Scary cyber world requires command, czar

ARTICLE: A Pentagon Cyber-Command Is in the Works, By Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post, April 22, 2009

After weeks of being subjected to scary revelations by our government about how (CANUBELIEVEIT!) we're not the only ones who spy but that other nations seems awfully intent on spying on us as well (and I'm not just talking Israelis), the shoes start to drop. The first seems to be a separate and new military command for cyber security. It's not that we didn't have one before, we had mucho. But this being America, the most networked political system on the planet, whenever fear builds up or failure appears, we want a CZAR! and pronto. Why? Czars are very American; they're part of our history; they define who we Americans are as a people. Plus, they're the perfect answer for a networked world--one guy in charge of everything! No single-point failures for us, but rather a host of czars with one president to rule them all.

You know, there should be some sort of USG czar ring that all the czars get--big and studded like a Super Bowl one.

Anyway, hard to argue against it, because clearly we need it if everybody and their comrade can easily crack into all our nets and lift information about our weapons systems (even while they're in development).

That sort of incompetency has simply got to stop.

Other shoes will drop, one assumes, after the super-secret government-wide review (which nonetheless seems to leak a story every weekend for the Monday paper; I wish they would have given one to a lowly blogger like me, because I could have really used a blockbuster--hell, who couldn't; but I didn't know where the sign-up sheet was).

Comments

[vanderleun]

The great thing about czars, and Obama's making more than the Romanovs, is that you don't have to have them approved by congress. Especially if you don't call them czars and just pop them into second level positions at various Federal Agencies with Obama's connection information on their secure Blackberrys.