A Tool

Facebook’s management is beginning to realize the impact Facebook can have on our national society and on the politics of our society.  Product Manager Samidh Chakrabarti:

If there’s one fundamental truth about social media’s impact on democracy it’s that it amplifies human intent—both good and bad[.]

But in their hubris that same management is presuming to dictate to us how we will be allowed to use it.

[W]e have a moral duty to understand how these technologies are being used and what can be done to make communities like Facebook as representative, civil, and trustworthy as possible.

No.  Facebook technology is like any other tool, neither good nor bad in itself, but useful or destructive in from the way it’s used.  Like any large power tool, it certainly can be dangerous—but it’s on us to use it correctly and safely.

It’s certainly not on producers of technology, including of tools like Facebook (or Twitter, come to that, or Instragram, or Snapchat, or…), to take it on themselves to censor what they provide or omit.  That’s the responsibility of us as individuals.  Facebook’s management team has a responsibility to publish a serious, honest owner’s manual—just like Black & Decker has a responsibility to publish a serious, honest owner’s manual for its chainsaws.  But Black & Decker only has a responsibility vis-à-vis its saws to make them effective and safe.  Facebook management has the same responsibility—neither more nor less—to do the same with the tool known as Facebook.

It’s time they stopped condescending.  It’s time they stopped presuming to manage our outcomes for us.

Hypocrisy

…is alive and well in the National Football League.  The NFL invited American Veterans, a major veterans support organization, to submit an ad for the Super Bowl advertising suite.  So AMVET did.

It turns out the NFL just wanted to look good in the public shower; it wasn’t at all serious.  Having received AMVET’s submission, they chose to reject it.  The ad committed the heinous crime of asking folks to stand for the national anthem.  The NFL’s excuse?  The Super Bowl is

designed for fans to commemorate and celebrate the game, players, teams, and the Super Bowl…

it’s not a place for political statements.  But NFL allows football players to insult our veterans and attack our national anthem, including planned kneelings at the upcoming Super Bowl.  That’s not a political statement, though.

Consider this carefully as you decide whether you want to watch what used to be a great game.  Consider, also, whether you want to drop a dime, next year, on the NFL, given its support for its players’ attacks on our national anthem and their insults to generations of our veterans.

More Jobs

JP Morgan Chase says it’s going to spend its tax cut savings to

develop hundreds of new branches in the US, increase wages and benefits for hourly US employees, make increased small business and mortgage lending commitments, add 4,000 jobs, and increase philanthropic investments.

Nor is this a one-shot affair.  It’s a five year, $20 billion investment.  So much for pocketing the money and cutting out charity work, the loud Leftist refrain during the debates over tax reform.

As an aside, the pay raises are good and so are the additional jobs implied by the additional branches—400 of them (against an existing 5,130 branches, an 8% bump, which is also good for consumers)—openings.  But frankly, for my money, the additional jobs are more valuable than the pay raises for the existing employees.  The latter are getting a larger piece of the pie, which is good, but the former are getting their first slice—and making the pie itself bigger.

Here’s another datum.  Kim Lopdrup, Red Lobster’s CEO, is saying

Tax cuts, that’s clearly going to be stimulatory for the economy. We think that’s going to be great for the restaurant business[.]

More money left in the coffers of a small-margin business like a restaurant?  Yewbetcha.

Certainly, a couple of data points are little more than anecdotes, not a trend.  But they are promising anecdotes and well worth watching to see whether a trend develops.

This is the sort of thing, though, that the Progressive-Democratic Party opposed when they fought so hard against the just-passed tax reform bill.  It’s almost like they want Americans trapped in the Progressive-Democrat welfare cage.

Taxing and Spending in New York

Bookending (in more than one sense of the term) California’s move to confiscate business’ tax cuts, New York’s Progressive-Democrat governor Andrew Cuomo wants to increase the taxes levied on that State’s citizens by $1 billion.  He’s claiming, in all seriousness,

You can’t possibly get anywhere near where you want to be on education and health care unless you raise revenues.  It’s just too big a deficit, and the choice of cutting education or cutting health care I don’t think is a place anyone wants to go to this year. So you have to raise revenue.

This is a false choice.  The largest cause of the State’s deficit, after all, is its spending level, not the size of its revenue.  Thus, one choice Cuomo is carefully eliding is this: the State’s government could cut spending across the board; there is, after all, more going on in New York than just education and health coverage costs.

Alternatively (which Cuomo also avoids mentioning), the State’s government could simply reallocate existing spending into education and health care.

Still another alternative unmentioned, the State’s government could fix its runaway pension funds for its public unions by using accurate projections of investment return rates and increasing the contributions union members and the unions themselves make to the funds.  Along with this, the State’s government could fix its health coverage program, replacing its version of Obamacare with market-based solutions, and freeing the citizens to buy the health plans that suit them rather than suiting Government.  Or not buy at all.

There’s simply no need for more revenue for the State’s government, no need to take even more money out of the pockets of the State’s citizens.

Unfortunately, neither the man nor his Party cronies in the legislature are emotionally capable of conceiving of actually cutting spending, or even of reallocating existing spending.

Exaggeration?

No, it’s worse than that.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY), in his continuing ducking of responsibility for his Progressive-Democratic Party’s decision to shut down the Federal government, frequently makes this…claim:

A party that controls the House, the Senate, and the presidency would rather sit back and point fingers of blame than roll up their sleeves and govern.

No, this is no petty exaggeration; it’s just another example of Schumer’s dishonesty. Neither party controls the Senate unless it has a 60-vote majority.  That makes governing impossible when the minority party in the Senate refuses to negotiate in good faith, when the minority party puts its collective ego ahead the nation’s weal.  Schumer knows these things.

This would be OBE with the end of the Progressive-Democrats’ shutdown of the government, but for the durability of Schumer’s disingenuosity.