The Spectacle Blog
Both of those pages are the result of "googlebombing." Here's how it works: Google ranks search results according to relevant links. If you get a whole bunch of people from different websites to link to a page with a certain word or phrase, you can push that page to the top of the search results. "I'm feeling lucky" simply grabs the first search result.
Google discourages googlebombing, but they've yet to figure out what to do about it. The comment and trackback spam that plagues many blogs, by the way, is a form of googlebomb; the scoundrels are trying to raise their search-engine profiles. (The American Prospect was actually shut down by comment spam earlier this week.)
Tax Day is quickly upon us. Some of you are still working out those last-minute returns. For you others, don't forget the Alternative Minimum Tax is still out there and growing as a threat to your income. As Daniel Gross points out, the President and Congress bleat about it every spring, but fail to act. If a GOP Congress and White House won't squelch an outrageous hidden tax hike, who will?
Quin, don't jump the gun here. This works both ways: when you type in "French military victories" and hit I'm Feeling Lucky, you get an outside site made to look like a Google results page that says those terms did not match any documents and, "Did you mean french military defeats."
So if these guys were smart enough to game the system, who's to say Google's responsible for the President Bush/failure stunt? We don't know if they are. And if we assume they are, then they have a sense of humor that works both ways.
Courtesy of Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO comes this outrage. To save you the trouble, I'll tell you what happens: When you go to Google and type in the word "failure" and then press the "I'm feeling lucky" button, what you get is the official White House biography of President Bush. That's outrageous. I'd suggest boycotting Google, but, well, it is so dadgummed convenient.
The Prowler is right on target (not just because he agreed with my earlier blog, but because his prescriptions are, as usual, also quite sage) in saying that Brett Kavanaugh deserves confirmation and that the GOP should put judges front and center. To add to that thought, I repeate a litany I have written before and which should be repeated as often as possible until the Senate blockheads finally understand it: When the issue is judges, we win.
By "we," of course I mean conservatives. And we win for a number of reasons. We win first on substance because the AMerican people instinctively know that predictable and understandable interpretations of the COnstitution and laws are essential to fair governance... which means that "originalism" and its related conservative ideals of jurisprudence are political winners (which, by the way, Alito and Roberts both helped demonstrate).
Brett Kavanaugh deserves an up or down vote.
Hillary Clinton should stop using the likes of Dick Durbin to hide behind (her staff organized a rolling hold on Kavanaugh's nomination so that she could not be fingered as the main culprit, and her leadership of Harry Reid and Durbin obliged).
Republicans in the Senate should force a change of rules that reveals who has put a hold on judicial nominations so the American public knows what games are being played. And why. They know it is a problem. Why don't they do something about it?
The White House should once again put the judiciary front and center on its agenda this summer. The President speaks passionately about the issue (good) and the voters eat it up (better). And conservatives win on the issue (best).
If anybody needed any more proof that the ABA is little more than just another heavily politicized liberal lobby group, witness its new rating of DC Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a superbly credentialed and highly liked and respected lawyer who just so happens to work in a top job in the Bush White House. Because of Democratic stalling tactics, he has been rated by the ABA not once, not twice, but three times. The first time, the ABA committee by a "substantial majority" gave him its highest rating of "well qualified," while a minority rated him "qualified." The second time he was rated, he earned the exact same designation. This time, though, after being subject to a senatorial "hold" because, indirectly at least, Hillary R. Clinton seems to have a Whitewater-related personal vendetta against him, his ratings suddenly changed. Now a "substantial majority" rate him "qualified," while only a minority rate him "well qualified."
Once in blue moon an op-ed can open readers' eyes. Wade Zirkle's in today's Washington Post is one such. Congressmen John Murtha and Jim Moran don't come off too well, as in this description of a MoveOn.org backed anti-war town hall meeting that Virginia congressman Moran sponsored and Iraq war critic Murtha spoke at earlier this year: