To the Editor:
Re “Trump Fires Noem as Chief of D.H.S. After Rocky Term” (front page, March 6):
I welcome the news that Kristi Noem has been removed as the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
Under her tenure, at least 32 people died in ICE custody. More than 170 American citizens were wrongfully detained by immigration officials. This is in addition to her gross failure to recognize Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat of California, when he attempted to ask her a question last summer, resulting in his violent handcuffing at the height of the immigration raids in Los Angeles.
The nation is better off that Ms. Noem is leaving, but that should not exclude her from being held accountable for the transgressions committed during her time in office.
Steven Almazán Los Angeles
To the Editor:
I do not mean it ironically when I say that Kristi Noem has certain similarities to Abraham Lincoln. Ms. Noem is a Westerner. She lost a parent at a young age. Her education was interrupted, and she had to work to support her family.
As a freshman in Congress in 2011, she became a member of the House leadership, acting as a bridge between Speaker John Boehner and Tea Party insurgents, a uniter not a divider.
In other important ways, however, Ms. Noem is no Lincoln. The main gap seems to be in how she chose to lead once she left the House.
By 2019, she had been elected governor of South Dakota, and when the pandemic hit, everything went sideways. Ms. Noem opposed masking and promoted hydroxychloroquine, and citizens of her state paid the price with one of the highest per capita infection rates in the country.
She has learned and adopted President Trump’s misguided, overconfident political style, one that has served her poorly as the homeland security secretary.
Whether she can fix things after having failed so publicly is hard to say. She may be forced to wander politics like a modern-day Dan Quayle or Sarah Palin.
Stuart Gallant Belmont, Mass.
To the Editor:
Although I am extremely happy to see Kristi Noem get fired, President Trump’s pick to replace her at the Department of Homeland Security, Senator Markwayne Mullin, Republican of Oklahoma, is simply a male version of her — another “yes” person who will take direction from his boss.
And let’s remember that Mr. Mullin is the same guy who challenged Sean O’Brien, the president of the Teamsters, to a fight during a Senate hearing, even getting up from his seat. More significantly, Mr. Mullin called Alex Pretti, an innocent American citizen who was killed by federal agents during the ICE siege in Minneapolis, a “deranged individual who came in to cause massive damage with a loaded pistol.”
This is who will be the new homeland security secretary? We are in for another bumpy ride!
Michael Hadjiargyrou Centerport, N.Y.
The Parking Dance: Which Move Is Better?
To the Editor:
Re “Backing In or Out of a Growing Parking Debate” (Sunday Styles, Feb. 22):
As a retired UPS employee who worked for 33 years in transportation, I was taught from Day 1 to “back first” so the vehicle faced out when I returned.
The safety advantage that the article did not highlight is that when you approach an empty space you have good visibility to what is in the space and around you. Are there any obstacles in the space, or are there any people or animals around that you need to be aware of?
Once you leave your vehicle, conditions can change without your knowledge. A child or animal could be behind your vehicle (below or outside your camera’s coverage). Litter could have been left that could damage a tire or worsen a mess.
Backing in to a parking spot reduces accidents, and as people get more experience with it, it does not make parking lot congestion worse.
Kris Oswold Seattle
To the Editor:
As an international business scholar who studies culture and economic performance, I had long pondered why back-in parking is more prevalent in some countries. Around 2012, I had an “aha!” moment: It exemplifies delayed gratification. Much like an investment, it demands more time and effort upfront to yield benefits later, such as a faster and safer departure from crowded lots.
In a subsequent study, I examined parking habits in six countries. China led with 88 percent of drivers backing in, while the U.S. had the lowest rate, at 5.7 percent. Notably, places with higher rates, such as China and Taiwan, correlated strongly with robust economic indicators — higher productivity gains, G.D.P. growth and savings rates.
This pattern suggests that everyday behaviors like parking may reflect broader cultural tendencies toward long-term thinking and productivity.
Shaomin Li Norfolk, Va. The writer is a professor of international business at Old Dominion University.
To the Editor:
I drive a sedan. If I pull into a space, it is a harrowing experience trying to back out when invariably sandwiched between two behemoth SUVs.
So I pull through or back in if necessary, although I prefer to park away from those SUVs if I can. (Please, are you all taking an entire hockey team to practice every day?)
While they are vying for parking spaces close to the store, causing congestion, I have parked with few cars around and walked.
Eileen St. Onge Hanover, Mass.
Meta’s Facial Recognition Raises Red Flags
To the Editor:
Re “Meta to Add Face ID Tech to Its Glasses” (Business, Feb. 16):
Technology is a double-edged sword. It can improve lives but can also supercharge violations of our civil rights and civil liberties. That’s why Meta’s planned rollout of facial recognition technology in its smart glasses is so dangerous.
Meta fails to grapple with the proven flaws of this technology or the very real potential for abuse. The technology would enable stalkers to identify their targets in public and hand bad actors a new tool to identify who goes to abortion clinics, gay bars, A.A. meetings or synagogues, mosques, churches or other houses of worship.
Anonymity and privacy are core to civil rights and civil liberties, but once again Meta is showing reckless disregard in its ever-undeterred effort to “move fast and break things.”
Meta has deliberately cut civil rights and civil liberties out of its calculus. As an internal Meta memo reasoned, “Many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns,” presumably seeing a business opportunity in the ongoing assault on American democracy.
That’s where Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive, is wrong: We are paying attention, and we understand clearly that this technology is part of that very same assault on our rights. We are always ready to fight, and we will continue to defend everyone’s rights — from both the government and Big Tech.
Cody Venzke Washington The writer is a senior policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
The post Trump’s Removal of Kristi Noem appeared first on New York Times.
