My point is that Google wants to be thought of as neutral, objective, and unbiased, but it has an anti-right, pro-left bias.
Do they celebrate Remembrance Day? Yes, it's a huge holiday in many of (our allied) countries, maybe more important to them than Memorial Day is to us, especially if disrespectful used car commercials are any indication. Google also celebrated US Veteran's day with military helmets in the logo, but I guess that doesn't fit the story you're trying to sell.
So Google "honors" the war dead of other nations, but not the U.S.
Google no-show for Veterans Day
The story I'm trying to sell is that Google is biased, as I said above, but also that the left-right bias that Google is selling is carefully constrained within the mainstream. A consistent, philosophical opposition to all wars, not just a partisan opposition to Bush's right-mainstream wars and support of Clinton's left-mainstream wars, is not behind Google's omission of Memorial Day logos.
Your rant also fails to mention that one of their earliest custom logos was of an American flag, and that they've celebrated the 4th of July every year since they started. One year, they even ran patriotic logos for four days straight. http://www.google.com/doodle2.html
Their logos avoid the real (revolutionary) meaning of the 4th of July. If Thomas Jefferson had designed a logo, it wouldn't be about Bar-B-Q's and painting. It would be a dagger through the heart of a tyrant. I'm no fan of "patriotic" celebrations of Independence Day.
And the post you link to about conservative women being objectified is beyond ridiculous.
I don't think it's "ridiculous"; I think it raises an interesting point.
Think about it: A guy goes to a search engine, types in the names of 2 shallow, sensationalist "girl pundits" AND an admitted homosexual Republican prostitute who got unusual access to the White House, and then finds that their racier pictures are the most popular on the web. And you're shocked by this?
OK, obviously you're a left-winger. I don't think Ann Coulter is "shallow," even when I disagree with her. I don't think she's any more "shallow" than Jane Fonda.
If it makes you feel better, try doing an image search for liberal hotties, like Jane Fonda. See?
What I see proves the point of the website I linked to. Why are all the images of Jane Fonda flattering and none photoshopped insults? They are real (as "real" as any Hollywood photo) and glamorous. Where are the (real) pictures of "Hanoi Jane" sitting atop a Communist howitzer?
But images to right-wing pundits are both faked and insulting.
And by the way, I totally disagree with Malkin's and Coulter's positions on the war.
And my guess as to why Ayn Rand doesn't have bikini pics up: there aren't any. This doesn't take a conspiracy, buddy, people just don't care about Ayn Rand enough to imagine her in a bikini. much less photoshop it.
I don't understand your hostility toward me. Why do left-wingers spend time creating quasi-erotic photoshopped pics of right-wing figures? Why does google put the insulting pics of right-wingers on top, but flattering pics of left-wingers on top? Is that completely a result of random computer results?
The technology is a mirror of society. And it doesn't make sense to blame the mirror for what it reflects. Stop expecting tech companies to go in and censor their software to match each of your personal convictions.
I never even hinted at any such expectations. My complaint isn't that they don't censor according to "my" expectations, but that they censor according to their expectations, which happen to be pro-left/anti-right and within the Empire-approved mainstream.
If Google is a mirror of anything, it would be that left-wingers spend more time on pictures than on words.
What is really on your mind, Rick? Do you support the war in Iraq? Is that why you're angry with me?