Moose

Got it. Hey, for what's worth, I happen to agree with you. DoE is probably not constitutional. It's debatable. But I don't think a constitutional justification is going to persuade. Americans need to have a debate on substance and understand how little it's doing for them, how expensive it is, and how much more the states could do with the resources it's using. The fact it's arguably an unconstitutional intrusion into state matters is a decent footnote. The substantive arguments flooding into the thread now are the ones that have a chance to prevail. Ultimately there needs to be a strong popular mandate because a lot of people have their interests tied to DoE, including powerful lobbies and corporations that won't just give up. They'll give up when it's in their interest or when they are defeated legislatively. I happen to agree with you more generally that federal agencies are overgrown, we have too many federal laws, too many federal people, too much federal presence in day-to-day life. I don't even want to give a shit who is in a federal office and would love to go back to the quaint pre-WWII reality of most people not even being able to name the president. But unless we're going to have a constitutional convention and re-bake the cake, we have to figure out how to unbake this one. I think that'll take substantive arguments. Appeals to legality, while valid, are not persuasive.

Does this mean you also think the Air Force, also unmentioned in the Constitution, should be shuttered? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you about the Dept. of Education. Just curious if you're thinking about the broader implications of this kind of reasoning.

This is totally fair. If I'm pushing stories that leave readers with the impression of inductive reasoning based on a single random email, I'm missing the mark. Appreciate the input.

Is "great dude" really the test you want to roll with? Mark Welsh was widely regarded as a great dude. James Post too. Brian Hastings -- great dude according to many people. Britt Warren can be a great dude overall and still be dead wrong to punish people for exceeding fitness standards but falling short of his pet standard. As for Laughlin ... I don't think I'll ever be over Macho Grande.

We just have a difference of opinion about the substance and importance of that article. Sorry you feel that way, but no apologies for the story itself. While I'm sure that CC has a fan club, his policy was punishing airmen who met the USAF fitness standard. It was worthy of a callout and was fact-driven. And the guy is a commander, not a random anonymous henchman who can expect zero scrutiny. It's OK to critique what he is doing with the authority he's been granted, and we don't have to agree about it. My one regret on that piece was not using a few more words to make it clear many CCs were/are doing similar things. Shouldn't be up to Britt Warren to carry all of the burden for a practice that exists in many other locations.

I suppose that's a fair take, even if I don't see it that way. We got some huge wins and moved the needle consistently for three solid years. We continue to get wins occasionally, but two things have changed. The first is that I can't personally dedicate the time to the blog that I was able to commit from '13-'16 (because as you intuit, I went to work) and have therefore grown to rely on others. The second is that I believe the USAF is genuinely trying to turn things around. As opposed to the season of darkness, when I felt Welsh and James needed to be called out on every valid example that came around the bend because they didn't even have the right intent, I'm interested in giving Goldfein and Wilson a bit of space and time to pursue their valid objectives. There was never a shift away from pursuing the vendetta against shit leadership. In fact, I caught hell for pursuing that vendetta further than many felt was wise or constructive. Likewise, I never shifted to making editorial decisions for the sake of generating clicks. Of course I want people to visit the blog, but it's because I want them to read what I'm writing. I don't get paid by the click and no one edits my work or decides what I will publish. I don't write click-bait headlines and I don't (purposely) bury leads. My writing is too clunky and complex to ever prevail in a click-for-cash environment. Honestly, if I wanted to get rich online, I'd roll with cat videos or a meme generator ... not a military affairs website only interesting to a tiny sliver of the population. Entering into business to make the site self-sustaining was a tough call, but on balance the right one. The site is still doing good things and the USAF still has to keep it in the cross-check. If it tars my image with some of you guys for the time being, I can live with that. Edit to add: meant to say that yes, there have been missteps and stories I wish I hadn't written or permitted others to publish. My response above shouldn't be taken as a claim that everything's been done perfectly. The intent has been right, but not always the execution.

TC here. Some fairly large judgements in the comments above. I won't go defensive and address them all, but feel free to ask questions if you're actually curious. Where applicable, thanks for the feedback. Fly safe.