Monday, August 29, 2016

Amazon and the Reduced Work Week


For John, BLUFWhile I have laughed at the French and their 35 hour work week in the past, I do think there is a place for this.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Granted, for 75% of the pay of 40 hour workers.

So reports Karen Turner of The Washington Post.

The program will have a few technical teams made up entirely of part-time workers.  These 30-hour employees will be salaried and receive the same benefits as traditional 40-hour workers, but they will receive only 75 percent of the pay full-time workers earn.  Currently, the company employs part-time workers that share the same benefits as full-time workers.  However, the pilot program would differ in that an entire team, including managers, would work reduced hours.

"We want to create a work environment that is tailored to a reduced schedule and still fosters success and career growth," states a posting by the company on Eventbrite.com for an informational seminar.  "This initiative was created with Amazon's diverse workforce in mind and the realization that the traditional full-time schedule may not be a 'one size fits all' model."

I like it.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sunday, August 28, 2016

Civilians Checking Up On Military Officers—US Civil War


For John, BLUFA Civilian Commander in Chief should not just turn the fighting over to "the generals" but should follow what is happening and who is doing well and who is not.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From the Modern War Institute at West Point, we have a short paper by Major Dan Maurer, on the issue of civil-military relations.  Major Maurer a former Combat Engineer and now an Army JAG, looks at President Lincoln checking on General Ulysses S Grant, when the General was still fighting in the Mississippi River area, around Vicksburg.

Here is the part of the article on Mr Lincoln's "observer", Mr Charles Dana:

Lincoln, through his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, dispatched the former managing editor of the New York Tribune, Charles A. Dana, now employed as Assistant Secretary of War and the Administration’s go-to “troubleshooter.”  Stanton gave Dana an unusual mission:  He would travel to the Western Theater, ostensibly as a Special Commissioner to investigate and inspect the Army’s paymaster service, but would, actually, observe Grant’s command—of his Army and of himself—and report regularly back to Stanton and Lincoln.  His task was to “settle their minds as to Grant, about whom at that time there were many doubts, and against whom there was some complaint.”
It seems to have been a satisfactory report, in that General Grant was then elevated to the commander of all ground forces.

The flip side of this would be the politicalization of the officer corps, such that officers did not feel free to speak their minds and to provide their civilian masters with that all important "but sir".

Regards  —  Cliff

Mr Trump for Blacks


For John, BLUFWe are not going to get better results applying the same methods.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



At the New Yor Post Mr John Lott lays out why Ms Clinton really doesn't have have policies that will help Blacks, particularly poorer Blacks:
Hillary Clinton claims that some of Donald Trump’s appeal is “xenophobic, racist, misogynistic.”  On Thursday she asked, “If he doesn’t respect all Americans, how can he serve all Americans?”

But who actually cares more about blacks, in particular poor blacks?

On everything from education to jobs to crime, Trump’s policies offer a lifeline to people who have been losing ground for decades.  Hillary’s policies will just exacerbate them.  And no amount of speeches will change that.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Ms Clinton Tries Fog


For John, BLUFAdmit it and move on.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



Miss Elise Jordan, of NBC, got an item in Time, a couple of days ago.

Here is the sub-headline:

'It's not only about what the Clintons did, but how they react'
So, the story starts out with a personal remembrance:
I recently sliced the tip of my toe on an ocean barnacle.  This happened at 6pm on a Friday of a long-awaited beach weekend, so I avoided the emergency room for stitches.

Overdosing on rosé was no cure.  My minor wound kept bleeding.  I finally went to the doctor when I got home where I got crutches, antibiotics for the infection, and an avoidable weeklong recovery for a tiny cut, for no reason other than my bullheadedness.

As I watch Hillary Clinton wish away the fallout of the Clinton Foundation’s unseemly ties with the State Department during her tenure as Secretary of State, I can’t help but think that her self-inflicted wound just bleeds and bleeds and bleeds.  Every day that she fails to seriously address the rotten consequences of her poor judgment, Clinton further erodes the already lacking public trust in her.  By avoiding a sincere display of contrition, she risks her candidacy and the foundation her family built.

Does no one on the Clinton team remember the aphorism "It's not the crime, it's the coverup"?

Had young Lawyer Clinton left the the Watergate Committee, and Washington, before we learned that lesson?

Ms Clinton brings all the paranoia of Richard Nixon, but without the Foreign Policy acumen.

Hat tip to the Breitbart.

Regards  —  Cliff

  "Elise Jordan is an NBC News/MSNBC political analyst. She has worked for the Department of State and the National Security Council."

Friday, August 26, 2016

How Much Diversity Is Good For The Nation?

TRIGGER WARNINGS:  Professor Victor David Hanson says history suggests that "diversity" is not a path to national success.
For John, BLUFE pluribus unum doesn't mean numerous individual fiefdoms with a common border.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



From Townhall, and the pen of former Professor Victor David Hanson.

Here is the lede plus three:

Emphasizing diversity has been the pitfall, not the strength, of nations throughout history.

The Roman Empire worked as long as Iberians, Greeks, Jews, Gauls and myriad other African, Asian and European communities spoke Latin, cherished habeas corpus and saw being Roman as preferable to identifying with their own particular tribe.&in so; By the fifth century, diversity had won out but would soon prove a fatal liability.

Rome disintegrated when it became unable to assimilate new influxes of northern European tribes.  Newcomers had no intention of giving up their Gothic, Hunnish or Vandal identities.

The propaganda of history's multicultural empires -- the Ottoman, the Russian, the Austro-Hungarian, the British and the Soviet -- was never the strength of their diversity.  To avoid chaos, their governments bragged about the religious, ideological or royal advantages of unity, not diversity.

Frankly, I like diversity, but I recognize there has to be a unity of political and cultural understanding.  We need a common understanding of all men being created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.  We need a common agreement on the value of capitalism and a place for small businesses.  We also need a place for faith, but without the belief that any religion should dictate to others, or substitute for government judicial judgements.  Finally, we need an understanding that DNA has no place in determining one's worth before the Government, before the law.

Hat tip to my friend Ricard Byrd.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Alt-Right is Evil


For John, BLUFThis is what I hear about myself on Facebook.  Will we be able to get together after the election or will it be like the aftermath of the Civil War?  Nothing to see here; just move along.



And you are a member of the Alt-Right.  Just ask Ms Hillary Clinton.

Here is Mr Ed Driscoll's comment at InstaPundit:

Krauthammer’s Law defines the left’s Manichean worldview thusly:  “To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law:  Conservatives think liberals are stupid.  Liberals think conservatives are evil,” Charles Krauthammer wrote in 2002.  And viewing someone of a differing ideology as being evil is a very different stance than viewing him as simply uninformed or otherwise somehow misguided.
Mr Driscoll also linked to this article in National Review, "The Left Wins because It Fights Politics on the Field of Morality".

So, given the moral table on which the Democrats play, what did President Obama really mean when he said that Mr Trump was unfit to be President?  We discussed that here.  Given the speech by Ms Clinton, yesterday, she and President Obama do seem to see this as a moral issue, which means that Mr Trump must be stopped in any way possible.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

  You may still participate in the poll.
  I do think it is fair to ask why Ms Clinton didn't recognize all these evil traits of Mr Trump long ago and stop associating with him?  Why?

Another 18th Middlesex Debate


For John, BLUFThe place to be.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



Another Debate


Regards  —  Cliff