July 30, 2018

Blumer’s Bandwidth Burn (073018)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 10:11 am

Econoclasm Tidbit

The Wall Street Journal claims to have great news for those wishing to change careers — “Employers Drop Requirements As Job Market Tightens”:

Employers looking to tamp down hiring costs are left with three options: Offer more money upfront, lower their standards or retrain current staff in coding, procurement or other necessary skills. This marks a sharp reversal from the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis, when companies could be pickier.

Consider me skeptical. But if so, that’s the kind of “new normal” one likes to see.


Fact Check Folly

Politifact claims that Congressman Kevin McCarthy’s tweet that “Trump tax cut benefits all congressional districts, up to $44,697 per family” is only “Half True.”

McCarthy’s statement isn’t totally true, but that’s because it’s an understatement. The underlying Heritage Foundation study says that the “typical” family of four will save that much. In other words, $44,697 is not the upper limit, which was McCarthy’s contention. Politifact’s nitpicking Louis Jacobsen wouldn’t concede that fact, and instead went after Heritage for using average savings instead of median savings, totally missing the larger point.


Media Bias and Ignorance Briefs

Is the ability to avoid negative U.S. press scrutiny for stories like this one at the UK Guardian one of the reasons Jeff Bezos bought — and massively overpaid for — the Washington Post?:

Accidents at Amazon: workers left to suffer after warehouse injuries
Guardian investigation reveals numerous cases of Amazon workers being treated in ways that leave them homeless, unable to work or bereft of income after workplace accidents

The publisher of the New York Times is whining about President Donald Trump’s “deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric.”

Give me a break. The Times has given forums to columnists who have called Trump a “professional racist” (a lie), issued news reports which see (per a NewsBusters post) “deep-red racism everywhere” among his supporters (another lie), and has frequently published and promoted fake news almost exclusively targeting or attempting to discredit Trump and his supporters.

As such, the Times should be asking itself how much its serial smears and dishonesty have contributed to Liberal America’s political violence problem. Attacks and threats, predominantly against Republicans and conservatives (e.g., Steve Scalise and the roughly dozen Congressmen targeted last year; Rand Paul, the target of three threats on his life; and so many others), have become frighteningly routine.

Breitbart’s John Nolte has compiled a list of 538 acts of “Violence and Harassment Against Trump Supporters.” He calls them “media-approved,” which crosses into overwrought hyperbole — but not by much. “Mostly condoned and often excused” would be a sadly accurate term.


Social Media Suppression Watch

Washington Free Beacon“Twitter’s Statement About How They Don’t Shadow Ban Kinda Sounds Like They Shadow Ban.” Because they do.

Monday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (073018)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 6:00 am

This open thread is meant for commenters to post on items either briefly noted below (if any) or otherwise not covered at this blog. Rules are here.

Positivity: 9th U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals Ruling Is A Big Win For Gun Rights

Filed under: 2nd Amendment,Positivity — Tom @ 5:55 am

From Bearing Arms (bolds are mine):

Posted at 5:15 pm on July 24, 2018

Two judges on a three-judge panel in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to open carry on Tuesday.

The ruling overturned a lower district court’s decision that stated George Young, a man from Hawaii, did not have his Second Amendment right violated when authorities twice denied him a permit to carry a firearm outside of his home.

The summary of the court opinion is as follows:

Analyzing the text of the Second Amendment and reviewing the relevant history, including founding-era treatises and nineteenth century case law, the panel stated that it was unpersuaded by the County’s and the State’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home. The panel stated that once identified as an individual right focused on self-defense, the right to bear arms must guarantee some right to self-defense in public. The panel held that because Hawaii law restricted plaintiff in exercising the right to carry a firearm openly, it burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment.

The panel stated that restricting open carry to those whose job entails protecting life or property necessarily restricts open carry to a small and insulated subset of law-abiding citizens. The panel reasoned that the typical, law-abiding citizen in the State of Hawaii was entirely foreclosed from exercising the core Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense. The panel concluded that Hawaii’s limitation on the open carry of firearms to those “engaged in the protection of life and property” violated the core of the Second Amendment and was void under any level of scrutiny.

Go here for the rest one the column.