Break in Case of Emergency?
A presidential directive, NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51 / HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20, outlines a plan for use in case of “catastrophic” emergencies such as a terrorist attack or a major natural disaster. Called an “National Continuity Policy”, the plan supersedes the 1998 Presidential Decision Directive 67, which was designed to ensure the continuation of constitutional government.
This directive has liberal bloggers and conspiracy theorists up in arms. Posts on how twisted the idea is to break the constitution in order to preserve it sprung up. They are furious about the line “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.” and how this has not received any mainstream press coverage. Their fears are probably best summarized by this clip from V for Vendetta
Excuse the poor quality of the copyrighted content…
But really, this is again another example of why I’m very reluctant to associate myself with the hard left. If you actually read the directive, the lines preceding the controversial statement indicate symbolic presidential leadership in order to reassure the country and maintain stability during crisis. Everything after the statement outline emergency plans to be executed within the executive branch. The directive states that each branch of government has its own continuation plan, and each plan will be coordinated with their counterparts in other branches to ensure the continuation of the government as a whole. So there is no need to worry about Bush centralizing all the power into the executive and becoming a dictator.
But I’m gonna keep my fingers crossed.
via dvorak
Filed under: Bush, national security | Leave a Comment
I don’t even know if I can really feel sorry for Fox viewers anymore. I was channel surfing last week, and while CNN was covering Wolfowitz and MSNBC was covering Iraq, Fox News was covering a car chase in Colorado… wow.
Filed under: media | 1 Comment
Wolfowitz Blames Media
Paul Wolfowitz, the architect our involvement in Iraq, who has recently resigned from his position as president of the World Bank, blames his resignation on the media. He says that the media created a heated environment of inaccuracies that forced him to resign. This is ridiculous. What did he think was going to happen? Even if the board had decided that he had acted ethically, there is an absolute conflict of interest in that situation, so what did he expect. Besides, the only reason he had that job was because the Iraq war was going sour and the Bush Administration had to show some indication of moving in a new direction without actually doing anything. And really, what’s a guy from the pentagon doing running the World Bank anyway?
via yahoo
Filed under: media, wolfowitz | Leave a Comment
According to an ABC investigative report, President Bush has authorized the CIA to take covert action against Iran, in order to destabilize the Iranian government.
Politically, I’m not surprised. This was bound to happen sooner or later, and at least this will be a nonviolent process. Yet I am skeptical about how effective a propaganda campaign and attempts at economic destabilization will be in destabilizing the Iranian government. They may be able to oust President Ahmadinejad, but it would be much more difficult to over throw Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader. The Iranian government, after all, is a theocracy. And to me, it just makes sense that if a society becomes destabilized it will lean on its most sturdy institutions, especially religion.
The interesting thing about this article is the comments. A phenomena of the more interactive approach the internet has been taking, the comments allow readers to respond and discuss the article. What was pointed out in the reddit discussion of the article’s comments, was the pattern of the comments. While comments thanking ABC for acting as a watchdog against a hawk government were signed with screen names, comments that were angry tirades against ABC, accusing ABC of compromising national security were signed with full names. The use of a real name when signing messages is usually a sign of either internet celebrity status, or internet neophytes, usually the latter. Furthermore, most the negative comments were along the lines of “You people should be arrested, tried and convicted as the treasonous scum that you are. And ABC’s rebroadcasting license should be revoked.”
From this pattern of the comments, I think it could be possible that someone had disagreed with the publication of the information, and had began a campaign to express disapproval of the article, made up of non-internet savvy objectors. Because, lets face it, the internet is for the liberals. Oh those liberals and their avatars.
These negative comments remind me of this billboard i came across on the internet last week,
It’s dangerous blind devotion to the state. Heck, the Iranian people aren’t even this devout to their government. It amazes me how so many people in this country mistake being a lemming for patriotism.
Filed under: Bush, internet, iran, media | Leave a Comment
She’s 29 and from Essex in the UK… and married to Congressman Kucinich… did I mention 29? Thats over 30 years younger than Dennis. I know there’s nothing really political about this post, so here’s my poor attempt. She should campaign for him, and speak for him. I think people would rather listen to a youthful redhead with an English accent over Kucinich’s voice any day.
Filed under: kucinich | 2 Comments
Rupert Murdoch had apparently told his New York Post Page Six reporters to not print anything critical about China and Chinese Diplomats. Murdoch has invested a lot into Chinese television, and does not want to be on the Chinese government’s bad side. Bravo corporate media conglomerates. Bravo.
It could be worse I guess. The government could own the media and we could have constant propaganda and lies spoon fed to us.
via nytimes
Filed under: censorship, media | Leave a Comment
College Boy 1: Umm… 65?
Thorny: 63.
College Boy 1: But… isn’t the speed limit 65?
Thorny: Yes, it is.
Look at what we’re gonna miss out on, now that soldiers can’t use youtube.
I don’t know if that Iraqi man was laughing because the soldier sounded funny, or because the soldier was holding a gun and the Iraqi didn’t want to get shot.
Filed under: Comedy, internet, Iraq | Leave a Comment
Sorry this is a little late. I got a lot of things going on right now and a few posts sitting on the back burner. Anyway, as we all know solders have been blocked from using military internet connections for socializing in the form of blogs, video, and photos, citing security and technical reasons. There has been some uproar about these restrictions, but i think this all quite pointless. The soldiers still have access to the internet, and if they really wanted to blog, they could do so at internet cafes in Iraq. Still blocking access to first person perspectives may have negative effects on the public perspective of the war. Even though there is much public disapproval of the war, a support our troops sentiment has never really deminished. (although those pricks that protest the military recruitment booths dont seem to share that sentiment) America has a tendency to mythologize its heroes, and these blogs and videos lend themselves to that. At the same time, there is a natural voyeurism that draws people to witness what goes on the ground. Unfortunately that also creates a demand for videos of beheadings and such. But either way, it is important to keep a human face to the war that doesn’t have a 23% approval rating.
news via the star
Filed under: censorship, internet, Iraq, media | Leave a Comment
-
Recent Comments
zunedita373 on Now That’s a Republ… Nutroot on In Response to Hugh Hewit… Nutroot on I Take Back Everything I Said … jamie on I Take Back Everything I Said … mediamogul on Fox News Viewers are in Better…
