Let me be clear, I said facts – not gossip! Simple Internet searches would reveal the following truths:

1) The woman that Dr. Giacchino shares his life with as his wife and employs thru his clinic is a convicted drug dealer (Maria Gil).
2) Federal law enforcement agencies are presently investigating Dr. Giacchino’s medical practice.
3) Dr. Giacchino once lost his medical license relating to a 1980s felony drug indictment.

Furthermore, while I have no physical evidence to support an allegation that Dr. Giacchino was forced to resign from Loyola Hospital in Maywood, Illinois in the early 1980s, I contend Loyola Hospital discovered that Giacchino was conspiring to sell human organs for the Chicago Outfit to desperate patients willing to pay large bribes. In fact, I dare Loyola Hospital to sue me for libel, if only to prove this allegation is false. And I would be willing to bet anyone any amount of money (via the State of Nevada, where gambling is legal) that Loyola Hospital will not seek a legitimate claim of libel against me on the aforementioned matter.

I will finish by suggesting that the public relations Internet site called Empower Public Relations, not be taken seriously while they promote Dr. Giacchino as a reputable doctor. In addition, the American Association of Pain Medicine, Chicago Medical Society, Illinois State Medical Society and Westlake Hospital (of Melrose Park Illinois – shockingly, Giacchino is on staff there) are hereby advised of the same. We as a community should not stand for the whitewashing of dangerous doctors.

—-

While going through our records recently, we found that your AdSense account has posed a significant risk to our AdWords advertisers. Since keeping your account in our publisher network may financially damage our advertisers in the future, we’ve decided to disable your account.

Please understand that we consider this a necessary step to protect the interests of both our advertisers and our other AdSense publishers. We realize the inconvenience this may cause you, and we thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation.

If you have any questions about your account or the actions we’ve taken, please do not reply to this email. You can find more information by visiting
https://www.google.com/adsense/support/.

Sincerely,

The Google AdSense Team

—–

So, in the wake of recent articles published on KTF Media Group’s website, Google pulled their ads from KTF on or about August 11, 2009, citing no specific details in support of their decision.

KTF Media Group has been advertising with Google since June 3, 2008.

KTF published their first controversial article (not favorable to the church), relating to sex abuse cases of the Catholic Church in June 2009, however, KTF immediately buckled to pressure by Bishop Timothy J. Lyne, swiftly removing the article. Since August 3, 2009, KTF published new articles on sex abuse scandals within the Roman Catholic Church, just days prior to being dumped by Google.

We have had our share of controversial articles here. Apparently it seems the brutal excesses of organized crime, rampant theft of corrupt political officials, dangers of pornography and secret racism of local medical doctors were all acceptable topics of conversation according to AdSense. Pedophile priests, though, is too taboo for Google? It is strange that a group whose primary role on the Internet is to help people find things would find unacceptable a publication that advocates the ‘finding out’ about church officials who violate the rights of their flock.

Google offers an appeal option for former clients. Eager to take our case to the big-wigs at the AdSense division, I took full advantage of this offer. I spent some time considering what I would say, ultimately settling on a succinct two word riposte. Sadly, this simple response cannot be shared here today, as I do not believe in using vulgarity in my articles.

Since being dumped by Google, I have thought long and hard about my work as a writer, and I have decided to publish the article that Bishop Lyne asked me to remove last June. Please read it here: Do Chicago Catholics Have The Right To Know If Cardinal Francis George And Father Daniel Flens Are More Than ‘Just Friends’?

While Google appears to me to have become a pedophile-priest-friendly organization, the Internet does have a number of other advertising companies without this possible taint. I would suggest to anyone using AdSense that it may be time to acquire the services of a new ad supplier. Google may unfortunately be in the hands of bureaucrats more interested in the safe ignorance that is silence. Just look at what they’re doing in China. It looks more and more like Google, a powerful tool for knowledge, is being ruined by the small-mindedness of a few people.

The letter goes on to comment on more of the reasoning behind the remissions of the excommunications, stating that they were an effort to close an ever-widening gap between the church and SSPX, perhaps bringing closer the possibility of reconciliation between the sect and the church itself. Further explanations included the remission of the excommunication was a lifting of a disciplinary measure, and not the acceptance of the doctrinal differences between the church and SSPX that some felt it was. In essence, just because the church has lifted the penalty on the bishops does not give them any form of canonical authority.

More than just paying attention to the Internet as a source of news, the Vatican should use this as an opportunity to learn and understand how news on the Internet work, and the speed at which it spreads.

Explaining in plain terms what the motives were when lifting the excommunications is something that should have been done on 21st January, when the decree was first issued, not six weeks later, or even two weeks later when the first response came from the Vatican in response to Williamson’s reductionist statements. Those who understand church law may have been in the know, but the simple fact is that they are not the only ones paying attention to what comes out of the Vatican. Today’s news cycle is short, and allowing 2 to 6 weeks between action and response is absurd.

Does this mean the Pope should not have included Williamson in the remission of excommunication? Not necessarily. The intent behind the lifting of the excommunication is still valid – to open a dialogue between SSPX and the church, and hopefully resolve the issues that threaten schism, bringing the sect back into the folds of the church.

It’s an admirable goal, and in line with the Holy See’s goals and priorities it has set out for itself. However, it would have behooved the church to know ahead of time what it might be opening itself up to, and have an action plan in place to deal with the controversy that may, and did, erupt.

Foreknowledge of Williamson’s words would have allowed the Vatican to immediately issue the news that remission of excommunication did not give him the right to lead a congregation, or instill in him the authority of the church. It would have allowed for the immediate understanding that the reductionist views of the Holocaust Williamson expressed were rejected by the Pope, and contrary to the Church’s stance, and that to be a functioning Bishop in the church, Williamson would need to unequivocally and publicly retract his previous statements, a retraction which has not yet occurred to the satisfaction of the Pope.

The Williamson case may have been an unforeseen mishap as far as the Vatican is concerned, but it did not have to be. With a bit more foresight into what they were doing and how the outside world would react, the Holy See may have been able to avoid some of the controversy, control it, and actually let their true message be heard.

It can only be hoped that they do, in fact, learn from this experience as they claim they have.

Whatever one’s opinion of the man’s business decisions, it is impossible to deny that Conrad Black is an impressively talented and accomplished writer. I now make a point to read his articles whenever he publishes. I would recommend that anyone who is confused about the current financial crisis gripping the United States read Ignorance and Upheaval. It is one of the most succinct descriptions I have read of how we ended up in this current economic quagmire.

In the course of following Mr. Black’s writing I came across one of his most recent essays, A ‘rather successful’ president with some serious achievements under his belt. In the piece Mr. Black does an excellent job of laying out the merits of our current president’s time in the White House. He points out that a “cataract of sniggering and brickbats may safely be expected as serious analysis of the presidency of George W. Bush begins, but it will not last: The historical standing of departing presidents tends to rise as emotionalism subsides.”

I find this particularly true, and there is a reason for it that might not be so obvious to all of us.

George Walker Bush is the first Internet Age president.

I can hear the protests already.

I know President Clinton is widely regarded as the first Commander and Chief in the Internet Age. This argument does have some merit, if you manage to forget the state of people’s interaction with the Internet throughout most of Clinton’s time in office. While the structure was there, no one was really using the Internet, at least not the way it is used now. In short, like all other presidents before him, William Jefferson Clinton never had to deal with YouTube.

The best illustration I can think of brings me back to college. I was a freshman in the fall of 1996 and distinctly remember how having an Ethernet card in my computer (even just having a computer) made me a unique commodity in dorm life. In fact, most of the first friends I made in college were the precious few students taking advantage of this fantastic and ever-connected gateway to the Internet.

Now, I would like you to think back to the ‘90s. How many of you had an e-mail address in 1996? How many of you had a computer? Then, there is the matter of connectivity. Before 2000 I could count on one hand the number of people I knew with a dedicated Internet connection. I myself used dial-up until 2001. As 2008 wraps up, I’ll bet I could walk down the block and be hard-pressed to find a family without a DSL line or Broadband modem.

Heck, forget computers, those clunky, wire-ridden desktop paperweights from 2004. Did you have a WiFi laptop? How did we drink coffee at Starbucks without the Internet to keep us company?

Did you even have a cell phone, let alone the wireless multimedia monsters many of us carry in our pockets nowadays? I have a HTC G1, and the little thing is at least as much a functioning laptop as the first portable computer I used to lug around.

So yes, we all are loaded down with Internet-driven gizmos now – where is this going? The Internet, with its global reach and growing audience, coupled with widespread access to increasingly inexpensive and impressively reliable computer technology birthed a nigh on infinite observation and criticism engine. This vast information network, once the plaything of the military and scientific community, is available to the masses. The printing press, a machine that revolutionized communication and learning the world over, is a child’s toy compared to the Internet.

Ten years ago, could you have read the Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, Le Monde, Jordan Times and Asahi Shimbun (without going to the newsstand, praying all the papers were there and paying for each one) and then signed into your blog and posted your thoughts about world events? With a click of the send button your observations are available to people in Chicago, New York, Paris, Amman and Tokyo. Congratulations, you have a potential news-reading audience that William Randolph Hurst would have envied. The best part is Google (along with many others) does it all for free.

Now you do not need an education, or an editor, to become a publisher. Please do not take this in a negative or degrading way. I am, after all, a part of this phenomenon. I do not need a newspaper or book publisher to get my ideas out to the public now. This revolutionary tool places voluminous libraries of information at my beck and call, and gifts me with an infinite amount of print space through which I may express myself. The Internet is a marvelous contribution to humanity’s quest to understand and relate to one another.

The sheer power of this newborn entity also begs a question, though. When this juggernaut of opinion is aimed at someone, what sort of effect will it have? Will it turn a good person into a saint? Not likely, since no news sells like bad news.

The masses thrive on gossip and innuendo, the peccadilloes of the famous and powerful. So, it seems to me, the Internet, being an expression of the multitudes, would blossom with megabyte after megabyte of negative attention directed towards the most visible in our world’s society.

I am not writing this because I am jaded with humanity. Put a jeweler’s loupe to a diamond and imperfections will magically appear. It stands to reason that staring at someone all the time, incessantly recording his or her movements, will, sooner or later, yield faults. If you start out looking for something to dislike, well, the process gets a whole lot easier. This whole procedure is greatly accelerated if the observers do not personally know their subject. It becomes strangely painless to say and write terrible things about other human beings.

President Bush has been a focus of attention of the Internet in a serious way since 9/11. I am not saying I agree with all the decisions President Bush has made during his tenure, but almost regardless of what he did, there was going to be a crushing wave of criticism, and not necessarily from the television and newspaper pundits. It is worthwhile to note that this criticism does not have nationality, either. It is as easy for a Brazilian to watch and comment on the president of the United States as it is for me.

I am sure that Conrad Black can attest to this, as his articles for the National Post are published on the Internet. Anyone with a keyboard can easily attack him, using his popularity to make their comments (often snide and without factual evidence, as blind comments are often wont to be) available to a much wider audience than they could garner themselves.

As it became easy to follow, in disturbing minutia, the exploits of the office of the President, obsession with the man grew exponentially. Once Bush is out of office and back on his ranch in the little town of Crawford, Texas, public opinion will become less harsh, if only because he is no longer in the limelight. Perhaps then a serious examination of his time in office might begin.

I wonder how President-elect Obama will fare in this dog-eat-dog world of 24/7 Internet-based obsession? He and his team used the power of the Internet to dazzling success during his campaign, easily routing John McCain on the virtual field of competition. Will this mean that President Obama will be able to harness the terrific power of the Internet to further his goals, or will it fall back on him like a collapsing ocean wave, bringing America’s next president’s poll numbers down, much like his predecessor?