Uncivil disobedience, or, Google this, President Mo' Fo'

I know you all share with me the joy of seeing our tireless federal government hard at work on our behalf once again. The latest example of their godliness-is-next-to-thought-police-iness approach to information-gathering and power-brokering involves the U.S. Justice Department's lawsuit against Google to require the company to "divulge some of its most sensitve data--the actual requests that people enter into its popular search engine" (Harrisburg Patriot-News, Wednesday, March 15, 2006, p. A3).

The government is concerned about child pornography, apparently, and the Justice Department "plans to use the search requests to show how easy it is for online pornographers to fool Internet filters, hoping that it will help demonstrate the need for a tougher law to protect children."

Thanks for sharing that observation, FBI Agent Homer "Doh!" Simpson. Any 10-year-old with a savvy search sense and a half-way decent vocabulary could have told you that filters can be fooled.

Before you report me to the Oceania Ministry of Truth, Airstrip One Division, please understand I'm all for protecting children. I'm all for stopping terrorism, too, which I think figures into the DOJ's Google-watching request but can't be expressed so openly given the continuing fallout over the "unwarranted" initiative to read the contents of our postal and electronic delivery systems and listen to our phone conversations.

And just in case anyone's watching/listening/reading, I do want to point out that, in addition to wanting to protect children and fight terrorism, I love puppies, babies, Mom, and apple pie (especially served warm with vanilla ice cream)--as well as sunsets, walks on the beach, and candlelight suppers with someone special. I am somewhat puzzled by baseball-on-TV's appeal, especially without beer, hot dogs, sunburn, and beehives (you shoulda seen the Orioles play at the old Memorial Stadium in Charm City). And Chevrolet is out; I drive a Subaru. Other than that and "the gay thing," I'm practically a one-man, all-American, walking, talking, Up with People multimedia experience.

It's just that, in this age of lackluster pols with their tepid, tedious "big reveals" ("America, I love you; now help me adjust this Roman toga I had made out of the flag . . . "), it's difficult to argue contrary viewpoints. For example, you can't say, "Why, I think exposing children to pornography is just dandy!" Or "Dadburnitall, why don't we give terrorists an even break in this country?!"

Nor, of course, would you necessarily want to say or do those things, but what results from all the Milquetoastiness is a kind of boring, vacant political landscape, a West Texas of thought and debate. This is the sort of nothing-to-offend-anyone drivel my home state's former governor, Jim Hunt of North Carolina, based his political platform and fortunes upon through four administrations. "I'm for education and against drunk driving," the ol' Guv used to say.

Now Jim, please, that's just crazy talk. Not to mention political pablum.

I'm just not sure I trust the government's intentions, that this is really their motivation, protecting children and clamping down further on terrorism. It sounds noble enough, but let's face it, the current junta hasn't had the best track record when it comes to restraining itself from overstepping its authority and the law. "It's illegal for us to wiretap and read your mail without a warrant, and lord knows it's easy enough to get a warrant, but we're still gonna do it anyway, 'cause Alberto said it was legal--or at least he told me it was OK--under these particular circumstances."

Thank you, Chairman Moe (of if you prefer, Moe Foe), for that compelling, circular argument. It is a decidedly better Pee-Wee's-big-'round-the-block adventure than your repeated "Iraq has turned a corner" pronouncements.

I guess Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez (aka "AGAG") didn't call it spying, much as they didn't call what happened in Iraq torture and Guantanamo against the Geneva Conventions. So that's their story, they're sticking to it--it's not spying until the Fat Attorney General Sings. (Erm, that acronym is "FAGS," isn't it?--I think I've just offended myself . . . .) I know I believe 'em, but then I've always been kind of frightened of Sopranos.

I do love this new version of English we're learning, though. Let's call me "buff" even if I haven't touched a weight machine in 6 months. Let's call me "raven-haired" or "flaxen-tressed" even though I have a shaved head (by necessity as much as choice) and what little hair I do have is more gray than anything at this point. Let's say I'm "fond of the ladies," even though I've never actually tiptoed through those tulips, as it were. This is going to be fun! And I never have to be responsible for anything I say! Or even understand it! Ever again.

What might be even more fun is to "help" Google's search data a little bit. The feds want something to look at? Let's give them something to look at. Madames et monsieurs, might I suggest these keyword searches in Google for your internet-surfing and data-skewing pleasure?:

• dick - cheney - alcohol - firearms - friends - good - times
• donald - rumsfeld - naked - drugged - underaged - girls
• condoleezza - rice - babies - kittens - puppies - breakfast
• karl - rove - hide - sausage - prison - fantasy - president - bush
• george - laura - wife - swap - ann - coulter - pat - robertson

And one especially for Pennsylvania . . .

• rick - santorum - dominatrix - nun - whip - please - hurt

Caveat searcher--I tried these searches, and they didn't produce anything too repugnant or embarrassing (other than the shame and disgust you would expect to feel from typing words like "Rumsfeld" and "Santorum"). So hopefully you'll be safe, too. Void where applicable by law, exemption from prosecution sold separately.

But just imagine the possibilities! If we filled Google's search boxes to the brim with suggestive inquiries involving our incompetent, fussy, busybody leaders, might it not have some effect on the outcome of the search data? I'm no IT specialist, and I may not fully understand how Google's "deep searching" algorithms work. Nonetheless, it makes me feel all warm and radical inside, imagining that I might be able to skew the Justice Department's precious data and nefarious plans. And in a land where dissent, meaningful or not, is hard to come by, not to mention dangerous to promote or take part in, I'll take my civil disobedience where I can get it.

Happy Googling, y'all.