Sponsorship

If it's good enough for Katie's Dad and Ron Guhname, it's good enough for me: advertising on my blog, that is. You may notice a Google ad banner on the left-hand side, a Google search box, and an Amazon.com search box. Now, this blog isn't exactly one of the most visited on the web, and so I don't expect to quit medical school and sit around living high on the hog while the advertising revenues roll in. However, since I am currently a starving student, I thought that I might as well experiment with ads to see if they might bring in some spare change. I hope none of my readers mind--I don't intend to make this blog one of those cluttered, dizzying to look at sites that are so common today.

I was actually somewhat surprised to be accepted to the Google and Amazon programs. Here's an excerpt from the Amazon.com affiliate program operating agreement:

We may reject your application if we determine (in our sole discretion) that your site is unsuitable for the Program. Unsuitable sites include, but are not limited to, those that:

• promote sexually explicit materials
• promote violence
• promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, or age [bolding mine]
• promote illegal activities

I strongly suspected that if Amazon's people carefully read this blog, they would decided that it does in fact promote discrimination on several of those bases, and turn me down. Apparently, they either didn't dig deep enough, or they decided that Wise Man's Heart wasn't really that bad. A form of unprincipled exception, perhaps? "We can't go turning down every site that disagrees with us... that would be taking things too far!"

What's truly remarkable about the above policy, however, is the sweeping language. A site is unsuitable if it promotes discrimination based on nationality? So if a blogger promotes an immigration policy that favors persons from some nations over others, his site is unsuitable? Or how about sexual orientation? Logically speaking, if someone supports current marriage law in the United States, which does not provide for same-sex marriage, his site violates Amazon's policy.

Similarly, Google AdSense program policies read as follows:

Sites displaying Google ads may not include:

• Violent content, racial intolerance, or advocacy against any individual, group, or organization

I stop there because that is the very first rule. The most important thing to Google is that the sites on which its ads appear exhibit no discrimination whatsoever. And their language is even more sweeping than Amazon's: under Google's rules, you may not "advocate" against any "individual, group, or organization," meaning you cannot say anything negative at all. Obviously, this rule is not strictly enforced. Daily Kos has Google ads, and that site certainly advocates against George W. Bush, who is an individual, and the Republican party, which is an organization.

One might be tempted to say that these companies are unprincipled because they don't carry their rules to their logical conclusion. Viewed from another angle, however, they are quite principled, because at least in their official rules they place the principle of non-discrimination above that of turning a profit--even turning a profit from, and thus "sticking it to," people they disagree with.

Philadelphia commission: limiting the language a shop conducts its business in is "hate"

Philadelphia is my home town. The cheesesteak is one of its hallmark foods. In 2005, Joe Vento, the owner of Geno's, one of the two biggest tourist-trap cheesesteak shops, posted signs in the shop's window which read "This is AMERICA: WHEN ORDERING PLEASE SPEAK ENGLISH." Vento is now being charged with "discrimination" by an ominous-sounding entity called the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations. According to the Associated Press article,

After extensive publicity in 2006, the commission began investigating whether Vento violated a city ordinance that prohibits discrimination in employment, public accommodation and housing on the basis of race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

In February, the commission found probable cause against Geno's Steaks for discrimination, alleging that the policy at the shop discourages customers of certain backgrounds from eating there.

First of all, there should not even be a city ordinance prohibiting discrimination in employment, public accommodation and housing, for such prohibitions interfere with our right to freedom of association. Even so, on what basis does this ordinance forbid a business owner from insisting that business in his store be conducted in English? Is ordering a cheesesteak from a private business now a form of "public accommodation?" Here we are seeing the leftist tendency to eliminate the private and make all things public.

Camille Charles, a sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, testified that Vento's signs harken [sic] back to the "Whites only" postings of the Jim Crow era.

"The signs give a feeling of being unwelcome and being excluded," Charles said.

So we see that liberals want to use the power of government to forbid people from doing anything that might make other people feel unwelcome and excluded. I suppose if I had a party and didn't invite the guy upstairs, he might feel unwelcome and excluded. Should I then be prosecuted for "discrimination?"

Or if I went to France, and encountered a sign in a sandwich shop which read (in French) "This is France: When ordering please speak French," would I have a legitimate grievance against the owner?

Well, at least Professor Charles didn't mention Hitler. Maybe that would have been too trite.

I hear that Philadelphia, like most northeastern cities, has been deluged by Hispanic illegal aliens over the past ten or fifteen years. Indeed, to borrow Professor Charles's terminology, they are not welcome here, and should be excluded. I applaud Joe Vento's effort to maintain America's identity as an English-speaking society, and I hope this case is thrown out.

(Note: I see upon spell-check that either Professor Charles or Bob Lentz the AP writer do not know how to spell the word "hearken." A sign of the deterioration of English in our society, perhaps?)