Tag Archives: regulation

Biden Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

Now President Joe Biden (D) is moving to add his censorship requirements to artificial intelligence programming, to go along with his censorship actions vis-à-vis social media.

The Biden administration is pursuing regulations for artificial intelligence systems that would require government audits to ensure they produce trustworthy outputs, which could include assessments of whether AI is promoting “misinformation” and “disinformation.”

Here is the leader of the Progressive-Democratic Party once again asserting that Government definitions of misinformation and disinformation, and by extension true information, are the only valid definitions, and Government will inflict those definitions on us ordinary Americans.

And one more Government dictated definition, from Alan Davidson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information:

The Biden administration supports the advancement of trustworthy AI. We are devoting a lot of energy to that goal across government.

Trustworthy—it’s what Government says it is.

The Progressive-Democratic Party as an institution, and its constituent politicians individually and collectively, are increasingly pushing their Newspeak Dictionary on us, seeking to replace our American dictionaries. This is right out of the playbook of the Left’s icon, Saul Alinsky:

He who controls the language controls the masses.

Defenseless

Posted on by
Reply

Wisconsin State Congressman Scott Allen is proposing a state law that would give local school boards the ability to decide for themselves whether to allow firearms in their districts rather than being hamstrung (in several senses) by a Statewide ban on firearms in all schools. Allen, on the origin of his bill:

This bill came about at the request of the Germantown School Board who wrote that the “gun free school zone” signs do nothing but notify a criminal that there will be few, if any, people in the building that can defend themselves. Schools provide soft targets for those looking to do harm, and this bill gives school boards the option to change that.

That’s a pretty sensible step toward Wisconsin’s citizens being able to defend themselves and their children until the second responders, the police, arrive on the scene just a very few minutes later. Those very few minutes are when the shooter’s butchery occurs unless the first responders, the citizens already present, can defend.

Wisconsin’s Progressive-Democratic Party Governor, Tony Evers, says otherwise.

This bill shouldn’t make it to my desk—but if it does, I’ll veto it. Plain and simple. I already vetoed Republicans’ bill to allow loaded guns on school grounds because increasing firearms on school grounds won’t make our schools or our kids safer. So, let me be clear: I’ll veto any bill that weakens Wisconsin’s gun-free school zone law. Period.

Evers doesn’t take Germantown’s school board seriously; he wants that Gun-Free Zone sign posted and that exposure proclaimed. Evers is showing that he doesn’t want common sense firearm laws, his claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Evers is insisting, instead, that he wants Wisconsin’s schools to be target zones for shooters.

Evers plainly wants Wisconsin’s school children, teachers, and school staff to be as defenseless in those critical minutes as is his gun control ideology.

“Auditors Didn’t Flag”

Posted on by
Reply

Silicon Valley Bank’s third-party auditors did not mention the underlying risk to SVB’s viability in its report, which the group issued two weeks before the bank’s collapse.

When KPMG LLP gave Silicon Valley Bank a clean bill of health just 14 days before the lender collapsed, the Big Four audit firm flagged potential losses on loans as a so-called critical audit matter. But the audit opinion was silent on what actually brought down the bank—its unrealized bond losses and ability to hold them given a reliance on potentially flighty deposits.
“The auditors failed to mention the fire in the basement or the box of dynamite on the first floor, but they did point out the peeling paint on the flower box,” said Erik Gordon, a University of Michigan business professor. “How could they miss the interest-rate risk?”

And this from Martin Baumann, ex-Chief Auditor at the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and who had a leading role in designing the new measure:

Silicon Valley Bank’s unrealized losses in its bond portfolio appear to “meet every definition of a possible critical audit matter[.]”

A critical audit matter is a tool intended to help investors decode risks and uncertainties buried in financial statements, to make audit opinions actually useful.

Thus, how could the auditors have missed the larger risk? Why did they?

Or did they? Maybe this is a demonstration of the weakness of auditors being paid by the auditees for the audits.

One apparent weakness in the PCAOB’s existing requirements, though, is that banks can hide the risks in their portfolios by (re)characterizing some or all of their bond holdings as “hold to maturity” rather than as marketable and so required to report their (fluctuating) market value. But when the bonds are being held in even partial satisfaction of reserve requirements, maybe those “hold to maturity” bonds still should have their current market value reported to the public. After all, SVB had no intention of selling even its “marketable” long-term bonds. That is, until it began to experience deposit withdrawals at rates it could not fill without selling those long bonds immediately, and so at losses driven by the environment’s rising interest rates.

So—again I ask: why did SVB’s auditors not report that interest rate risk? KPMG may well have a valid reason for its silence on that risk, but it should say what that risk is.

In any event, it would be useful to see the timesheets of those auditors—when I worked as a defense contractor, my timesheets were required to be submitted with 10-minute intervals—so we in the public can know what those auditors were doing instead of their jobs.

Typical Arrogance of the “Experts”

Posted on by
Reply

US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryck, of the Northern District of Texas, has ruled that the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone must be withdrawn and the drug pulled from the market while an existing court case makes its way through, and he made his ruling nation-wide.

The Court does not second-guess FDA’s decision-making lightly. But here, FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns—in violation of its statutory duty—based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions[.]

No, no, no—leave our precious technocrats alone is the Leftist Lawyer cry. Only Government knows best. How dare anyone challenge Government’s experts. Areta Kupchyk, ex-FDA Associate Chief Counsel:

If the court does not defer to FDA, it would undermine FDA’s authority and set a precedent for second-guessing by judges wholly unqualified to evaluate scientific data[.]

This is the typical arrogance of Government “experts.” No one but these bureaucrats who hold one or another science degree are qualified to reign over the scientific world—and over us citizens.

No. It’s time Chevron Deference-style foolishness was done away with. It’s time our Article III courts acted like the coequal branch of our Federal government that they are instead of meekly bowing and subordinating themselves to junior agencies of a separate coequal branch.

That doing-away may finally be beginning.

A String’s Attached

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) and his DoEd Secretary Miguel Cardona are trying to rewrite the Title IX statute to bar States from categorically ban[ning] transgender students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity.

Never mind that the actual statute, enacted those decades ago, is explicitly designed to give women a fair and reasonably equal opportunity to play sports: if a State school or a local school district has a men’s program, that school or district must fund and provide for a substantially similar program for women.

Now the Biden/Cardona DoEd is proposing a rule that would ignore the sex-based Title IX statute and require biological men be allowed to compete in women’s sports in those schools that get Federal funding.

The proposed rule would establish that policies violate Title IX when they categorically ban transgender students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity just because of who they are[.]

Never mind that a transgender woman is a man by his biology, by his genes, by his XY chromosome pair.

Never mind that a transgender man is a woman by her biology, by her genes, by her XX chromosome pair.

This is the Biden administration’s open war on women.

My advice to the States: don’t take the Federal funds. The strings attached are more like chains.