Fact: if the NSA were to detect the presence of a malicious worm or destructive virus on a U.S. Internet server targeted at a bank, perhaps stealing money from that bank, it could do nothing but warn the bank. The bank, most likely, does not have the capacity to deal with the worm itself; the NSA does not have the legal authority to employ methods to screen out the bad code, even though it has the technological capability. You can employ any type of thought of experiment you want here. Entities like utility companies and banks often rely on overtaxed communications networks to assess their performance; those communications networks are extraordinarily vulnerable because they rely on vulnerable machines -- machines that are old and were built with technology that, in many instances, originated elsewhere. The backbone of the Internet itself is very fragile; the VeriSign corporation, which essentially runs the Net, deals with thousands of attacks per day, some of them harmless, some of them dangerous, some of them from state actors (like China), others from well-funded and savvy techno-terrorists.
This is a tech problem and a law problem. Congress is trying to come up with ways to designate certain types of corporations that are responsible for large segments of some major activity -- power generation, money transferring, information sharing -- as, essentially, too big to fail -- or be shut down -- by cyber intruders. The idea, in essence, would be to require these entities to submit to a cyber audit. In the event of a major attack, the government (actually, the Department of Homeland Security, using NSA technology) would have the authority to quarantine the problem until it was removed. As you might imagine, this approach raises hackles with a lot of people. The corporations resist the idea of government intrusion. Their CFOs don't see the risk, so they're not interested in spending money to preemptively solve the problem. Civil libertarians properly ask about oversight; who's going to watch the watchers? Technologists wonder whether there aren't other ways to protect the nation's information grid from systemic threats.
(cont.)
It's been a long 20 hours or so in various sorts of planes, trains and lines. I'm used to keeping a relatively, uh, abstract schedule, but the overnight flight left a little bit too early for me to be tired, and then by the time I was getting tired, it was light out, and now -- even though it's just 2:30 PM here -- it's already about to get dark again.
The conference, at this point, feels more like a trade show than a political event, but it's cool to be surrounded by so many people from all over the world -- imagine the international terminal at JFK, but with even worse food and people walking by in giant tree costumes.
I did have a good conversation with a couple of Brits while waiting in line for my NGO badge. They were very bright and keyed in -- they run a green taxi company in London -- but I was surprised at how confusing they found American politics to be. How can the Senate require 60 percent to pass something? How can Delaware have as many senators as New York? What's up with the whole electoral college thing? How can Obama go from 70 percent popularity to 50 percent in a half a year? Could Sarah Palin really become President someday? The Guardian, among others, has some very good Washington coverage, but I think there's an opportunity for one of the UK dailies to provide a Washington column that's specifically geared toward a British or European audience: we tend to take for granted how freakin' weird our politics can be to the rest of the world.
This was premeditated. This wasn't VBC again. That guy snapped, not this one. He was so damn calm when he was shooting. Methodical. And he was moving tactically. The Army really is diverse and we really do love all our own. We signed up to be shot at but not at home. Not unarmed. No one should ever see what the inside of that medical SRP building looked like. I suppose that's what VA Tech looked like. Except they didn't have soldiers coming from everywhere to tourniquet and compress and talk to the wounded while rounds are still coming out.Megan concludes:
No one touched him...the shooter that is...other than to treat him. Though I told the medic (and I'm not proud of this) that was giving him plasma that there better not be anyone else who needed it because he should be the last one to be treated. But I had just finished holding a soldier who was critical (I counted three entry wounds) and talking to him about his children.... If the shooter had a grievance he should have taken it out on those responsible; he wasn't shooting people he knew (media reports to the contrary). He was just shooting anybody who happened to be present for SRP medical processing, mainly lower enlisted.
But please, no one use this politically! The Army is not "broken", PTSD doesn't turn people into killers, most Muslims aren't evil, and whether we should stay or go in Afghanistan has nothing to do with this. I'm babbling...sorry.
This guy was some form of lunatic or psychopath, and it seems pretty clear to me at this point that he was inspired by terrorists. But there's no evidence that he was a terrorist--that is, that he was hooked into some organized network. Lots of people do terrible things in the name of their religion--just ask George Tiller. Their acts are, as the Catholic Church says, "sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance". But they are no more indictments of a community than the acts of that Korean kid who went crazy at Virginia Tech.Addendum: No lesson other than more examples of the Right's immaturity, of course.
There is absolutely no political lesson to be learned from this. Gun control would not have stopped a commissioned officer from obtaining guns. Barack Obama had no power to stop this. Infectious PTSD is a lousy theory. And nations certainly do not--and should not--shape their foreign policy around the possibility that a random psychopath will start shooting up a crowd. Evil people do evil things. That's all.
Nearly a year after announcing the plan, new Federal Trade Commission rules prohibiting most robocalls are set to take effect Tuesday, Sept. 1. With the rules, prerecorded commercial telemarketing robocalls will be prohibited, unless the telemarketer has obtained permission in writing from consumers who want to receive such calls. Hopefully the rules will go a long way to helping consumers eat dinner in peace without being interrupted by amazingly annoying telemarketer blather or in this case prerecorded blather. The requirement is part of amendments to the agency's Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) that were announced a year ago. After September 1, sellers and telemarketers who transmit prerecorded messages to consumers who have not agreed in writing to accept such messages will face penalties of up to $16,000 per call.However:
..for those who have called on the FTC to help eliminate the other phone scourge - political robocalls - the new rules will not help. Calls from political campaigns are considered protected speech the FTC said. Ultimately consumers may get some help from state legislatures as many are regulating or looking to pass laws for more control over automated or robocall computer-generated phone-calling campaigns. One group, the National Political Do Not Contact Registry is campaigning to outlaw political robocalling altogether.People have an interest in not being harassed by misleading calls near election eve. I think a blanket or opt-in/out ban on political robocalls would be fair and equitable.
Are we ever going to retire the F-word? You know what I'm talking about: fascist. It seems that we can't go more than a few months without someone leveling this accusation at a president from the opposition party.
This is beyond moronic. The Bush administration did many bad things. But to call his administration fascist is both to completely abuse the term, and to belittle the millions of victims of fascism. Fascism is not just something of which you disapprove . . . nay, not even if that something involves the military. The things that the US did to its POWs can be very, very wrong without rising to the level of the Gestapo. And if you think that they are even close, I suggest that you reread the reports, and then go read some history of the Gestapo. Afterwards, tell me that you would be indifferent to being a captive of Nazi Germany or the US. Tell me whether you'd rather be a citizen of Iraq or Nazi-era Poland. That we even have to discuss this is ridiculous.
Similarly, the fact that Hitler liked government health care is really totally irrelevant to this discussion, thank you so much for not bringing it up. Hitler also liked cream puffs and dogs. Shall we get rid of anyone who shows similar predilictions? Not all forms of state intervention in the economy are fascist. Fascism is a particular thing, not the amalgam of everything you happen not to like. It is an embarassment to the right that anyone would even think of saying something so awful, much less put an effing Hitler moustache on a photograph of the man who is, when all is said and done, the president of the country you claim to love so much. Your fellow citizens elected him. Show some respect, if not to Obama, then to democracy.
Would it be too, too trite to say that some days I despair? Because I really do.
By insisting that politicians are motivated by considerations no different than businessmen or anybody else, public choice economists have helped slay the pernicious myth that politicians are generally warmly other-regarding public servants. But the economist’s assumption of motivational uniformity fails to capture that politicians do in fact seem to be really odd people who don’t seem to be primarily motivated by the same considerations that motivate most of us most of the time. The incentives of the political process create a kind of filter that selects for individuals extraordinarily fixated on power and status and extraordinarily motivated to keep it. If this is right (anyone know of personality studies of politicans?), then the problem with standard public choice is that it gives too much credit to politicians by assuming they’re like everyone else and therefore it fails to capture just how exceptionally prone politicians are to narcissism, motivated cognition, self-deception, and brazen lying.
—Will Wilkinson
The Somali pirates have operated in this region for a few years. Thus far, the world has seemed disinclined to put pressure on the pirates of Aden Gulf, despite the headlines they have grabbed lately. The US Navy now has an entree into the fight, and it will be interesting to see how the Obama administration reacts. The US has downlook satellites and a treasure trove of assets with which they can track down the Maersk Alabama and its crew.TigerHawk:
Will Obama use that to send the pirates a message about attacking American shipping? Or will this be a “new chance for dialogue”?
Somali pirates have decided that it is great time to capture an American flagged ship crewed by our citizens.NRO's Corner:
Naturally, I have a few questions.
Why has this not happened before? Why were these pirates not deterred by the prospects of a response from the United States Navy (the very first mission of which was to stop piracy from Africa)? What will our president do about it?
This is a far more important moment for Barack Obama than the news media, judging by the lack of coverage on cable news this morning, believes it to be.
RedState:Somali pirates have hijacked an American-flagged ship, taking hostage at least 20 Americans and their cargo — aid they were were trying to provide to the distressed Muslim people of Mombassa, Kenya. As Somali pirates have been terrorizing ships on the high seas for months now, TigerHawk is wondering why U.S. vessels haven't been seized before now, and what our new commander-in-chief proposes to do about it.
Oh my godz! O Noes!! NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!Oh I'm so sorry, did someone need to score political points first?
American Merchant Sailors : Not Waiting on Obama’s Help, Take Back Ship From Pirates
How DARE they use self-reliance! Have they no faith in the Obamassiah?
Americans taking care of themselves, without Obama’s government coming to the rescue. Does……. not…… compute. Does……. not…… compute.
In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry. From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history.LAT has the full text, AP factchecks
For seven years we've been a nation at war; no longer will we hide its price.
Living our values doesn’t make us weaker, it makes us safer and it makes us stronger. And that is why I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture.
Dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It’s not just quitting on yourself, it’s quitting on your country.
We are not quitters.
As Arkansas voters did last year, Kentucky now wants to ban gay couples from adopting or fostering children. I’ve seen the studies showing that kids are better off in families with a mother and a father. Fair enough. But are the idiots pushing this bill really trying to argue that Kentucky’s 7,000 foster kids are better off as wards of the state than in a loving family with gay parents? Or is hating gay people more important than what’s best for these kids?Stay classy, red states.
Sure, Obama the nominee opposed same-sex marriage and still does as president -- so far. Perhaps he can change his position during the 2012 campaign.Obama will be probably be the last Democratic presidential nominee to oppose same-sex marriage.
1. Republicans have nothing to lose. Public perceptions of Congressional Republicans are also significantly down from their already-low levels since the stimulus debate began. But, the Republicans will gladly torpedo their own brand if it means taking Obama down with them. They are dangerous to him, in the way that a gang of rabid velociraptors is dangerous to a T-Rex.I agree with #1.
2. Obama has to do the heavy lifting himself. Support for the stimulus dwindled when the Congressional Demorcats, who are not much more popular than their Republican colleagues, were charged with the job of selling it. The more Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the faces of the Democratic Party, the more Barack Obama's approval ratings will come to resemble those of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
3. The benefits of "bipartisanship" are dubious. The public says they want bipartisanship, and a large majority of the public believes that Obama acted in a bipartisan fashion during the stimulus debate. And yet, his approval ratings fell significantly during this period.
There are, obviously, a lot of factors to keep in balance here, but more than anything else the public seems to be seeking strong leadership from Obama; they don't want him to be deferential to either Congressional Democrats or Congressional Republicans.
Political Browser | washington
 |
