Zogby::Al Gore Leads Top Tier Dems in ‘Blind Bio’ Poll

Zogby has just published a ‘blind poll’, with the following findings:

A Zogby International “blind bio” telephone poll shows that former Vice President Al Gore is favored over the current Democratic frontrunners by likely Democratic Party voters nationwide – particularly among liberal Democrats.

When Democratic likely voters were given brief biographical descriptions of the top three Democratic candidates – New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards – along with the biography of Gore, the former Vice President won 35% support, while Clinton won 24%, Obama won 22% and Edwards trailed with 10% support. Gore’s bio was the top choice of both men (39%) and women (31%), and also most favored by younger voters. Self-described liberal Democrats strongly favored Gore’s bio (43%) over Clinton (21%), Edwards (17%) and Obama (12%). The bio selections of moderate Democrats closely mirrors the choices of likely Democratic voters overall, with 36% giving the greatest preference to Gore’s bio.

::
Follow the link and read the article. The results are probably not too much of a surprise when considering methodology and sponsor of the survey:

Survey Methodology [Zogby America Democratic Primary Likely Voters] 10/24/07 thru 10/27/07

Zogby International was commissioned by [Al Gore 2008 Draft Campaign] to conduct a telephone survey of [Democratic primary likely voters].

I found it slightly amusing that it is referenced as a ‘blind poll’; if you scroll towards the bottom of the linked page you’ll see the respective descriptions of the candidates labeled A, B, C and D, respectively.  However, anyone half awake would recognize the name going with each description.

Let me end with another quote from the article:

When asked about the current field of candidates and their position on global climate change, 29% said they are very satisfied and plan to vote for one of the current candidates, but 65% said they would be open to supporting a new candidate based on this issue.

[…]

Other findings from the survey include:

    * 79% believe Presidential candidates should not accept campaign donations from lobbyists.
    * 70% prefer a Presidential candidate with more experience to a candidate with less experience.
    * 62% believe American need a government run health care system that pays all costs for all Americans.

What is so Hard to Understand?

The bottom line:

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee’s top Republican, said at a hearing Wednesday that any statement by Mr. Mukasey that waterboarding is torture could fuel criminal charges or lawsuits against those responsible for waterboarding.

“The facts are that an expression of an opinion by Judge Mukasey prior to becoming attorney general would put a lot of people at risk for what has happened,” Mr. Specter said.

Yes. And?

Isn’t that what justice demands?

One Reason for Intelligence Failures

More than six years since the terrorist attacks on 9-11 the intelligence community continues to employ a substandard analytical practice that virtually guarantees shoddy and inaccurate analysis. What am I talking about? An analyst within the CIA (or DIA or INR) who writes an article for the Presidential Daily Brief or other community wide daily intelligence brief is not currently required to coordinate with analysts outside of their organization. What’s so bad about that? The failure to coordinate and obtain the clearance of other analysts prevents policymakers from getting the best analysis and information available. Perhaps this helps explain the mess we encountered with the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

Sorry to sound like an old guy, but I need to explain what I mean in talking about “coordination”. When I was an analyst I was required to coordinate any article I wrote for the National Intelligence Daily and the Presidential Daily Brief with my counterparts at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). For example, I was the Honduran analyst.

If I wrote about the threat of Cuban backed terrorism from Nicaragua, I first had to share what I wrote with the analysts at CIA who worked on Nicaragua, Cuba, or terrorism. That meant I took my draft to three different offices (remember, this was before email). Why? My bosses wanted to make sure that the CIA spoke with one voice. They did not want Larry Johnson’s personal views being shared with the President. My supervisors demanded that the information in my intelligence articles was accurate and reflected everything we knew about the current state of intelligence. This part of the coordination process covered only inside the CIA.

Once we had an agreed upon CIA version, I was then required to send the draft to the Honduran analyst at INR and the analyst at DIA who covered Honduras. (Both women by the way.) S ometimes they drove me nuts. They did not agree with how I worded a paragraph or with a particular conclusion. I had a choice. Either I accepted their changes or we escalated the dispute to a branch chief. If the INR or DIA analyst was not satisfied with our proposed fixes they were allowed to write a “dissent”.

A dissent is shorthand for a different point of view. For example, I could say “Iraq is trying to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger”. While INR would write, “No, Iraq is not trying to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger and cannot process the yellowcake currently in its possession”. This ensures the policymaker will understand there may be a dispute about particular matters. If there is not dispute then they have a reasonable expectation that they are reading a consensus view of the intelligence community.

More often than not I accepted the changes proposed by my counterparts. Sometimes I did not like it. We got into screaming matches. Sometimes these gals thought of something I had not considered and helped dramatically improve the quality of the article and the analysis. Despite the rough and tumble and frustration inherent in this process, the end result was a piece of good analysis that reflected the collective judgment of the analysts who were the substantive experts on the topic at hand.

That is not the case today and has not been the case for at least 8 years. I still have not been able to determine who instituted this change–was it Woolsey, Deustch, or Tenet? Don’t know, but it was a damn stupid change. Analysts at CIA, DIA, and INR are now free to write articles that are disseminated throughout the intelligence community without having to coordinate with each other and get clearance on their pieces. And you wonder why we have intelligence failures? This is a contributing factor.

So what does it take to fix this? Not much. We do not need more bureaucracy. We do not have to spend more money. We do not need to hire more analysts. The Director of National Intelligence simply needs to tell the intelligence community to get off of its lazy ass and ensure that every article that is circulated outside of an intelligence agency–especially the PDB–should be fully coordinated and cleared by the relevant analysts of CIA, DIA, INR, and FBI. This one is simple. What is amazing is that it is not being done.

Voting as Political Narcotic

Fast forward to Election Day 2008: Network anchors, cable pundits, and state and local election officials are going nuts as evening hours pass and voter turnout is hardly approaching 20 percent nearly everywhere.  “What’s going on?” everyone is asking incredulously.  TV and computer screens all over the planet show Americans in streets celebrating and shouting things like “We’ve had enough political corruption.  We’re not going to take anymore!”

In contrast, news anchors are grim and aghast with little help from spin-fatigued and stammering Democratic and Republican spokespeople.  At 2 A.M. on NBC Brian Williams sits with Tim Russett and Keith Olbermann, and sums up: “Americans have spoken and American politics have changed forever.”  “It’s like the nightmare of entertainers: nobody shows up for their event,” says bemused Olbermann.  Russett grimly observes, “We should have seen this coming; people have been fed up with both parties for a long time.”  Meanwhile, the Internet is buzzing with talk of voiding the presidential and congressional election results, that President Bush may declare a national state of emergency, and that the Supreme Court might step in again.  Did anyone think that the Constitution required a minimum voter turnout to make elections legit?

*

America’s political system is a large and complex criminal conspiracy.  Most voters enable it without benefiting from it.  Voting is a ploy of the two-party power elites to keep the population docile, delusional and duped.  Our government has been hijacked in plain sight, despite elections.  We cannot get it back by voting.  All the main candidates are part of the conspiracy.  Voting only encourages them.  In our fake democracy corrupt politicians use doses of voting as a political narcotic.  We must free more Americans of the addiction.  Otherwise they will keep hallucinating that some Democratic or Republican President or controlled Congress will actually give us the changes we crave for.

Attempts to hold the government accountable have failed and will continue to fail.  The system is rotten to the core.  It sustains itself both by preventing major political reforms and undermining those that get passed to temporarily placate the public.  Arrogant power elites feel no obligation to be accountable to the public.  Elections are not a threat to the status quo.  Elections are distractive entertainment, a political narcotic.

Voting became a political narcotic when it stopped working to improve government and became used to legitimize a corrupt, two-party failed government.

Voting – especially lesser-evil voting – sustains our fake democracy more than any other citizen action.  It lets politicians claim that they represent the sovereign people.  It tells the world that our elected government has public support.  Voting sends the wrong message to everyone.  No matter who you vote for, voting says the political system is fair.  It is not.

Power elites own the government and use it to serve their interests and protect a corporate plutocracy.  Though a numerical minority – probably about 20 million Americans – an Upper Class easily manipulates the remaining 280 million by controlling the consumer economy, the distractive culture, and government policies and spending.

This is what America’s political freedom has morphed into:  Dissidents free to protest (to make us feel good).  Elites free to control (to maintain corruption).  Conned citizens free to vote (to keep the system looking democratic).  And most Americans free to borrow, spend and consume (to stay hooked on work, antidepressants, sleeping pills, alcohol, sports, computers, religion, gambling and illegal drugs).  Where do you fit in?

In our drugged fake democracy, Americans replace objective reality with illusions.  The US does not excel in nearly any statistical measure of democracies.  Our voter turnout is a disgrace.  We imprison more people than all other nations combined.  We do not provide universal health care or affordable prescription drugs.  Our primary education system is mostly awful.  Economic inequality is incredible – with the top one percent owning 21 percent of the nation’s wealth – and getting worse.  People are made addicted to consumption and borrowing, then left to suffer from crippling debt.  Painful economic insecurity blinds the submissive middle class whose belief in the American dream is akin to expecting to win a lottery.

In a nation that supposedly prizes competitiveness there is no real political competition.  The two major parties maintain a collusive stranglehold on our government.  Third party candidates are purposefully disadvantaged.  Incumbents can thwart opponents.  Worse, though the two major parties shout their differences, they are merely two sides of the same coin, two heads of the same beast, two servants of the Upper Class, and two protectors of the corporate plutocracy.  They are criminal co-conspirators.  Superficial differences between candidates keep voters entertained, manipulated and rooting for “their” team in the political game that the mainstream corporate media (more co-conspirators) make tons of money from.

In this charade minor, maverick primary season presidential candidates contribute to the illusion of a competitive system.  Their loyalty to party trumps their commitment to major political reforms.  They do not tell their supporters that if they do not receive the nomination “stay home” rather than vote for one of their opponents.  No, those they opposed in the primary season are seen as lesser evils than anyone from the other party.  This protects the two-party system.

In America’s fake democracy citizens are fooled by personal freedoms.  It is a fake democracy because the will of the people is not respected by those elected to run the government, the rule of law is routinely violated by those in power, the Constitution is regularly dishonored and disobeyed by elected officials and judges, and all but the wealthy are sold out through government-assisted corporate globalization.

No wonder that America is a joke to much of the world’s population.  Foreigners envy our materialism, not our government.  With horrendous hypocrisy we use military power to impose democracy abroad despite having a flawed democracy at home.  Foreigners’ disgust with our government is one thing, but they like Americans.  Yet Americans enable and sustain the detested government by voting, then blame those elected rather than fix the broken system.  A few crooked politicians and corporate bosses go to jail.  But the criminal system remains.  Nothing but token reforms are made.  Corruption continues.

Few Americans are dissidents.  Many more block the painful truth that their cherished democracy is a fraud.  The land of the free is no longer the home of the brave.  Foreign enemies are used to keep people from bravely fighting domestic tyrants.

Like magicians using slight of words and misdirection through lies, politicians (and those that own them) have trivialized the fact that about half of the electorate does not vote.  Nonvoters have been blamed when the corrupt system is at fault.  Rather than see nonvoters as apathetic we should see them acting rationally because voting is unproductive.  Nonvoters should never feel guilty, only proud to have sent a none-of-the-above rejection message.

But voter turnout has not been sufficiently low to forcefully discredit, dishonor and de-legitimize American democracy.  Though low, it has become an accepted norm, allowing the manufactured myth to continue – that we live in the world’s greatest democracy, though nothing could be farther from the truth.

With false hope, voters believe that the right Democrat or Republican will do what none of their predecessors has done, and that campaign rhetoric and promises will actually translate to post-election action and policy.  Voters fail to understand the depth of our culture of dishonesty that has also invaded the voting process.

Held secretly in private hands is proprietary source code that instructs the voting machines on to how to count the vote.  More than 1/3 of all votes cast in our nation are made on touch screen machines driven by proprietary source code and 90 percent of all votes cast are counted by software that’s unverifiable.

No sane American should trust the political system, the politicians, and the voting process.  And when you cannot trust all three, you have a fake democracy.  Many of us thirst for major change, but mainstream politicians simply exploit this and lie.  By voting for any of them we ensure no serious change.  The way to shake up the system is to boycott voting.

In sum, despite personal freedoms we also have political tyranny as oppressive in its own way as any authoritarian, dictatorial government.  Americans have lost the revolutionary spirit of their ancestors.  Americans are unable to revolt, despite revolting conditions.  They have accepted the tyranny of taxation with MISrepresentation.  The political criminal conspiracy has successfully used cultural genetic manipulation to replace the DNA of revolutionary courage with the DNA of distractive, self-indulgent consumerism.  Our primary freedom is to borrow and spend.  Our currency should read “In Greed We Trust.”  We have populist consumerism, not populist politics.  Divisive politics keeps people fighting each other rather than uniting against the rotten system.

Delusional prosperity is what our delusional democracy creates for the majority.  Many millions of Americans are hurting from loss of good jobs, crippling health care costs, staggering debt, unaffordable college education, imminent foreclosure or bankruptcy, rising economic insecurity, working two lousy jobs, time poverty, dependence on food stamps and charity.  Millions more are angry about endless political corruption and bipartisan incompetence, the inability to get a new 9/11 investigation, uncontrolled illegal immigration, and our national debt.  The rebellion needs all of them.  And they need the rebellion.

True, we have plenty of passive nonvoters, a good head start.  Now we need active, vociferous nonvoters – proud protestors and dissidents urging others to join the civil disobedience to reach the tipping point for revolutionary change.  After we achieve major political reforms we should pursue mandatory voting – when voting once again has civic meaning.

Massive, unprecedented nonvoting has the power to produce systemic political reform by defiantly discrediting, dishonoring and de-legitimizing America’s fake democracy.  When I choose not to vote I do not make the votes of others more important.  Their votes already serve an evil system.  The critical choice is to vote or not vote, not picking a particular Democrat or Republican.  When I choose not to vote I embrace an honorable, patriotic rebellious act of civil disobedience.  I no longer buy the BIG LIE that there still is an American democracy worth participating in.  As James Madison said, “Conscience is the most sacred of all property.”

Mass nonvoting sends the message of rejection – as powerful as using guns.  The Second American Revolution begins with this recognition: We must work together to drive voter turnout down to abysmal levels – so low that everyone gets the rejection message.  We must let the world know – and America’s power elites fear – that we sovereign Americans intend to take back our government.  But how?

It begins with a boycott of voting.  See it as a populist recall of the federal government that makes our Founders proud.  It is followed by demanding what the Founders gave us in our Constitution for exactly the conditions we now have: an Article V convention of state delegates that can propose constitutional amendments, especially ones to reform our political system to make it honest and trustworthy.  Learn more at www.foavc.org.

Why have we not had one in over 200 years?   Why has Congress been allowed to disobey – actually veto a part of the Constitution and violate their oath of office?  There is only one logical explanation: An intensely watched convention could wreck the political status quo and take away the power of those running and ruining our nation.  That so many Americans fear a convention just shows the success of the social conditioning and political narcotics the elitist plutocracy has imposed for decades.  Imagine an amendment that required at least 90 percent voter turnout for federal elections to produce a winner.

When it comes to our nation our choice is not to love it or leave it, but to accept the painful truth and take responsibility for restoring American democracy – because we love it.  Let’s move forward with this slogan: “Don’t vote–it only encourages them.”

[Joel S. Hirschhorn was a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, and is the author of Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government.  Reach him through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]

Spooky Halloween Thread

My favorite costume that I ever wore for Halloween was a Giant. I found a long coat and went around on my older brother’s shoulders. One lady refused to serve me because I was 7 feet tall, and clearly an adult. My brother had to poke his head out of my stomach for her to relent and give me some candy.

What was your favorite costume?

Our new TV ad: "It’s Time"

I hope you have all had the chance to watch our new campaign ad.

If you haven’t, please take a look. We’re calling the 30-second spot “It’s Time,” because I believe it’s time for our Representatives in Congress to stop making excuses and to act to end the Iraq war. It started running on TV on Monday.

To view the ad click here or click on the image below:


Our troops are mired in a civil war in Iraq and there is no end in sight.

I don’t know how many candidates you have heard from who are willing to put this message up on the airwaves, but I believe strongly that we need to bring all of our troops home within a year and that Congress should cap funding in order to facilitate this troop withdrawal and I will act on my convictions.

Contrast this, if you will, with the record of my opponent — Congressman Dan Lipinski — who has voted time and time again with President George Bush and the Republicans on key issues such as Iraq.

Now with this pivotal election approaching Lipinski would like to run away from his Iraq war record, but the informed voters here in Illinois’ 3rd Congressional District and across the country won’t let him.

Lipinski has never voted for, sponsored or co-sponsored anything that remotely resembles a timeline bill. On the contrary, Lipinski has voted twice for resolutions that opposed setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. He has voted five times to fund the Iraq war.

In May 2007, Lipinski voted against HR 2237, a piece of legislation that required the withdrawal of U.S. troops and contractors in Iraq within 90 days of the bill’s enactment. The withdrawal would have had to be completed within 180 days.

Lipinski has repeatedly expressed his support for enacting into law the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), which publicly issued its report in December 2006. The report does not include any directives regarding a troop withdrawal. It lists a troop withdrawal as merely a “goal.”

On Sept. 10, Lipinski joined with “tier one” targeted Republican Rep. Mark Kirk, IL-10, and told a group that had assembled at the City Club of Chicago that he was also open to the recommendations of a panel of experts assembled by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), including many of the same people who participated in the ISG.

The USIP special report — which was released in September 2007 — called for a 50 percent reduction of troops within three years and a handover of security to the Iraqi military in five years.

If Congress acted on those recommendations tomorrow, then the earliest our troops would leave Iraq is November 2012.

That is unacceptable.

Congress’ — and specifically the Democrats’ and Lipinski’s — failure to quickly draw the war to a close could cost our nation hundreds, if not thousands, more lives, shatter the lives of countless more families and force us to spend billions and billions more on a conflict that is untenable.

I don’t sense any urgency on the part of Congress. Over and over again, all I hear is excuses from Democrats like, “President Bush will just veto any piece of legislation that doesn’t have the support of the Republicans.”

I am fed up with that kind of talk and the voters are too.

In 2006, Democrats went to the polls and made a clear statement. They swept the Republican majority from the House and Senate because they wanted Congress to end the Iraq war. The House has the power of the purse — the power to end this war and put our country on a new track — but they won’t use it.

It’s up to us to again call Congress into account.

Doing that starts with campaigns like ours — which has less than 100 days to go — continues through the general and Presidential elections and ends with a new Congress and a new Democratic President taking office in January 2009.

If you agree with our message, then get involved in our campaign whether that means signing up for our weekly newsletter, contributing to our campaign, blogging about us, coming by the campaign office to volunteer or walk precincts or just telling your friends and family about what we’re doing here in Chicago and the southwest suburbs.

Please keep in mind that our campaign is not only one of the most important of all the primaries in the entire country, but with its Feb. 5 election date, it is also one of the earliest.

For more information, please join the thousands of people who visit our Web site every month — www.PERA08.com — and keep following the campaign here in IL-03.

Thank you for your time, Mark

Open Letter to Sen. Schumer

Dear Senator Schumer,

I know that you recommended Mike Mukasey as an acceptable nominee for Attorney General and that it is a quite awkward thing for you to contemplate withdrawing your support for his nomination. But, Mukasey’s testimony and written responses have revealed that he is unacceptable for a variety of reasons.

Late last night, the White House also released 172 pages of written answers from Mukasey to questions from Senate lawmakers.

For the most part, the answers show that Mukasey’s legal views are largely in line with those of the Bush administration. They include a relatively expansive view of the president’s powers, particularly during wartime.

The nominee said it is “an open question,” for example, whether a U.S. citizen seized on U.S. soil can be detained indefinitely after the president declares that he is in an enemy combatant. He also reiterated his view that the president can ignore surveillance laws if they infringe on his powers as commander in chief, and said a Justice Department prosecutor cannot enforce a congressional subpoena if the White House has asserted a claim of executive privilege.

Additionally, he still cannot bring himself to say in simple language that waterboarding is a form of torture than is forbidden under the Constitution, statutory law, and international treaties.

Sen. Schumer, you sit on the Judiciary Committee, where even one Democratic vote will lead to a recommendation of confirmation and move the vote to the Senate floor. Only if the Democrats remain unanimously opposed to Mukasey can we prevent a Senate floor vote. All of the Democrats running for president have gone on the record as opposing the nomination of Mukasey. As potentially embarrassing as it might be, you have an obligation to the country, and the party, to rescind your support for Mukasey. If you don’t, you will be ratifying his radical interpretation of Executive Power and make it impossible to enforce Congressional subpoenas.

I implore you to do the right thing.

Respectfully,

BooMan

Rockefeller is Selling Us Out

Today, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, great-grandson of oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, penned an editorial in the…drum roll…Washington Post, explaining his rationale for immunizing the telecommunications corporations from accountability for their wanton lawbreaking.

Rockefeller became the chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee in January of 2007. Verizon employees immediately bundled their donations to him to the tune of nearly $25,000. Why would they do that?

Could it be that they knew their corporation had been engaging in egregiously illegal violations of the Fourth Amendment?

Apparently, $20,000+ is sufficient to buy off Rockefeller, although he naturally has his rationale.

Within weeks of the 2001 attacks, communications companies received written requests and directives for assistance with intelligence activities authorized by the president. These companies were assured that their cooperation was not only legal but also necessary because of their unique technical capabilities. They were also told it was their patriotic duty to help protect the country after the devastating attacks on our homeland.

The defense is twofold. The administration made false assurances that blatantly and transparently illegal activity was not, in fact, illegal. And they combined this, since it evidently was not alone sufficient to compel compliance, with an appeal to patriotic duty. Here we have the administration telling the telecommunications industry that the patriotic thing to do is to flagrantly violate the Fourth Amendment and the FISA laws. What we absolutely need to see is the legal justification that was used to coerce the telecommunications industry into a conspiracy to defraud their customers.

Rockefeller must know that this argument is incredibly weak, so he continues.

In the meantime, however, these companies are being sued, which is unfair and unwise. As the operational details of the program remain highly classified, the companies are prevented from defending themselves in court. And if we require them to face a mountain of lawsuits, we risk losing their support in the future.

Here is another twofold blocking exercise. First, the telecommunications corporations are unable to mount a defense and, second, they will simply refuse to cooperate in the future if they are held accountable for violating our rights in the past.

On the first issue, a much much more accurate description would be that the ‘operational details of the program remain highly classified’ and so the plaintiffs are prevented from making their case. On the second issue, why on Earth would we want the telecommunications corporations to cooperate in wanton lawbreaking in the future? That is exactly what we don’t want. If they can be assured that amnesty awaits criminal violations of our privacy, why will they obey the law?

Watch Rockefeller close the loop, making an argument that precludes accountability for either the government or the telecommunications corporations.

Ultimately, we concluded that if we subject companies to lawsuits when doing so is patently unfair, we will forfeit industry as a crucial tool in our national defense. So we crafted legislation to do two important things: modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act so the program is monitored by the courts with proper checks and balances, and keep the focus over legality where it belongs — on the government…

…lawsuits against the government can go forward. There is little doubt that the government was operating in, at best, a legal gray area. If administration officials abused their power or improperly violated the privacy of innocent people, they must be held accountable. That is exactly why we rejected the White House’s year-long push for blanket immunity covering government officials.

Third, immunity is the only procedural mechanism that works. We decided against “substitution” (putting the government in the shoes of the companies) and “indemnification” (making the government cover all costs) because both still mistakenly place the onus on the companies rather than on the government. And we recognized that this could expose too much about our intelligence capabilities, jeopardizing collection that targets foreign threats.

Rockefeller believes that exposure of the program would ‘expose too much about our intelligence capabilities’, which means that no court could ever gain the detail needed to hold the government accountable. And he has already provided that the telecommunications corporations will not be held accountable. End result? No one is held accountable.

At best, Rockefeller’s solution will put the government back in compliance with the law. Perhaps there will be better safeguards going forward. But the precedent will have been established that the executive branch can violate our fourth amendment rights and explicit statutory laws, and the telecommunications corporations can defraud their customers with absolute impunity.

If we want the telecommunications corporations to abide by the law, the best way to do that is to punish them now. Their future cooperation can be best assured by clarifying what is legal and what is not.

If Rockefeller is right and we cannot allow the world to know the details of our operational capabilities, then we must find a way to keep that information classified, while still available to the courts.

Perhaps it is too much to ask for a Rockefeller to take the side of the people over the powerful CEO’s that are his peers.

Words as legacy

A real part of the legacy which George W. Bush will leave behind is in the use of words. Some are words created during his administration by advisers or by Bush himself. Some are existing words in new or extended usage.

But, in general, this government uses a different set of words than those previous… and it will take some time before they change or revert to earlier uses.

Some samples:

HOMELAND. We have taken this nomination for our country in much the same way the fascists did in the thirties: “Homeland Security” where we used to have “National Security”… we have an entire Federal Agency with the Homeland designation swallowing up lots of other agencies.

AXIS OF EVIL. This recalls the 30s and 40s where we had the Allied powers (good guys) and the Axis Powers (bad guys) and equates just about everyone we find not agreeing with us as Nazis.

ISLAMOFASCISM. Is it a religion? Is it a Nation? Is it a political power? Is the Muslim world per se the enemy? This is a word I really can’t stand.

DECIDER. I guess short for “Decision Maker” without the style… and it almost always seems like the decision is a simple black and white choice.

Surely you can think of many more.

Often he uses our trusted words (Democracy, Liberty, Freedom) to turn against us in concept… to be free means to be watched, to have our calls intercepted, to be on 800,000 name lists  of potential terrorists.

And all this from a guy who can’t make a speech in more than 4-word bursts as he destroys the English Language.

Under The LobsterScope