist for Styx (no relation, like the photographer).
I googled “NOT JY” and THIS is what I got:
http://www.emailjoke.com/inversion.html
Yeah, that’s about right.
Re Mando’s post -
Putnam’s research would be consistent with the Liberal’s goal of having government assume all control and be in charge of everything. Creating civic malaise in the name of “diversity” would leave a vacuum of leadership and a requirement to just “make the trains run on time.” Voila, in step the Liberals with their promises to do everything for everyone, for a price, i.e., your paycheck and your freedom to dissent. It’s all clear to me now. Make sheep out of the population and it can be controlled without violence. In fact, the sheep will beg to be controlled.
The one thing they haven’t counted on is the Internet. They’ll try to take that over next, one way or another. Critical thinkers are their greatest fear. That’s why the MSM has been after Greg for interviews. One way or another, they will try to discredit and disarm him.
We have enjoyed your absence, jimmy….please crawl back in your hole; charles misses you….
GregL, do you think there is a relationship between your attempt to filter out the Obama ads and the message you got?
I have heard about Adsense banning a site for invalid clicks.
https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=23921
The AngryArab.Blogspot.com, which I read but disagree with, is hosting Google ads right now at http://angryarab.blogspot.com/ .
I just saw an “Ads by Google” ad at the top of the page for “Arabic Ring Tones.” I have no problem with Google hosting on AngryArab.Blogspot.com, but Google should host at BVBL also.
By any objective measure their website is more controversial than yours. For instance, they have pictures of civilians in Iraq screaming on the front page.
Of course, I am not sure what to do. Boycott Google? It seems pointless. Sue them? Not a libertarian approach. Since according to the Post you only made $1.50 per day anyway, maybe just find another ad vendor.
My surprise, I suppose, is that this is actually a Republican blog. Now, was I aware that most contributors were Republican.? But of course.
I suppose I would like to see the Help Save Manassas part of this blog called Bi-partisan. I see the issues of that organization as bi-partisan rather than Republican or Democrat. I am an independent and belong to no party. Been there, done that, don’t want to return.
Drawing a line in the sand along party lines really diffuses the issue of uncontrolled immigration and is a divider rather than a uniter of people with a common cause.
Jim, no, you are sadly mistaken. THAT picture is Tom Kopko trying to look for a reason to rule in favor of Faisal - lol.
As far as “scholarly articles”, for someone who CLAIMS to be a lawyer I find it hard to believe that ANYONE who is not MAN enough to litigate cases such as criminal or divorce cases is someone who spent money at a school for boys - is THAT where you got your Darth Vader costume, Jimmy, from your bunk mate? - and decided to take the EASY way out by working for a non-profit, could write a “scholarly article”. Aren’t non-profits the equivalent of the Peace Corps???
Face it, Jimmy, this ONE PAGE ALONE has MORE HITS than your entire website has had since its inception in Charles’ basement on a dark and lonely night. So, Jimmy, I think it is time that you leave the blogging to the professionals and have a nice cup of http://pics.livejournal.com/twoflower/pic/00023gph/g6
Oooooo, you make me so jealous, Bats… er, “Not JY.” Bold words from a “man” lacking the courage and integrity to sign his own name.
Frankly, it’s rather embarassing to admit being a Prince William County Republican, don’t you think Jimmy?
Isn’t it true that even Gill supporters are unhappy about how things went at the convention under Kopko’s leadership?
The GOP Committee’s Chairman Tom Kopko who favors conventions is either unqualified or uncapable of running one. Any chance Kopko will resolve the appeal for the 51st HOD convention before the general election?
I wouldn’t admit to being a Prince William County Republican or Democrat. From what I can tell, both groups fight from within like cats and dogs. Frankly, I am surprised either group can muster enough energy to even run a campaign after all the in-fighting. It must be exhausting.
Couldn’t agree with you more, NOT JY….:)
Just look what that convention, which Tom Kopko insisted upon…against the advice of many who had experienced previous iterations…has done to the party. The party is severely fractured. Why? Because of the aftermath.
By a very slim margin, the convention yielded an apparent “winner.” However, because of the thin margin, an appeal was filed. All was fine so far, but then, when a simple, unintentional, but result-changing personal error was discovered in the credentialing process, Tom Kopko has refused to set the record straight and designate the rightful Republican nominee.
Is there integrity there? No way, and THAT is not a part of the Republican party plan that I know. Absolutely disgusting…I don’t like to see it, but the PWC Republicans deserve to lose in November.
Freedom - I agree with you VERY much. Kafka, er, Kopko has planned the next meeting in September. With the revalation that he has ruled in favor of the American Muslim Council’s own Faisal Gill, the man who has THE MOST to lose with these new speeding laws, I think we should ALL show up at the meeting and DEMAND that he step down.
Somebody PLEASE bring a video camera in September and let’s make this a meeting Crapko, um, Kopko CANNOT forget. Bring your Marty Nohe signs, Julie Lucas signs, and let’s give this SOB the vote of no confidence he so rightfully deserves!!!
Try Blogads, they pay better. Yahoo has a good payment program.
It’s been said that bad press is good press - if true, FAISAL should be paying you, Greg, I hear he pays in the thousands - to some, $13,500 for doing absolutely NOTHING but showing up to an event. The man spends money like a liberal!!!!
Hey Jimmy “Bold words from a “man” lacking the courage and integrity” - THOSE are bold words coming from a 2-bit lawyer for a non-profit!!!
Be a man, door knock for Faisal (SOMEONE has to, he is too busy protesting in front of Paul Nichol’s house), write him a $2000 check, do SOMETHING for the guy you soooo strongly believe in. From what I have seen of you, you could use the exercise.
A post made a while back by Mando really hit a desperate point this country should study and understand. Everyone missed the importance of it. “Diversity” the opposite of “Homogeneity and unity” by its very definition will cause us to fracture into little arguing and conflicted political city states, and spiral into decay and decline lacking in unity of purpose and unity of civilization (i.e. a peaceful united nation fractured). The Greeks and Romans lost the “Renaissance” periods of their greatest achievement due to political diversity and diversification of its people after initial unifying efforts brought about peace, civil prosperity and stability for long periods of time. Their decline and fall as a civilization was due to diversity and inclusion concepts too. They lost their cohesion, their national pride, their national unity, and their homogeneity and mutual trust as citizens of a common ideology, culture, and rule of law. Once the diversity became large enough civil war started, and warring factions, primarily the Celt’s and Gaul’s sacked Rome. They were highly diverse cultures with no kings and were always at war with each other, extremely cruel and barbaric war, with no common cultural bond to maintain civility. There are many modern examples of this today, China, Russia, Bosnia, Iraq, India, Southern Africa, etc.
I respectfully understand people’s politically pressured response to use politically correct terminology like diversity and inclusion. But these are terms used as a means for minority special interest groups to conquer majority groups. The terms are used to politically hide a special interest group based agenda to obtain special privileges for their represented groups personal agendas (this is unlawful under the 14th amendment and equal protection under the law clauses). When racial balancing and Affirmative Action failed to pass the equal protection under the law scrutiny tests diversity and inclusion concepts were invented to continue the special interest and privilege fight. Diversity and Inclusion have not been put to a constitutional test yet and will fail for the same reason other discrimination and privilege concepts advocated by and for certain groups and not ALL groups failed. I wholly support a diversity concept and inclusion concept that values skill and traits that individuals have, but not when these traits are applied by 14th amendment identified group concepts that are prohibited behaviors and classifications for determining privilege and discrimination. This is what makes the diversity concept illegal. It is group focused and based on discrimination and privilege by group. All “Individuals” should have an opportunity to fulfill their ambition and contribute to the success of their company and go as far as their ambition and talent allow, but this cannot extend as an inalienable right to groups. The problem is people don’t know the difference between individual rights advocacy and group advocacy. They think it’s the same but it is not. The point senior executives and HR people need to understand about the way they constructed hiring websites and hiring practices, is that these traits, and decisions to hire by law cannot have anything but equal opportunity for individuals, and cannot guarantee equal outcomes (1 of each). The decision to hire and association with organizations that politically support group based hiring practices often advocated by politically pressuring websites, can by the law enacted in the 14th amendment have nothing to do with or be based on race, religion, ethnic group, gender, lifestyle, physical abilities, or sexual orientation. You must by law consider only the individual and not their culture or any of the other identified traits you are not allowed to use to discriminate with as part of the hiring process or give special privilege to as part of the hiring process, or give special recognition to groups on company websites that advocate for privileges or on behalf of the people hired based on their association with groups, group names, group advocacies, group labels and advocacy concepts that discriminate against or give preference to individuals not identified as members of their group. When groups associate privilege with race, religion, ethnic group, gender, lifestyle, physical abilities, or sexual orientation based on groups that they represent they break the law. Such association and advocacy by these principals is an unlawful and unconstitutional hiring practice that can be challenged in the Supreme Court and any company doing so can be found guilty of discrimination or giving special privileges to groups rather than individuals. All such references to group traits identified above need to be removed from hiring and group diversity and inclusion advocacy websites and substituted with the term “individual”
Here’s why diversity and inclusion concepts create discrimination. If you have 100 people each of a different trait identified by those traits you are not allowed to give special privilege to or discriminate against, and you have 5 job openings, How are you going to determine who you hire? For every 5 people you hire, based on making sure you “include” one of each trait, or 1 person who has multiple traits who can count for several diverse traits, you have given those 5 people special privilege over the other 95 you choose to ignore based entirely on race, religion, ethnic group, gender, lifestyle, physical abilities, or sexual orientation groups that they represent. You have discriminated unlawfully against 95 people to give special privilege to 5. What happens when you get 100 more people each with 100 more different traits. Given the skill diversity, and talent range in any single “group” of individuals identified as a group by their race, religion, ethnic group, gender, lifestyle, physical abilities, or sexual orientation group that they represent, how can you possibly ensure the company gets “individuals” of the best skill and talent to fulfill their ambition and contribute to the success of their company and go as far as their ambition and talent allow? By law you must ignore everything except their skill and traits as individuals, or else you will discriminate and give special privilege based on race, religion, ethnic group, gender, lifestyle, physical abilities, or sexual orientation. For every individual you “privilege” and give special hiring consideration for based on these traits to meet a diversity or inclusion concept, you discriminate against another based on these same traits.
The courts currently rule that only strict, compelling and very narrowly defined reasons for preference must be clearly shown by evidence, other than to simply achieve diverse group quotas and racial, gender or ethnic group balances. Such “quota” concepts and numerical balancing concepts have been determined un-constitutional by Bakke (1978) and Grutter (2003) and Gratz (2003). Individuals are diverse, groups are not. Our US Constitution, the 14th amendment, and Bill of Rights gives equal consideration to all individuals, and not to groups. The Constitution protects individuals from discrimination “and special privilege given to others” by denying groups the right to force their special privileged rule of law on others not belonging to their racial, gender or ethnic group philosophy. It protects rights of individuals from discrimination and special privilege given to others and does not grant any person or group special privilege based on what group they affiliate with or belong to. It privides equal protection for ALL under the law, applied equally to ALL. If it does not, and any group or individual is left out that is unlawful. Discrimination is not about protecting rights of groups to have special considerations and special privileges based on race, gender and ethnicity, but to guarantee they are treated fairly without any reference or privilege to group, race, gender or country of origin. Diversity and inclusion are not equality. They are disguised forms of discrimination and privilege.
Look, a handful of male on male encounters do not make a man Gay. Greg, you remain pure as the driven snow (and when I say snow, I mean snow, not cocaine). As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Let’s not shame Greg for a few (lot) of indiscretions. Even the married head of the American Association of Evangelicals had a boyfriend, for crying out load.
So much for rational dialog
[…] pointed them to my other sites, they haven’t pulled the ads yet, which I find odd). Any way, here’s another. Seems if you don’t like Barack Hussein Obama ads, they’ll drop you. Meanwhile, […]