Data Protections

A couple of Letter writers in The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section had concerns about a potential ban of People’s Republic of China-domiciled ByteDance’s TikTok.

I disagree with their concerns.

A TikTok ban isn’t the solution. It won’t protect our data privacy, it won’t protect children from the dangers of the internet, and it is a blatant violation of First Amendment rights.

No one is masquerading banning TikTok as the solution; that’s a strawman argument. Much more needs to be done to protect our data privacy and our children—and our intellectual and technology property—but banning TikTok is a useful step. Nor is banning it a violation of anyone’s 1st Amendment rights. No one’s speech would be barred, only a tool of the PRC would be barred.

TikTok can be an effective tool for fighting corruption within the government itself.

Not when it’s controlled by the PRC government.

…a communication tool that millions of Americans use….

Congratulations to this writer: he has successfully identified the breadth of the threat, just as TikTok’s CEO, Shou Zi Chew, (accidentally) did when he pointed out the 150 million American users of TikTok.

One More “Be Like Europe” Plea

Expat (Paris) James Lieber and Temple University law teacher Peter Spiro want American expats to have their own quasi-State, to have territorial delegates in Congress á la DC, Puerto Rico, et al., and be directly represented in our Congress, albeit those delegates wouldn’t have any votes.

No. Expats already have direct representation, should they choose to exercise it by, you know, voting. They’re represented by their representatives and senators in their home district and State. Nor are expats’ votes any more diluted than are the votes of their fellow citizens still resident here at home.

In the end, too, the expats are that of their own volition; no one is making them live abroad.

Lieber’s and Spiro’s argument that Italy, France, and Portugal do things differently, and therefor so should we, is just cynically disingenuous. We are not Italy, France, or Portugal, nor are we any other European nation or nation elsewhere in the world; we’re unique, and that’s on purpose.

It’s only necessary to peruse our Constitution and compare it with the constitutions of those other nations, along with the histories behind them, to see both the differences and the reasons for them.

“Ladies” is a Microaggression

A highly qualified educator was offered a position as Superintendent of Easthampton Schools, in Massachusetts. Then he committed the unpardonable and heinous crime of addressing, in an email, the school board’s Chairwoman Cynthia Kwiecinski and Executive Assistant Suzanne Colby as “Ladies.”

Those ladies promptly rescinded the board’s offer as a result of that courtesy. It seems that simple, courteous salutations of respect are now microaggressions in those…persons’…fetid imaginations.

[The unhired educator Vito] Perrone said Kwiecinski told him that using “ladies” as a greeting was hostile and derogatory and that “the fact that he didn’t know that as an educator was a problem,'” he told the [Daily Hampshire] Gazette, adding that she also reprimanded him for using “ladies” as a microaggression.

Perrone’s reaction:

I was shocked. I grew up in a time when “ladies” and “gentlemen” was a sign of respect. I didn’t intend to insult anyone.

Nor did he insult anyone, or at least anyone worth taking seriously. The only ones insulted here are two folks in authority who spend their energy looking for ways to be offended rather than on ways to better educate the children of Easthampton.

Perrone dodged a bullet when that job offer was rescinded; Kwiecinski and Colby demonstrated very clearly the Precious and wrongly focused environment into which he almost stumbled.

It’s Everybody Else’s Fault

That’s the claim of Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, as described in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal editorial. The editors are correct as far as they go, but I do have a quibble and a more serious disagreement with some of the things they said.

First my quibble:

Yet here we are with major banks failing, and the government having to bail out uninsured depositors and offer lifelines to protect bank assets that are underwater.

No, the government most certainly did not have to “bail out” uninsured depositors or offer lifelines to other banks. The Biden administration, through Yellen, chose to do those things. By doing so, though, they set the ugly precedent of bailing out everyone else in all other banks without regard to whether those depositors are FDIC insured and without regard to the risks other banks may or may not be running, the Biden-Yellen blather to the contrary not withstanding. By doing so, Biden and Yellen have indemnified uninsured depositors and careless bankers from risk, laying that risk off onto us taxpayers instead.

My more serious disagreement:

The main culprit [regarding Silicon Valley Bank and the deposit runs at midsize banks] was duration risk from the failure to properly hedge against rising interest rates…. …. There’s no excuse for the examiners at the San Francisco Federal Reserve not to have acted on the problem as the West coast bank regulator.

Again, no. There’s certainly room to decry the failure of the SF Fed regulators to regulate, and those worthies should be terminated for cause over their negligence.

However, the first, proximate, and last responsibility for SVB’s failure and those other banks’ problems lies with the managers of those institutions. Interest rate risk, which underlies duration risk, is the risk taken when buying a debt instrument: when market interest rates rise, the debt instrument’s market price falls, and that reduces the value of the debt instruments already bought—for instance, the long Treasury bonds SVB’s managers had bought in satisfaction of its reserve requirements. Any first year economics student learns that, if he hadn’t already learned it in high school.

Duration risk, which matches long term debt assets with short term debt obligations (or not…) is something that same first-year economics student learns later in that same semester. And it’s something about which any first-year Finance student learns early in the first semester.

It was those managers’ decision to ignore those risks, or their careless laziness in not bothering to deal with those risks, or some combination of the two, that lay at the heart of the failure of the one and the problems of the others. The San Francisco Fed’s failure to act was only a (actually quite minor, given where the primary responsibility, and initiative, lies) contributing factor.

Illegal Aliens Claiming Gender

The Biden-Mayorkas now has decided to let illegal aliens claim any gender—regardless of their biology—on their (Illegal Alien) Immigration Benefit forms. Mayorkas’ US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) said that,

effective immediately, the agency was updating its policy to accept “the self-identified gender marker for individuals requesting immigration benefits.”
The gender marker they select does not need to match the gender marker indicated on their supporting documentation. The update also clarifies that people requesting benefits do not need to submit proof of their gender identity when submitting a request to change their gender marker, except for those submitting Form N-565, Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document.

Not only are President Joe Biden (D) and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas (D) actively permitting illegal aliens to lie about their entry, now they’ll be permitted to extend the lie to include their gender—and get our tax remittals to pay for their special treatment according to their claimed gender.

We already allow—however disgustingly wrongly—male prisoners in our prisons to be housed with women in women’s prisons when a jailed man decides he’s a woman and wants to be housed with them. A critical difference, though, is that we know who these prisoners are; they’ve been well and thoroughly vetted throughout their history with our criminal justice system.

These illegal aliens have not been subject to any sort of serious vetting. They just show up, having gotten caught illegally entering, are detained briefly, and then either deported (occasionally) or released into our nation on their own recognizance (usually)—a recognizance they’ve demonstrated cannot be relied on, now as twice dishonest.