The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Saturday, November 7, 2015

Click Bait


For John, BLUFAnd yet we click.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



"No, Spooning Isn’t Sexist.  The Internet Is Just Broken."  Yes, that kind of spooning.
The author of an article declaring spooning (yes, the form of snuggling that many people enjoy) as sexist isn’t to blame for the terrible piece.  All of us are.
This is an article by Mr Ben Collins, in The Daily Beast.  It is about how interest in articles on the Internet is gauged, thus how advertising space is priced.  The current approach is that sex and controversy sell.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Friday, November 6, 2015

Presidential Endorsements


For John, BLUFWe need balance.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



One of the things I did while on active duty in the US Air Force was to register my party affiliation as "Declines to State".  When I retired and moved to Massachusetts I registered as a Republican, which is almost like having no party affiliation.  The role of retired officers in politics is an important issue and the role of generals and admirals is particularly worthy of consideration.  The idea of a professional officer corps, prepared to work for and with whoever the People choose, has been my ideal.

Addressing this issue is an article from the US Naval Institute, a private professional organization. Thus, we have "Now Hear this - Admirals (and Generals) For Life", by retired Vice Admiral Doug Crowder.

Here is the paragraph that sets the issue:

As a middle-grade officer assigned to the Joint Staff in the early administration of President Bill Clinton, I would often be in meetings attended by both Joint Staff military officers and civilian officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).  At one of these an OSD staffer strongly urged agreement for a particular course of action.  The senior Joint Staff officer at the meeting stated that the chairman was not going to agree to the proposed position.  The OSD rep said, “Well, maybe it’s time we got some Clinton generals in here.”  I was aghast at the accusation, and I told her so.  “We work for the commander-in-chief, no matter who he or she is at the time.”  Her response was equally disturbing:  “I don’t know how you could change allegiances. . . . I know I couldn’t.”
But, remember, this woman from OSD was a political appointee, not a professional military officer.  She was there to oversee the military and provide civilian guidance with regard to the President's agenda.  A job different from offering military advice, advice to be accepted or rejected.

And after some discussion of the issue in his article, this is how Admiral Crowder concludes:

As the 2016 election approaches, I humbly propose that we retired flags stay on the sidelines and away from public endorsements of presidential candidates.  I fully understand we have the right to participate in these campaigns, but I am convinced it is not the right thing for the country.  This plea is not meant to criticize any retired admirals or generals who have made such endorsements in the past.  I merely ask that all of us consider the larger ramifications of doing so and settle for being admirals (and generals) for life.
I agree in part.  All of us who are retired should be free to express our views and even to write letters to the editor or make blog posts.  Very important, we should feel free to run for office; any office.  However, I think "Flag Officers" should refrain from endorsing candidates for President.

Regards  —  Cliff

  The term in California for what is Massachusetts is an "Unenrolled Voter".  I like the California term, for its frankness.
  I have been a member of the US Naval Institute.
  This is an ideal put forward by the late Samuel Huntington in his book The Soldier and the State:  The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations.  Originally published 1 January 1957, and rumored to have cost him a job at Harvard, at the time.
  Office of the Secretary of Defense, the civilian staff running the Pentagon.  That said, military officers could be seconded to the OSD Staff, to help out.
  "Flag Officers" because generals and admirals are issued their own flag, with the number of their "stars" sewn into it.

Life


For John, BLUFAdapting and adjusting.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



Being unready and ill-equipped is what you have

to expect in life….You never have the capacities,

the strength, the wisdom, the virtue you ought

to have. You must always make do with less than

you need in a situation vastly different from what

you would have chosen for your special endowments.

Charleton Ogburn, Jr.
The Marauders

Regards  —  Cliff

What is the End Game?


For John, BLUFA month old, but still relevant.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



From The Hill, via MSN, we have Mr Jess Byrnes reporting on Clinton Unveils Gun Control Plan

The measures Clinton announced Monday build on other measures she has already called for, including universal background checks, withholding guns from domestic abusers and renewing an assault weapons ban.

National Review looked at the Australian gun control effort in 1996—Australia’s 1996 Gun Confiscation Didn’t Work – And it Wouldn’t Work in America—and found it neither soaked up all the guns nor did it cause a dramatic drop in gun suicides and homicides.  The author was Mr Mark Antonio Wright.
And an American mandatory gun-confiscation program — in addition to being unconstitutional — would be extraordinarily coercive, and perhaps even violent.

There is no other way around it:  The mandatory confiscation of the American citizenry’s guns would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand of millions of Americans that they surrender their guns.

If the president and gun-control activists want to keep saying “Australia” in response to every shooting in America, they should at least be honest about what exactly they are proposing.

Or, if they were really honest, they would propose a Constitutional Amendment.  The Democrats do control enough State Legislatures to force it into the ballot, don't they?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Guy Fawkes Day


For John, BLUFAnother little bit of history.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



On 5 November 1605, about 15 years before the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock Guy Fawkes tried to blow up Parliament (and the King) by blowing up the Palace of Westminster.

This became known as The Gunpowder Plot.

In fact, it was those darned Papists, trying to get back their rights.

But, King James didn't much like the future Massachusetts Bay folks either.  Speaking at Hampton Court on 16 January 1604, he said of the Puritans:

I will make them conform themselves, or else I will harry them out of the land, or else do worse.
And, the sentiment about Guy Fawkes is still alive.  A fairly recent poster, in Scotland, said Vote Guy Fawkes:
The Only Man Ever To Enter Parliament With Honest Intentions
Regards  —  Cliff

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Janus in the Department of State


For John, BLUFJanus?  No big deal, except for the US Constitution.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



Writing for the InstaPundit, Mr Ed Driscoll pointed us to The Washington Examiner and the following article—"Emails show Clinton had 2 Benghazi stories:  1 for Libyans, 1 for Americans".  The reporter is Ms Sarah Westwood.

The lede:

An email released by the House Select Committee on Benghazi Saturday suggests Hillary Clinton's State Department was advised to tell two different stories about what sparked the 2012 Benghazi terror attack: one to the U.S., and another in Libya.
As I have said.

The Republican in Congress don't get it and the Democrats in Congress don't want to talk about it.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Republicans Fail to Shine in Special State Senate Election


For John, BLUFMaybe the Republicans should all move to New Hampshire.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



In other election news, a disappointment for Republicans in a State Senate Race in Brockton, per the News Aggregation Site, MASSterList.  The headline tease was "Why Baker's support was no big Diehl".
Why Guv's support was no big Diehl

If the special Senate race was supposed to be a proxy of something, it wasn't very heartening news for the state GOP. They got steamrolled in Brockton yesterday.  One could point to several reasons Rep. Geoff Diehl didn't win:  Mike Brady's Brockton roots are very strong -- he won 73 percent of the vote in Brockton -- and the Democrats wanted to send a message.  Diehl, however, won the suburban towns in the district.  But there's another factor in the outcome:  While Diehl's campaign benefited from Charlie Baker's support, the governor is not a rabble rouser about the opposing party.  Quite the opposite:  He seems to have affection for, if not outright love Democrats, which may make it just a little tougher for a hard-line Republican to gain traction.

Cooperation and nonpartisanship is working quite well for Baker as he builds coalitions to try to fix a lot of broken stuff and get some new programs started.  But his I'm OK, you're OK approach also elevates the Democratic leadership, who become problem-solvers and team players under the governor's tent rather than party ideologues.

Along comes a conservative Republican like Diehl, who needed to tap into a level of voter anger against the Democrats that just doesn't exist.  For Baker, gone is the language of there needing to be two teams on the field (he got one, it's just badly outnumbered).  There's no finger-pointing.  If there's one big happy family on Beacon Hill, why not bring another Democrat into the Senate?  Welcome, Senator Brady.  Evan Lips of NewBostonPost has a good take here: http://bit.ly/1So0I41

So, the Mass Republican Leadership is playing the cooperation game outside, but the strong discipline game inside.  Note the line "Cooperation and nonpartisanship is working quite well for Baker as he builds coalitions to try to fix a lot of broken stuff and get some new programs started."  It is.  And he is getting things fixed.  And, if he can make our Commonwealth a better place by playing nice with Democrats in Lowell and elsewhere that is probably good for everyone.

However, not everyone has Governor Baker's vision.  Some want to be a little more conservative, a little more Republican.  Where do they go?  For some it isn't about the corner office.  It is about speaking truth (as they see it) to power.

Hat tip to MASSter List.

Regards  —  Cliff

  MASSter List:  A daily nonpartisan political newsletter that's affiliated with the State House News Service.
  Truth in reporting, I helped Rep Geoff Diehl by stuffing envelopes.