Big Brother v. Google Update:

Following this battle so far has been relatively educational. In a USA Today article by Jim Hopkins, a set of figures gave me serious pause: "But in the short run, investors are worried. Friday, stock in the company plummeted 8.5%, or $36.98 a share, to $399.46, a day after published reports of its refusal to bow to a Justice Department subpoena. It was Google's biggest daily percentage decline since it went public in August 2004. Garcia said the subpoena fight was the biggest factor in the stock's decline. It also was driven by a weak revenue forecast earlier in the week by competitor Yahoo. That spooked investors anticipating Google's fourth-quarter results, due out Jan. 31."* Perhaps a bit paranoid, I wonder if these investors are indeed "worried" by the subpoena fight, or "spooked" by a less than average revenue forecast. Could it be that the stockholders who supported Google in the past are sending a monetary message to the company by selling off their shares? If so, it means that those former stockholders speak for Big Brother. How much stock do you own? I don't own any. I don't own land, let alone stock at $436.44 a pop. That's grocery money for at least a month, not an investment. In other words, relatively well-monied individuals are sending a message to Google. That's my current take on this. And I hesitate to say "well-monied Republicans," but that's what I suspect.

If this problem really heats up, I'd like to start a fund for Google to fight the government in court, a fund that will avert the impact of financial pressure on the company to a degree. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has had such a thought. If there's anything that I learned by watching GW win the last two elections, it's that the old adage "Money talks and bullshit walks" may not be a philosophy that one wants to believe, but it most certainly is necessary to consider, given the many ongoing "difficulties" with our current administration.