DCUM Weblog

Two of the threads that I discussed yesterday were also the top two most active threads again yesterday. Because I've already discussed those threads, I'll start with what was yesterday's third most active thread. That thread was titled, "Cori Bush defeated in Primary" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread is obviously about the defeat of Representative Cory Bush — note that the original poster misspelled her name — in Missouri's primary election on Tuesday. But, more than that, the thread is about the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC. Bush is a member of the "Squad", a group of progressive members of Congress who have failed to join in the lockstep support of Israel that is normal in the U.S. Congress. In American politics, if an elected official is not nearly 100% supportive of Israel, the official is considered "anti-Israel" or even "anti-Semitic". This has been the fate of most members of the Squad. For years AIPAC denied that it was involved in campaign funding, arguing that despite its name, it was not a political action committee or PAC. That was true. While AIPAC was not a PAC, its board members were linked to a number of PACs that contributed in a coordinated fashion to have tremendous financial influence on elections. I am not exactly sure when, but fairly recently AIPAC seems to have decided to end the charade. The organization created a related PAC called AIPAC PAC and not only contributes directly to campaigns, but in contrast to its past evasiveness about contributions, is now quite happy to have its influence publicized. Consistent with this new posture, AIPAC has been looking for scalps. AIPAC's modus operandi has been to focus on a candiate who has inherent weaknesses. In some cases these candidates have not even been anti-Israel. For instance, in the primary to choose a Democratic candidate to run for Katie Porter's open seat, AIPAC supported Joanna Weiss against Dave Min despite the two having nearly identical records regarding Israel. AIPAC is estimated to have spent over $1 million opposing Min, attacking him primarily because of a past DUI. Min nevertheless won the election. AIPAC is not always motivated by religion either. In 2022, AIPAC contributed heavily to defeat Michigan Representative Andy Levin who is not only Jewish, but had been president of his synagogue. During the current round of primaries, AIPAC has focused on Representatives Jamaal Bowman and Cory Bush. Bowman had been weakened by redistricting that created a district that was not very favorable for him. Bush is under investigation for illegal use of campaign funds. In addition, neither candidate has been particularly good at their job. In these candidates, AIPAC found vulnerable enemies and poured millions of dollars into defeating them. In the case of Bush, AIPAC spent at least $8 million and, in its opposition to Bowman, a whopping $14 million. On the other hand, AIPAC has more or less left alone Michigan Representative Rashida Tlaib and Minnesotta Representative Ilhan Omar, both effective politicians who are popular among their constituents. Tlaib was unopposed in her primary on Tuesday. AIPAC also targeted Pennsylvania Representative Summer Lee, spending $2 million through its United Democracy Project. Lee prevailed in her primary and AIPAC is now spending in support of her Republican opponent in the November general election. As in this thread, discussion of AIPAC and its influence can be touchy. Not everyone involved in funding AIPAC and its PACs is Jewish, but the organization is certainly dominated by Jews. Criticism can quickly become uncomfortably close to the anti-Semitic trope about rich Jews controlling politics. While AIPAC is not actually controlling political outcomes, it is certainly having significant influence. Moreover, that is not an influence about which the organization is in anyway shy. At least not these days.

Yesterday's most active thread by a long measure was titled, "She picked Tim" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster posted just after CNN revealed that Vice President Kamala Harris had selected Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to be her running mate. The original poster didn't have much to say and the entire text of the first post was "Now what?" The answer to that was over 100 pages of debate. The state of the Vice President selection process up to that point had appeared to have been a choice between Walz and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. Posters had debated between these two candidates and others for days. Walz had come to be seen as the "progressive" candidate because he had the support of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and other progressives. Shapiro, on the other hand, appeared to have the support of the Democratic establishment and, according to many posters, former President Barack Obama. When news broke that Walz was Harris' choice, reaction mostly broke along those lines. The Walz supporters were ecstatic while Shapiro fans were disappointed. Many of these posters complained that Walz was too liberal and that his selection signaled that Harris was capitulating to the left. At least since former President Bill Clinton made his first run for President, candidates have been expected to have their "Sister Souljah" moments. The term was coined when Clinton spoke to the Rainbow Coalition and criticized the then popular rap star for comments she had made regarding the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Sister Souljah moments have become a rite of passage for Democratic candidates to demonstrate that they are not beholden to the left wing of their party. Arguably, Shapiro has already had his Sister Souljah moment when he compared college students protesting Israel's war on Gaza to the KKK. While this may have put him in good graces with party centrists, it alienated him from many of the younger and further left voters. Walz, on the other hand, is unlikely to trouble himself with a Sister Souljah moment. Walz' support from the left was not a result of his own policies — those have been pretty much in the mainstream of Democratic politics. Rather, Walz has a number of characteristics that caused progressives such as Sanders to support him. First and foremost, Walz is committed to improving the lives of ordinary people. Second, he has been effective, using a one vote majority in the Minnesota state legislature to pass nearly his entire agenda. Third, Walz has a history of working in coalitions. He is focused on results and willing to work with either those on his left or those on his right — or even both at the same time — to get results. Therefore, progressives favored him because they can be confident that Walz is much more likely to view them as potential coalition partners rather than a group that he must publicly rebuke for political credibility. And, when they do work with him, they will probably get results. This is actually a case of the left demonstrating the type of political pragmatism and compromise that centrists have constantly demanded from them. Unfortunately, that compromise on the part of many on the left has been misinterpreted by some to their right to suggest that Walz is far more liberal than is true. Walz' popularity across the Democratic spectrum was evident by the fact that his selection as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate was applauded by both Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Joe Manchin. As Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, this may be the first time that those two agreed on anything. Among Republican posters in the thread, the tendency was to simply cast Walz as a far left liberal. Having gone in for a penny, Republicans were quickly willing to go in for a dollar. The allegations against Walz went from his being "far left" to him being a "socialist" to claims Walz is a "communist" and so on. Most of these posters knew nothing of Walz or his record and had nothing intelligent to say.

The most active thread yesterday was again the thread about Vice President Kamala Harris' choice for running mate. But I've already discussed that thread and will skip it today. The most active thread after that one was titled, "How will the stock market crash impact the elections?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. A similar thread was also created in the "Money and Finances" forum but I decided to leave both threads since they had different focuses. That thread was the 9th most active yesterday. The thread in the political forum was started early yesterday before financial markets had opened in the U.S. The original poster described stock market meltdowns in Japan and South Korea and predicted a crash in the U.S. market. He wondered how this would impact the election. Normally, the current administration receives blame for any economic problems that occur under its watch. Therefore, several posters thought that blame for a market crash would rest with President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. However, as is the case with everything these days, responses mostly broke down along partisan political lines. Conservatives seemed eager, almost joyful, at the prospect of a stock market collapse. They couldn't contain their excitement over the opportunity to criticize Harris due to economic problems. Former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump posted in all caps on Truth Social that "STOCK MARKETS CRASHING. I TOLD YOU SO!!! KAMALA DOESN’T HAVE A CLUE." Liberals, on the other hand, suggested that we wait and see exactly what happens with U.S. markets. Moreover, they pointed to multiple significant market drops during Trump's administration. Some posters accepted that there might be a significant market collapse, but expected recovery by the Fall. All of this was before the U.S. markets even opened. Posters debated whether we were facing a collapse of the market that could lead to ongoing economic problems, including a recession, that could involve significant job losses or whether this was a simple market correction from which we would soon recover. Fairly soon it became apparent that this wasn't much of a downturn at all, let alone a major collapse. While on a day to day basis most stocks lost some value the market has grown so much lately that the set back was minimal at best. Just over an hour after the stock exchanges opened, one poster wrote, "Well, that market correction was short lived." Despite the constant complaints about inflation and equally common predictions of an imminent recession, the Biden/Harris administrations appears to have pulled off a nearly mythical soft landing. While economists such as Larry Summers predicted 10% unemployment would be necessary to control inflation, Biden and Harris have roped in inflation with unemployment around 4%. Based on today's market opening, I would say that we are already recovering from this "crash" and yesterday will be long forgotten by the November election.

As has been the case recently, the political forum dominated discussion over the weekend. All but two of the ten most active topics were in the political forum. The most active thread was titled, "Second Gentleman scandal" and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to an article by the Daily Mail that reported that Vice President Kamala Harris' husband, Doug Emhoff had an affair during his first marriage. The website claimed that Emhoff was involved with a woman who was a nanny for his children and a teacher at their school. Moreover, Emhoff apparently impregnated the women. The Daily Mail reported that friends of the woman said that she terminated the pregnancy but also reported on a video posted on the woman's Facebook page that showed a baby around the time she would have given birth. The result is that it is not clear whether the woman gave birth to Emhoff's child and, if so, what happened to it. In reaction to the story, Emhoff released a statement confirming the affair and saying that he had taken responsibility for the situation, though it is not clear what that entailed. Other relevant facts of this story are that the affair happend at least four years before Harris and Emhoff met each other. However, Harris was aware of the affair when they got married and the story was known by the Biden campaign when Harris was selected as his running mate. Clearly this story tarnishes Emhoff's otherwise pretty good reputation. But, as many posters in the thread were quick to point out, Emhoff is not running for anything and the affair has nothing to do with Harris. Moreover, posters who support former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump are not in a position to criticize Emhoff given the fact that Trump cheated on all three of his wives. in addition, according to court testimony and FBI documents, one of those wives, Marla Maples, had multiple affairs herself while married to Trump. So, if being a cheater or being married to a cheater is a problem for a presidential candidate, that's bad news for Trump. But none of this stopped the MAGA cultists who were posting in the thread. Either they were sure a child had been born and that Harris had abandoned it or they were sure that the nanny had had an abortion and that had some negative reflection on Harris. Either way, according to them, it was bad for Harris. While Trump himself seems to be fixated on Harris' race and ethnicity and his choice for Vice President, J. D. Vance, is preoccupied with Harris' not having given birth, many MAGA cultists, including several of those posting in this thread, have decided that Harris sex life — whether real or imagined — is their best issue. For instance, Valentina Gomez, a Republican candidate for Secretary of State in Missouri, recently tweeted that, "Fat & Slut shaming is how we take America Back. Kamala Harris is an Indian hoe". Many posters in this thread seemed to have signed on to this agenda with many using Emhoff's past to disparage Harris, despite her having no connection to it. Other MAGA cultists simply used the thread as an opportunity to directly attack Harris in terms similar to what Gomez tweeted. As such, I eventually locked the thread.

Yesterday was another day in which political topics dominated the most active threads with three of the four threads that I will discuss today posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The first of these was titled, "HARRIS IS SELECTING MARK KELLY" and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster started this thread on Wednesday saying that Vice President Kamala Harris would announce that evening that she had chosen Arizona Senator Mark Kelly to be her running mate. The original poster provided no source for this claim, though in a follow-up post said that she has a "source who knows stuff". Apparently her source is a posterior body orifice given that Harris has yet to declare a choice, let alone announce that it is Kelly. I believe that I intended to remove this thread at the time it was created but got distracted. The thread duplicated another thread on the topic of Harris' Vice Presidential pick and was obviously not supported with any sort of legitimate source. Later in the thread the original poster, without identifying herself, claimed that Harris had selected someone other than Kelly and started sock puppeting answers to her own posts. Therefore, all indications are that this was a troll thread from the start. Regardless, the thread did provide the opportunity for many DCUM posters to give their opinion about Kelly. From the moment Harris emerged as President Joe Biden's replacement as the Democratic nominee for President, conventional wisdom assumed that she would choose a straight White male as her running mate. This was exactly what former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had done and such a move would balance the ticket nicely. For the most part, the only question is which bland White man would Harris choose. I agree with many of the posters in this thread that Kelly is as good a choice as any of them. Maybe not my favorite, but certainly not the worst selection. Kelly's strengths are that he can help carry Arizona and has a good reputation as a former astronaut and for his work on gun control. His weaknesses include a lack of executive experience and concern by unions that he has not been as supportive on labor issues as they would like. Generally, Kelly seems like he would be a solid pick and, if he didn't attract a significant number of voters to the ticket, he won't alienate many either. Whether Kelly will actually be Harris' choice remains to be seen. The original poster could turn out to be correct about the VP selection, if not the timing. But, ultimately, a troll could just be a troll and the nod will go to someone else.

Yesterday was another day in which the "Political Discussion" forum dominated. Fully 8 of the top 10 most active threads were posted in that forum. That includes three of the top four threads  that I will discuss today. The most active thread was titled, "Uh, seems like Trump's visit to the NABJ is not going well...". This thread is about an appearance by former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump at a conference of the National Association of Black Journalists. As the title suggests, things did not go well. Trump's attendance at the conference was controversial before he even arrived. Convention co-chair Karen Attiah resigned in protest over the invitation to Trump and other journalists boycotted the event. There were enough controversies during Trump's appearance — which ended prematurely when Trump's aids intervened — to fill a book. Right out of the gate Trump called ABC News "fake news" and described a question — in which panelist Rachel Scott listed several of Trump's statements about people of color — as "very rude". Then Trump questioned Vice President Kamala Harris' ethnicity, saying that he had known her for a long time and she had always been of Indian heritage. Trump claimed that she suddenly "turned Black". Trump spewed lies at such a rate that the panel of journalists questioning him couldn't keep up correcting him and, eventually, simply gave up. When Fox News' Harris Falkner asked Trump whether his running mate, Ohio Senator J. D. Vance would be ready on day one to run the country if necessary, Trump ignored the question and argued that historically the pick for Vice President didn't affect the election. That was not much of a vote of confidence for Vance. Within the thread the topic that caught on the most was the issue of Harris' ethnicity. Like Trump, several of his supporters in the thread sought to downplay Harris' race. Both Trump and his supporters seem to struggle with the concept of being biracial. Pro-Trump posters pointed to instances in which Harris has identified as being Indian as if that is proof that she is not Black. One poster made the false claim that Harris' father was half-White. These allegations harken back to Barack Obama and claims that he was not "Black enough". It is not at all clear to me what Trump and his supporters hope to gain from questioning Harris' race. The number of Black people who will be convinced that Harris is not Black based on what Trump has to say must be close to zero. Maybe a few White people might go along with Trump, but the likelihood that they would have ever voted for Harris in the first place is also probably close to zero. Basically, this is a stupid tactic with no real benefit and Trump's supporters in this thread are simply stupid enough to go along with it.

The most active threads yesterday were mostly threads in the "Political Discussion" forum that I've previously discussed and will skip today. As a result, the first thread that I will discuss today was actually the sixth most active yesterday. Titled, "so sick and tired of gymnastics Olympics coverage" and posted in the "Sports General Discussion" forum, the original poster is, as the title says, sick and tired of the coverage of gymnastics. Her view is that nobody cares about gymnastics outside of the Olympics and, even then, they are only pretending to care. She is bothered generally by sports that have judges because judges are subjective. So that is another knock against gymnastics. She wants more coverage of archery and shooting. Several posters immediately chimed into say that they have subscribed to Peacock so that they are able to watch whatever events they choose. A month of Peacock for $8 seems like the deal of a lifetime if you really want to watch the Olympics. The original poster presented her complaint as if she were speaking for everyone. As the responses show, she clearly was not. Many posters enjoy gymnastics and are happy about the coverage. Some posters don't care about the judging at all, but simply enjoy watching the routines. A few gymnastics fans had nostalgia for the gymnasts of the past who they considered to be more graceful then today's athletes. Other posters argued that their interest in gymnastics is year long. One poster pointed out that there is nothing wrong with only being interested in gymnastics during the Olympics. It's fun to enjoy something different occasionally. Moreover, several posters were critical of the archery and shooting events that the original poster enjoys. These posters said that while they like participating in those sports themselves, they are boring to watch. Another poster agreed with the original poster but went on to complain that Simone Biles has received so much coverage. I don't understand that complaint. Biles has earned more medals of any U.S. gymnast. Of course she should receive outsized coverage. The original poster was told that if she doesn't like gymnastics, she should just not watch it. For their part, the gymnastics fans were happy to have as much coverage as possible. Throughout this thread posters pitch their favorite sports or athletes while others criticize the ones they dislike. The so-called "pommel horse guy" seems to have a lot of fans in the thread. But, the original poster was not among them. "Literally ZERO people ever care about the pommel horse. What a weird and stupid event", she wrote. This provoked a spirited defense of pommel horse events from other posters. While several sports received criticism in this thread, the announcers received even more. They were almost universally panned and the best defense one poster could rustle up was to postulate that they had been instructed to speak at a 4th grade level.

Yesterday I discussed the thread about the Olympics Opening Ceremony, devoting significant discussion to outrage at part of the opening that many Christians have interpreted as mocking "The Last Super" and, hence, Christianity itself. Yesterday's most active thread, titled, "Why are Christians insisting the opening ceremony depicted The Last Supper when it really was the Feast of Dyonisus?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, is specifically about that controversy. The original poster asks why the outrage among Christians is not only continuing, but actually escalating. The original poster even quotes a Christian paster attempting to clarify the misunderstanding. Finally, the original poster notes that, "It seems as if Christians are very invested in feeling persecuted and disrespected these days." Many posters agreed with the original poster that the anger being expressed was misplaced. The more charitable among them conceded that a misunderstanding about what was being depicted was understandable given that those angered are more likely to be familiar with the "The Last Super" than "Le Festin des Dieux". In contrast, several posters remain very upset and offended. For their part, they don't believe that they are confused. They are quite certain that the depiction was aimed squarely at mocking their religion and any contrary explanation is simply an attempt to gaslight. I have repeatedly written that resentment and anger are the motivating forces of MAGA adherents. This is a group that largely feels that every other group has been given advantages at their expense. Having taken what is rightfully theirs, the "others" have the temerity to mock or laugh at them. Many of those posting clearly love the opportunity to feel persecuted and they are not going to allow anyone to take that away from them. A sense of unfairness, that everything is rigged against them, is part of the MAGA world view. Hence the complaints that only Christianity would be mocked in this manner. Nobody would risk offending Jews or Muslims in a similar manner, they say. In fact, if the ceremony mocked anyone, it was Greek gods, not Christians. But the world view of the angry posters does not allow for such nuances. Similarly, the targets of these posters' anger is broad. They are, of course, upset with those who produced the ceremony. They are also angry with the French more generally. But they also hold U.S. Democrats responsible as well. Democrats obviously had nothing to do with the events but still they are blamed. The connection appears to be the Democrats' support for LGBTQ rights. The MAGA anger is not simply that (according to their view) Christianity was mocked, but rather that it was mocked by members of the LGBTQ community. Apparently, that makes it even worse. They seem to believe that Democrats, who support the LGBTQ community, share responsibility because they are obviously part of a worldwide effort to spread LGBTQ acceptance, replacing traditional Christian values in the process. The Olympic ceremony was simply one instance of that effort. The angry posters promised to take this out on Democrats in November, making the Olympic Opening Ceremony the least expected campaign issue so far.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Olympics Opening Ceremony" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture". This thread started without much drama. Posters seemed to enjoy the opening ceremony, though a few were put off by the beheaded Marie Antoinette that appeared at the beginning of the Gojira musical segment. While there was considerable praise for Lady Gaga, there was considerable criticism of Kelly Clarkson and Peyton Manning. Celine Dion was a big hit among posters whereas Snoop Dogg seemed to elicit nothing but criticism. But, then, there were rumblings of dissatisfaction. A rumor that American conservatives were bothered by what they thought were Satanic references in the ceremony. Then complaints that gay people, drag queens, trans gender people, and other colorful personalities had been included in a mockery of "The Last Supper" painting by Leonardo da Vinci which portrays the Biblical Last Supper. Soon this had turned into a full-blown avalanche of resentment. This was a mockery of Christianity, argued poster after poster. They would never do this to Muslims said posters who know absolutely nothing about French-Muslim relations (I suggest that they look into the National Rally party and its current popularity in France). Posters were certain that the French had intentionally gone out of their way to insult Christians, and American Christians in particular. It was a full-blown freakout. Posters were swearing off both the Olympics and France and condemning their infection by the "woke mind virus". There was so much talk about Satan that I assumed that he must be participating in one of the sports. But other posters assured us that he does not exist. Some posters argued that it was not "The Last Supper", but rather the Festival of Dionysus that was depicted. Another poster explained that it portrayed a painting by Jan van Bijlert named "Le Festin des Dieux", which depicts various Greek gods participating in a banquet on Mount Olympus. But, the outraged posters were not about to stop being outraged and simply would not accept this explanation. Moreover, they soon found an additional controversy concerning whether one of the participants in the Last Supper/Le Festin des Dieux event had displayed a private part. At least one poster who was initially convinced that this was the case later agreed that it was more likely a tear in his costume. But, generally, the opinion of upset right-wing Christians is that the Olympics had been turned into a global grooming event aimed at turning children trans and mocking Christians. If being outraged were an Olympic event, MAGA Christians would have taken the Gold, Silver, and Bronze medals.

The first two most active threads yesterday were Vice President Kamala Harris-related threads that I've already discussed and, therefore, will skip today. The third most active thread was titled, "Horrible dorm assignment!" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that her child is going to college in southern California and, despite requesting a roommate, was assigned a single room in the basement of a building without air conditioning. The original poster is quite unhappy, believing that the school can easily afford to install central air conditioning in the building, and says that the experience has soured them on the university before school even started. A large number of the responses are from posters who also lived in college dorms that did not have air conditioning. Because they survived it, they don't have much sympathy for the original poster's child. Moreover, several posters point out, most students would love to have a single room. Therefore, they suggest the student should be able to trade rooms with someone else fairly easily. Other advice is to open a window and use a fan and that the warm weather will only last a couple of months. A number of those responding are either from California or have spent time there and they explain that temperatures cool off at night and it is not as humid as DC. Therefore, the nights are comfortable and the lack of air conditioning won't be a problem. The attitude of a lot of the posters is that freshmen year dorm experiences are almost always bad and something about which it is normal to have concerns. But, the original poster's child will survive it and she shouldn't worry. Other posters argue that if comfortable dorms were a priority, the original poster should have researched that ahead of time and chosen a college that has nicer dorms. In contrast to the "suck it up" crowd, a number of posters have advice about how to facilitate a room change. Some of these strategies are fairly elaborate with one poster even suggesting that the student grow mold in the room and then justify a room change because of the presence of mold. Much later in the thread, the original poster insisted that the lack of air conditioning was not the most important issue. Rather, her child is going cross-country to school and would now be living in a single room in a corner of the basement and somewhat isolated from other students. The original poster thinks that all of this combined is not conducive to an enjoyable college experience. She was hoping that her child would have a great experience at the university and this has tarnished things. It's possible that the concerns about the room are more on the part of the original poster and perhaps not shared by the student.