“Congress is opening the door to America a little wider for Iraqis who served as translators for the U.S. military. Thousands of Iraqis risked their lives in those jobs. Congress boosted the number of visas authorized from 50 to 500 a year, and there are bills to expand that number up to 5,000.”

My immediate response was “it’s about time.” There have been too many stories about the difficulties of Iraqi refugees entering the United States. According to Refugees International, approximately 2 million Iraqis have fled their country since we invaded in addition to another 2 million displaced within the country. This is a massive human crisis, we’re largely responsible, yet we’ve allowed fewer than 1,000 inside U.S. borders. We should be doing more, especially for Iraqis who worked for us as translators.

Commanders must protect their interpreters. They should emplace security measures to keep interpreters and their families safe. Insurgents know the value of good interpreters and will often try to intimidate or kill interpreters and their family members. (Counterinsurgency Field Manual, Section C-19)

We need to protect the Iraqis who help us, for both moral and strategic reasons. However, I wonder about the wisdom of setting up a pipeline to get them out of the country.

One other time we admitted large numbers of refugees was at the end of Vietnam. Saigon fell, we were pulling out, and rather than leave the people who helped us to be persecuted, we helped them leave.

If we’re planning to leave Iraq then this is good news.

However, if we’re planning on staying we need Iraqis who are willing to work with us. We need Iraqis who support the Iraqi government and not the insurgents. And we need these Iraqis to stay in country.

As long as we’re there fighting for their country and government they should do the same. I’m not saying everyone needs to pick up a weapon and hunt insurgents, but they need to influence their friends and neighbors and defy the insurgents.

A successful counterinsurgency operation meets the contested population’s needs to the extent needed to win popular support while protecting the population from insurgents. (Counterinsurgency Field Manual, Section 2-1)

Counterinsurgents take upon themselves responsibility for the people’s well-being in all its manifestations. These include the following:

• Security from insurgent intimidation and coercion, as well as from nonpolitical violence and crime.
• Provision for basic economic needs.
• Provision of essential services, such as water, electricity, sanitation, and medical care.
• Sustainment of key social and cultural institutions.
• Other aspects that contribute to a society’s basic quality of life.

Insurgents succeed by maintaining turbulence and highlighting local grievances the counterinsurgency effort fails to address. (Counterinsurgency Field Manual, Section 2-6)

If we create a system that makes it easy for people to flee Iraq we’re admitting defeat.

Maybe that’s Congress’ intent, but I doubt it. We stumbled into the war with little planning for the occupation. Now I’m afraid we’re going to stumble again while trying to get out of it.

Having a short paragraph on each candidate is useful but I also wanted to know who shares viewpoints and whether or not polling numbers fall into the same clusters. I was able to group 15 of the candidates into six different positions.

Increase military presence, eventual withdrawal:

• Duncan Hunter (R, 1%)
• John McCain (R, 13%)

No planned withdrawal / Stay-the-Course:

• Rudy Giuliani (R, 28%)
• Mike Huckabee (R, 10%)
• Mitt Romney (R, 12%)
• Fred Thompson (R, 19%)

Immediate partial withdrawal. No deadline for complete withdrawal:

• John Edwards (D, 12%)

Draw down troops without a deadline:

• Hillary Clinton (D, 48%)
• Barack Obama (D, 21%)
• Tom Tancredo (R, 2%)

Draw down troops with a 2013 deadline:

• Chris Dodd (D, 1%)

Immediate complete withdrawal (within nine months):

• Mike Gravel (D, 1%)
• Dennis Kucinich (D, 4%)
• Ron Paul (R, 5%)
• Bill Richardson (D, 2%)

Drawing down troops without a deadline is the winner among Democrats and staying-the-course is the winning position for Republican candidates. This essentially matches the polls about how people feel about Iraq in general. Among Republicans, 58 percent approve of how President Bush is handling Iraq. It shouldn’t be surprising that 69 percent of the Republicans polled support candidates with similar strategies.

Comparing different polls is interesting but I don’t think real conclusions can be drawn about the popularity of candidates and their position on one issue. Correlation is not causation. However, I’m still interested to see where the candidates fall on the issue of health care, the next issue the Union Tribune is covering in this series.

The Consumer Reports video is wonderful and makes some great points, even if the tone might seem a bit smug to some, but I’m surprised they made it. Its style and message remind me of Adbusters, a very different organization, magazine, and website.

Consumer Reports has national prestige Adbusters is unlikely to enjoy and they’re proud of it:

Our research and testing uncovered dangers that led to the Flammable Fabrics Act, the Child Protection and Toy Safety Act, and many product recalls, government standards, and regulations.

The mainstream media even helps spread the word of Consumer Reports. I was hearing about their latest automobile ratings in the news before I’d even received the magazine.

Part of the reason for this special status is that Consumer Reports is simultaneously pro-consumer, pro-business, and pro-consumption. After all, their magazine is built around rating products so people can be more informed before they go shopping.

Compare the missions of Consumer Reports and Adbusters:

Consumer Reports® and ConsumerReports.org® are published by Consumers Union, an expert, independent nonprofit organization whose mission is to work for a fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to empower consumers to protect themselves. To achieve this mission, we test, inform, and protect. To maintain our independence and impartiality, CU accepts no outside advertising, no free test samples, and has no agenda other than the interests of consumers.

Adbusters is an ecological magazine, dedicated to examining the relationship between human beings and their physical and mental environment. We want a world in which the economy and ecology resonate in balance. We try to coax people from spectator to participant in this quest. We want folks to get mad about corporate disinformation, injustices in the global economy, and any industry that pollutes our physical or mental commons.

Adbusters is unapologetic about being anti-corporate and anti-consumption. They believe we consume because we’re encouraged to consume. Print and broadcast media taught us that we’re defined by the clothes we wear, the electronic devices we carry, and the cars we drive. Adbusters wants to change that.

Consumer Reports’ Ad Watch expresses a similar concern. The direct-to-consumer drug commercials define medical conditions in extremely broad terms. Not only are viewers encouraged to think of themselves as sick, they’re encouraged to think the “correct remedy” comes from a specific medication. And all this is based on misleading information and glaring omissions, not sound medical advice. These commercials are meant to promote profit, not patient health.

Direct-to-consumer advertisements are a good start. I hope Consumer Reports expands Ad Watch to cover the misleading aspects of other commercials as well. This is an opportunity Adbusters can only dream about.

In his essay, LeDuff attempts to redefine his identity from a Pulitzer Prize winning correspondent to a stay at home father. He’d like readers to believe it’s courageous of him to give up the prestige and excitement of his old job.

They say the number of stay-at-home fathers in America has doubled in the past decade, but this statistic gives me no particular pleasure. I’m committed to my decision, but I feel lonely again—only now it’s for the old days on the job.

It’s true his days of “scampering around Iraq” or the Arctic are temporarily over and he won’t be “drinking beer with a Mexican smuggler” in the near future. But his sacrifice isn’t as grand as he claims.

Exhibit A:

LeDuff wasn’t giving up a job he loved. He was getting burnt out at the same time his wife’s dream job was available:

My job at the Times was wearing thin; during particularly bad moments I thought I was going to break down: deadline pressure, bland hotel rooms; too many cigarettes and too much coffee; newsroom intrigue, ambition, and ego. It’s a noxious mix.

Exhibit B:

He’s a writer, a reporter, and he hasn’t given up that profession.

A reporter’s job is to write down the history of the living for our grandchildren. Along the way, the reporter gives people things to talk about. He rubs elbows, makes suggestions to people in power, and exposes the wrongs they do.

LeDuff’s topics have changed, but he’s still a reporter. Instead of writing about the latest immigration bill or what’s happening in Iraq, he’s writing about what it’s like to be a man in a woman’s world. Instead of rubbing elbows with warlords and politicians he’s rubbing elbows with other parents, nannies, and businesses. Making suggestions to people in power? Exposing the wrongs they do? Check and check.

When LeDuff tries to attend a Mommy and Me yoga class, even though he doesn’t do yoga, he’s rejected because he’s a man.

I left without incident. Why shouldn’t women have a club where they could be free from the testosterone of the male interloper? I could have made a scene about the unfairness of it, the double standard—the fact that the golf clubs and fraternal orders have been pried open by women in the name of equality. I could whinge on about the birthing classes and prenatal checkup appointments that treat the fathers as only slightly better than a nuisance—a damp dog, more or less.

He could continue his complaints, but doesn’t. He did his job as a reporter. He tried to do something with his daughter, something that highlighted his “fish out of water” status, and when it didn’t go well he wrote about it.

Sacrifice and Parental Duty

LeDuff frames his essay like he’s made a huge sacrifice in favor of staying home with his daughter. Being a parent is, arguably, one of the more important jobs someone can take but I think LeDuff’s wrong to pity the fathers (and presumably mothers) who don’t become stay-at-home parents. Parenting requires different sacrifices in different families.

In some families both parents work miserable jobs for long hours simply to provide food, clothing, and shelter for their children. While the parents are away the children grow up with grandparents or other family. Having a stay-at-home parent just isn’t an option. The sacrifice time with the children in favor of supporting the children.

For other families they don’t have much choice about who stays at home. LeDuff may think it’s “noble” and “romantic” to stay home, but it’s often a monetary decision. Which parent earns more? In our society it’s still true that men generally earn more and mothers stay at home.

Charlie LeDuff changed jobs, he didn’t give his up career. Taking this job, valued at $138,095 according to Salary.com, got him out of a job he hated, gives him topics for his continued writing, and allowed his wife to take her dream job. That’s not much of a sacrifice at all.

I learned about his death first in the San Diego Union Tribune and then on Good Morning America. The difference in coverage was both shocking and disturbing.

The marathon may have been in New York but Mark Ziegler covered it in the Union Tribune like a local story; Keflezighi and Shay trained at the Olympic Training Center in Chula Vista and Keflezighi graduated from San Diego High. Even while reporting a death, the UT’s story was as upbeat as possible and about reactions of other top athletes.

Part of the story, regardless of who’s covering it, is the cause of death. At the time it wasn’t known but the Union Tribune piece covered the normal risk factors in running and pointed out that Shay’s death didn’t seem to fit with them:

Every now and then a middle-aged man carrying an extra 40 pounds will collapse and die while chugging through a marathon on an unseasonably hot day. But a 28-year-old in peak fitness with a U.S. marathon title and an NCAA 10,000-meter crown on his résumé? With temperatures in the low 50s? Just five miles into the race?

Ziegler continued the story by reporting what happened after Shay’s collapse and then included information from Shay’s father:

But Joe Shay, a high school cross country coach in Central Lakes, Mich., told The Associated Press that his son had an enlarged heart diagnosed when he was 14 but was given the OK by doctors to compete in distance running. And Shay told runnersworld.com recently that medical staff at the Olympic Training Center in Chula Vista had diagnosed him with Adrenal Fatigue Syndrome last year, forcing him to take off a month from his notoriously brutal workouts that sometimes totaled 140 miles a week.

The cause of death wasn’t known and wouldn’t be until the autopsy was performed, but the Union Tribune story reported Shay’s preexisting medical conditions that could have contributed to his death.

Good Morning America took a different take on the story. Instead of reporting Shay’s specific risk factors they played on generic fear associated with physical activity:

Shay’s death, which occurred after he collapsed five miles into a race at the Olympic trials in New York, highlighted just how dangerous the sport can be – even for the most fit athletes. He will undergo an autopsy to reveal exactly what happened to him.

In fact, hundreds of marathoners are taken to the hospital every year for various injuries, and as the sport’s popularity has increased, so have the injuries.

The rest of their story was about the dangers of running marathons:

And while the sight of the marathoners in Central Park may be enough to inspire the less active to get up and go, not everyone is fit enough to do so.

“They open themselves up to the risks of cardiac injury, ankle, knee, hip and back pain,” Grelsamer said. “I’m a big believer in listen to your body principle. If you feel something abnormal in your chest, in your joints, that’s your body telling you to back off.”

It could be a sign of dehydration or overhydration, or something more serious. It also could cause serious trouble as when, during this year’s sweltering Chicago Marathon, 95 runners were taken to the hospital for heat-related injuries, and one died of heart problems.

Since Sunday I’ve read more about Shay’s death and I’m still confused and annoyed with how Good Morning America and ABC decided to spin the story. It almost seems like they’re threatened by NBC’s The Biggest Loser and going for the reverse: “Hey, let’s report about the dangers of exercise and keep people on the couch watching television!” This is what we’re currently doing:

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, it’s estimated that 60% of the U.S. population doesn’t follow the recommendations for physical activity, 25% engage in no physical activity, and only 15% engage in 30 min of moderate activity for 5 or more days per week.

Good Morning America did a disservice to their audience when they highlighted the dangers of running and tried to make marathons seem dangerous.

The dangers of doing nothing are far greater.

Roberts is correct in his premise. The United States can’t take on a major national challenge without a major national commitment. Duh. The War is currently showing on PBS stations and it’s hard for anyone to forget the sacrifices made during that conflict and the resulting changes to society.

Most of what follows that premise is flawed. Roberts compares the national commitment we made during World War II with a lack of commitment in fighting the war on terror and the conflict in Iraq and says we should be willing to do more.

Roberts correctly identifies the political philosophy that shapes our policies. Since Ronald Reagan we’ve been working towards a smaller government, greater fiscal discipline, limited regulation of the private sector, and increased free trade. What started with Reagan was continued through Bill Clinton, who, in 1996, said, “the era of big government is over.” Our desire to limit the size of government affected how we’ve responded to the attacks of September 11, 2001:

In the six years of the war [on terror], through an invasion of Afghanistan, a wave of anthrax attacks, and an occupation of Iraq, Americans have remained largely unshaken in their commitment to a political philosophy [neoliberal] that demands much from its government but asks little of its citizens.

This neoliberal philosophy is built on a bedrock of skepticism about the role of central government and the effectiveness of grand governmental projects. As a consequence, politics got small. Political leaders learned to shy away from policies that threatened to disrupt the status quo and make great demands of the American polity.

This rejection of sacrifice on a national scale contributed to the bungled war the United States finds itself in today. The war on terror is not simply a neoconservative project. It is as much a neoliberal project, shaped by views about the role of government that enjoy broad public support.

In November 2002 Congress created The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States to “provide a ‘full and complete accounting’ of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future.” They published their final report in July 2004 and made 41 recommendations. Roberts could have made a strong argument if he’d written about the unwillingness to change policies and government structures to fit with the recommendations. He could have outlined how things have changed, or not, since the December 2005 report card (pdf). He didn’t. He links the failures in Iraq to failures in the war on terror.

This determination to execute policy without disrupting daily life was maintained even as it became clear that the war on terror was faltering.

The stakes are substantial: Continued failure in Iraq is bound to have tremendous human and diplomatic costs. Yet the range of policy options is still arbitrarily limited to a token “surge” or various forms of “phased withdrawal.” No major political actor, Democrat or Republican, dares to contemplate a genuine surge that would raise the U.S. commitment in Iraq to the level said to be essential by several military leaders before the invasion. Similarly, there has been no serious consideration of a return to the draft, despite strains on the U.S. military.

Roberts identifies four policy options for Iraq:

1. Token surge(s) of about 20,000 troops at a time
2. Phased withdrawal
3. “Genuine surge” to the levels recommended before the invasion
4. Reinstate the draft

He criticizes Congress for only considering the first two and obviously favors the last two personally. This is a false dilemma which supports the idea that Iraq equals the war on terror and can be solved though unilateral U.S. actions. What about the 79 recommendations from The Iraq Study Group Report? The answer in Iraq lies in increased international cooperation, not an increased unilateral commitment.

Historically, war has been regarded-by definition-as a grand project, requiring deep societal shifts and the subordination of other priorities. Traditionally, presidents had the responsibility to remind citizens of this fact. They called on Americans to “make the sacrifices that the emergency demands,” as President Franklin D. Roosevelt did less than a year before Pearl Harbor.

President Bush feigns continuing this tradition when he tells Americans that “a time of war is a time of sacrifice.” But this attempt to link the war on terror and earlier campaigns fails, precisely because today the state is not able to demand comparable sacrifices from its constituents. Asking for real sacrifices and tax hikes doesn’t go over well at the ballot box. And so, when President Bush was asked in 2001 precisely how Americans should contribute to fighting the war on terror, he replied: “Well, I think the average American must not be afraid to travel. … They ought to take their kids on vacations. They ought to go to ball games. … Americans ought to go about their business.”

Roberts’ linkage between Iraq and the war on terror is his first problem. There was no link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. The terrorists in Iraq are a reaction to our invasion and they weren’t there before we were.

Roberts’ second problem is his comparison of the war on terror with WWII. The war on terror is more accurately compared to the war on drugs or the cold war. Terrorism isn’t a force we can launch the nation’s military against. Terrorism is an activity, like drug use, which we want to prevent as much as possible. It’s not something we can seek out and destroy. Yes, we invaded Afghanistan to destroy terrorist training camps, but that was a retaliatory strike against a specific organization similar to the cruise missile attacks launched after the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. It wasn’t a measure to combat terrorism at large except, arguably, as a deterrent against future attacks.

The overall goal of the war on terror is risk management. Exact equations for calculating risk vary, but they all include certain variables:

• Threats (measured by their capability and intention to do harm)
• Vulnerabilities (characteristics that can be exploited)
• Impact of an attack
• Countermeasures (airport security, domestic surveillance, biometrics, etc…)

When we invaded Afghanistan we were attempting to destroy al-Qaeda’s training facilities and their leadership. By most measures we succeeded and the threat of al-Qaeda has been greatly reduced. Domestically many countermeasures were put in place to limit our vulnerabilities. They may not be as sexy as military attacks and their expense is easily labeled as Congressional pork, but they’ve probably done more to prevent domestic attacks than any other measures.

Even though Roberts attempts to shame Americans for being unwilling to commit more military forces, he correctly identifies Iraq as a distraction to the war on terror and other areas where sacrifice might be necessary.

“We’re fighting the enemy abroad,” the Bush White House said in 2005, “so that we don’t have to fight them here.” This course of action has been presented as a matter of national security-a sensible form of forward defense. However, it’s also good domestic politics. “Fighting them here” would mean higher taxes, bigger bureaucracies, tighter regulation, clearer challenges to civil liberties, and more impediments to trade.

It might make “good politics” but it doesn’t make good policy. According to recent polls, 74 percent of Americans think the country is headed the wrong direction. We want change, but any national sacrifice we make won’t look like WWII and shouldn’t involve sending an additional 150,000+ troops to Iraq as a “genuine surge.”

In the absence of a President who’s willing to change the country’s course, we have 120 recommendations in front of us. The 9/11 Commission Report gave us 41 and the Iraq Study Group gave us 79. These bipartisan recommendations weren’t fully embraced, enacted, or even fully debated. It’s time to revisit both sets of recommendations, take them seriously, rollback the Bush tax cuts, and move this country forward.

On Tuesday, October 23, FEMA called a press conference to talk about their response to the Southern California wildfires.

Reporters were given only 15 minutes’ notice of the briefing, making it unlikely many could show up at FEMA’s Southwest D.C. offices.

They were given an 800 number to call in, though it was a “listen only” line, the notice said — no questions.

Vice Admiral Harvey E. Johnson, FEMA’s number two, took the podium ready to answer questions from an absent press corps. Instead of postponing the briefing and waiting for the press to actually show up, FEMA staffers played the part.

We’re told the questions were asked by Cindy Taylor, FEMA’s deputy director of external affairs, and by “Mike” Widomski, the deputy director of public affairs. Director of External Affairs John “Pat” Philbin asked a question, and another came, we understand, from someone who sounds like press aide Ali Kirin.

What were they thinking?

What was so important they needed to hold the press briefing with only 15 minutes notice? Couldn’t they have waited an hour or two to allow the press to show up?

Who made the initial decision to hold the press briefing and when did they make it? Who was responsible for setting up the press conference? Who came up with the questions for the FEMA staffers to ask? Is it standard practice to have staffers ready with questions?

A series of bad decisions

Tuesday was a busy day. President Bush declared a state of emergency that morning. Bush’s declaration gave the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA authorization to coordinate relief efforts and DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff and FEMA Chief R. David Paulison were on their way to California.

Meanwhile, in Washington D.C., VADM Johnson was in charge of FEMA. As Chief Operating Officer, VADM Johnson should be a busy man. Something like a press conference would have to be cleared through his office and it’s extremely unlikely someone other than him scheduled an extremely short notice press conference.

So, why did VADM Johnson decide to hold a press briefing at 1 p.m. and give the press 15 minutes notice (Bad Decision #1)? Did they have critical information to share? Based on the briefing, no. Information sharing wasn’t the point. FEMA was establishing their presence on the scene, trying to appear proactive, and attempting to deflect potential criticism about being slow to respond.

FEMA wanted to prove they’d learned from Hurricane Katrina and were following their disaster response plan. Holding a press conference in the first six hours was probably according to plan. In an odd twist, using fake reporters was also according to plan (Bad Decision #2).

FEMA had responded as it had trained to respond. Since 2000, the nation has held four full-scale exercises to simulate a major terrorist attack. Each time, the “mock media” is played by fake reporters – paid PR people, to be specific – just like in the fake FEMA press conference last week.

According to plan or not, Michael Chertoff called the fake press conference “one of the dumbest and most inappropriate things I’ve seen.” Letters of reprimand were placed in the personnel files file of those involved and the White House distanced itself from the whole affair.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said FEMA was responsible for the “error in judgment,” she said, adding that the White House did not know about it beforehand and did not condone it.

Surely you’re joking, Mr. Philbin

The man most responsible for FEMA’s embarrassment on Tuesday, John Philbin, was scheduled to leave the agency that Thursday, one day before the story broke. Philbin, FEMA’s Director of External Affairs and participant in the faked news briefing, was getting a promotion. As of Monday morning, he was going become the Director of Public Affairs for the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell. Things changed.

McConnell’s office issued a statement saying that FEMA’s director of external communications at the time, John “Pat” Philbin, is no longer scheduled to serve as the DNI’s director of public affairs. DNI spokesman Vanee Vines said Philbin will not serve in any other capacity.

Some people are calling Philbin a scapegoat. He’s not. As the Director of External Affairs it was his responsibility to ensure communications with the press were handled properly. VADM Johnson may have called the press conference, but it was Philbin’s job to handle the rest. Giving the press 15 minutes notice (Bad Decision #3) and substituting FEMA staffers for reporters (Bad Decision #4) were his responsibility.

“It was absolutely a bad decision. I regret it happened. Certainly . . . I should have stopped it,” said John P. “Pat” Philbin, FEMA’s director of external affairs. “I hope readers understand we’re working very hard to establish credibility and integrity, and I would hope this does not undermine it.”

Failure and accountability

FEMA was recovering from the organizational and leadership failures of Hurricane Katrina and this was its chance to redeem the organization’s image. John Philbin messed it up. By most reports FEMA’s done a fine job of responding but, because of Philbin’s fake news briefing, you’d never know it.

USA Today’s On Deadline blog claims the FBI is a disconnected organization far behind the times.

If you’re reading this posting via the Internet, chances are you don’t work as a special agent or intelligence analyst at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Willie Hulon, the executive assistant director in charge of the bureau’s national security branch, just told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that the vast majority of FBI employees still don’t have a computer on their desk that can be used to access the Internet.

That means no Google searches, no personal e-mail and no blogs like On Deadline.

The posting and the comments that follow it assume this lack of access is a bad thing. I don’t think it is. Computers connected to the Internet are a security risk. Outsiders can gain access, steal information, or worse, change information contained in databases. Insiders are also a risk and unrestricted access to the Internet makes accidental or deliberate disclosures of classified material more likely.

Other networks were developed because they’re more secure. Hulon’s prepared statement for the October 23 hearing covers the (secure) networks the FBI uses to disseminate information.

We have strengthened the FBI’s intelligence presence within the intelligence and law enforcement communities by sharing Intelligence Information Reports (IIRs), Intelligence Assessments, Intelligence Bulletins, and related intelligence information on platforms routinely used by our law enforcement and intelligence community partners. These platforms include the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS), Secure Internet Router Protocol Network (SIPRNet) and Law Enforcement Online (LEO), as well as on the FBI Intranet.

The Internet wasn’t included because it isn’t the primary platform for work.

Limited Internet access for FBI employees isn’t any different than how some branches of the Department of Defense handle access. While in the Army I was in a joint unit in San Diego. Our unit’s network was provided by the Navy and when they switched to the Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI), so did we. One big effect of that change was the loss of Internet on our desks.

Before the change, my workspace had 12 workstations, each with two computers and access to two networks. After the change we had 14 workstations. The original 12 had access only to SIPRNet and two shared workstations were set up that had access to the Internet.

One-seventh of our workstations had Internet access. According to On Deadline, two-thirds of FBI desks will have Internet access by next year. That’s sounds pretty good to me. Especially when it isn’t the primary network needed for the work.

Life became very chaotic on Sunday. My wife and I were driving through Los Angeles and Orange Counties on our way home to the San Diego area. We ran into the first fires north of Los Angeles and were in and out of smoke for the next 3 hours. When we went to sleep, San Diego County had two fires.

The next morning I turned on the television, curious about the fires in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. I couldn’t find any news coverage because everyone was talking about San Diego. Overnight the two fires became 6 or 7, several communities had been evacuated, and officials were warning it was going to get worse. The winds were strong, the air assets couldn’t fly, all the fires were at zero percent containment, and they were rapidly spreading.

Now, Wednesday, the winds have died down and it looks like the worst is over. Air assets are flying and additional help from surrounding areas and states are arriving. The Federal Government is also involved. DHS Secretary Chertoff is here. The FEMA Director is here. President Bush is reportedly on his way. Things fell apart but they’re starting to get better.

Meanwhile, on Capital Hill

Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced the most important piece of legislation since the Federal Budget. The American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 corrects some of what’s gone wrong over the past 5 years. As much as I wish I had something to add, Congressman Paul’s proposed law explains the need simply, eloquently, and correctly:

(1) Unchecked power by any branch leads to oppressive transgressions on individual freedoms and ill-considered government policies.

(2) The Founding Fathers enshrined checks and balances in the Constitution to protect against government abuses to derail ill-conceived domestic or foreign endeavors.

(3) Checks and balances make the Nation safer by preventing abuses that would be exploited by Al Qaeda to boost terrorist recruitment, would deter foreign governments from cooperating in defeating international terrorism, and would make the American people reluctant to support aggressive counter-terrorism measures.

(4) Checks and balances have withered since 9/11 and an alarming concentration of power has been accumulated in the presidency based on hyper-inflated fears of international terrorism and a desire permanently to alter the equilibrium of power between the three branches of government.

(5) The unprecedented constitutional powers claimed by the President since 9/11 subtracted national security and have been asserted for non-national security purposes.

(6) Experience demonstrates that global terrorism can be thwarted, deterred, and punished through muscular application of law enforcement measures and prosecutions in Federal civilian courts in lieu of military commissions or military law.

(7) Congressional oversight of the executive branch is necessary to prevent secret government, which undermines self-government and invites lawlessness and maladministration.

(8) The post-9/11 challenges to checks and balances are unique in the Nation’s history because the war on global terrorism has no discernable end.

Purpose- The American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 is intended to restore the Constitution’s checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

The American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 was referred to the House Intelligence Select Committee and the bill’s immediate fate rests with its members. We need this bill to come out of committee and be debated on the floor of the House! Then, and only then, will we know who’s serious about their oath of office.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

Please contact your Representative, especially if they sit on the intelligence committee, and encourage them to support this bill. It’s a big step towards fixing what’s fallen apart and making things better.

Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.

Skepticism uses the scientific method to investigate reality and attempts, through repeated tests, to verify the truth or fiction of a claim. Reality is a ground truth that can be proved true or false, right? Repeated scientific tests are wonderful for hard claims of scientific fact but less useful when the dealing with things like social science. Social science realities are negotiated.

Perception shapes how we see and interact with the world. Language shapes how we communicate about the world. Words matter. Different people and different cultures can understand complex topics differently. You may have noticed this theme in my posts about Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia. He wasn’t denying the existence of homosexuals. He has a different understanding of the concept. To him, and many social conservatives in the United States, homosexuality isn’t a civil rights issue like race. It’s a voluntary behavior which, in his country, is punishable by death.

Ahmadinejad’s speech was marketed as an affront to our sensibilities even though most of what he said was quite reasonable, if you understood what he said. Opponents of global warming market themselves as modern day Galileos, claiming their dissenting opinions are more valid than the scientific consensus. Media organizations of all types market themselves as the arbitrators of what information is important and valid.

They’re negotiating with us about what’s real and what isn’t. And I’m negotiating with you.

(I’m planning to expand on the idea of Negotiating Reality when I finish rereading Getting to Yes.)