Scary stuff from testimony before the House Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, Science & Technology:

Amit Yoran, CEO of security firm NetWitness and a former senior official in the Department of Homeland Security, responded that the U.S. has been “experiencing a 9/11 in cyberattacks” for a number of  years. “Because there is no visible catastrophic outcome, we lie in bed at night asleep without realizing how much damage is being done,” said Yoran.

One of the witnesses providing testimony, Oracle's Chief Security Officer Mary Ann Davidson, said we should lay down the cyberlaw with the rest of the globe:

Davidson pointed to the Monroe Doctrine, the 1823 warning to European governments not to interference in affairs on U.S. soil, lest we take it as an act of aggression. She called for something similar with regard to U.S. “cyberturf.”

“The advantages of invoking a Monroe-like Doctrine in cyberspace would be to put the world on notice that the US has cyberturf, and that we will defend our turf,” she said. “We need to do both -- now.”

One of those architects who will renovate my home but won't officially finish so I don't have to pay him?

Is Chas Freeman, who has withdrawn his nomination to chair the National Intelligence Council, a victim of "the Israel Lobby"?

Freeman himself certainly thinks so.  Andrew Sullivan concurs.

I find Freeman's views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as summed up in the "money quote" in this post from Andrew, to be quite lacking in the "balance" that many argue the U.S. needs in its approach.  This isn't balance so much as one-sided Israel-blaming, for everything including the failure to "gain [the] admiration and affection" of any of its neighbors.  (How many of them were prepared to extend it?)  That aside, though, there really are other reasons to not want Freeman in a high-level foreign policy position.  Jonathan Chait gives examples of people who have nothing to do with the Israeli lobby who have opposed the appointment because of Freeman's very cavalier attitude toward human rights, particularly his record as an apologist for the Chinese regime.  For more analysis, see this great post by Ron Radosh.  No, Freeman's comments were not taken out of context, and Ron demonstrates that in his defense of the Tiananmen Square crackdown (or rather, his criticism of that crackdown for not being resolute enough), Freeman also defends brutal actions against peaceful protesters right here in the U.S. in 1932. (more...)

Mickey Kaus points out that this is the first time Warren Buffet has ever been ignored by the media.

The Seattle P-I will live to print another day, though no one knows how long it will last. Sam Chi has the details at Media Watch.

Laura D'Andrea Tyson did an admirable job of defending President Obama's "progressive and ambitous" budget in yesterday's Wall St. Journal, except for the part on energy:

Critics of a cap-and-trade system are correct when they claim it will raise the prices of goods and services whose production and use emit carbon. That's exactly the point: Higher prices are necessary to encourage energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy, to discourage carbon emissions, and to reduce the societal costs of global warming.

Quick: can you name a good or service that is produced without using or emitting carbon? Me either.  That means if Obama's plan is implemented the cost of everything will be going up across the board, which is precisely the opposite of what you want to do in the middle of a deep recession. Tyson argues that this is "necessary" to change behavior to and to mitigate the "societal costs" of global warming.

Obama's cap and trade plan might be workable - or at least less harmful - if we weren't currently in such dire economic straits.  As much of a priority as energy independence is for America, stabilizing the financial system and turning the economy around is paramount and the president's ultimate responsibility.  Right now, the economic foundation of the country is being shaken to its core, and the idea of imposing onerous new regulations and taxes on energy that will stifle economic growth verges on reckless and irresponsible.

Instead of trying to use punitive measures like heavy taxes to change behavior, the other obvious course is to provide generous incentives to stimulate the desired behavioral change. Massive tax credits for business that invest in green technologies and massive credits for consumers who utilize those technologies in their everyday lives.

Put another way, given the precarious nature of the financial system and the fragility of the economy, now is the time to use big carrots to try and change energy policy in this country, not big sticks.

On TNR.com a few days ago, William Galston criticizes David Brooks' "Moderate Manifesto," which accuses Obama of overreaching on an ambitious government-expanding agenda.  Says Galston:

[T]here is no question that the Obama budget contemplates a growth of the federal government relative to both the states and civil society. This is what happened under FDR, driving the conservatives of the time to paroxysms of rage. Today's conservatives are doing what Ronald Reagan never did--namely, relitigating the merits of the New Deal. It's not clear whether Brooks intends to join them. If so, he should either argue explicitly that the New Deal was a mistake, or distinguish between today's needs and those of the 1930s. If not, it's hard to see the prima facie case against Obama's course.

Well, leaving aside the merits of the New Deal, there is one major difference.  In 1940, total federal, state and local spending in the United States equalled about 19% of the GDP (up from 13% in 1930).  Today, it's close to 37%.  (The data can be found here.)  Growing government from a small base is -- to point out the obvious -- not the same as growing it from a large base.  A Rooseveltian expansion of government today would push its size to some 56% of the GDP.

Meanwhile, on Salon.com, Michael Lind castigates Obama for not being pro-big-government enough and for espousing market-oriented "neoliberalism," a liberal adaptation to the tyranny of conservative free-market fundamentalists.  (Back in June, Lind wrote that conservatism had already been defeated.  Never mind.)   (more...)

Jay Newton-Small's write up of Chris Dodd's growing troubles in Connecticut included this dismissive line from one of Dodd's advisors: "His potential opponent Rob Simmons couldn't even hold Connecticut's Second District — how is he going to win statewide?

Don't look now, but there's a new poll out today from Quinnipiac University that shows Rob Simmons leading Dodd, 43% to 42%. Inside those numbers, Simmons beats Dodd among Indpendent voters by a whopping 17-point margin, 49 to 32.

In other hypothetical general election match ups Dodd has decent leads against potential Republican challengers but still does not get more than 50%. Dodd leads by thirteen points against Republican State Sen. Sam Caligiuriby, 47 to 34, and by twelve points against CNBC host Larry Kudlow, 46 to 34.

Dodd's job approval is 49% and his favorability rating is at just 46%, with 45% viewing him unfaovorably. These numbers represent a 13-point drop in favorability for Dodd since last May.

Other notables from the poll: Republican Governor Jodi Rell continues to fly high with a 75% job approval rating. Connecticut voters are split evenly on whether they think Independent Senator Joe Lieberman is doing a good job, with 46% approving and 46% disapproving.

Sixty-seven percent approve of the job President Obama is doing.

The presidency of Barack Obama has proved to be a boon for conservative media. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have relished being targeted by the administration by name. And Fox News is continuing its reign as the ruler of the cable news universe. While Fox News remains comfortably ahead of MSNBC and CNN in total and prime-time ratings, it has vaulted into second place in prime-time among all cable networks, behind only USA. Fox News' prime-time audience (2.8 million) easily doubled CNN (1.3 million) and MSNBC (1.1 million). Through February, Fox News has led the cable news ratings for 86 consecutive months. Standing athwart of the Obama tide and yelling stop has been great business for Fox News, whose overall ratings jumped (21%) in February while CNN's declined sharply (44%). While claiming that its news programming is non-partisan, Fox News has benefited from its commentators' vociferous criticism of the Obama administration. The top three rated news talk shows currently are, in order: Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. Hannity's show has gotten a lift (up 38%) since shedding his hapless liberal sidekick Alan Colmes in January. But the addition of Glenn Beck to the 5 p.m. slot has proved to be a ratings bonanza that's beyond even the network's expectations. Beck, 45, who hosted his show on Headline News the last two years, has doubled the ratings for the time slot since joining Fox News in January. "I look at the ratings every day shocked," he told the L.A. Times. The liberal-led lineup of MSNBC has also gained ground, getting a huge boost from Rachel Maddow in the 9 p.m. slot. Maddow, 35, is now regularly beating CNN's old war horse Larry King, whose show is now the lone CNN prime-time program in the top 20 in cable ratings. Just how bad are things at CNN, the erstwhile industry leader and purported "centrist" in the cable news war? For two days last week, it was beaten by Headline News in prime-time. Yep, the little-sister network did it with Nancy Grace, whose coverage of the sensational Florida murder mystery of Caylee Anthony topped Anderson Cooper in the 10 p.m. slot.

I think one could make a useful analogy between America's defense programs and the current financial crisis. Like many of our erstwhile investment banks, the Pentagon is hugely leveraged - tied to a series of legacy defense commitments from the Cold War, both formal and informal. Like the banks, those stumping for more defense dollars are chasing exotic products whose connection to underlying assets are strained.

It is in this light that Dov Zakheim's "worrisome" indications on Obama's defense spending should be seen:

While the administration is certainly funding short-term military needs, it appears willing to sacrifice long-term U.S. military superiority. We should not forget that, even if China's GDP is no longer growing at 8-9 percent each year, even a five percent annual growth will enable Beijing to continue to modernize and expand its military capability over the medium to long term, while the current U.S. defense budget clearly limits our capability over the same time frame.

The U.S. currently outspends China by roughly 5.8 to 1 on defense. If you include America's Asian allies, the ratio expands still further. We have an orders of magnitude advantage over China when it comes to strategic nuclear weapons. China is also ringed by Russia and India, large powers in their own right and not exactly fast friends with the Chinese.

Still, as Zakheim argues, the U.S. is leveraged and to the extent that we are invested in nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan and still tethered by Cold War-era defense commitments, our ability to invest in defense R&D will be more constricted over the long term. Now, there are multiple paths one can travel from this conclusion. Zakheim, like our erstwhile bankers, takes the one that leads directly to your wallet: "The United States should spend what it needs to on defense, be it 3, 4, 5 or 8 percent of GDP."

But really, why stop at eight? If we're unwilling to discipline our defense policy with a sober appraisal of our core interests and defense needs, why not spend and invest away? It's not like the money will ever run out. Right?