Tag Archives: politics

Reassigned

Posted on by
Reply

But not terminated.  She’ll complete her 20 years and get her pension, just as if she’s done nothing wrong.

Irene Martin, who has been with the US Citizenship and Immigration Services for 16 years, was the CIS field supervisor in San Bernardino who delayed for an hour and a half DHS agents (assigned to Homeland Security Investigations, a DHS sister agency of the CIS) attempting to interview and arrest Enrique Marquez, one of the terrorists involved and who was in her custody; from getting access to related records held by her office, and then requiring they make only hand-written copies; and who disdained even meeting with the agents for a half hour.

DHS’ IG report had this about her performance:

We have also concluded that the Field Office Director was not candid with OIG investigators during her interview.

And

We concluded that the USCIS Field Office Director at the San Bernardino office improperly delayed HSI agents from conducting a lawful and routine law enforcement action….

She made conflicting statements to the IG personnel interviewing her:

According to the FPS [Federal Protective Service] contract guards, the Field Office Director did not answer her phone, so an FPS guard searched the building, subsequently found her, and advised her that HSI agents were looking to obtain information regarding a Russian female and Hispanic male who may have been connected to the shootings the previous day.  (When interviewed by OIG agents, the Field Office Director stated that she was notified via phone that HSI agents had arrived at USCIS San Bernardino and wanted to detain and interview someone.  She said in her interview that she was not told for whom they were looking, or why they were looking for the individual.)

And

When interviewed by OIG, the Field Office Director [Irene Martin] denied telling the agents they were not allowed to arrest, detain, or interview anyone in the building.  However, her account is contradicted by that of the other HSI agents present.  Moreover, the Field Office Director herself reiterated to OIG agents during her interview her belief that it was against USCIS “procedure” for law enforcement to detain or interview individuals on USCIS property.  She also gave inconsistent answers about when she discovered that the HSI agents were investigating the shootings from the day prior.  She told OIG in her interview that she discovered the connection between [Mariya, the other terrorist in the San Bernardino attack, and Marquez’ wife] Chernykh and the shootings while reviewing Chernykh’s file.  She also stated that she was only told by the agents that they were investigating the shootings after she gave them the photograph.  In her written statement, however, the Field Office Director stated that the agent told her that they were investigating the shootings when she initially met with him in the conference room.  Either version is contradicted by the building security officer, who said he told the Field Office Director of the purpose behind the agents’ arrival when he first notified her.

The IG report goes on in this vein.

It is not clear what disciplinary action Martin could face….

Under this administration?  Yes, it is.

States Competing for Corporations

Posted on by
Reply

Competition is at the heart of America’s economic success, but not every type of contest benefits society.  Consider the growing trend of businesses cajoling states and politicians to compete for who can dole out the most corporate welfare.  It’s especially frustrating because there are already plenty of ways to promote job growth without robbing taxpayers.

And

States could start with eliminating tax carve outs and replacing them with lower-overall tax rates and lighter regulatory burdens.  Federal lawmakers could also do their part by lowering America’s highest-in-the-developed-world corporate tax rate.

And

Embracing these policies would protect taxpayers…multinational firms with multimillion-dollar profit margins.

You bet.  Lower-tax rate policies, among other things, would directly increase those entities’ profit margins by reducing the size of a cost center.  They also would let these entities lower their prices (if only slightly), which would increase their sales (if only slightly), which would then increase their profits if not their profit margins.

In the end, States compete better on the basis of who has the lower tax and regulatory rates over all rather than who gets to the better carve-outs and special treatments.  In fact, the carve-out/treatment path, among other things, leads to an enormously byzantine tax structure within which it’s increasingly difficult to measure which State’s carve-outs/treatments are better.

Computers Sentencing Humans

Posted on by
Reply

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is considering exactly that.

The state’s highest court is set to rule on whether such algorithms, known as risk assessments, violate due process and discriminate against men when judges rely on them in sentencing.

No.  Even when sentencing a criminal, where his crime is substantially similar to other criminals’ crimes, the key is that substantial part.  No two crimes really are alike, no two criminals really are identical, even the criminal convicted today is not the same man he was when he was convicted—even of a substantially similar crime yesterday—history has happened.  One size cannot fit all, even here; sentencing must be unique.

And that sentence must be handed down by a judge or, in many jurisdictions (and my personal favorite), a jury.  It takes a human to assess the man, and it especially takes a human to assess his likelihood of recidivism or rehabilitation.  It takes a human, or a collection of us, to assess the man’s potential redeemability and his likelihood of redemption.

Computers have none of the comprehension, conscience, intuition, or moral capacity that are so critical to such judgments.  Even a computer’s risk assessment must be suspect, as the inputs cannot include everything a human or that collection of humans that is a jury sees when they assess the man’s record and look into the eyes of the man standing before them.

Aside from the principle of the question, the particular tool in question in the case before the Wisconsin Court is badly flawed.

…a widely used tool called COMPAS, or Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions, a 137-question test that covers criminal and parole history, age, employment status, social life, education level, community ties, drug use, and beliefs.

The assessment includes queries like, “Did a parent figure who raised you ever have a drug or alcohol problem?” and “Do you feel that the things you do are boring or dull?”  Scores are generated by comparing an offender’s characteristics to a representative criminal population of the same sex.

Tests, questionnaires, surveys, and the like are extremely easy to game, and any lawyer worthy of his pro bono fee is fully capable of coaching his client to game this one.

Computers shouldn’t sentence humans; humans should sentence humans.  And it shouldn’t be done on the basis of input-limited machine-calculated predictions of the future, in any event.  It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.

Bank Bail-ins

Posted on by
Reply

But this legacy [of bank financing of trade deals] is now under threat in Europe from new regulation aimed at preventing another bank bailout.

That’s right.  The EU has decided that tools banks use to finance trade agreements between other parties must be regulated by the Know Betters of the European Commission.

The new rules are designed to shield taxpayers from bailing out distressed financial institutions again[.]

“EU authorities” are, as usual, operating from a false premise.  There’s no need for a government entity to bail out, or to avoid bailing out, any bank.  Banks don’t need bailing out.  It’s all right if they fail.  It’s good, in fact, for bad banks (e.g., those otherwise thought to need bailing out) to fail; that’s how dead wood gets got rid of.

It’s really quite simple, for all that government experts have over-complexified the thing.  The way to not to bank bail-outs is to not bail them out.  Let the free market decide a bank’s (or any enterprise’s) fitness to continue operations, and if the market turns thumbs down, let the bank fail.  Full stop.

Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy

Posted on by
Reply

This is what Democrat Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy has been like and what President Barack Obama’s (D) foreign policy is like.

  • Compromised national security with her cavalier treatment of our most classified information—and lying about it
  • Failed to protect or rescue Americans in Benghazi—and lying about it afterwards
  • Enthusiastically pushed for the Libya war—and then failing to support efforts to control its aftermath
  • Supported the premature Iraq withdrawal—which threw away our hard-won victory and left Iraq in shambles
  • Failed to deal with the spread of Islamic terrorism
  • Failed to reset relations with Russia—not even bothering to use the correct Russian word on her “reset” button
  • Lost all of our then-ongoing wars: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. Counting Syria, and her BFF’s badly faded and washed out pink line, four
  • Facilitated Iran’s drive to obtain nuclear weapons
  • Failed to deal with the Veterans Administration’s apparent abandonment of our veterans—many of them the very same ones whose battlefield victories her foreign affairs policies have abandoned
  • Ongoing, slow-motion surrenders of the South China Sea to an expansionist People’s Republic of China and of provinces of Georgia and Ukraine to an expansionist Russia

Clinton is loud and proud about wanting more of the same.

Elections have consequences.