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.