It's Tea Time

A new senate bill would give Obama the power to seize control of private networks in the case of a "cyber emergency". I feel safer already.

I think one of the more scary parts of the article is the following:

'The bill would also let the government create a detailed set of standards for licensing "cybersecurity professionals" who would oversee a single standard for security measures.'

Where exactly will the private market be in five years? If health care belongs to the government, and technology goes government via mandatory licensing, what's left? The government will be directly involved in every companies policies by proxy. Every "cybersecurity professional" will become an infectious agent of governmental policies, sent out across the country to infect private companies with their parasitic inefficiencies.

On the bright side, we get a new czar: The Cyber Czar!

In an effort to combat jurisdictional turf battles, Sen. Rockefeller introduced his proposal into two separate bills. S. 778 creates a new "Cyber Czar" within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and has been referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Reform. Meanwhile, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (S.773), would create a Cybersecurity Advisory Panel that would advise the President and be composed of outside experts from industry, academia, and nonprofit groups. The bill would also create a public-private clearinghouse for cyber threat and vulnerability information sharing, and establish measurable and auditable cybersecurity standards in coordination with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Furthermore, S. 773 creates a number of new Department of Commerce-related action items under the purview of the Cyber Czar. The administration reportedly provided support and assistance in drafting these bills and it is worth noting that Rockefeller and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) have both been very vocal regarding the importance of passing these initiatives.

Whoisjohngalt.com has what will obviously be viewed as a controversial post following Ted Kennedy's death. Controversy can be great, or it can back fire. People are certainly more likely to hear about it, but then they are also more likely to dismiss it. In this case I think the message is so important that it is worth shouting from rooftops in the face of any taboo.

So that is essentially what he has done. Pointing out what many of us know but do not really process. We know that someone like Ted Kennedy gets the best of the best in medical care. We know that he was advocating a plan under which we would not receive that care. We know that if that plan were in place, he would still continue to receive the best care, and we would die in our homes. We know this, but we don't really think about it.

Why do we accept this? How is it that we have allowed ourselves to be verbally castrated by methods such as political correctness, methods that take away our power as individuals. How is it that certain topics, not actual dangers to us but ideas, can cause our brains to run screaming in the other direction. Most people literally just shut down. Why? Really try, just for a moment, to think your way around the walls that have been placed in your mind by societal "rules" and answer that simple question.

If you're like me, you'll come to realize that there is no good reason. The same man who would fight in a bar over the silliest of things cowers in the face of political correctness without even knowing he has done so. Why? How did the system put our minds in such a place, and how much further do they intend to go?

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

EDIT 10/01/2009: I have since bought one of these from "Smoking Everywhere" and I must say I love it. I don't smoke much, was pretty much quit, but I do occasionally like to have a few drags. This seemed like a much better alternative in those situations than smelly, nasty cigarettes. Guess what? It IS a much better alternative. I really dig the mint flavor, but am looking forward to trying out cherry and apple.

ORIGINAL POST FOLLOWS
--------------------------------------

E-Cigarettes have come under attack by the FDA, and is it really any surprise? They are becoming a popular alternative to a "real" cigarette, because many of the negative aspects of smoking do not seem to apply.

Hey, when you can get the equivalent of four packs of cigarettes for the price of one, I can see why the government would be putting pressure on the FDA to slow the e-cigarette's roll. The majority of cigarette prices are taxes after all...you didn't really think the government wanted you to stop smoking did you? No no no...they just wanted something they could tax at unbelievable levels that people wouldn't complain about.

Well you know what they say, necessity is the mother of invention, and it looks like the smoking public has found a solution to the problem of their governmental abuse. Unfortunately it also looks like they're about to find out just how far the government is willing to go, and what the real motivation behind their actions on cigarette taxes is: control and money.

Oh, and here is a link showing the cost of a 5-pack of refill cartridges for the e-cigarette. Less than $10 and each cartridge is the equivalent of between 13-15 cigarettes.

“Telling smokers they may not use electronic cigarettes until they’re approved by the FDA is like telling a floundering swimmer not to climb aboard a raft because it might have a leak.”

Jacob Sullum, senior editor at Reason magazine, nationally syndicated columnist
and author of the critically-acclaimed book For Your Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health (Free Press, 1998).

I recently read, for the first time, Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". I didn't read it as a suggestion from someone I knew, I read it as I come to read most things. Occasionally, while perusing the net, I come across a writer of a blog, essay, etc. whom I really enjoy. Something about the writing just rings true to me, and makes me feel at peace with myself. The site I came across was Whoisjohngalt.com.

Now at the time I had no idea the question that was the above URL had anything to do with the book, but he had a list of recommended reading, and Atlas was at the top. I hadn't read a new novel in a short while, so I ordered it that day. I will forever be grateful.

There seems to be quite a bit of emotion regarding Atlas, ranging from love to hate. It may even be something of a literary cilantro, in that there doesn't seem to be a middle ground. I can understand that after reading it, and feel honestly that I can understand a lot more as well.

What strikes me as odd, but shouldn't I suppose, is the ability of people to spin Atlas in such a way that it becomes representative of exactly what it opposes. This is the beauty of the book, because those who argue against it use the same modes of attack as the villains in it. Characters such as Hank Rearden are vilified constantly by those who should love him most as uncaring, unfeeling, and selfish. In truth, as with Atlas itself, he is capable of the deepest depths of feeling, of being selfless as to the point of bearing nearly any burden, and cares for his employees more than any other in his industry by any measurable standard.

How then can heroic characters such as this be twisted to fit the demented purpose of greed and selfishness? What motivates what can only be an intentional misinterpretation of these characters? Rand tried to explain the motivation herself, and maybe she was onto something. I can't, like many characters in the book, accept her reasoning on that front yet. I would believe fear before malice.

Still, for anyone who happens to come by and read this, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. If you haven't read it, I recommend doing so. You may disagree vehemently or you may feel as though you've found a soul mate in one of the characters, but one thing I can assure you of is you will feel something.