Zuckerberg Announces Coordinated Attack on Intellectual freedom

Is that dramatic title justified? Let’s take a look at what Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed. In the following rather long excerpts, pay attention to the emphasized portions, which are mine. In Mark Zuckerberg: Protecting democracy is an arms race, Zuckerberg wrote:

Key to our efforts has been finding and removing fake accounts — the source of much of the abuse, including misinformation. Bad actors can use computers to generate these in bulk. But with advances in artificial intelligence, we now block millions of fake accounts every day as they are being created so they can’t be used to spread spam, false news or inauthentic ads.

Increased transparency in our advertising systems is another area where we have also made progress. You can now see all the ads an advertiser is running — even if they aren’t targeted to you. Anyone who wants to run political or issue ads in the United States on Facebook must verify their identity. All political and issue ads must also make clear who paid for them, in the same way as TV or newspaper advertisements. But we’ve gone even further by putting all these ads in a public archive, which anyone can search to see how much was spent on each individual ad and the audience it reached. This greater transparency will increase responsibility and accountability for advertisers.

As we’ve seen from previous elections, misinformation is a real challenge. A big part of the solution is getting rid of fake accounts. But it’s also about attacking the spammers’ economic incentives to create false news in the first place. And where posts are flagged as potentially false, we pass them to independent fact-checkers — such as the Associated Press and the Weekly Standard — to review, and we demote posts rated as false, which means they lose 80 percent of future traffic.

We’re not working alone. After 2016, it became clear that everyone — governments, tech companies and independent experts — needs to do a better job of sharing the signals and information they have to prevent this kind of abuse. These bad actors don’t restrict themselves to one service, and we shouldn’t approach the problem in silos, either. That’s why we’re working more closely with other technology companies on the cybersecurity threats we all face, and we’ve worked with law enforcement to take down accounts in Russia.

“Governments, tech companies and independent experts.” “independent fact-checkers — such as the Associated Press and the Weekly Standard.” What’s missing from this list? We the individuals that make up the general public, who will never get to analyze for ourselves the “misinformation” or “false news.” What we will be allowed to see will be decided by “the experts.”

Now, private companies like Facebook have the right to manage their networks, even if it involves bias reflecting management’s political leanings (although that would be stupid business). But this goes beyond that. Straight from the horse’s mouth, we see that there is an unholy alliance between governments, big companies, the established big media, and who knows what other “independent experts.”

There may be regulatory extortion going on, such as when Senator Dianne Feinstein warned Facebook, Google, and Twitter, "You created these platforms, and now they're being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it—or we will." Or when Sen. Al Franken criticized these companies because they "failed to take commonsense precautions to prevent the spread of propaganda, misinformation, and hate speech." Given the regulatory power these politicians have, these statements can only be taken as threats. And how much pressure is being applied behind the scenes--and in what manner?

But however this unholy “fact-checking” alliance has come about, it’s a major threat. Governments can censor directly, or through the regulatory apparatus. This is not to say that private companies should not cooperate with law enforcement when legitimate laws are broken, such as laws banning foreign governments from interfering in our elections. But putting an “expert” elite in charge of being the arbiter of truth is a power associated with dictators, not American law. In America, intellectual freedom is the law, and is codified in the First Amendment--freedom of religion (conscience), speech, press, association, and petition. Free countries leave everyone--truly everyone--free to express and debate and get at the truth, as Americans always have--free from expert information and news gatekeepers. Wasn’t that Facebook’s original mission?

Related Reading:

The Life and Death of a Hollywood Blacklist: Sometimes censorship is a public-private partnership.--Jesse Walker for Reason

The Banning of Alex Jones: Facebook Choice or Regulatory Extortion?

Note to Net Neutralityists: Be Careful What You Wish For

The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech--by Kimberley Strassel

The Anti-Free Speech Fallacy of ‘Dark Money’

Making Private Donations Anonymously is a Right

Is the Russia/Trump Probe the Democrats’ Version of the ‘Birther Movement?’

In response to Paul Mulshine’s July 2017 New Jersey Star-Ledger op-ed 'Unhinged' anti-Trumpers are Russian to conclusions, I left this brief comment:

Russia is looking more and more like the Democrats’ version of the “Birther Movement,” which spent eight years trying to get Obama impeached based on the notion that he is not a natural born citizen. It’s looks like the “Russianer Movement”—or whatever we want to call it—is going to spend the next eight years trying to get Trump impeached.

I think it still holds true today, more than a year later. And yes, I believe Trump will be reelected in 2020 especially if the Democrats take one or both houses of Congress in the 2018 midterm elections.

Why the Flag Belongs in the New Neil Armstrong Movie

Why the Flag Belongs in the New Neil Armstrong Movie

Homer Hickam writes in the Washington Post about a new movie celebrating Neil Armstrong, the first man to set foot on the Moon. In  The new Neil Armstrong movie is about more than the lunar flag-planting, In his positive review of the movie, Hickam focuses on the fact that the planting of the American Flag by Neil Armstrong and fellow astronaut Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon was omitted from the film:

More than a few Americans are fed up with Hollywood and want no part of what the industry produces. For a while now, once-unifying entertainment awards shows have become minefields of woke declarations and Trump-bashing, which are perceived by many Americans who voted for the president as insults directed not just at him but also at them.

This has now thrown “First Man,” a major new movie about one of America’s greatest heroes, into the path of some hard cultural head winds. Back in 1969, in the real world, Neil Armstrong and fellow astronaut Buzz Aldrin spent some 10 minutes raising the American flag on the lunar surface. But in the film version the flag scene is nowhere to be found. When the question of why came up last month at the Venice Film Festival, Ryan Gosling, the actor who plays Armstrong in “First Man,” stumbled with his answer, explaining that the landing was a “human achievement” and that Armstrong didn’t view himself as an “American hero.”

The result was outrage, especially from many of the folks who’ve felt insulted by Hollywood’s recent history. Although I count myself among those who think Hollywood should stay out of politics, I think the folks railing against “First Man” are wrong.

The history here is instructive. Although the lunar flag-planting may seem like a given in hindsight, for months before the flight of Apollo 11 there was a debate within the federal government and in the press as to the wisdom of doing it. The argument for the flag was that the voyage was an entirely American effort that was paid for by American taxpayers, who deserved to see their flag planted in the lunar regolith. The argument against was that it could cast the landing in the eyes of the world as a nationalistic exercise, diminishing what was otherwise indisputably a triumph of American values and ideals, not to mention a demonstration of our technical superiority over our great adversary, the Soviet Union.

My emphasis. But aren’t those ideals universal? Aren’t those ideals exactly what the flag stands for? Aren’t all men, not just Americans, equal in their rights to their life and liberty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.? Don’t all men have the right to pursue their own happiness under a government designed not to rule but to “secure these rights?” Shouldn’t all men be free to live by their own conscientious beliefs; to express themselves through speech and press without fear of governmental retribution; to associate freely and be free to criticize his government; to work and keep property earned through his own efforts; to be considered innocent until proven guilty?

What is it about American ideals that do not apply equally to all people everywhere? The Declaration of Independence says “all men.” Those words have been an inspiration the world over, for good reason. Neil Diamond said it best in his song “America”: “Every time that flag’s unfurled, they’re coming to America”--any time, anywhere, people can be American.

America is unique. It is more than a country. Count me among those who believe the flag-raising should be included. Not because of collectivistic nationalism. And not because American taxpayers footed the bill--although that is certainly important. But because the economic political, and intellectual freedom represented by the flag made it possible for government to fund the moon venture: Without free enterprise--free minds and free markets--to draw on, the moon landing would never have happened. The argument for the flag is precisely that it is “indisputably a triumph of American values and ideals.” Americanism is universal. It stands for freedom everywhere.

Hickam says he “personally would have included the flag-raising,” but that if First Man the movie is true to the book of the same title it is supposedly based on, “It is not the story of the moon-landing but of the world-famous astronaut himself.” Maybe. Maybe the flag was omitted for innocent reasons. But Hickam himself “personally would have included the flag-raising.”

Hickam observes many Americans’ disgust at Hollywood’s blatant politicizing, and he himself acknowledges that “I count myself among those who think Hollywood should stay out of politics.” I haven’t read the book. But if I have time to go see the movie, maybe I’ll come away with a different take. But given Hollywood’s overt one-sidedness, I strongly suspect that the flag was kept out of the movie precisely because Hollywood stands against American ideals--ideals rooted in individualism. Hollywood is predominantly collectivist/socialist/Marxist in its political leanings in direct opposition to the Declaration of Independence. It wants to push the myth that the moon landing was a collectivistic “human achievement.” It was not. It was an achievement of the cooperative efforts of free individuals united by choice to a common purpose and goal. The only sense in which the moon landing was a human achievement is that it shows what individual humans are capable of when left free--when they are individually treated equally before the law, based on their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Related Reading:

MassMutual’s Vile Trivialization of Americanism

Democracy Fundamentalism vs. Americanism

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle

Collectivized 'Rights' versus Individual Rights—Ayn Rand

Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People--Randy E. Barnett

SUPPLEMENTAL: Michael Hurd on the Totalitarian Socialist Democrats

SUPPLEMENTAL to my 8/20/2015 post Sanders’s Open Socialism Blows the Cover Off of the Left’s Stealth Socialism, in which I observed:

[Bernie] Sanders the openly avowed socialist blows the cover off of the Left’s stealth socialism. His candidacy clarifies the fact that the socialist policies already enacted [by "liberals" over the past 100 years] are not just socialist exceptions to a mostly capitalist society. They, and the next set of Leftist policies Sanders advocates, are just stepping stones to full socialism. He is saying explicitly that, yes indeed, destroying capitalism and bringing in socialism is and always has been the [Democrats'] goal.

On 7/24/18, Michael Hurd observed that Democrats Have Gone Full-Blown Socialist…And You’re Surprised?! 

Not me.

The final transformation of the Democrat Party into a full-blown freedom hating, achievement hating, prosperity hating, ultimately human life hating totalitarian socialist political party is racing along at lightning speed toward the 2018 midterm elections.

Related Reading:

The Passion of Socialists by Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard

QUORA: ‘Why does the Electoral College of the United States of America exist?’

QUORA *: ‘Why does the Electoral College of the United States of America exist?’

I posted this answer:

The Electoral College is part of the checks and balances designed to prevent concentrations of government power. For example, the United States Constitution supersedes the state constitutions, allowing the federal government to act as a check on states’ power. Likewise, since the elected legislatures of the states has the responsibility of choosing the electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct," the states can act as a check on federal power.

Also, the Electoral College acts as somewhat of a power balance between large and small states.

Likewise, the electoral college acts as a check on populism, which can be quite tyrannical. Instead of one huge national majority acting as a single overbearing power, candidates must win enough smaller majorities in individual states, each of whom may have differing interests, to accumulate the necessary electoral vote majority. The point is to check populist power as a means of limiting concentrations of government power.

America was never to be a nation of majority rule. It was to be a country of individual self-rule--that is, of individual rights. Individual rights, not the wishes of electoral majorities, is what government is intended to protect. Constitutional scholar Timothy Sandifur on James Madison’s thinking:

In “the extended republic of the United States,” a “great variety of interests, parties and sects” would prevent “a coalition of the majority of the whole society” from coming together in ways that might harm the minority or the individual.

There was always a risk of oppression in any form of government, of course, because factions would seek to benefit themselves at the expense of their rivals. . . The . . . solution was a constitution of limited powers, with a system of checks and balances by which “the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.”

Madison consistently recognized that the essential goal of the Constitution was not to expand democratic authority or give voice to the “will of the people”—an idea he regarded skeptically—but to establish a political system that would enable the majority to accomplish its legitimate goals while protecting minorities against oppression. [from The Genius of James Madison by Timothy Sandefur for The Objective Standard]

This does not mean that populism doesn’t have its place: It gets its expression, for example, in the powerful U.S. House of Representatives. But the intricate structure of checks and balances embedded in our constitution checks populism just as it checks state power, presidential power, court power, and legislative power through its two branches. The purpose of this structure is to protect the primacy of individual liberty. The Electoral College is a part of that structure. That’s why the Electoral College of the United States of America exists.

Related Reading:

Was the Electoral College a ‘Compromise to Protect the Institution of Slavery?’

Avoid ‘Majority Rule’—Keep the Electoral College in Fact and in Spirit

Wouldn't going by Popular Vote be an even worse system than the Electoral College?

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right

QUORA: Can't We Make the Electoral College More Democratic?

The Conscience of the Constitution—Timothy Sandefur

* [Quora is a social media website founded by two former Facebook employees. According to Wikipedia:

Quora is a question-and-answer website where questions are created, answered, edited and organized by its community of users. The company was founded in June 2009, and the website was made available to the public on June 21, 2010.[3]Quora aggregates questions and answers to topics. Users can collaborate by editing questions and suggesting edits to other users' answers.[4]

You can also reply to other users’ answers.]

This Labor Day, Celebrate Intellectual Labor

The United States Department of Labor, speaking on The History of Labor Day, had this to say on its website:

Some records show that Peter J. McGuire, general secretary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and a cofounder of the American Federation of Labor, was first in suggesting a day to honor those “who from rude nature have delved and carved all the grandeur we behold.”

Really? There is no doubt about what is meant here. McGuire was referring to people who “work with their hands”. Is that what built America? Physical labor has existed since time immemorial. What changed in the last two hundred + years that suddenly endowed the American worker with the means to produce “all the grandeur we behold” out of raw, “rude” nature? (Note the word “all”).

The American worker has, indeed, contributed significantly to the American Economic juggernaut. But, it was not because of his labor, as such. It was because of his intellectual mastery of the theoretical and material tools of production provided to him, that vastly increased the value of his labor.

Physical labor, as such, has very little value. Slaves can perform it. So can mules pulling hand plows.

Consider my trade, plumbing. If my job is fundamentally physical labor, then any able-bodied person off of the street can wander onto any construction job site and robotically perform the task of installing plumbing systems. He can simply be told: “Run this pipe from here to there”, and it will get done. He has the same muscles and bones, nerves and guts that I have, after all.

That, of course, could never be the case. Performing my task (or any construction trade) requires reliance on previously acquired theoretical knowledge, on-the-job apprenticeship training, the mastery of the tools of the trade, and years of learning experience. This is to say nothing of the continuing education that new materials and technologies require of me.

My job is knowledge-based. All modern jobs are, to varying extent. How did that knowledge become imbued in my brain? - by my choice to expend the intellectual effort to acquire it. Even the muscular physical motions my job requires had to be learned by a conscious mental effort that led to the appropriate neurological connections.

Do you still think mere labor built this country?

The idea that a laborer “works with his hands” is only superficially true. What directs the motions of his hands? It is his focussed, reasoning mind – if he is a motivated worker who strives to be the best that he can be at his chosen occupation. If not, then that worker is a mere drone.

And that gets directly to the point. The celebration of “labor” as a holiday implies that mindless worker. Labor Day ignores the intellectual root of modern, productive labor. It ignores the intellectual labor that created the worker’s job to begin with, and the intellectual labor that the competent worker must expend to learn to perform his job.

Human knowledge is fleeting, but for the grace of those who came before us and chose to acquire it and pass it on. Knowledge can not be passed on from person to person or generation to generation innately. No one is born with previously discovered knowledge, but rather with a mind that is tabula rasa – a blank slate. To celebrate “all the grandeur we behold”, it is to the discoverer and the acquirers of knowledge that we must pay initial gratitude to. The worker, by learning the skills he needs to perform his job, plays his role in keeping that knowledge train going.

This does not, however, mean that labor is inconsequential. Theoretical knowledge in and of itself has little value, unless and until it is placed into the service of man’s living requirements. The process of turning knowledge into the material values humans need to live and to flourish is dependent upon the contributions of many economic players. The value of each player’s contribution to this productive process varies and is dependent upon many factors. But all through that process – from the discoverer of new knowledge to the final material product put together by the worker – the value added represents, at root, the application of the mind.

“[W]hen you live in a rational society, where men are free to trade, you receive an incalculable bonus: the material value of your work is determined not only by your effort, but by the effort of the best productive minds who exist in the world around you.

“When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved the money to risk on the untried and the new, for the work of the engineer who designed the machines of which you are pushing the levers, for the work of the inventor who created the product which you spend your time on making, for the work of the scientist who discovered the laws that went into the making of that product, for the work of the philosopher who taught men how to think…” (Page 1064)

Labor Day, according to the DOL, was created in 1882. That was the heyday of Karl Marx’s rise to prominence among the American intellectual elite. Marx was the theoretician of “Dialectical Materialism”, the idea that man’s consciousness – his spirit, his intellect, ability, and logic – plays at best a minimal role in the production process. Human beings, according to Marx, are conditioned by the physical world around them, including the means of production like tools and factories, which just happened into existence. Our modern, complex, and advanced industrial society is the product of mindless, conditioned muscular movements, according to Marx (and others). It is owing to the Marxist theory of the mind – i.e., spiritual values - as of little consequence that gave rise to the myth that labor and those that perform it are the primary engines of economic progress.

Labor Day, whether one knows or wants to admit it or not, is an outgrowth of Marxism and the “labor theory of economic value” that so enamored late 19th century American intellectuals.

The DOL concludes its Labor Day salute as follows:

"It is appropriate … that the nation pay tribute on Labor Day to the creator of so much of the nation's strength, freedom, and leadership — the American worker."

Not quite. Instead, we should pay tribute to the creator of the American worker.

This Labor Day, we should celebrate not workers, but those who made our jobs and prosperity possible. This country was not built by physical labor. It was built by intellectual labor applied to physical labor under a system of individual rights that allowed everyone the freedom to think and, above all, to act on his thinking. Instead of patting ourselves on the back for our labor, we “workers” should reflect on the mental efforts that we had to expend in order to acquire the previously discovered knowledge that makes it possible to perform our jobs. We should stop selling ourselves short. Labor Day is an insult to the American Worker.

More importantly, we should give silent thanks to all of those intellectual “laborers” who came before us – the discoverers, the inventors, the investors, the businessmen - who made our well-paying jobs possible.

Instead of Labor Day, we should celebrate Intellectual Labor Day.

Or, better yet, we should celebrate political and economic freedom—i.e., Capitalism – the social system of the United States of America. Capitalism unleashed the individual human mind. It is Capitalism that liberated the inventor, entrepreneur, businessman, and industrialist, who in turn made it possible for the American worker to have acquired the means to rise to middle class status and prosper. The labor movement fought for better working condiditions, shorter work weeks, and the like. But those victories couldn't have been possible without the tools of increased worker productivity and consumer products created by the inventor/entrepreneur/businessman/industrialist, who wouldn't have been possible without capitalism. The labor movement could not have been possible in any other era in human history. Capitalism made the labor movement possible.

It is Capitalism’s liberated human mind that from rude nature has delved and carved all the grandeur we behold.

Capitalism is what I will be quietly rejoicing as I enjoy my long weekend.

Happy Labor Day!!

Related Reading:

Atlas Shrugged—Ayn Rand

To Whom Does the American Worker Owe His Prowess?

Did Unions Create the Middle Class?

Note to Sandi Tibbetts Murphy: Violence is Not Masculine

The murder of Mollie Tibbetts by an illegal alien has sparked, for better or for worse, a nationwide conversation about immigration. Tibbetts’ sister, Sandi Tibbetts Murphy, pushed back, posting this statement that went viral. My wife shared it on her page, via Chris Yingling August 25 at 1:18 PM, who captioned it “Full statement from Mollie's family. The ONLY people that have a say in this. A must read.”

No.

No, no and no.

Especially for those of you who did not know her in life, you do not get to usurp Mollie and her legacy for your racist, false narrative now that she is no longer with us. We hereby reclaim our Mollie.

Mollie was a young, intelligent, caring woman with a ready smile and a compassionate heart. So many across the state of Iowa and the entire country embraced her, and us, as we all searched and hoped for her safe return. It was not to be. Mollie was killed, and a man has been arrested and charged with her murder. Yes, that man is an immigrant to this country, with uncertainty as to his legal status. But it matters not. He could have been a citizen, born in this country; he could have been an older, white man from anywhere; he could have been a man from Mollie’s world. He is a man, whose path in life crossed that of Mollie’s life, with tragic results. He is a man who felt entitled to impose himself on Mollie’s life, without consequence. He is a man who, because of his sense of male entitlement, refused to allow Mollie the right to reject his advances – the right to her own autonomy. Mollie was murdered because a man denied her right to say no.

Our national discussion needs to be about the violence committed in our society, mostly by men, as seen by these grim statistics from the FBI:

• 89.5% of murders are committed by men.

• 98.9% of forcible rapes are committed by men.

• 80% of violence against families and children is committed by men.

• 85% of intimate partner violence is committed by men.

We must be willing to address the way we raise our boys and young men, so that violence is not a part of their response to this world. Like the recent murders of the Colorado family or the similarly tragic homicide of Kate Steinle, Mollie’s death is further example of the toxic masculinity that exists in our society.

Mollie’s murder is truly tragic and horrifically painful for all of us who knew and loved her, the extinguishing of a treasured spirit much too soon. It is not your right to exacerbate this grievous act by hijacking Mollie and all she believed with your racist fear-mongering. You do not get to use her murder to inaccurately promote your “permanently separated” hyperbole. You do not have permission to callously use this tragedy to demonize an entire population for the acts of one man.

No. We reclaim our Mollie

I posted to following comments on my wife’s page:

First, this piece was posted by the victim’s sister, Sandi Tibbetts Murphy, on her page. She appears to be speaking for herself, not the whole family. That said, I agree with her that Mollie Tibbetts’ murder should not be exploited to imply that all illegal immigrants are violent criminals. I cringed when I saw some doing just that. Rivera is one single illegal immigrant, not representative of all illegal immigrants. But I take issue with the rest of the Murphy’s statement. It morphs into a smear piece against men and political dissenters.

The statement calls for “Our national discussion . . . to be about the violence committed in our society.” Fair enough. But it blames “toxic masculinity” for the violence generally and for Tibbetts’ murder in particular. Merriam-Webster defines “masculine” as A: “male” and B: “having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man.” Violence is not a “quality.” Nor is violence “appropriate to” men. She cites FBI statistics to “prove” her case. But statistics, of course, are worse than damned lies. The statistics Murphy cited notwithstanding, the vast majority of men do not commit violence. That nonviolence doesn't make them unmasculine. Rivera is one single man, not representative of all men.

The statement condemns “those of you” for “hijacking Mollie and all she believed with your racist fear-mongering.” While the exploitation of Mollie’s murder to make a point against illegal immigration may be unsavory, you can’t automatically assume that opposition to illegal immigration equates to racism, as Murphy implies. Those using her murder to make a statement against illegal immigration may be using bad judgement. But they are not necessarily racist. The tarring of masculinity as violent, as this statement does, is itself racist--against the male race. The tarring of all opponents of illegal immigration as racists is, if not racist, certainly unjust.

As a husband, father, and grandfather, my sympathies go out to this family. I recognize that anger and grief can cause people to say thinks they may later regret. But, I cannot give my unqualified endorsement to Murphy’s statement. It seems she engaged in the same tactic as she chastises others for; using her sister’s murder to advance her views on a controversial issue, in this case immigration and gender--in the process painting entire groups with a broad brush. Murphy concludes, “You do not have permission to callously use this tragedy to demonize an entire population for the acts of one man.” Neither do you, Sandi.

----------------------------------------------

I speculated that Murphy's language was the work of a political activist. My suspicion was confirmed when I read the following from Marxism in the Mainstream:

It bears repeating: “today’s political left” has a “neo-Marxist view.” The watchwords of this ideology are commonplace. As Jordan Peterson said to Tucker Carlson, any time you hear the words “equity, diversity, inclusivity, white privilege, systemic racism, any of that” you are hearing someone spout off their neo-Marxist indoctrination. One might also add terms like “tolerance,” “multiculturalism,” “toxic masculinity,” and people “of color” (code for “the oppressed”). [my emphasis]

I had never heard the term “toxic masculinity.” But it sounded like a Leftist slogan. I was right.

I continued to discuss this in the comments section. You can follow the conversation on my wife’s page, where you can find three comments and 25 replies (so far).