jazzdude

Unfortunately, you can burn leave sitting at home. Nowhere does it say you have to be allowed to travel out of the local area on leave, it's up to the commander to approve (and not just for vaccine status, but for mission reasons as well). Just like the leave reg doesn't specify what local area means, and commanders get to define what that means for their units. Some commanders are much more liberal than others on what that means. I've seen anywhere from 2 hour radius, to don't cross a mountain pass during winter, to go anywhere you want in CONUS after work on Friday just be ready to work on Monday. And I'd bet the local JAG has already done a review on the policy before it was published.

If you intend to retire at your ADSC expiration and have put in retirement paperwork, I don't think your package goes to the board since you have a retirement date set, so it's moot, you'll be retiring anyways. There's also a host of other reasons to put in for retirement as soon as you know you're ready to get out. Takes you out of the 365 bucket (though you could 3 day opt), and it's harder to get tagged with a 179 deployment (6 months post deployment time before separation, though not impossible). I don't think the 5 year window has been fleshed out yet, so who knows. But in your situation, I don't think it matters either way since your ADSC isn't too far off.

If you have an ADSC, you have to get passed over twice and decline continuation to remove the ADSC early and retire. So in your case, it looks like you're stuck until your ADSC even if you get passed over this time around. Though if you know you're wanting to get out, you can just submit for retirement 1 year out (so July 2021). Basically, getting passed over once has no effect on any of your ADSCs, they would still be in force. There's also something about how long you have to have served as an officer to retire as an officer, not to sure what that is off hand, but that may be a factor in your decision.

Would you eligible to retire otherwise (i.e. 18ish years TIS now for 2 promotion boards to go by)? Otherwise, you'd need to be offered and accept continuation to the point you can retire. I don't believe the AF is offering early retirements right now.

Yes, he's the head of a federal agency, but that agency doesn't have the ability to force the public to do anything. NIAID is focused on research. He's on the staff for the COVID task force, not leading it, or implementing/enforcing recommendations for the general public. He makes recommendations, but ultimately, it's on the president (or governors) to lead, and implement/enforce policy. It's like getting angry at a Capt/Maj AO for a decision a wing/CC made; it doesn't make sense.

Continuation doesn't, but accepting it means any ADSC you have or incur remains (as long as the ADSC doesn't take you past the point your continuation ends), which may affect your exit if that's the path you want to take. Declining continuation overrides any ADSC to set the 6-month separation date

Well, as an AD major on the pilot bonus, I make $191k/year, and that's ignoring the tax advantage of BAH or any tax free months (though I'm also living in a high BAH area). At best, I'm an average officer, though you could make the case I'm below average since it took me 2 tries to make major. Is my salary/bonus justified? I get you don't seem to like Fauci, or at least disagree strongly with his advice. But he seems to be well respected within the medical community. He's also only an advisor on pandemic response-governor's can do what they want (ref Florida). What would you say he's worth being paid? An immunologist makes about $285k on average in the DC area accordingly to salary.com. How much extra should a doctor get paid if they also are in a senior leadership/managerial role?

I believe it's 30 days from notification of being passed over to accept/decline continuation, and if you decline, you have to separate within 6 months from public release of the board results. So not a lot of time.

Basically pro pay for certain government employees, particularly doctors. Throw in the fact that he's got 50+ years of government service, and is the head of a government agency, so roughly equivalent to GO/SES pay scales as a starting point. Have to pay to recruit and retain talent, especially with highly skilled/educted professions. Your strategy sounds just like why the AF kept the pilot bonus so low for so long, and have a retention problem. If you're outraged about Fauci's pay, are you also outaged that the highest paid state employee in several states is a football coach?

Research results mean nothing if you never apply that research. Whether it's too expensive, or requires a large population to take an action that may not benefit them directly in the short term. Also, a very interesting effect happens with how you frame decisions. Freaking the decision as a 99% chance of living after infection causes a different decision making process than framing it as a 1% chance of dying. (The effect is more visible if you slide the percentages, say 80/20. Like a doctor telling you you have an 80% chance of surviving surgery is different than them telling you you have a 20% chance of dying. Both are factually correct, but they could elicit different responses because of how the information is framed). It's why some people enjoy skydiving, while some will never try it even if it's free to them-it comes down to how they handle risks and decisions. What makes it challenging is when decisions if others impacts your decisions and outcomes. With a 99% chance of living after infection, it's perfectly rational to say it doesn't matter at an individual level, live your life how you want, no masks, travel, etc, since your odds are good. (Yes, I'm ignoring the issue of getting infected, but recovering with longer term issues). But it causes problems for society at large. If a society is able to limit the spread of a disease (for example let's say to 3 million people, or roughly 1% of the US population), at 1% death rate, that's 30,000 people who died. But if spread is not contained and everyone gets it, 1% becomes roughly 3,000,000 who does from it. Same percentages, but vastly different practical outcome. So the challenge is for the society/countries to trade off individual risks and actions against broader social/national risks and actions. Especially in more individualistic countries, and where travel between cities/states is common.

Texas lost power in 2011 due to a much less severe winter. Here's the recommendations following the 2011 event: https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/08-16-11-report.pdf It's also the only CONUS state that elected not to winterize it's grid to meet federal recommendations, and is one of the reasons their grid is isolated. Their grid is also not government run, but run by a non-profit. I agree with you that government is not the only answer to problems. Learning skills useful in emergencies is good (heat/shelter, water purification, etc), and is having emergency supplies (though this assumes people have excess money in their budget to purchase those supplies). Neighbors helping neighbors is a good thing-that's community. But government is also a reflection of community, and allows the community to plan and pool resources together to achieve common goals for the community. You're also right that there's a trade off; maybe Texans don't want to pay money more to prevent rare disasters. But then they'll pay the price once the risk they accepted is realized, and that price won't be paid with money (though extended power outages can't be good for businesses or the economy either), but with lives. On your money discussion, you can make the same argument for defense spending. Do we *need* all the F-35s the AF wants to buy? Or KC-46? Sure, there is an OPLAN, but that's also just something that might happen (possibly never happen), so are those investments worth it? Put another way, I bet money for one or two F-35s or a KC-46 would go a long ways towards fixing electrical grid issues in Texas. Plus, it's much harder to generate military missions if there's no power on base, so the issue isn't unrelated from defense, just not as sexy as a weapon system.

Licensing versus owning software required for hardware you purchased... Right to repair raises it's highly head again. Any bets that Tesla eventually moves to a subscription model for advanced features in it's cars?

That's because the civilian instructor gets paid to take you up. Also, if they are a lower time instructor who also gets the bonus of logging time towards the ATP requirement. Not prepared? That's okay, just will cost you a couple hundred bucks. Military is producing on a timeline with a quasi-fixed number of hours allotted, and had no problem cutting their loses if a student isn't performing.

Can't use the rapid test for 90 days after having COVID, because you'll likely show positive despite not being infectious. But that often gets lost in the policy... Even at hospitals.

You're right, renewable energy would not have fixed Texas' current problem. You know what would? Regulating the power industry to handle extreme events with historical precedence. Just because it's once in a lifetime doesn't mean it's should be a surprise when it happens, that's why we study history and keep records. What Texas did was ignore history (including recent outages due to cold in 2011) to minimize short term costs. Even preferential selling priority for wind power is good and very rational from a grid design standpoint: wind power can not be easily stored with current technologies, so it's use it or lose it. Unlike fossil fuels or nuclear power generation, where you can store the energy in the fuel itself by not consuming the fuel. So you *actively* manage the grid to take advantage of the strengths and benefits of each power source. Even if Texas had zero renewable energy sources, they'd still be in the situation they are now, because they failed to make infrastructure investments. And yes, California has problems too, and needs to address them.

It's it wrong he's being criticized? Nope. Does he deserve it? Irrelevant question, he's a public figure, and people are going to chuck spears if his actions don't align with their beliefs. Doesn't mean he has to respond. The notion of "valuing the American family" is vague to begin with. We'd have to define and agree on what valuing family means, because there are lots of different meanings for it, based on how you were raised, religion, culture, location, etc. How do you feel about people that manage to find a way to dodge deployments at the last minute? Arguably, that's the right thing to do for their family. Conversely, does that also mean someone that goes on a deployment does not value their family? What about AF generals telling pilots to go ahead and quit because you're replaceable...I mean, that was true until it wasn't, but doesn't mean it's a good leadership policy to say that publicly. Plus, Cruz could've done both (take care of his family, while giving at least the appearance of working), and pulled his family up to DC. Symbolism and symbolic acts are important within societies/communities; it reflects what is valued in that society/community. Look at graduation ceremonies-there's no reason to do them except for the symbolic act of receiving a piece of paper and being publicly recognized for earning that piece of paper. But that paper does not grant you any knowledge you don't already have, nor any new skill. And your family/friends likely would've already been involved in your work towards earning that piece of paper, so it's not me information to them. We can have and should expect both, leaders who value their family, but also understands the importance of symbolic acts in public leadership and governance. Optics also matter, since there's already a general sense of distrust in government and that our elected leaders are in a different class than the common person.

Speaking of money, the whole refund the police movement got pretty twisted. It worked for Camden, NJ. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/disband-police-camden-new-jersey-trnd/index.html But that was not just cutting funding (which did come back), it was a complete reset of their police force, to include firing many police officers (due to corruption in the force) and a new philosophy in community relations (being part of the community, rather than seeing the community as bad or the enemy). I think we'd get much more traction in positive police and community relations and trust taking the approach Camden did, than from more police training etc.

Does a new cop get a gun if they are working before training? What kind of work are they doing? Ride alongs? Office tasks? Getting coffee and stocking the snack bar? You know, typical AF casual LT type stuff. All of that is good, and even though it may not be loggable training, introduces the new officer to the office and work environment. If you don't think it's good or value added, well, write your congressman and point out the F/W/A of the AF paying casual LTs waiting to start UPT. A spot check on the site you linked to for barber licensing was missing information. It missed that my current state accepts either 1300 hours of school, *or* 2000 hours of apprenticeship under a licensed master barber. Someone doing the latter path could be working on customers on day 1 as an apprentice working under someone else's license. That's not to say that more upfront training, or an apprenticeship type approach (buddy system while out working in public, especially early on) couldn't be helpful in creating a better police force. But again, it comes down to money. If that's something we want as the public, we need to pay for it through taxes (and ensure that the government uses those taxes for the intended purpose).

Yeah, initially i was going to say Cruz wasn't that different from Christie, but after some thinking, decided it wasn't a good comparison. Christie was the head of the executive branch as governor, with the ability to take short term emergency actions, so it is different.

Sure, he's trying to be a good dad, I'll give you that. He's getting his family out of a bad situation. That's generally reasonable. I know in power outages I've gone through, I've found a hotel with power so my wife could be comfortable (and to power a medical device). But I recognize that being able to do that is a luxury, and one I couldn't always afford. Same with being able to fly your family out of country to somewhere comfortable/vacation when a significant natural disaster hits. It's a luxury many of his constituents can't afford, so it becomes bad optics for an elected leader. It fosters a perceived divide between the common person and an elected leader. Would've been better to just send his family off without going with them. No one would really bat an eye at anyone who wasn't an elected official getting out of the cold and going on vacation; there's no social contract that says that's not unacceptable behavior for them. So I won't say Cruz was wrong for doing what he did. But that's not to say that the spears from the media are unfair, or that he may have a minor PR crisis to deal with. Probably won't matter though in the long run. Even if Republican voters didn't like it, what are they going to do, vote for a Democrat next election? On your third point, that's the price of being a leader (especially an elected leader), and not just in politics. Plus, he volunteered for that job...And that means taking the bad with the good.

It's both, the link, and "snippet" content. Sure, by doing what you mention makes it harder for automated tools to catch (or doing things like sanding spaces to links, like s I t e n a m e . c o m), but it looks like Facebook or Google would have to pay if they or users point to a specific article. It essentially attacks fair use of published news content.

This is probably one of the most important points that gets missed or glossed over, not just in the police debate, but elsewhere in our society as well. If something is important to our society, we have to be willing to pay for it (through taxes). Otherwise, it's not really important... The only way to make it cheaper is through social norms we all abide by (whether it's written down in law, or just "understood"). Essentially, using social shame and embarrassment to discourage certain actions. But that requires everyone within a society to agree to and follow those norms. So then the question becomes what duty does an individual have to the society they live in (an by extension, the government)? Is a person required to obey the law because it's the law, or to comply with the law because the penalty for not complying is a price they aren't willing to pay? (Coincidentally, the richer you get, the less you have to comply with laws, especially if the punishment is only a fine, unless there are progressive fines based on income or net worth. This creates an upper class that is removed from many of society's rules). Our general ethos as Americans creates conflict: follow the law, unless the law is wrong or immoral, then your duty is to not follow the law. So it's unlikely we'd get everyone to follow the same norms, especially being a diverse nation and generally open society (which brings in differing values, which is a source of both greatness and conflict). Since we have diverse communities, it helps if the police see themselves as *part* of the community they are policing, and not something external to the community that is there to establish order (I'm not a fan of the thin blue line movement because they subscribe to the latter notion). Being part of the community, and having officers from different subcommunities (race, gender, religion, etc) helps police understand the norms and values of the community, and build/foster a relationship with the community. That's not to say they won't have to enforce laws, or that they won't face dangerous situations that may require lethal force, but understanding how the community (or subcommunities) acts in different situations can help lower a patrolman's assessment of the threat, and using a "more appropriate" level of force.

Anyone on AD get the vaccine through non military channels? Have the opportunity to get it through my wife's work (healthcare worker), who's vaccinating immediate family of their employees, but not sure if Tricare or flight med are going to be weird about it.

Yeah, it's interesting. I guess Texas had something similar happen back in 2011, and appears to have done nothing to improve in a decade. It's all just risk management. Texas choose to be deregulated for their power, and it's paying the price for it now (instead of an upfront monetary investment to avoid these situations). This might be a once in lifetime event, but that doesn't mean it's unprecedented. Same with areas with earthquakes and strict building codes, or areas with volcanic activity having evacuation plans. Prior planning prevents piss poor performance... And you're right, there really isn't a business case for extreme events. Even if there's a fine or penalty. Unless you start throwing business leaders in jail for failing to protect the public in their public infrastructure monopoly, we have to rely on the business to "do the right thing" for the public.

I thought getting fat was from eating too much, and you generally can't out exercise your diet. [emoji2369]