Racist Banks

Bank of America is trying out a new program.

Bank of America announced August 30 that it is launching a trial program, called the Community Affordable Loan Solution, offering mortgages that do not require closing costs, down payments, or minimum credit scores. People in predominantly Hispanic or Black neighborhoods in Charlotte, North Carolina; Dallas; Detroit; Los Angeles; and Miami that meet specific income requirements will have access to the program.

JPMorgan Chase is following BAC down that walk of shame.

…expanded its grant program in February 2021 to offer $5,000 for closing costs and down payments to homebuyers purchasing homes in predominantly minority neighborhoods.

But other groups of Americans in other inner-city sections need not apply.

It’s not actually income that’s the determining criterion. It’s skin color.

These banks are behaving insultingly, too. BAC and JPM are telling blacks and Hispanics that they think blacks and Hispanics are incapable of competing, much less getting ahead, on their own capabilities, their own intelligence: blacks and Hispanics need special treatment from institutions.

Echoes of Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s infamous claim that blacks should be grateful for the protections of segregation.

These are two banks with which I will never do business.

YGTBSM

Another installment, this one from Canada—Vancouver, BC.

That city has a brand new fire engine. It’s all electric: not a drop of evil hydrocarbon in it for fuel or any other power. Never mind that it can’t function as a fire engine. It’s ALL ELECTRIC. Yay.

[T]he new e-truck will cost $300,000 more than a comparable diesel model, pump 40 per cent less water and have such a short range (30 km) because of its enormous weight that it will have to have backup diesel power in case it runs out of juice on the way to a blaze.
But, the city points out, it won’t give off diesel fumes and will be much quieter than existing diesel fire trucks.

Jayjuz.

They’d have done better with a horse-drawn, hand-powered pumper.

More here.

H/t Ralph Schwarz

Surveillance State, Part 2

Another one from New York. It seems that US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley’s Stand for America PAC, a 501(c)(4) organization with a legally protected list of donors has had that list released by the NY AG’s Charities Bureau to Politico, which then proceeded to publish that list.

The Charities Bureau is an arm of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ (the same one who “consulted” with then-FBI Director James Comey to suppress any hint of investigation of Hillary Clinton’s classified email handling ‘way back in 2016) Attorney General office.

Never mind that the leak was illegal. Never mind that the Supreme Court in Prosperity Foundation v Bonta—just a year ago—had ruled that the California AG’s blanket demand that all charities disclose donor information was unconstitutional.

Letitia James, a Progressive-Democrat through and through, cares not a fig for any law that’s inconvenient to her. She’s going to collect non-Progressive-Democrat data and release it whenever she takes a notion to.

Location Apps on Smartphones

A techy article about the wonders of location apps in our smartphones—if “properly shared”—in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal caught my eye. The author’s piece centered on the alleged benefits of automatically sharing your personal location data with a selected audience (usually family members) and the app providers’ directions for how to achieve “proper sharing,” supposedly limiting the location sharing to that selected audience.

The author missed the larger problem, though: the intrinsic lack of security on those apps, especially given the historical disdain for personal information security on the part of some of those providers.

I won’t share my location, ever. It wasn’t necessary before such apps became available, and it isn’t necessary today. My smartphone has a—wait for it—telephone app that I can use to check in with and/or check on the ones about whom I care.

The location data in these apps simply aren’t as secure as the touters make them out to be. Data that are held anywhere but on my personal devices are vulnerable to exposure, whether by “mistake”—last week’s IRS release of tax records (which is all too routine for this government agency) comes to mind—or programming mistakes, or cloud or providers’ servers being hacked, or the receivers’ devices being hacked, or location history being vulnerable to government information demands, or….

Location data that aren’t in the cloud or on those other servers and that aren’t being transmitted to a supposedly limited audience aren’t available to exposure.

Along those lines, a commenter in the comment thread for that article had this:

I checked FindMy to see if my wife was lost coming to an appointment at the bank (she was). The banker gasped, “Does she know you’re tracking her?” Her reaction? “It’s a sign of a secure marriage.”
She once missed where I-26 turns and followed the connector straight ahead into downtown Columbia, SC. I was able to guide her through town back to I-26 by a convenient route. I had been tracking her anticipating that very thing.
Very useful app, but one has to be careful with it.

Leaving aside the Banker’s intrusion into a family matter having nothing to do with the family business being conducted, I had this reaction:

Before location apps were available, my wife had a similar missed-turn-now-lost experience trying to get to a location in a large city in Texas hours away from the large city in Texas in which we live, and where I still was.
Her solution? She exercised the telephone app that happened be on her smartphone and called me. I brought up the map function on my laptop, and from her description of the landmarks she was seeing, I quickly located her and then talked her back onto her route. She finished her trip with no further trouble.

Telephone apps. What will Big Tech think of next?

Anathema

In response to President Joe Biden’s (D) constant accusations of half of Americans being “semi-fascists” and “threats to our democracy,” Fox News‘ Mark Meredith asked Biden’s Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre what percentage of the 74 million people who voted for Trump in the 2020 election the White House regarded as extremists. Jean-Pierre’s answer (keeping in mind that a Press Secretary speaks the President’s words, not her own):

I’m talking about specifically MAGA office holders. That’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about MAGA office holders who have put forth an agenda that is extreme.

Because wanting to Make America Great Again is extreme. This is what Biden and his Progressive-Democrat Party are so angry, so threatening about. A strong America is anathema to them.