DCUM Weblog

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed. The next most active thread was titled, "Republicans and the debt ceiling" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started back on January 11th, but has been revived and reinvigorated recently as we approach the end of the government's ability to borrow money and, therefore, have sufficient funds to pay its bills. The original poster refers to "20" who are eager to screw around with the debt ceiling. I don't remember the context in which this thread was started, but I assume that the original poster was asking about a group of House Republicans since they have been outspoken about using the debt ceiling as leverage to achieve political goals. The thread has now reached 61 pages, adding 8 pages yesterday alone. I have only read a few posts, but one thing I noticed is how many posters appear to have little understanding of the debt limit and the ramifications of reaching it. For example, one poster claimed, "These have happened before many times with no stock market crash or trillions lost in equity, or significant job losses." This is completely false. The US has never breached the debt limit. We came within two days of doing so in 2011 and that resulted in a downgrade of the US's credit rating which increased borrowing costs. In addition, there was a steep drop in the stock market. Given such confusion, it might be helpful to clarify some of the basics of the debt limit. There are two terms that are often confused, the national debt and the budget deficit. The debt limit applies to the first, the total amount of money that the US owes to lenders. Because of the second, the budget deficit, the government spends more than it takes in as revenue. Therefore, to pay its financial obligations, the government must borrow money. If we reach the debt limit, which we are now just days away from doing, the government will be unable to borrow additional funds and, therefore, will have insufficient funds to meet its financial obligations. The government would likely default on its loans, likely having global financial repercussions. As we saw in 2011, simply getting near the debt ceiling resulted in a credit downgrade and stock market upheaval. A default would have much more serious ramifications. Any number of government services would be impacted and many might cease operation. Another aspect of the debt ceiling that is frequently misunderstood is that the debt is necessary to finance prior spending, not future spending. We can reduce future spending all that we want, but we would still need to increase the debt ceiling simply to pay for past expenditures. Much of the debt is a result of tax cuts approved by Republicans during the Trump administration. This reduced revenue to the government and increased the amount of money that needed to borrowed. By arguing for future spending cuts (but exempting the military and entitlements), while refusing any tax increases, the Republicans are attempting to force major cuts to a relatively small number of programs that are favored by Democrats.

Because I didn't post over the weekend, today I'll review the most active threads since Friday. The most active thread during that period was titled, "Call to discuss the state of Hardy 05/15/23" and posted in the "DC Public and Public Charter Schools". Initially this thread started with a question by the original poster asking about an urgent call involving Hardy Middle School, a DC Public Schools middle school located in Georgetown. Posters were fairly tight-lipped about the call in question, but it was implied that it was a conference call involving school parents. Subsequent posts revealed that the primary topic of the call, perhaps the only topic, was parents' loss of faith in Errol Johnson, the school's principal, and their desire to have him replaced. Just four days after the thread was started, Johnson was indeed removed. For me, this brought back memories of a similar controversy involving Hardy from over a decade ago. At that time, parents of inbound students had rallied to demand the removal of Principal Patrick Pope who inbound families viewed as overly supportive of out-of-bounds students to the detriment of inbound students. This resulted in allegations that the inbound families — largely wealthy and White — were using their privilege to disadvantage out-of-bounds families who were predominately (but far from entirely) people of color. As soon as Johnson's removal became known, several posters made similar allegations, complaining that wealthy White families had unfairly pushed out a Black principal with little input from people of color. While the speed with which Johnson was removed was remarkable, I see some fundamental differences between the Johnson and Pope incidences. Pope was clearly removed because inbound families wanted to see the school remade with a focus on its role as a neighborhood school. Regardless of the legitimacy of that position, it had an obvious negative impact on people of color. There was a certain amount of truth in the allegation that White people were taking over a school that, in their opinion, catered far too much to Black students. In the case of Johnson, while those organizing against him appear to be primarily White, their efforts seem to be aimed at protecting the interests of all students. Their complaints involve the principal's communications, managerial, and decision-making abilities. While I may have missed it in this nearly 40-page thread, I don't see many complaints about Johnson's removal coming from the school's parents. Rather, those standing up for Johnson and complaining about his treatment appear to be a small number of teachers. DCPS can often have a "crabs in the barrel" tendency, something that is reflected in some posts. For instance, there are posts from parents with children at other DCPS schools complaining that Hardy parents were able to get almost immediate attention while their schools are largely ignored. I would argue that the problem is not Hardy's issues being addressed, but that other schools don't get similar treatment. Don't blame Hardy for that, blame DCPS.

The two most active threads yesterday were the Harry and Meghan thread and the thread about the woman and the CitiBike. Since I've already discussed those, I'll move to the third most active thread which was titled, "Is this how thin people eat?" and posted in the "Diet and Exercise" forum. The original poster explains that she recently suffered from a stomach bug and didn't eat for 24 hours. Since then, she hasn't had much of an appetite and has only been consuming about 1,000 calories a day. She had already been at a healthy weight, though not thin, and has lost 3 lbs since her illness. She says that she feels great and asks whether this is how skinny people eat. Weight loss topics are popular in the diet forum and many of the posters that frequent the forum have very strong opinions about eating. There are posters who seem convinced that anyone whose diet is even a single calorie short of what they believe is sufficient suffers from an eating disorder. Others believe that all weight gain is a result of eating and weight loss is as simple as controlling your eating. Both viewpoints are expressed very early in this thread. I picture a forlorn DCUM poster who is hoping to get advice about lossing weight sitting at their computer with a small DCUM poster perched on each shoulder. One is telling the poster to "just eat less" and the other is saying, "that's disordered eating". These two popular but irreconcilable positions are what causes threads such as this one to be among the most active. In this case, the discussion transformed a bit into a dispute about nature vs nurture. Some posters argue that weight is genetic and that reduced calories can't do much about that in the long term. Others argue the opposite, suggesting for instance that identical twins can have vastly different weights based on differing diets. Posters link to various studies that make often contradictory claims. Intermixed among all of this are a number of posts that offer differing advice. Some suggest high protein diets, others low protein. Some think that protein should be just right, though of course there is no agreement as to that amount. Probably by now the original poster is sorry that she posted in the first place

Imagine that you were asked to draft the plot of a sensational story, one that would capture the world's attention. You would probably want your story to take place in a well-known location. New York City, for instance. You would obviously want an element of excitement. So, maybe throw in a car chase. But, to really get attention, you will need personalities guaranteed to attract publicity. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, perhaps? So, Harry and Meghan in a car chase through New York City? That would probably work. But, this isn't just a creative figment of someone's imagination, but something that actually happened. Or, did it? The most active thread on DCUM yesterday was titled, "Prince Harry and Meghan in Near Catastrophic Car Chase in NYC" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The title of the thread initially referred to a "Catastrophic Car Crash" before I corrected it, putting what was always destined to be a dumpster fire of a thread off to a confusing start. The very first response was from a poster doubting the veracity of the story, setting the scene for near mortal combat over what had or had not occurred in the streets of New York. I really don't know what it is about this couple that provokes what I assume are perfectly normal people to go completely berserk and post compulsively as if their lives depended on it. But, in less than 24 hours, this thread reached 30 pages. If we could have harvested the energy generated by fingers frantically hitting keyboards yesterday, we could probably completely replace fossil fuels. Multiple posters were in double digits for numbers of posts. A few were over 30. One was 44 and another 48. I wish I could tell you what the thread said, but I have no interest in reading it. However, I am pretty sure that there is post after post by individuals complaining that the Sussexes seek too much attention, all the while giving them attention. Folks, the opposite of good publicity is not bad publicity. It's no publicity. If you don't like these people, ignore them. My only regret is that Harry and Meghan were not driving Mini Coopers. That would have allowed this whole thing to be turned into the next sequel of "The Italian Job".

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "NYTimes: College educated workers are leaving DC due to high housing costs" and posted in the "Real Estate" forum. The original poster linked to an article in the New York Times which reported that several major cities have become too expensive even for those with college degrees and, as a result, those cities are seeing a net outflow of college-educated residents. Washington, DC was one of the cities discussed in the article. The article addresses a concern that is discussed almost constantly in the Real Estate forum — the high cost of housing. For years, posters in the forum have posted their predictions that real estate prices would drop any minute now. But, prices continued to rise. It is perfectly understandable that some would eventually give up on the housing market and look elsewhere. For some reason, a number of posters in the thread were under the impression that those leaving DC were choosing rural areas instead. As a result, there are a number of posts comparing and contrasting rural areas to DC. But, as several posters pointed out, the outflow was mostly to other cities. One of the points in the article was that those making the move were still able to access that same amenities they enjoyed in DC, but more affordably. While some posters were quick to attribute the migration out of DC to crime and the increasingly visible unhoused population, others pointed out that the time period that the Times analyzed was during the pandemic, a time when urban amenities were much less available and working from home was prevalent. Both of those developments decreased the attractiveness of living in DC. Many of the posts in the thread are from posters describing their own personal experiences, several of them having moved from DC to other cities. Those posters seem generally happy with their choices. Other posters, many still living in DC or the environs, use the thread to describe a number of things that they dislike about DC. When it comes to complaints about DC, I understand dissatisfaction with crime or the high cost of living. Those are things outside an individual's control. But one of the most common criticisms I see is about DC residents who the posters describe as "pretentious", "materialistic", or "social climbers". This only describes a very limited subset of DC residents and people with those traits can be found nearly everywhere. If those are the only type of people to whom you are exposed in DC, you need to broaden your horizons. But, regardless of the posters' feelings about the friendliness of those living in DC, the discussion always returned to the cost of housing. There is a sort of "nobody goes there anymore, its too crowded" phenomenon going on. I suppose that as prices continue to grow out of reach of more and more people, they will either have to stabilize or even drop. The constant predictions of exactly this notwithstanding, it doesn't seem to be happening yet.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Physicians Assistant yelling “HELP ME” while stealing a CitiBike ?" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. For the cave dwellers out there who have yet to become familiar with this story, it involves a video that was originally posted on TikTok but, after going viral was circulating just about everywhere. In the video, a woman is shown sitting on a CitiBike — a New York City bikeshare service — while a young man holds the bike's handlebar. The woman is yelling "help, help me!" while the man calmly insists that it is his bike. He holds a phone in his hand that appears to show a CitiBike rental while the indicator on the bike shows that the bike has been rented. The woman at some point starts to cry, though the authenticity of her tears is questioned by people in the video. Eventually, the women gets off the bike and walks away. Why is a thread about this yesterday's most active thread, you ask? Well, I left out some context. The woman is White and the young man is Black. To many, this seemed like an example of a White woman weaponizing her screams for help and tears against an innocent Black man and, as is the tendency these days, was enough to cause the video to go viral. The original poster of this thread posted because she didn't understand what all the fuss was about and wanted it explained to her. Several posters helpfully explained what was happening in the video and others added additional context. As the thread goes on, posters scrutinize the video as if it were the Zapruder film, engaging in a number of disputes about what is shown and what is not shown. Most posters felt that the woman was at fault, with some questioning the state of her mental health. Several reserved judgement because they believed the video was either inconclusive or may have been edited. A number of posters seemed to bend over backwards trying to exonerate the woman, causing exasperated posters to complain about the lengths to which people will go to excuse the behavior of White women. Several White women, on the other hand, agreed that the woman's behavior was unacceptable, but questioned whether she deserved to be the victim of an Internet mob. One poster posted about a statement by the woman's employer saying that they were looking into the incident and several posters expected her to be fired. Fundamentally, this incident is not about the bike, but the long history of White women exploiting prejudices to the detriment, and even endangerment, of Black men. But, on the spectrum ranging from Emmett Till to Central Park Amy, frankly, this incident should not even register. Unfortunately however, Internet pile-ons don't generally involve much in the way of nuance.

Since I took the weekend off from blogging, today I'll cover the most active threads since Friday. The most active thread during that period was titled, "US Census Bureau: White Women More Likely Than Black Women to Move Up Income Ladder Due to Differences in Partnering" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster linked to a new analysis of census data that shows that white women tend to be partnered more often than non-white woman and that white women are more likely to attain upward mobility through partnerships. The bottom line of the data presented by the original poster is that white women tend to partner more often and when they do, they partner with a higher-earners. This perhaps explains the countless threads that we see in the relationship forum about finding a wealthy husband and so on. Those responding generally don't disagree that this is the reality. As one poster writes, "I'm a black woman. At my first job out of college three white women took me under their wings and made sure I understood how to marry up. It worked." Other posters attempted to offer explanations for this situation or to suggest ways to address it. Unfortunately, as with most threads dealing with race, racists came out of the woodwork to make their tired cliched tropes. As a result, I have had to remove a number of posts. This thread went all over the place as it seemed to give license to posters to demonstrate their personal biases. Somehow immigration, anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, and Kanye West all were either demonstrated or discussed. I will probably have to lock this thread soon. Because the value of partnering seems to be generally accepted by most posters, much of the thread is focused on relationship issues. But, personally, I think this misses the main point which is that women tend not to attain upper mobility through their own efforts, but through partnering with a higher-earner. This may well be the reality, but it is an unfortunate one. Rather than focusing on why Black women have difficulty marrying high earners, why not address the need to partner in order to get ahead? Shouldn't any woman, regardless of race, be able to achieve upper mobility through her own hard work and intelligence rather than relying on a partner? To be sure, there are posts that take this view and, as a result, address the structural obstacles to female advancement. Hence, about birth control and abortion.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "CVS Sangamore" and posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum. The original poster provided a link to a video filmed within the CVS store located on Sangamore Street in Bethesda showing a man stuffing a bag full of items pulled from the stores's shelves. Behind him, another man casually exits the store carrying a similar fully-loaded bag over his shoulder before the first thief follows him out. The video documents one of several similar robberies that have targeted CVS stores in DC and Bethesda recently. Some of the stores have been robbed multiple times in recent days. The original poster and most of those replying want something to be done about these robberies. But, posters can't agree on who is to blame. The most popular targets for criticism are "liberals" who are allegedly soft on crime, are accused of defunding the police, and said to have ordered the police to stand down. Other posters point out that it took police 45 minutes to respond to the robbery and blame the police for not doing their jobs. The police are defended by posters who argue that it is a low-paying job in which the risk/reward balance often discourages officers from acting. One poster is intent on blaming Amazon and eBay, posting an excerpt from an article reporting that organized groups orchestrate these robberies and resell the stolen goods on online marketplaces He wants them to crack down on the sales. Posters warn that if these robberies continue, the stores will close. The point to recent store closings in San Francisco which has become a sort of poster child for conservatives.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Dooce /Heather Armstrong" and was posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. Armstrong was one of the original "mommy bloggers", posting under the name "Dooce". She tragically died by suicide yesterday. This thread is currently eleven pages long which would be significant on its own, but a separate thread about her was also started and reached six pages before I locked it. I know very little about Armstrong and what I do know is limited to my brief interactions to remove inappropriate posts in threads about her that were occasionally posted on DCUM. As might be expected, posters familiar with Dooce posted about their surprise and sadness regarding the news. There is considerable discussion of her very personal and revealing blog. We have an informal but generally consistently-applied rule about criticizing individuals for the first 48 hours after their death. Because so much of Armstrong's life was apparently public, I had a hard time trying to draw a line between posts that were simply describing her life and those that were inappropriately negative. But, the thread was eventually growing so fast that I couldn't keep up in any case. As a result, the thread is likely very much out of compliance with our guidelines. The few times that I was able to read a few pages of this thread, I noticed that discussion had less to do with Dooce specifically, but more with "mommy bloggers" and others who lead their lives so publicly. In addition, there is considerable discussion of the "Get Off My Internets" website or GOMI. I also know about this website solely through earlier threads about Dooce and based only on that very limited knowledge, it appears that GOMI is basically devoted fulltime to critiquing bloggers and that Dooce was one of their favorite targets. As a result, there is considerable criticism of GOMI in this thread for potentially contributing to the blogger's mental health issues. While probably not appropriate for this thread, there is an interesting conversation to be held regarding discussion and criticism of those who willingly lead their lives very publicly. What boundaries should be observed with regard to those who themselves adhere to few boundaries?

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "WaPo: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough.". The thread was originally posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum, but since the thread is not specific to MCPS, I moved it to the "Schools and Education General Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to an article in The Washington Post discussing efforts by schools to combat the usage of mobile phones in school by students. Mobile phone usage has apparently increased dramatically following the pandemic. The article describes a $16 pouch in which some schools are requiring students to store their phones during school hours, provoking the original poster to criticize the article as an "advertisement" for spending money instead of setting and enforcing rules. However, the article also discusses schools that have forgone the pouches and set and enforced the rules that the orignal poster advocates. The first poster to respond suggests that an effective intervention that only costs $16 per kid would be the cheapest solution yet. My main takeaway from this thread is that, perhaps as a result of their own mobile phone addictions, participants in the thread had a difficult time staying on topic. Within the first four posts, the discussion was switched to talking about textbooks. Then posters turned to talking about the use of Chromebooks and on-line learning. Just to be clear, the Post article is about students using phones while they are supposed to be either studying or listening to their teachers. The phones are not being used as part of the learning process. They certainly are not replacing textbooks or school-issued Chromebooks for that matter. Those topics are interesting and worthy of their own threads, but not relevant to this one. Posters who oppose mobile phone use during class suggest that not only are students distracted themselves by their phones, but they distract others in the class as well. Moreover, the phone are frequently used to cheat. A surprising number of posters were in favor of kids having their phones in class. One poster argued that it was the teachers' fault for not making lessons interesting if kids were distracted by their phones. Quite a few posters joined the original poster in advocating for strictly-enforced policies about mobile phone usage, but others argued that it should not be part teachers' jobs to enforce this and that it could place them in legal or physical danger given that teachers have been either sued or beaten for taking mobile phone away. Another surprising theme of some replies was to claim that mobile phones are analogous to comic books or rock music as things that "the olds" thought were ruining the youth but weren't. I think those type of replies missed the point. To my knowledge, reading comic books or listening to rock music during class, much like using mobile phones, is not considered a problem because it is going to corrupt our youth, but because it is interfering with children's education.