Slashdot Mirror
Cyber-Security Czar To Be Named
The Washington Post and everybody else is reporting that on Tuesday President Obama will name Howard A. Schmidt as cyber-security czar. Schmidt was an advisor to President Bush on cyber-security matters. The Post rehearses the reasons why the Obama administration has had difficulty in finding someone for the post, and notes that the turf battles did not start in this administration: "Schmidt was chosen after a long process in which dozens of people were sounded out. Many declined the post, largely out of concern that the job conferred much responsibility with little true authority, some of them said. Meanwhile, the cybersecurity chief at the National Security Council, Christopher Painter, has served as the de facto coordinator, trying to push ahead the 60-day cyberspace policy review plan unveiled by Obama in May. That plan's formulation was led by Melissa Hathaway, who resigned in frustration in August after delays in naming a cyber-coordinator. She had been a contender for the position... Schmidt served as special adviser for cyberspace security from 2001 to 2003 and shepherded the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, a plan that then was largely ignored. He left that job also frustrated, colleagues said."
You are going to need it. "...much responsibility and little true authority..." is a recipe for failure and scapegoating. As it is so often in business, so it is even more so in government, the PHB's (those with the real authority) don't grasp the issues and will make bad decisions, forcing you to deal with the consequences.
Get it in writing. There words and yours. Let there be as public a record as possible as to what recommendations were ignored.
Secretary: 1 through Secretary: 5
the Fuhrer of Healthcare?
Not a single democrat willing to take the job...
The party has just crawled up one notch in my esteem.
Funny, they had to give the job back to the last guy who had it because no one else would take it. I wouldn't take it either, because that guy is going to get strung up by the angry mob when the inevitable Chinese cyber-strike occurs.
I've met Howard Schmidt several times at security events, and I think he's best suited for writing articles for the trade mags and speaking on the lecture circuit than he is for real information security work. Hre just strikes me as nothing more than a charlatan.
It's hard to meet the guy and come away liking him too, his ego fills the room, and since he's an "honorary" professor at several colleges with security initiatives, he inists on everyone calling him "professor schmidt." Reminds me of the maestro from "Seinfeld."
I don't know how he could be taken seriously after he did an infomercial on youtube for his alma matta, the University of Phoenix: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep2ykil-cmU
Don't let Obama off easy on the "turf wars" thing. He specifically promised multiple times in the campaign to hire a security czar who would report directly to him and have real authority.
For months nobody would accept this position because it was set to report both to the National Security Council and National Economic Council and have no budgetary authority. Now it seems that he will report only to the National Security Council, but this still breaks Obama's promise, although this is hardly the only time he tossed aside a campaign promise.
Each federal department behaves differently. Agencies like the various DoD support and intelligence agencies, not to mention the CIA which is its own separate agency unto itself from any department, are not going to let the yahoos from Homeland Security or Justice tell them what to do or even be in on the conversation about how they organize and communicate, especially with regard to classified information.
A cyber-security czar who cannot command the CIA and DoD agencies is quite literally one with no practical authority since those groups are the majority of what matters with real, important IT security in the federal government.
In soviet russia You get rid of czar!
In kapitalist america Czar gets rid of YOU!
I'm pretty sure we'll have plenty of people costing taxpayers $20K regardless of the required insurance. If you're too poor to be able to be able to pay for insurance, you're probably in the bracket which will have almost completely government-subsidized insurance. If you have enough to pay for insurance but don't, odds are that you can pony up some money for the hospital bill. If you're in this position but can't pay, then you should be forced to foot the bill as a debt. However, I'm willing to bet (from my personal experience anyway) that the majority of people who currently use the emergency room for free care are also at the poverty level that would allow them highly-subsidized insurance. Therefore, we're all still probably going to take a hit, but it might just be more distributed.
It really comes down to how we foot the hospital bills for the poor, either through high hospital bills or mandatory insurance for those who can pay. Anyone else taking advantage of the system should be punished.
And THIS is what is wrong with American thinking and why "Universal Health Care" will never work. EVERYONE is thinking about 'me me me' and the bottom line on THEIR wallet.
Every single other first world nation in the world has figured out health care for everyone, and as far as I can tell they haven't devolved into chaos. It's not a matter of money. If we cut Military spending in half and quit tried being the world's big brother we could easily fund full health care for everyone in the US including some 'elective' surgeries like Lasik. The fundamental reason why universal health care won't work in America is thinking like this.
I got to take all 8 days of vacation to India this year for a wedding where I met quite a few travelers from Europe. Not a single one has this mentality. Not a single one worried about how those 'bums' were imposing on 'their' freedom.
Some other nice amenities that those 'socialist' countries get that we don't: We are the only country that has no mandatory parental leave. This graph is in weeks. Way down at that tail end is the United States with 0 days. We also have the proud distinction of being the only country with 0 minimum days of vacation..
If I had fewer ties to America, I would move to one of those 'socialist' countries in a heart beat. I would gladly give 70% income tax to know that I (or my children) are covered cradle to grave (including while on vacation out of the country). School (including college), healthcare, maternity leave, unemployment, etc etc.
Hopefully when you reach the age you need to move into a home, your family makes the right decision and just has you euthanized instead, wouldn't want you imposing on their freedoms.
if there were no laws against pseudoephedrine, you'd have more meth makers, and all of the society wide suffering that goes with that. the fact you can't buy pseudoephedrine is a different kind of suffering, but a smaller scale of suffering than not having the law around
life is not about black and white choices, its about shades of grey.you examine the issue in a vacuum, without the context of the negatives of your other choices, and this makes you have these hysterical opinions
and you NEED health insurance. even 21 yo marathoners have heart attacks and broken legs. if you believe you don't need health insurance, you have some sort of god complex, and then you definitely need mental health coverage
as for not affording it, you can't afford NOT to have it
as for making you pay for it: why force people to pay taxes? why not make it voluntary? because people are fucking irresponsible, and they won't pay for taxes, health insurance, or a whole bunch of other things they need but are usually too stupid to understand why they need it. so you NEED to force them because if given a choice, people won't do the right thing. which is pay your fucking taxes and pay your fucking health insurance. you HAVE to, because it is your RESPONSIBILITY as a member of SOCIETY from which you derive BENEFITS
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
according to any philosphical understanding of what freedom means conceptually, freedom has never meant behavior which imposes on other people. your problem is you don't understand in which direction the imposition is happening in the healthcare debate. the issue is not that the government is imposing on you to pay for health insurance, the issue is you are imposing on society thinking you can walk around without health insurance
"You can't have freedom without responsibility."
this is exactly right. it is your responsibility to take care of your health. if you don't do that, you are not exercising a freedom of yours, you are acting irresponsibly. you are willfully or ignorantly avoiding the fact that if you are passed out on the ground, we can't simply walk by you, we have to take you to the hospital, or we aren't being ethical. therefore you MUST get health insurance because this is your RESPONSIBILITY. not having insurance is not a right or a freedom you are exercising, it is an act of IRRESPONSIBILITY you are committing
do you understand now?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Why do yuo think were in a recessoin and headed towwards a global crash??
Umm... because unfettered market was allowed to play hazard games with our economy? Because people were in charge whose primary interest was to fill their own pockets no matter what happens to the whole economy and we let it happen due to no laws regulating what they can or cannot do?
I didn't vote for greedy bankers tossing our economy in favor of their own wallets but guess what: You don't get to elect them!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
it is your responsibility to take care of your health. it is not my responsibility to take care of your health. correct?
any person alive today might be in the hospital by the end of the day. correct? are you immortal? do you deny this simple truth?
therefore, it is your responsibility to have insurance to make sure that you are paying for your health maintenance, which might include sudden unforeseen unaffordable costs. i shouldn't have to pay for it, correct?
therefore, if you do not have health insurance, you are not exercising a right of yours, you are abrogating a responsibility of yours. really. its quite fucking simple
that you think anything else is logically incoherent. follow the bouncing ball. it is airtight, simple logic. that you deny it is probably not a sign stupidity on your part, but judging by the quantity of effort you put into debating me, some sort of horrible propagandized state you live in. denial, denial, denial
look at every other industrialized democracy on this planet. having universal health care is a fucking brain dead obvious duty of a free society. SO MY FREEDOMS ARE NOT IMPOSED UPON BY YOUR UNFORESEEN COSTS. duh
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i have an ethical duty to make sure you get care
i do not say "do you have health insurance or $200K in an emergency health fund?" and if you say no, i walk away and let you die
if you understand why it is impossible for anyone with even a rudimentary human conscience to do that, then you understand the "twisted context" in play here as you call it
Only in the twisted context where we have made "society"(i.e. government) responsible for the well being of the individual
incredible. amazing. you are simply retarded beyond belief or have less sense of morality than a kindergartener if you actually believe those words
the "twisted context" you refer to asshole is called simple morality according to any definition of morality by any culture that has ever existed: you render aid to the sick and fallen
let me repeat: you render aid to the sick and fallen
are you willing to argue that? are you willing to call this simple obvious unavoidable morality a "twisted context"?
if yes, you are an amoral asshole who has no place in the debate
if no, you agree with me
decide, motherfucker
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"If you are passed out on the ground, I can simply choose to walk by without caring. Police officers or other public servants may be required to offer assistance as part of their job, but as a member of the public no such obligations exist for me."
this is the part where those who oppose something as simple and obvious as universal health insurance show their true colors: selfish self-centered irresponsible unethical assholes
thank you for going on record and showing to the world exactly what you are
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
that there are other issues in play in a free society, other than free association, and that some of those issues override free association IN CERTAIN LIMITED CONTEXTS. and all of this is perfectly agreeable with the us constitution. in fact, that the constitution itself has limits on free association, for example. furthermore, that these limits actually serve to maximize your freedom in a well-functioning of a free society
i'm not getting drawn into this discussion, because its intellectual charity. its beneath me. you seem to be only able to hold one concept in your head at a time, leading you to erroneous ridiculous conclusions derived in a vacuum of consideration of any other valid constitutional concepts, concepts equally important for the functioning of a free society. its a balancing act kid. not the taking of one isolated concept and amping it to the max
it is not worth my effort to continue talking to you on this issue, as it is not a debate, its an educational endeavour, and i am not your father or your teacher. if this sounds condescending, it would be even more condescending to plaster a smile on my face, hold your hand, and calmly explain to you some of the obvious constitutional issues you fail to see as important, when they are obviously important, strictly from a constitutional perspective, and if you honestly had a sound understanding of the constitution, you would already have considered these issues yourself. the fact you haven't merely demonstrates what a joke your so-called understanding of the constution is, if you think something like universal health care is unconstitutional
you need a lot of work on your own to catch up with the understanding that there are other issues at play here, none of them arranged to compromise your principles, but in fact arranged to deepen your understanding of your principles and what the founding fathers were grappling with when they wrote our important documents. one hopes you have the intellectual acumen to achieve this greater state of wisdom
as a starting place, make believe, suspend your disbelief for the moment, and consider that the constitution actually allows for limited limits on free association, and that universal health care perfectly falls within those limits. see if you can justify that to yourself, from within the framework of the constitution. if you can do that, you have hope, and you're not doomed to permanent fringe crackpot status. use this epiphany as a starting point for the expansion and growth of your understanding of the constitution and your future intellectual growth. good luck kid
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it