Another Czar–bzar

I thought we appropriately articulated our opinion of czars in America on April 19, 1775. And the last Czar and his family were permanently removed from power with extreme prejudice on July 17, 1918. So why is it that our government is creating new czars? I would think we have had enough of them in this world. But apparently our government doesn’t see it that way because tomorrow President Obama is expected to announce still another czar:



President Obama is expected to announce Friday the creation of the position of cyber czar, a person who will coordinate the nation’s efforts to protect government and private computer systems from hackers, criminal gangs, terrorists and spies, people familiar with the plan said Thursday.


The czar will report to both the national security adviser and the head of the National Economic Council, the sources said.


Obama will not name anyone Friday to the post because the selection process is ongoing, they said.


In addition, the White House will release a 40-page report that sets broad goals for combating cyber intrusions, but does not spell out in detail how to do so, said the sources, who would not agree to be identified because the report has not been released.


Several years ago I was asked to comment on some preliminary Homeland Security plans for the Feds to “protect the Internet”. As one might imagine they were just the opposite of what I thought should be done. I gave them my feedback as politely as I could while still making my points and my boss said he passed it on up the chain with his blessing.


I don’t know if they have come up with something having better alignment with reality by now. We will have to see what the “40-page report” says. But just the fact that the Feds want to extend their reach into still another area where they don’t have any Constitutionally granted powers when they are so deeply in debt they can’t pay for all the stuff they already messing up does not bode well.


Update: The document is now available. A quick scan doesn’t reveal any of the stuff I disapproved of a few years back. But it is a very high level document without many details that can be addressed. And, of course, frequently “the devil is in the details”. What I did find a little odd was the frequent use of the phrase “State, local, and tribal governments” (emphasis added). There were 12 instances of the use of “tribal”. Is it usual to include tribal governments in such documents? And it makes me wonder…could I set up my own tribe and tribal government? I need to look into that sometime. I own land that is on an indian reservation (Boomershoot is held on indian reservation land as well).

7 thoughts on “Another Czar–bzar

  1. instead of a “40-page report” on the Internet security, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to have a “1GB pdf”??

  2. Gotta control the remaining information outlet somehow. After all the print media is already our lap(ping)dog.
    Thanks you 52%ers.

    O
    and the whitehouse staff

  3. I’ve seen “tribal governments” used in lots of .gov docs going back many years. It seems a standard part of the mantra about non-fed government entities.

  4. Because its worked out so well for them with everything else they’ve done…

  5. And could gangs be considered as tribes? Methinks we need a little better definition of what the term “tribe” entails.

Comments are closed.