Is "Sony" just the tip of a very dangerous Iceberg?

For a very small, backward, albeit nuclear, country like North Korea to be able to attack the computer capability of a large Corporation in the United States and create enough fear that a scheduled release of a film frowned upon by North Korea was cancelled is, depending on where you stand or work, insulting, inconvenient, threatening, damaging and/or cyber terrorism, vandalism or warfare (chose any combination).

And now we are beginning to see articles touting the cyber-warfare capabilities of the United States that might be used to respond to any attacks on the country.   This is comforting...I think!

But it is also disturbing from another point of view.  The premise seems to be that if some entity attacks the U.S. in cyberspace, we have the capability to attack and destroy the attacker.  Now, as a person who is likely to be one of the citizens whose internet and computer capabilities will be damaged or destroyed, the fact that the entity causing my cyber destruction is being obliterated doesn't really solve my problem or satisfy my dilemma.

I would be much happier to learn that in addition to our country's retributive capability, it could protect me from being harmed in the first place...and our business and utility infrastructure as well.  I don't hear that...not even consideration of the desire to do that.

Not only does that absence of assurance give me pause, but it has been years since I heard anyone mention the need to be capable of defending against EMP devices.  These devices can "fry" electronics, virtually rendering all utilities, communications, and transportation inoperative until the electronic heart of the controls are replaced...an event likely to take many months.  The idea of planes dropping out of the sky, cars losing control, trains stopping, all not to move again for months is not desirable.  The concept of gas, electric and water supplies being rendered inoperative would be dangerous to our health.

Once every great while, I hear some person in government mention that this needs attention, but then the voice fades and I have never seen any report that suggests that we are even working assiduously to protect us from this kind of threat, much less that we are protected now.

Maybe...just maybe...someone ought to make sure that somebody...anybody...works on this stuff?

I'll miss Ed Rendell

Every once in a while you find yourself surprised by your own reaction to something or someone.  And it almost always, if I find the time to mull on my surprise, leads to a self-teaching moment.  I saw an article a few days ago about the fact that Ed Rendell, the outgoing Governor of Pennsylvania, is about to be out of public office for the first time in quite awhile.  Now, I do not agree with much of what Rendell's writings and comments say that he believes...not at all.  But I found myself feeling a loss at his departure...and that was a real surprise.

Like Bill Bradley, Rendell was on the other side of the political table and I did not like their policies. So I leaned back and thought about it for a bit...and discovered that I thought they were both "Good Guys."

Let me define who I consider to be "Good Guys."

To me, a good guy in politics is a candidate and office holder who believes in the United States of America as a just and dependable entity...a country they think of as did the founding fathers: an imperfect experiment in trying to protect individual freedom (to succeed, to fail, to suffer, to conquer) by protecting that freedom from danger from both other countries and saboteurs within.

Sure, Rendell and Bradley wanted to encourage helping the disadvantaged; they felt some people need more help than others to succeed and believed that the government should provide that help.  In that sense, they had less confidence in the American people than I do, but their heart was in the right place.  They wanted to help the deserving, not support the ne'er-do-wells that would live off of the public teat for as long as it would be allowed.

But they believed in the essence of America, of the United States of America, of an assimilated group of citizens that believed as one even as they argued and fought over the details...Good Guys.  They, and others like them didn't believe in ignoring our borders, throwing citizens to the wolves of illegal invaders, foregoing their constitutional duty to protect us.  They listened to their constituents most of the time...and when the didn't, and the elections proved it, they didn't deny the lesson of those elections...Good Guys.

Wish there were more "Good Guys" out there today.  I miss them.  And I'll miss my imaginary arguments with Ed Rendell, too.

No Morals

This administration continues to show that they have no moral compass.  Well, that may be slightly inaccurate...they have no compass at all.  But todays bit of evidence really is both moral and legal.

The 2008 Child Soldiers Protection Act specifically mandates that our government penalizes countries that use child soldiers.  And this is the first year that it has gone into effect.  Sound like a plan, doesn't it?  A good thing?  Shows our moral repugnance for any entity that would put children in the field to act as military personnel, right?  Yep.  The United States will show the world our true values and stand up for them, right?

Well, not so much, apparently.

In a Presidential memo, released today by the White House,  to Secretary of State Clinton, Mr. Obama indicated he had determined that "it is in the national interests of the United States" to waive application of the law to the countries of Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and Yemen.

There are provisions in the law that would have allowed the US to target military funds while still allowing funding for professionalization of army capability, but Mr. Obama chose to grant a blanket exemption.

It is interesting how consistently Mr. Obama ignores, makes excuses for, or supports egregious behavior on the part of other countries in the world, while attempts by member states of the union are attacked in court, penalized monetarily and roundly chastised publicly by this President for something as seemingly appropriate as enforcing our borders.

There is no logical, ideological or moral consistency to his actions...ever.  Perhaps he should go to church more often...even Reverend Wright's church.  Even a misguided consistency is better than swinging in the wind with no compass at all.