This election seems to have become dirtier than an evening with Chelsea Handler.
We, the people, have been forced to don rubber gloves and hazmat suits just to surf the Web. We have been sickened by the verbal listeria that has become an intimate ingredient in every piece of election news.
But surely, surely, not even we could have imagined this.
For if you perform a Google search of the words "completely wrong," you get image after image of Mitt Wrongney. I am so sorry, I meant Mitt Romney.
See how we're being affected by what seems obvious manipulation?
I am painfully grateful to Mashable, which clearly had nothing better to do today than perform randomly hurtful Google searches.
Mashable chalks this result upto the former governor's declaration of independence from a few words he uttered at a private shindig. You remember, the ones about 47 percent of the nation being victims who sought free government money wherever they could find it.
I am fairly confident he wasn't referring to the modest workaholics on Wall Street.
When footage of this monologue was revealed, the Republican candidate softened his stance and declared: "In this case I said something that's just completely wrong."
Those who believe in algorithmic neutrality put the extraordinary image search result to that one chest-beating quote.
In coming from the more searching side of existence, I was not convinced.
So I performed some other Google searches, in a quest to determine whether the well-known pinkos and camp followers who run Google were enacting a little electronic Rolfing.
I first Googled "socialist." There were, at most, half a dozen pictures of the president on the first page. There was an odd logo with a hammer and sickle and peculiar pictures of men with bushy mustaches and beards.
Clearly, this was suspicious. Clearly, there was something strange going on here. So I Googled "politicians liars."
More Technically Incorrect
Again, there were no more than a couple of pictures of the president. Instead, there were sprinklings of Richard Nixon, Benjamin Netanyahu, and even England's Saint Tony Blair.
Oh, but then I Googled "hope and change," and a wild plethora of presidential imagery cascaded before my eyes. Alright, if you read some of the small print, not all of it was flattering. But who ever reads the small print? Especially online.
You didn't get a single image of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie until Page 3.
It seems clear that someone should launch an investigation into this heinously biased state of affairs.
Our minds are being manipulated by a search engine that holds far too much power. Even when you Google "debate winner," you get nine Romney images to eight of Obama. That is hardly a fair reflection of the reality.
I feel sure that those who have unfettered democracy in their hearts will take steps to bring fairness and balance to our image searches.
Because image is always the basis on which we, the enlightened electorate, decide upon our president.