"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. Truth was never put to the worse in a free and open encounter..."
~ Milton
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin

Reading:
A Fistful of Euros
Ahistoricality
Andrew Tobias
Angry Liberal
Archy
Avedon Carol
Back to Iraq
Bad Attitudes
Bark Bark Woof Woof
BlogAfrica
Cliopatria
Common Dreams
Counterterrorism Blog
Cursor
Daniel Drezner
Eric Alterman
European Democracy
Fablog
Hellblazer
Hugo Schwyzer
Hullabaloo
In The Dark
Informed Comment
Jesus' General
Madelaine Kane
Mahablog
Mother Jones
Obsidian Wings
Off the Kuff
Opinions You Should Have
Orcinus
Pacific Views
Pen-Elayne
Political Animal
Prometheus 6
StoutDemBlog
Talking Points Memo
TalkLeft
TBOGG
The American Street
The Common Ills
The Washington Note
War and Piece

Book Reviews
The Emerging Democratic Majority (Judis & Teixeira)
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Franken)
Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot (Franken)
The True Believer (Hoffer)
Still Being Bushwhacked

All Book Reviews
Race, Gender, and Sexuality
You Got My Support. But.
Even Endangered Penguins Do It
Jesus Wept
Not Quite Right (with caveats)
Unforeseen Racism?

All Race, Gender, and Sexuality
Campaigns and Voting
killmenow
Not News. Olds. And Truths.
November 4, 2008
Anyone?
Pay Attention

All Campaigns and Voting
Lecture Circuit
It Was 40 Years Ago Today
July 2, 1964
Pledge
May 14-15, 1970
The Erotica of Bare Knees

All Lecture Circuit
Media
The Liberal Media, At It Again
Fairly UNbalanced
P.S.
What's this?
OHMIGOD

All Media
Big Brother
Shoulda' Guessed
Where did my country go?
You know what you never thought you'd read?
Not in his name
Sleight of Hand

All Big Brother
World O'Blog
It's Vocabulary Time!
They wrote it
Mighty-fine blogging
Other People Said....
Phillipines

All World O'Blog
Aimless Ranting
So, I'm thinking with half my brain
Do You Know Peter?
Long, Little Privacy Rant
My Takeaway
If I Had It To Do Over Again

All Aimless Ranting
Archives
November 24, 2013 - November 30, 2013
November 03, 2013 - November 09, 2013
December 09, 2012 - December 15, 2012
October 07, 2012 - October 13, 2012
May 06, 2012 - May 12, 2012

All Weekly Archives


Electioneering
Open Secrets
Political Wire Exit Polls
Politics1
Polling Report

Information
American Research Group
Center for Democracy and Technology
Center for Public Integrity
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Congressional Report Cards
Death Row Roll Call
DebtChannel.org
Democracy Now
Economic Policy Institute
FairVote Colorado
Foreign Policy In Focus
Global Exchange
Human Rights Watch
Independent Judiciary
Inequality
Institute on Money in State Politics
Institute for Public Accuracy
JobWatch
Lying in ponds
Media Reform
Media Transparency
Move On
One World
Open Democracy
Pew Research Center
Project Censored
Public Citizen Health Research Group
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Take Back The Media
The Urban Institute
WHO Outbreak News

Connections
XML & RDF
Peevish for PDA



Blog Directory


Search








Credits
Powered by Movable Type

Site Design by Sekimori





All content © 2002-2005 Anne Zook

January 18, 2010
Shoulda' Guessed

So, I'm reading along in this article about Google, China, and the mushrooming cyberwars, and I run across this bit:

In conventional and even nuclear warfare, your assets are relatively easy to measure against those of your opponent. You have 75 tanks and your opponent has 125, but yours are fitted with better weapons systems roughly even.

And I'm thinking, well, no, not necessarily. But I'm willing to accept it--provisionally--until I see whatever point you're about to make.

Then the article then goes on to say:

Cyberwarfare is not like that. Your assets consist of your opponents' vulnerabilities and your ability to exploit them. This means that to defend yourself, you have to breach your opponent's defences: implicit in any cyberdefence strategy is the development of a comprehensive offensive capability.

And by now the hair is standing up on the back of my neck and I'm muttering, "No, no, no, that's just not true.

I was not, then, surprised to see the next sentence:

This was the thinking behind the Bush administration's Total Information Office....

Any time someone says something that's demonstrably insane, the next sentence seems to attribute the idea to the recent Bonehead/Crookface debacle.

(Unless it's a discussion on the history of something demonstrably insane--in those circumstances, it's invariably traced back to Wretched Reganism.)

P.S. The article goes on to say that while the psychosis of Total Information Assimilation has been abandoned, the most neurotic offshoots live on, under other bureaucratic umbrellas.

P.P.S. Yes, I know that the whole Big Brotherhood of Homeland Security was shoved down Bonehead & Crookface's protesting throats.

Posted by AnneZook at 01:48 PM


Comments

"The only defense is a strong offense" and "if there's a gun on the table in the first act, it should be fired by the end of the third act" seems to have been the only principles by which Boneface/Crookhead operated. That and "I got mine, Jack!"

Posted by: Ahistoricality at January 22, 2010 08:49 PM

Wow, you're right Jonathan.

There's a connection--a witty remark to be made--about this view of the neocon 'legacy' of Hollywood's Reagan, but I haven't had enough coffee yet to make it.

P.S. What is it with the essay site spam?

Posted by: Anne at January 27, 2010 08:36 AM