Rand Paul's Budget-cutting plan

The Economist's DIA Blog has a fun takedown of Senator Paul's plan. They're not complimentary:

Mr Paul's bill is a juvenile, irresponsible stunt. For most of his proposed cuts, he hasn't put in the minimal work necessary to make any rational decisions about what programmes should be cut, and what shouldn't; he hand-waves towards "pro rata cuts" without thinking through what that means. Those of his cuts which are specific betray a callow, politically-minded populist anti-intellectualism. Rabble-rousing calls to eliminate "international commissions" may play well to Glen Beck's audience, but senators are expected to have some grasp of what it is that the government they are running actually does. Mr Paul has been elected to the United States Senate; it's time for him to grow up.

My friend the Professor has blogged a bit on this subject. While he doesn't endorse the speed of the plan, the Professor says he's "be OK with making a vision like Paul’s an eventual target." All I can say to that is - Yikes!

Everyday greeting

Every morning when I drive on to base, I am greeted by a military member who checks my ID. Here's what he or she is required to say to the occupant of every vehicle checked: "Welcome to Joint Base Anacostia/Bolling, America's premier Joint Base." Seems like a mouthful to have to say to thousands of cars a morning.

In Praise of Paul Krugman

Here's the Economist's DIA Blog noting how Paul Krugman got it right in his criticism of Paul Ryan's response to the SOTU. Krugman's take is to point out how Paul Ryan just got his facts wrong. The Economist goes farther and says:

But the "poor decisions made in Washingon and Wall Street" were decisions to cut income taxes irresponsibly during a recovery, to deregulate the financial sector, to shift the resulting risks onto American taxpayers, and to make financial institutions and investors whole rather than forcing them to accept haircuts and cramdowns. We, our children and grandchildren will have to pay off heavy debts because government abdicated its responsibility to regulate and restrain the financial sector. Mr Ryan and his party, who have vowed to roll back last year's financial-regulation bill, seem intent on compounding that error. The last thing we need is to "unshackle" the financial industry again.

Rule of Law

The Professor sent me an article for my perusal from one of his favorite blogs. The article's titled The Rule of Law. It's not an informational article as much as it's a rant by the author. Since it's a conservative website, you can assume my overall comment is something along the lines of *bleh*, but there are a couple of specific points I think I need to make.

First, I should start by noting that the United States is generally considered to be a common law country. By definition, common law is considered to be law made by judges. Now I'd argue that the U.S. is more like a composite of common and civil law systems. Common law originated as a law made almost entirely by judges in England. That's how it came to the U.S. The continental European countries, OTOH, have a civil law system where every law is written down in a code, with the idea being there is no need for a judge to interpret anything - it's all right there. The current set of U.S. laws has most of the laws written down in Federal or State codes. But our common law system is designed for judges to interpret areas that are not specified in the code (consistent with constitutional principles). This means they make law. So when the author says (in his rant of a 3rd paragraph) that judges are "more interested in making law than applying it" he shows that he really doesn't understand what he's talking about. All appellate judges in the United States, right- or left-leaning make law.

Second, I want to quibble a little with the author's use of the term "rule of law." Now, maybe he intended to use the term in some sort of contrary way, because he's being clever. But I suspect not. I think he's got the idea of the rule of law wrong. He says, "The Rule of Law protects against man's tendency to bask in the light of his own shining intellect..." And some stuff about individuals having decision making powers greater than the voters. All as a nice lead in to his rant about judges making law (see above). But "rule of law" is an idea that protects individuals against the system, against big government or despots. That's why rule of law in the U.S. and other western or civilized countries is a big part of what sets us apart from countries in like Iran, China, North Korea or other despotic regimes. The Rule of Law says that a person facing the might of the criminal justice system in the U.S. is much more likely to get a fair shake from the judge and jury than is a similarly situated person in Uganda. The Rule of Law is not the gobbledygook spouted by this guy. Believing in the idea and ideal of fairness and equality before the law is as close as I come to having a religion, so maybe that makes this guy the equivalent in my world to a blasphemer?

Finally, this post reads very similar to rhetoric in other areas where I find I have discussions with conservatives. It follows a similar pattern. The area being discussed is, say, health care reform. The Liberals don't mind more government involvement and would like to see Universal health care. Conservatives want to keep the government out of everything possible, so prefer a market driven system with as little social safety net as possible. Yet the rhetoric from conservatives in this area quickly devolves to something more like, Obama is trying to implement his Obamacare because he wants the country to fail. He is intentionally trying to undermine the country with his policies (then maybe throw in a comment about 2nd Amendment remedies). The discussion seemingly can't stay on the policy issues, but just goes right down to the intent of those on the Left. Many on the Right have a hard time differentiating between "I really disagree with your policies. If those policies are implemented, it will ruin our country" and "I really disagree with you policies. Since I think your policies will ruin the country, you must be trying on purpose to ruin the country. You can't possibly believe that your policies will make the country a better place."

So that brings me to the author's use of this rhetorical device. Rather than acknowledge that there are two schools of thought that say either interpret the Constitution strictly or the Constitution is a living document which is interpreted over time, the author acknowledges only the former of the schools and says of those who believe the latter that they are taking their time on the bench "as their big opportunity to do as they please, to reshape the world the way they see fit." Functionally equivalent to the "you're trying to ruin the country" frame in the health care debate.

Thanks for the link Professor, but for all of the above reasons, I can't take this guy as a serious commenter on Rule of Law.

Global Warming Stuff

Seeing the "Liberal" in the blog's title, it won't be a surprise to hear that I'm on the side of the political divide that worries about global warming (or global climate change if you prefer). I bought myself a hybrid vehicle when I got back from Iraq and do my personal best to compost, conserve and recycle when I can. I occasionally get into arguments with my friends on the Right about the issue. Seems like those arguments have become less frequent in the last year and I'd suggest that's because folx have been focused on the terrible state of the Economy. The Right's got it's hammer to bludgeon us with in unemployment and the deficit, issues which are more red meat and potatoes than trying to make something out of "hey those scientists fudged some data, so that means all the other non-fudged data on global warming is invalid."

Still, the issue hasn't gone away. The places I go on the internet and things I read, I think, reflect a shift toward a greener, more environmentally friendly world. It's just that this shift is an undercurrent, rather top headline stuff. You know, like the Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf, talk of "green jobs," the huge increase in energy projects that focus on solar, wind and other, or even the New Cold War-ish idea of how China is beating us in production of green technologies.

This brings me to a piece from The Economist's Democracy in America blog. It's a good piece and I recommend the whole thing, but this line kind of sums it up for me - "Give them another two decades, and they'll probably come around. Unfortunately, by that time an enormous amount of damage will already have been done." In the end, I'm not going to get any satisfaction from being able to tell my friends in 20 years, "I told you so." I'm just going to be sad that I couldn't show them how wrong they are now, so that we can avoid the worst of what's to come.

Even though it's pointless in my struggle with the Professor and others on the Right, here are a couple of points from the DIA piece that back up my side...
- "Every one of the twelve hottest years on record has come since 1997."
- "2010 was also the wettest year ever, corresponding to the expectation that higher heat means more water vapour."
- "More countries set national high-temperature records in 2010 than ever before, including the biggest one, Russia."
- "Arctic sea ice in December was at its lowest level ever,
- "Temperatures across a broad swathe of northern Canada have been 20° C higher than normal for the past month. The record temperatures are coming despite the lowest levels of solar activity in a century and a La Nina effect that should be making Canada colder rather than warmer."

Sad News

For the second year in a row, the U.S. military has lost more troops to suicide than it has to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sad that we're losing troops to either.

Bradley Manning

Reports are that military authorities are keeping Manning in "solitary confinement." There are further indications that these same authorities are taking some extraordinary steps to interfere with what little visitation Manning might be entitled to.

I don't have any first hand knowledge of what's going on with Manning's confinement, but I can give an informed guess as to why it might seem like he's in solitary confinement. Just as in the civilian system, once a person is suspected of committing a crime, they can be kept in jail pending trial. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), that would be called "pretrial confinement." A military member can be kept in pretrial confinement for the same reasons that someone would be denied bail in the civilian system - fear of flight or the fact that the individual might continue to commit crimes. In order to put a military member into pretrial confinement, you also have to show that less severe forms of restraint are inadequate. This is sometimes a key point in the military system since military commanders have the ability to restrict their Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines in ways that don't extend to full confinement in a jail cell.

So, based on these guidelines, sounds to me like PFC Manning is in ordinary pretrial confinement. What might lead others to think he's been put into solitary confinement? Well, when you're in pretrial confinement, there are rules about how much, if at all, you can be commingled with post-trial confinees. If Manning is being held in a confinement facility without other pretrial confinees, he might be separated from all other confinees due to the rules about commingling. Also, considering the charges against Manning, military authorities might also be legitimately worried about Manning's safety if he were allowed to be together with other confined military members (even military members facing charges could be inclined not to be happy with what PFC Manning is accused of having done). To me, sounds like "so far, so good" in his pretrial confinement and likely not the ominous sounding "solitary confinement" that is being claimed.

As to the tweets sent out by Ms. Hamsher, if those are accurate, it appears the authorities may be going beyond the permissible bounds of pretrial confinement. Remember, whatever time PFC Manning spends in pretrial confinement will be credited against his eventual sentence if he's found guilty. Antics like those described could lead to a successful motion by the defense for extra credit due to "illegal pretrial confinement." If they're denying Manning his alloted visitation or visits with his attorneys, that could add up at the end of the day. Now, if he gets LWOP, maybe it doesn't matter. But what if he doesn't? Do the military authorities want to be responsible for a tripling of his pretrial confinement credit (not rare at all) because they play these games? No, I didn't think so.

Police Officer Perjury?

Color me as skeptical as the Appellate Court in this case. I never had as suspicious a case in my short defense counsel days, but I definitely dealt with a lot of law enforcement officers who would "spin" their story in the most positive light possible, as well as the judges who would give cops a pass in their testimony 99 times out of a 100. h/t Volokh.

Another Voice in Support of my Theory

I'm catching up on some older posts in my RSS feed. Here's Kevin Drum chiming in on George Packer's bit in the New Yorker.

Drum says it better than I:

The big difference between right and left, as I and others have noted repeatedly, isn't just in the amount of violent rhetoric, but its source. On the liberal side, it only occasionally comes from movement leaders. On the right, it regularly does. It comes from opinion leaders, political leaders, and media leaders, and the more heated they get, the more popular they get.

Other NPR Story

Here's the other NPR story I heard this morning. Interesting audio piece about the joking that goes on in oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The author of the piece is Ryan Malphurs and his piece is here. Dr. Malphurs suggests "that laughter plays an important communicative function in oral argument which enables lawyers and justices to negotiate the complex barriers that constrain their interactions."

Foreclosures

Listening to NPR this morning and heard a good story about how the sloppy paperwork in many mortgages across the country is slowing down foreclosure actions. Certainly this issue can cut both ways. On one hand, the longer it takes for the backlog of defaults to go through the system, the longer that mess is a drag on the country's economy. On the other hand, allowing foreclosures to be pushed through where the paperwork is not in order is a significant bit of unfairness to the mortgagors (the people in the houses, not the banks). I find stories like this to be nice examples of "shoe's on the other foot" for big business/banks. Such entities are certainly known for sticking to the exact terms of the agreements they enter in to, especially when it is big company v. consumer. So the cases like Ibanez, which was highlighted in the NPR piece, are a good brake on big business' common practices. It seems pretty clear to me that the mortgage securitization boom which played a part in the current real estate crisis we're experiencing led big companies and banks to play fast and loose with the strict requirements of assignment of interests in the mortgages. In the opinion, the Court went into some detail to show the long line of supposed assignments of the mortgages as they made their way from the original transaction and the holder that was doing the securitizing and, eventual, foreclosing. But as the Court said,

For the plaintiffs to obtain the judicial declaration of clear title that they seek, they had to prove their authority to foreclose under the power of sale and show their compliance with the requirements on which this authority rests. Here, the plaintiffs were not the original mortgagees to whom the power of sale was granted; rather, they claimed the authority to foreclose as the eventual assignees of the original mortgagees. Under the plain language of G.L. c. 183, § 21, and G.L. c. 244, § 14, the plaintiffs had the authority to exercise the power of sale contained in the Ibanez and LaRace mortgages only if they were the assignees of the mortgages at the time of the notice of sale and the subsequent foreclosure sale.

And as the Court ruled, the companies/banks trying to foreclose on the properties in question simply didn't have proof of the assignments. I come down on the side of helping the individual, so I applaud the Court's ruling. I also really liked this passage from the concurring opinion:

I concur fully in the opinion of the court, and write separately only to underscore that what is surprising about these cases is not the statement of principles articulated by the court regarding title law and the law of foreclosure in Massachusetts, but rather the utter carelessness with which the plaintiff banks documented the titles to their assets. There is no dispute that the mortgagors of the properties in question had defaulted on their obligations, and that the mortgaged properties were subject to foreclosure. Before commencing such an action, however, the holder of an assigned mortgage needs to take care to ensure that his legal paperwork is in order. Although there was no apparent actual unfairness here to the mortgagors, that is not the point. Foreclosure is a powerful act with significant consequences, and Massachusetts law has always required that it proceed strictly in accord with the statutes that govern it.

Long Weekend

It was a nice long weekend full of basketball (Kentucky Wildcats won, but the LJ Wildcats got stomped). Woke up on Tuesday to a coating of ice throughout the area. End result? 2 hour delay for federal workers, school closed for the young one and no traffic for the wife's commute (her school never closes). A couple of interesting pieces on NPR on my way in that I'm going to comment on later. Hope your weather's nicer than mine.

More Support of my Theory

From the article by Andrew Sullivan cited in the previous post:

I am horrified because it is horrifying, because for years now, this kind of thing has become commonplace at the very top of the conservative political apparatus, and because the invocation of violence in a political context is inherently corrosive of democratic values. When you add to this a party committed to the use of military force as almost a first option, and to torture as a legal method of interrogation, it is irresponsible not to worry about where this is headed.

In Support of my Theory

Here's a good piece from the Economist which is generally in support of my theory. They say:

What's scary about extreme right-wing rhetoric, to a great extent, is the way it's bound up with a legitimation of private violence as a defence of freedom. This has not always been the exclusive domain of the right. In the late 1960s and 1970s, it was extreme leftist groups such as the Black Panthers and the Weathermen whose rhetoric legitimated armed violence as a defence of "the people". It was appropriate for cooler heads then to denounce such rhetoric as scary on its own terms, and crippling to democratic politics. That lesson was effective: even the most inaccurate and excessive rhetoric on the left these days doesn't invoke violence. For the same reasons, today's right should drop its habit of couching political points in violent terms.

I also note they cite to Andrew Sullivan and say:

Andrew Sullivan has been running rhetorical-excess prizes for both the right and left for years now, and he says "the simple fact of the matter is that there's far more on the right than left." More important, he thinks excessive rhetoric on the right routinely involves dehumanising one's enemies and invokes the spectre of violence in a way leftist rhetoric rarely does.

In Support of my Theory

I love this post from the Liberal Curmudgeon. A good arument in support of my theory.

You have to go back to the 1960s to find any even remotely comparable legitimization of anti-government violence on the left as we have today from Republican elected officials and party candidates, not to mention the chorus of right-wing talk-radio demagogues. It is simply nonsense to assert, as many right-wing commentators and Republican politicians have in the last 48 hours, that "there are extremists on both sides," and to speak as if political violence is a random natural phenomenon, a meteorite falling from the blue sky. I defy you to point to a single Democratic member of Congress or comparable official or candidate who has used the kind of rhetoric we have been bombarded with for the last two years from the right — Sharron Angle explicitly suggesting that if conservatives did not prevail at the polls they would be justified in "Second Amendment solutions" to "protect themselves against a tyrannical government"; Michele Bachman telling her supporters she wants them to be "armed and dangerous" on the issue of a federal energy tax and describing Washington as a city "behind enemy lines"; the barrage of conspiracy theories about the President's supposed foreign birth and his being the agent of a socialist plot to destroy America; the waves of talk-radio-driven death threats against judges and Democratic congressmen over immigration, health care, taxes, abortion, and other reliably demagogic issues of the right.

Another great point here:

For as long as I can remember, I have heard conservatives blaming everything that is wrong in the universe, from violent crime to declining test scores to teen pregnancy to rude children to declining patriotism to probably athlete's foot . . . upon Dr. Spock, Hollywood liberals, the abolition of prayer in school, Bill Clinton, the "liberal 1960s," the teaching of evolution — in other words, upon symbols, rhetoric, cultural norms, and the values expressed by political and media leaders. Yet from the moment when someone gets a gun in their hands, apparently, society ceases to have any influence whatsoever on the outcome and individual responsibility takes hold 100%.

Statutory v. Effective Tax Rates

Here's an interesting article touching on the subject of corporate tax reform. While it correctly notes that this is an area where Left and Right might find common ground, it also talks about the main hang up in getting a deal done.

...Democrats, Republicans and corporations are interested in pushing one half of reform, the part about lowering the nominal corporate tax rate to European levels. [There is, though,] reason to doubt that Republicans or corporations are interested in the other half of reform, the part about eliminating the loopholes and gimmicks that currently ensure American companies actually pay less in taxes than their European counterparts.

I like the last line in that quote, along with the chart in the article, to rebut those conservatives who harumph that American corporations have the highest tax rates in the universe. The comeback is that they end up paying the third lowest amount. So the issue in reform is really the loopholes, isn't it? In the end, it seems, a deal is only going to be possible, as the article points out, "so long as it cuts taxes and increases the deficit."

Newt Gingrich: Soft on Crime?

No, smart on crime. Or as they say, Right on Crime. I'm going to take some time to delve into this, but liberals might be able to make common cause with Mr. Gingrich and other conservatives on prison reform. A step in the right direction. h/t Sentencing and Law Policy

Civility

I had a long back and forth with a conservative friend on FB yesterday. For once this was not with the Professor. On a related note, I think I need to find some liberal friends some time - seems like everyone I know is conservative. Anyway, the discussion came up because the friend was going off on the Liberals and the Left about how they're blaming the Right for the shooting in Tucson. He especially defended Sarah Palin and her cross-hair map. So I chimed in to support the idea that there may be something to the accusation that inflammatory rhetoric and the current political climate have something to do with attacks like the one in Tucson. When my friend shot back (as some conservatives do) with the "both sides do it" rejoinder, I went off on my theory about how the, let's call it lack of civility for this post (since that's the title I used), stems more from the Right than the Left. My friend, of course, came back with the usual "hey, look at all this stuff people said about Bush." And I said, "dude, you miss the point - the Right has made these kind of unfriendly (and worse) words and acts much more mainstream." And by mainstream, I mean look at the elected officials, political party representatives and media mouthpieces and then tell me that what was said about Bush during his terrible, awful, no good, very bad reign, is anywhere near what conservatives and Republicans have said and done. It's easy to try and make the false equivalence when you're just comparing liberal and conservative blog commenters and people in the grassroots. But show me how it's anywhere near to equivalent among the big names on the Left. One Ward Churchill (not that I think he meets my criteria of elected officials, political party representatives and media mouthpieces) or Keith Olbermann just doesn't compare to the roster of such offenders on the Right (Beck, Hannity, Palin, Angle, Joe Wilson, et al).

So, I'm going to test out my theory of civility in the coming days and weeks (or until I find something else to focus on...squirrel?)

Masters but not Commanders?

Interesting note from Tom Ricks about how "so many eligible Air Force colonels were declining to be considered for command that the Air Force chief, Norton Schwartz, issued a letter in 2009 saying that henceforth everyone would be considered." Being a commander is a tough job, to be sure, but it's also a prerequisite to getting a star. I have no special insight into the reason behind the problem, but it may be because by the time you've made O-6, you probably know whether you still have a chance to be a General. If you don't, why put yourself through the heartache of being a commander?

Two Hour Delay

The weather really wasn't that bad here in the DC area, but my son's school ended up on a two hour delay this morning. Since the wife couldn't afford to miss school (she's a month from completing her program), it was left to me to stay home with the boy until school time. Tough job, I know, especially when it allowed me to watch the DVR'd game between UK and Auburn that I had missed last night due to band practice. Another bonus was that I had no traffic coming into work.

That's nice, you say, but why do you write? Well, since I was delayed two hours coming into school, I listened to the Diane Rehm Show, rather than my usual Morning Edition. Her show this morning was on gun control. I have some thoughts on the subject, but I'll share those another time maybe. Reason I'm writing is a comment from one of the guests. Not sure which one, but it was one of the pro-gun guys. He said something to the effect of President Obama is not in favor of 2nd Amendment rights. Now it was just a throw away line he used as he teed up some other pro-gun point, but it struck me as odd and kind of an example of the political spin that the folks on the Right use (effectively) and that my pals on the Left don't quite have the hang of.

Let me give you another example to show what I mean. There are those out there on the Right who have been known to say something along the lines of, "Obama is intentionally ruining the country." Now, you may believe that Obama and his policies are ruining the country. But do you really believe that Obama is advocating specific policies with the express intention of ruining the country? Or could it be, perhaps, that Obama actually believes that the policies he pursues will make the country better and you just don't happen to agree with those policies? There's a big difference. And I think, the same idea goes for the line I heard on the radio this morning. Does the guy think that Obama believes there are no 2nd amendment rights or is it just a matter of maybe Obama and this guy have a different view of how expansive or restrictive the rights of the 2nd amendment actually are?

But even beyond that, when I look at the line from the guy on the radio, I think he's not even thinking about what he's saying. It's so ingrained in the talking points and right-speak of guys like this to make assertions not just about the policy positions of the person they're referring to, but to actually personalize it and make it about his core beliefs. And since you're doing that, why not assert that your opponent has the most radical position possible? It's something the Right does well and that the Left should learn to adopt.

Thomas and Scalia Dissent from Cert Denial

Why am I talking about a denial of certiorari for a case to the Supreme Court? Because of two things. First, the denial yesterday of Alderman v. U.S. included a somewhat rare written dissent by Justice Thomas (who was joined by Justice Scalia). Justice Thomas "objected to the court’s refusal to hear a commerce clause challenge to a federal law that barred convicted felons from owning a bullet-proof vest. Scalia joined all but one footnote of Thomas' dissent."

Why is this important? As noted in the article,

"SCOTUSblog calls the opinion “an important dissent on the scope of Congress’ power under the Constitution’s commerce clause—an issue that is newly energized in the national debate over the new health reform law.”

This is the issue that is probably going to decide the number of cases that are making their way through the courts (to the Supremes) on the issue of the 2010 health care reform legislation. Just something to keep an eye on.

Addition to the Blog Roll

I've recently come across a pretty cool blog. It's called Law and the Multiverse. These guys take a look at legal issues in the context of superheroes, supervillains and other fictional SF characters and worlds. It's more than just a pop culture blog, because these guys do their homework and address the questions in a format that is more similar to an ABA article than a blog post. For a lawyer who digs comic books, it doesn't get much better than this. Good stuff.

Westboro Baptist Church

Westboro is evidently going to try and picket the funeral of the little girl killed in Tuscon. And the State of Arizona looks like it's going to try and pass a law to prevent the picketing. My take is they're a despicable bunch, but if they follow the local regulations for getting a permit, then they should be allowed to picket. I mean, after all, they're not attending a Republican President's rally where the intent is to handpick the audience and the "free speech" that emanates therefrom.

Law School Debts

My best friend and only reader tipped me off to an article in the NYT about the sad state of law students who have a ton of debt and how they got into that situation. Stories of lawyers carrying huge debts are nothing new to lawyers, even those, like me, who are in the JAG world where alumni from the super expensive schools are few and far between. It always induces a little "there, but for" cringe when I hear the stories about how much some young lawyers owe in student loans (wait, I said young lawyers...does that mean I'm an old lawyer?). I have my own law school debts too, but nothing on the scale with those described in the story. And this is a good thing, I guess, because based on this story and the fact that I'll be looking for a lawyerly job in about a year, I probably should worry about the fact that I went to one of the second (or lower) tier "sewer pits" referenced in the article. I think I'll be OK, though. I've got an interesting and varied background and I'm probably looking to go into a federal government position, where my military service gives me a leg up. Still, stories like this do cause me to worry just a bit about leaving the safe cocoon of military employment.

New Year, Old Job

As you may know, I've recently returned from a deployment to Iraq. Before I left for my deployment, I was informed that I would be reassigned to a different job and base here in the Capital Region. Even upon my return from Iraq, I immediately started the process to change jobs and move to my new base. But during my reconstitution time over the holidays, big Air Force decided that I would be a much better fit at my old job - at my old base. So I sit here in the same office, at the same desk I left in May. 2011 has already thrown me a curveball and we're just 11 days into the new year. This curveball, however, is not that bad. As I ponder and prepare for my upcoming retirement from the military (as early as November 2011), I think this old desk and job are not a bad place to be. Now if they'd just get the heat on in the building, my first day back at work in a month would be not bad at all.

Gates Cuts General/Flag Officer Positions

As he says,

I have approved the elimination of more than a hundred general-officer and flag-officer positions out of the roughly 900 currently on the books. Of those, 28 are billets that were created after 9/11, primarily for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They will be reduced as appropriate, as major troop deployments wind down.

It's the right move as we (finally) start moving away from our war-time posture. There's still more that can be done though.

Hardball Politics

I get on the Democrats for not playing the same hardball as the Republicans do. So I was glad to see this. More please.

The Beginning of the End

Yeah, DADT has been repealed legislatively. And even signed by the President. But, as today's Washington Post points out, there's a lot left to do.

Pentagon officials are working quickly on a three-part plan: overhauling applicable military personnel policy and benefits; providing training for top brass and military chaplains; and then formally instructing the nation's 2.2 million troops on the ban's repeal.

Troop training will be done "as expeditiously as we can," the secretary said, but it will prove challenging, because "there's just a certain element of physics associated with the number of people involved in this process."

Each of these changes takes a lot of coordination at many levels. In the Air Force at least, there has been annual training for all Airmen on the military's policy on homosexual conduct. That training is more extensive for certain personnel (JAGs, commanders). It's a good thing that this policy was repealed (IMHO), but the process of actually getting it implemented is not going to be very simple or quick. Stay tuned on this one and especially look out for the issue of how UCMJ Article 125 (sodomy) is handled. This has been a touchy issue in the past.

Deficit Hawks

One of the hypocritical stances I like to point out among politicians (mostly Republicans, but a few Democrats as well) is the claim of being a deficit hawk. There are some out there who jump up and down and scream bloody murder when it comes to any government spending. They claim they can't possibly vote for a given piece of legislation because it will add to the deficit. They proclaim loudly that the deficit is the single most important issue we face as a country. But then we encounter an issue like the expiration of the Bush tax cuts (which will end up adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next 10 years) or the issue of the day,

A Congressional Budget Office estimate suggests that the Republican plan to repeal the new health care law would increase the deficit by $230 billion by 2021.

Suddenly an issue that the deficit hawks care more about becomes more important than their deficit hawkishness. So here's my rule of thumb. If you rule out tax increases in all cases, you're not really a deficit hawk. Does that make you a bad person? Not necessarily. But if you go off about how the deficits are terrible and need to be fixed immediately (if not sooner), but then you vote in a budget busting way on a regular basis, you're not a deficit hawk, you're just a politician.

Speaking of New Year's Resolutions...

Maybe I can get my Mom and wife to come over here and give a read if I put some personal stuff down. So here's one. My main new year's resolution has to do with losing weight. That's typical for most people right? And certainly I don't mind being thinner and in better shape as a general proposition. But the reason for this resolution is more health related. Due to a less than healthy diet and more weight than I should have, my cholesterol has been borderline the last few times I've had it checked. Since I'm in my mid-40's and both sides of my family have some heart problems, it's not just my vanity that leads me to want to lose the weight. Last year around this time, also spurred by the cholesterol levels, I stopped eating meat. This was part ideological, but more based on the desire to see my cholesterol numbers improve. I survived all of 2010, including a stint in Iraq, without meat and am currently waiting for the results of my most recent blood test. Since I stopped eating meat, but not cheese and eggs (vegetarian, not vegan), I suspect my cholesterol is not going to be hugely improved. So, before a doctor tries to prescribe me Lipitor or something similar, I've decided to try to lose some weight (I'm at least 25 pounds over what is considered a healthy weight for my height). That's pretty much the last thing I can do behavior-wise to affect my cholesterol at this point.

I'm currently 4 days into the program I've started (I'll do another post later to describe the plan I'm on). It's not fun, but I consider it necessary. Despite my wife's urging, I'm not going to turn this into a fat blog. But I will check back in occasionally to give some updates.

Happy New Year

Among the usual new year's resolutions about losing weight and doing other virtuous things, I've added a goal of trying to write on this blog a little more. As we start out 2011, I'm looking at some changes in my professional and, perhaps, personal life. There's a good chance that I'll be retiring from the Air Force in 2011. The next thing I do with my life (since I'm a military lawyer and I'm leaving the military to become a civilian lawyer is it a job or career change? I'll leave that question for another post) may lead to a move from my present location and may also lead to a house purchase as well. So hopefully there will be plenty to write about. My primary focus here will probably be politics and current events as it has been in the past. But I'll probably also sprinkle in some personal stuff as well. That's probably OK, since I only have one reader to speak of. And speaking of that one reader, thanx to Professor Mondo for the nudge to get me going over here again.