The US needs new dictionaries!

The tendency in the US is that new dictionaries really are needed. No, I don't refer to the questions that are raised about whether Julian Assange - an Australian - can commit treason to the United States. But yes, I do refer to the re-working of what the word "terrorism" means.

Traditionally, a terrorist has been one who uses fear (terror) as a way to attempt to frighten people into a certain type of behavior. By the old school standard, such an act involves the use of violence. But not anymore...

Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, spoke today about Julian Assange and called the guy a "hi-tech terrorist". The idea, I think, is that everyone who threatens the United States in some way now, is to be labeled a terrorist.

So here are suggested revisions for a new American federally funded dictionary:

Terrorism:
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. a person who is viewed as dangerous by the American government.

Treason:
1. the betrayal of a trust
2. the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
3. the act of doing something that is disliked by the American government.

As more words in need of an update show up, I will keep adding to this list.

What Americans want to read

I think this is interesting enough to blog about:

Yesterday I made a blog post about the recently leaked list of places that are deemed vital to the United States. See the list and story on it here.

Over the last day it has, however, become quite clear that this list is something a lot of Americans wanted to see. It has gotten many, many times more hits than for anything else I've written here. This is good. I think that when the media starts writing about how this list is a "to do"-list for terrorists, it influences the opinion of people who reads it, but unless they see the list for themselves, they can't actually judge this information.

This brings me to my point here: I'd like to know if others who saw the list are as unimpressed as I am. In my understanding, this is a list full of locations that are well known and unless terrorists already know them, they must lack something.

So feel free to comment!