David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

Well, I realize that is what most historians say.

I was thinking more in terms of king of the hill, kick-*ss and take names, go anywhere in the world on a moments notice and knock any and all heads that rise above the crowd, and nuke 'em 'till they glow in the dark powerful.

We didn't reach that point until well into WW II.

This year for Earth Day, the Google logo was represented as a melting iceberg, in support of Al Gore.

In addition, Google was also busted a couple of weeks ago by the San Francisco Examiner for this, which has since mysteriously vanished from the Exam's own website:

"Internal documents obtained by The Examiner shine new light on MoveOn.org’s “General Betray Us” ad and raise fresh questions about the far-left advocacy group’s misleading statements on the issue and its relationship with Google, a major donor to its political action committee.

The documents show how MoveOn.org used dubious claims of trademark infringement and threats of litigation to silence critics of its recent controversial full-page ad in The New York Times attacking Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. general in Iraq, which appeared the day he was testifying before Congress on the war effort. Among those critics was Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who is seeking a third term.

After The Examiner exclusively reported Oct. 11 that Google had banned four anti-MoveOn.org ads placed by the Collins campaign, Google and MoveOn.org each sought to portray the ban as unrelated to the Petraeus ad controversy. The documents obtained by The Examiner, however, show a direct link between the two events.

Google’s policy counsel in Washington, D.C., Pablo Chavez, claimed Oct. 12 that the Collins ads were “rejected by our system because of our trademark policy,” and he described MoveOn.org’s trademark complaint as having been filed “some time ago.”

Jennifer Lindenauer, MoveOn.org’s communications director, likewise sought to create distance between the trademark complaint and the “General Betray Us” controversy. According to an Oct. 15 Wired magazine report, Lindenauer said MoveOn.org filed its complaint with Google to prevent “fraudsters” from using the advocacy group’s name to collect contributions under false pretenses. She said MoveOn.org “opted out” of the complaint as soon as it become aware of the controversy over the Collins campaign ad.

Documents obtained by The Examiner show, however, that MoveOn.org’s complaint to Google was part of a broader effort by the advocacy group to silence its critics through threats and intimidation and had nothing to do with preventing fraud.

MoveOn.org filed its trademark complaint with Google on Sept.19 in the midst of the bitter public debate generated by the Petraeus ad. On the same day, MoveOn.org’s Carrie Olson sent a “cease and desist” letter to CafePress.com demanding that the online merchandiser stop selling anti-MoveOn.org T-shirts designed by “Waitress Polly,” a blogger from a military family who created the T-shirts to protest the “General Betray Us” ad.

None of the complaints filed by MoveOn.org with Google or CafePress.com asserted that a “third party” was making fraudulent use of MoveOn.org’s name to collect financial contributions.

Olson, who is MoveOn.org’s chief operating officer, alleged trademark infringement and threatened legal action against CafePress.com if it did not take down the critical ads. She also demanded contact information for ‘Waitress Polly’ and that all orders the anti-MoveOn.org T-shirt be stopped. CafePress.com did as demanded.

Also on Sept. 19, MoveOn.org’s Erik Olson — husband of Carrie Olson — filed a trademark complaint with Google seeking to block any mention of MoveOn.org by any advertiser for any reason, including ads that criticize MoveOn.org by name.

It was this complaint that Google cited as the basis for banning Sen. Collins’ anti-MoveOn.org ads. Google’s complaint form used by MoveOn.org required that the trademark owner make a legal affirmation that the complainant has a “good faith belief” that the use of the trademark is not “permissible under law.”

MoveOn.org, however, did not cite any specific ad, nor did it provide Google with any evidence of trademark infringement. The advocacy group has since said publicly that the Collins ads are permissible under the law.

Google told Collins campaign officials that the company’s “trademark team” was still investigating MoveOn.org’s complaint when The Examiner’s Oct. 11 story was published.

Google hasn’t said how the Collins’ ads were flagged for removal if Google had not yet made a decision on the validity of MoveOn.org’s sweeping trademark claims.

Google also hasn’t explained how MoveOn.org knew Google had a policy that permits trademark owners to implement a universal ban on use of the advocacy group’s name in any Google ad when no such policy is described on the Google Web site.

Likewise, Google could not say how the Collins campaign, or any advertiser, would be expected to know that “MoveOn.org” was a “banned” term since Google does not make such information available to advertisers and does not “auto-reject” ads with banned trademark terms.

Finally, Google hasn’t explained why the Collins campaign was informed Oct. 8 that its anti-MoveOn.org ads were removed due to a “trademark policy violation” when there is no such policy contained in Google’s “terms of service.”

At least some people over there actually get it.