DCUM Weblog

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "study shows how 42M recipients spend their food stamps" and posted in the "Political Discussion". The original poster quotes from a recent study conducted by The Economic Policy Innovation Center (EPIC) regarding the use of food stamps. The report shows that junk food, especially soft drinks, are the leading purchases with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds. The original poster asks whether the program should be modified so that soft drinks and junk food are no longer covered. EPIC is a fairly new "think tank" formed less than a year ago by Paul Winfree. Winfree served in the administration of former President and current cult leader Donald Trump. As such, EPIC clearly has an agenda. Even so, their findings are consistent with other studies of the use of SNAP benefits. As posters point out in the thread, this reflects deeper societal issues. One poster puts things very succinctly, writing, "Junk food is cheap. Healthy food is expensive." Moreover, poor people who rely on food stamps often live in food deserts where healthy food is not readily available. Many posters argue that junk food is promoted by extensive marketing and the use of SNAP benefits for junk food is encouraged by corporate lobbying. Some posters go even further and claim that the government and private equity investors actually want to encourage unhealthy lifestyles in order to kill people off. One poster is especially fixated on Blackrock and "Globalists" who he insists have a "depopulation" agenda. Several posters argue, however, that junk food is actually expensive and provide examples of healthy food being cheaper. In response, another poster points out that even in cases where healthy food costs less, it takes longer and requires more effort to prepare. This can create unwanted stress in families that are already struggling. There are two distinct points of view in this thread. One, which is basically represented by the original poster, suggests that poor people are intentionally choosing to spend tax payer money on junk food, creating more problems for both themselves and society, and the solution should be to simply prohibit this. The other point of view is that poor people face significant constraints that discourage them from eating healthy, some built right into the SNAP program, and that the solution is to provide more accessible healthy alternatives. The second group doesn't necessarily oppose prohibiting junk food, but simply doesn't view prohibition as addressing the actual problem. Some posters made an effort to create grocery lists that showed how a healthy diet could be achieved on a budget. Other posters responded by pointing out what had been missed in those lists and where the lists were not practical. However, one poster who actually bothered to read the report suggested that much of this discussion missed the point completely. I'll quote that poster at length:

The most active thread over the weekend was the one that I've previous discussed about Fairfax County Public schools boundaries. Posters in that thread have worked themselves up into a frenzy and have now started a petition to oppose a boundary change that nobody had proposed. The most active thread after that one was titled, "Can we analyze jennifer lopez?" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. While the competition is fierce, this thread might be the most absurd that I've come across in this forum. The original poster accuses Jennifer Lopez of having a level of narcissism beyond anything that she has ever seen and, based on the title, is inviting other posters to analyze Lopez. I am sure that I can think of something more ridiculous than asking a bunch of people who almost universally lack any relevant qualifications and do not have first-hand access to the subject to conduct psychological analysis, but I would have to really work at it. Obviously, this a clear cut situation in which the responses will say more about the posters writing them than about Lopez. The first poster to respond more or less turns the tables on the original poster, writing, "She’s got you so hooked that you want to analyze her even though she allegedly repulses you." Another poster presented my own view fairly accurately, saying, "Nonsense post. Projecting based on what you think people are feeling based on photos?" A number of posters either don't view JLo as narcissistic or are willing to forgive her for it. They see her as a hard worker who has earned what she has. As one poster put it, "She looks incredible and to look like that you must be extremely self-disciplined." There are differences of opinion about her abilities as an actress or a singer, with most posters, even some who generally don't have a lot of appreciation for her, concede that she has at least some talent. But others aren't even willing to grant that to Lopez. Before long the thread turned into a discusion of Lopez's relationship with Ben Affleck, to whom she has been married for nearly two years. Lopez has had a rocky road when it comes to relationships and was engaged to Affleck over 20 years ago. Now there are apparently rumors that their marriage might not last. Posters were busy analyzing photos to see whether or not Affleck was wearing a wedding ring and debatting the significance of the couple arriving individually to an event be leaving together. One indicator of the quality of the "analysis" generally conducted in this thread is that any photo that showed JLo appearing happy was immediately alleged to be "staged" whereas any photo showing her to look like a normal person trying to get someplace without being hassled was used as incontrovertible evidence that her life is a disaster. With all of her wealth, I am sure that JLo can easily afford top notch mental healthcare. But, if it is ever needed, she can obtain psychological care free of charge from a host of eager DCUM therapists. What they lack in qualifications is certainly make up in obsessiveness.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "B-CC lockdown" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School, which was the scene of a person allegedly carrying a weapon on Monday, went into lockdown yesterday around 11:30. To say that communication was inadequate is to massively understate things. There was literally no communication other than the fact that the school was locked down. Montgomery County police responded as if they were storming the beaches of Iwo Jima, arriving in an armored vehicle, dressed in fatigues, body armor, kevlar helmets, and carrying assault-style rifles. Needless to say, this sent panic through the B-CC community. Communication was so bad that B-CC teachers, one hiding in a closet, were using DCUM to try to find out what was going on. In the absence of real information, rumors swirled. At some point it was announced that there had been a "threat", but what what type of thread was not specified. Multiple posters said that it had been a bomb threat. Others said that the threat had been issued by the same individual seen with a weapon on Monday and that he was in the principal's office negotiating. Later it was reported to have been a "swatting" incident in which a fake call had been made by someone claiming to be in the school with a rifle and pipe bombs. For hours there was mass confusion. Many kids had been outside the building for lunch when it was locked down. Others were stuck in school. Worried parents had no idea what they should do and many rushed to the school. Other posters tried to calm everyone down, but with little success. Posters could not understand why the school would be locked down rather than evacuated in response to a bomb threat. This was explained subsequently when it was learned that the threat also involved a gun. The two recent incidents have parents at their absolute wits' end. They are frustrated with the school's principal, they are frustrated with MCPS administration, they are frustrated with the Board of Education, they are frustrated with the County Board, they are frustrated with the County Executive, and they are frustrated that, as far as they can tell, nothing is being done to fix things. This all culminates in feelings of helplessness and most off all, the parents are frustrated about that. From what I can deduce from posts in this thread, the discussion on the school's mailing list was out of control and even caused the school's PTSA president to announce that she will not serve next year. With regard to both Monday's incident and yesterday's, the school and school system seem to be hurting themselves and increasing parent disenchantment by not being more forthcoming with information. Based on some posts in this thread, it is possible that Monday's event was much less than it has been described and that there may not have been a weapon at all. But anger over the lack of response in that incident may have contributed to the large scale response in this case, which according to the last reports was triggered by a call from hundreds of miles away and probably should have been treated more skeptically. School officials clearly need to do a better job of explaining what they are doing and why they are doing it, and do this in a timely manner.

Much of the discussion yesterday involved politics. The most active thread was titled, "David Trone for senate" and was posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum. This thread was started just over a year ago when US Congressional Representative David Trone announced his run for Maryland's open US Senate seat. The reason the thread has so much interest now — adding 11 pages yesterday — is that on Tuesday, Trone lost his Senate bid, suffering defeat in the primary election to Prince Georges County Executive Angela Alsobrooks. Trone spent over $60 million of his own money on the campaign, making this an extraordinarily expensive defeat. Much of yesterday's discussion focused on Alsobrooks. Trone had a significant financial advantage and had been running commercials for a year. Polling, likely influenced by Trone's greater name recognition, generally showed him with a significant lead. The fact that Alsobrooks not only won, but won convincingly, came as a surprise to many, perhaps most, of those in this thread. Trone supporters had difficulty accepting it. One thing this thread does is to provide insight into how voters make choices. I am not sure that a single poster could name a single policy difference between Trone and Alsobrooks. Reactions are based almost entirely on personal characteristics. For instance, the fact that Trone is rich or that he came across to individuals in an unpleasant way. Alsobrooks is dinged for having been prosecutor previously and, in the view of some, as lacking charisma. Many posters express concerns that Alsobrooks, as a Black women, will not appeal to voters in many parts of Maryland. They are also worried that her opponent, former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, will be a strong candidate with whom she will have difficulty competing. There is no doubt that Hogan is a credible challenger who will not be easily defeated. But many posters in this thread stress the significance of having a Democrat rather than a Republican being sent to the Senate. The Senate balance will impact everything from Supreme Court appointments to abortion rights. Personally, I think the concern about Alsobrooks' race and gender are overblown. Maryland recently elected a Black governor, so race shouldn't be a concern. Maryland has also previously elected a female Senator. Moreover, being a woman may give Alsobrooks an advantage. I have no evidence to back it up, but I think that there is an unspoken belief among many that, all things being equal, a women will be more likely to protect abortion rights than a man. I suspect that may explain some of Alsobrooks' strength against Trone. But, this is especially true when the woman's opponent, as will be the case with Hogan, explicitly opposes abortion. Many posters in this thread provide data from the primary voting to demonstrate why Alsobrooks should probably be considered the front-runner at this point. She showed strength in all Democratic strongholds. Hogan, on the other hand, lost 30% of the vote to a gadfly best known for heckling at basketball games. Nevertheless, persistent Trone fans refuse to see anything positive about Alsobrooks and throughout yesterday's posts continued negative attacks on her.

Yesterday most active thread was a thread that I've already discussed about the Montgomery County Board of Education elections. The primary was held yesterday, creating a lot of interest in that thread. The most active thread after that one was a bit surprising. Titled, "Why is Indian food always expensive?" and posted in the "Food, Cooking, and Restaurants" forum, this is not a topic that I would expect to be more active than Taylor Swift, the Gaza war, and bike lanes. Yet, here we are. The original poster started the thread by, as the title indicates, asking why Indian food is so expensive. According to the original poster, naan is always $5 a piece and palak paneer costs $22. Moreover, the original poster claims, this is true of every city, not just Washington, DC. The first four responses were all from posters in California who claimed that Indian food tends to be cheaper out there. Other posters also suggested cheaper options. Many posters responded saying that the relatively high cost of Indian food is due to the large number of ingredients and its labor intensive nature. As labor costs have risen, prices have followed. Some posters suggested that small family-owned restaurants are often able to rely on family members for staff and reduce their cost of labor. I am far from an expert on India, but I've always heard about its many languages and many different cultural groups. Given its diversity, it is no surprise that generalizing about the country's cuisine is not easy or even possible. I think that this explains much of the debate in this thread. Whereas some posters insist that expensive ingredients and labor-intensive preparation are required, others argue that neither of those are true and that, in fact, Indian food can be prepared at home cheaply and easily. It appears that both sides in this argument are correct. It simply depends on what specific Indian food you are discussing. Moreover, it also depends on how true you want to remain to the traditional recipe. One poster pointed out that butter chicken traditionally should rely on leftover tandoori chicken and therefore the first step is to make tandoori chicken. But another poster praised instant pot butter chicken. There are obvious differences in ease of cooking between these two styles. One of the more absurd aspects of this thread was a huge several-page debate about the cost of naan. A poster disputed the original poster's claim that it costs $5 a piece. However, several posters described recently paying close to that, if not more. Then a poster, relying on Google, took it upon himself to dispute their first-hand experience. As a result of this thread, I am probably going to be ordering Indian food for lunch. For the record, I will be paying less than the original poster claims to pay. I've always seen naan as the item on which Indian restaurants make their money and reluctantly pay more than I think it is worth. But even so, it will only be $4. Moreover, that is for garlic naan. Plain naan is only $2.50.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Sheryl Sandberg Releases Screams Before Silence, A Free Documentary About the Sexual Violence on October 7" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The war in Gaza and the resulting college campus protests have spurred an endless series of threads, many of which have been among the most active topics that I've discussed in this blog. This thread is one more of the genre. As the title makes clear, this thread is about the documentary "Screams Before Silence" which was led by Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook/Meta fame. The film is about sexual violence allegedly used by Hamas during and after its October 7 attack on Israel. My use of the word "alleged" will likely be controversial because a significant number of DCUM users do not think that there is anything "alleged" about this and that Hamas' sexual violence is beyond question. To be clear, I abhor sexual violence whoever it is committed by. Those who commit such crimes should be exposed and punished. Unfortunately, like so much else involved with the the Israel-Gaza war, sexual violence has been caught in the fog of war and the endless propaganda surrounding events. It is undeniable that in the immediate aftermath of the October 7 attack, Israel and some of its supporters engaged in spreading manufactured accounts of atrocities. Many of these accounts made it into the Western media and become accepted as fact. Chief among these stories was the allegation of 40 beheaded Israeli babies, something that proved to be completely untrue. A number of other high-profile incidents similarly turned out not to have occurred. Just as these stories of Hamas violence were initially widely believed, allegations of sexual violence committed by Hamas has been accepted as fact among much of the public. A highly-publicized article by the New York Times initially seemed very persuasive in documenting widespread sexual violence. However, that article soon proved to be very problematic and has been shown to have relied on several discredited sources. Chief among these was ZAKA, an Israeli volunteer group that responds to emergencies to recover bodies. Israeli newspapers have documented that many of the stores of atrocities on October 7 that were later shown to be false originated with ZAKA. ZAKA's leader has attributed this to mistakes resulting from the difficult circumstances following the attack. Either because of intention or error, ZAKA's allegations must be approached skeptically. Like the New York Times, Sandberg's film relies heavily on ZAKA. As a result, critics of the documentary argue that its allegations are not to be believed. Defenders of the film point to a report by the United Nations that found "reasonable grounds to believe" that sexual violence occurred during the Hamas attack. While the report did find evidence to believe such attacks occurred, it did not find anything near the scale that is commonly claimed. Moreover, the report explicitly found that some well-publicized allegations were unfounded. All of this is to say that while there is evidence that some sexual violence did occur during Hamas' October 7 attack and has probably occurred afterward involving the Israelis being held hostage, the allegations of widespread and systemic sexual violence have not held up to scrutiny. This has provided justifiable grounds for critics to challenge portrayals such as that in this film. Unfortunately, as demonstrated in this thread, posters are less interested in separating fact from fiction than they are in utilizing the topic for their own partisan benefit. I eventually locked the thread when it devolved in simply another debate about all aspects of the conflict without specific relevance to the initial topic.

The most active thread over the weekend was the one asking why people are Republicans which I have already discussed. That thread had twice as many posts as the next most active thread which was titled, "‘Don't Text Me So Early!’" and was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster explains that she texted her sister-in-law at 6:51 AM Saturday morning to invite her to the original poster's son's high school graduation party. The original poster's sister-in-law responded by telling her not to text so early. The original poster doesn't think there should be times when you shouldn't text and asks if she is correct in this regard. I am not sure why the original poster chose this forum rather than the "Family Relationships" forum. For that matter, to the extent this thread deals with relationships, it is more about relationships with technology. So maybe the "Electronics and Technology" forum would have been better. Those responding were split between posters who agreed with the original poster that texts can be sent at all hours and it is up to the recipients to turn off notifications or silence their phones and those who believe sending texts deserves some consideration and that texts shouldn't be sent before 8 AM. In other words, the division is between those who see this as a technical issue and those who see it as a matter of good manners. The technologists argue that it is easy to turn off notifications. The manners folks claim that they have reasons for keeping notifications on such as teens out late at night while parents want to sleep. The technologists respond saying that phones have settings to allow the kids' numbers through and there are ways to block text notifications but still allow phone calls. The manners posters identify other reasons that they can't block notifications for unknown numbers. What is clear is that this is an area in which social norms have not been established and, therefore, posters have much different ideas about what is acceptable. The responses also demonstrate posters' different perceptions of texts. For many, and I probably fall into this group, different forms of communications have different priorities. Email is generally the least time sensitive and phone calls are the most urgent. Texts fall somewhere in the middle. But for some posters, texts seem to be treated with the same importance as phone calls. This is understandable, I guess, when you realize that for some young folks, the idea of using a phone as a phone is almost incomprehensible. They don't expect audio unless it is accompanied by video. Therefore, while some posters can't imagine a text being sent in a true emergency rather than a phone call, for others this is a perfectly normal expectation. This highlights another factor that eventually came to dominate the thread. Many of these divisions are broken down by age. Those who are comfortable setting intricate settings on their devices slag off those who don't want to or are not capable of delving into all the features of their phones as being "old". So a fair number of age-based epithets were slung back and forth. What is clear is that this is uneven terrain and that individuals should, as one poster put it, "know their audience" in order to avoid giving offense.

Yesterday's two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed so I will start with the third most active thread which was titled, "Are there really men whose dream it is to have their wife not need to work?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that in a podcast episode the female host's husband joined and revealed that it had been his dream that his wife would not have to work but could if that were her choice. The original poster is very impressed by this attitude and asks where she can find a man like this one. Those responding take different approaches to this topic. Some posters take the original poster's question at face value and provide advice about how she can find this sort of guy. Others discuss the desirability, or lack thereof, of becoming a stay-at-home wife. With regard to the first, posters generally emphasize that it is important to find such men when they are young. Guys who are desirable and have the financial wherewithal to support a stay at home wife will either be taken quickly or be players who are not interested in commitment. One poster claims that the best place to meet them is graduate school. While at its heart this thread is a really a discussion of stay-at-home-moms versus work-out-of-the-house-moms, the thread has a much different flavor than most of this genre. The thread has a higher level of discourse than would normally be expected of the topic. Many of the responses are by posters recounting their own personal experiences. A significant number of those posters describe being heavily influenced by their own parents' situations. A factor of importance to the original poster that was overlooked in many responses was that the relationship she admires provides the woman the choice to work. Several of those responding agreed that this was key to such relationships. Some posters expressed concern about relationships in which a husband opposed his wife getting a job, considering it his duty to provide for his family. Posters warned that such men often enjoyed the power and control this provides them. Similarly, several posters expressed concerns that a woman who does not work can be left in difficult circumstances in the case of divorce or if her husband is unable to work due to health or accident. But posters frequently saw many benefits to having a stay at home parent which, several posters mentioned, could be a father as well as a mother. Several described this arrangement making their lives considerably easier and much less stressful. One poster argued that interdependence in which each spouse is dependent on the other leads to stronger relationships than independence of each spouse. He didn't view his stay-at-home wife as being dependent upon him anymore than he is dependent on her. But some others weren't necessarily buying this with one arguing that his wife would be homeless without his income.

Seven of yesterday's top 10 threads, including the top three were ones that I've already discussed and will skip today. That means that I will start with the fourth most active thread yesterday which was titled, "Off the waitlist at Duke - unsure what to do" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that her son who had previously committed to attend the University of Pennsylvania was just accepted off the waitlist by Duke University. She says that he will study math and statistics and asks if anyone has experience with the two schools. The number one thing that those responding emphasize is that the schools have very different atmospheres. The campuses and surrounding areas are very different from one another and, as a result, it is important to determine which is more appealing to her son. Many posters stress the importance of finding the right fit. In terms of academics, posters didn't  think that there was much to distinguish one school from the other. A poster who has a child at each school agreed that there is not much difference. Another poster similarly argued that little separates the two schools academically, but that same was true of most of the top 20 schools. As such, everything kept coming back to whether the original poster's son would prefer a large campus to a compact one,  an urban location to an isolated one, or a northern climate to a southern one. One problem with threads such as this in the college forum is that so many posters respond who might not have firsthand experience with either school, let alone both. Their responses tend to reflect their personal biases and priorities. For instance, many posters suggest Duke between the two universities simply because they prefer warm weather. Others are angry about Penn because of the recent demonstrations against Israel's war in Gaza. Several posters appear to base their judgement entirely on their opinion for or against the Ivy League. Over the years DCUM has managed to attract a large collection of strange posters. If nothing else, running this site has taught me that there is no limit to idiosyncrasies. One example was represented in this thread by a poster who wrote, "Duke. Many people confuse Penn with Penn State." This probably would not be notable, but therex is a poster who posts this in almost every thread dealing with Penn (I can't confirm that is this poster, but it is probable). To make things worse, multiple posters thought this was a legitimate point. I loved the response though, "Many confuse Duke with dukes of hazard." There is also always a poster who shows up to comment on the physical appearance of female students and has a strong personal preference for southern women. In this thread, such a poster, probably the same one as always, opined, "Duke has prettier women by some margin". Several posters claimed that despite the differences in atmosphere, Penn and Duke attract very similar students and more than one poster said that they knew of multiple couples made up of alumns from each school. So based on the logic of this thread, the original poster's son should go to Penn with the expectation that he will eventually marry a more attractive Duke graduate.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "my husband's mother hit my kid", and originally posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. This morning I moved the thread to the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster says that while she was getting dressed after getting out of the shower, her mother-in-law was attempting to put sneakers on the original poster's 4 year old son. The boy was resisting because he wanted to wear flip flops and repeatedly pulled his feet away from his grandmother. His grandmother got frustrated and "hit" him on the leg. The original poster says her mother-in-law did not hit the boy very hard, but she was quite angry that her mother-in-law hit the boy at all. The original poster's husband doesn't think this is a big deal, but the original poster doesn't want her mother-in-law to babysit anymore. Corporal punishment is a very controversial topic on DCUM with many posters having strongly held but diametrically opposed views. In this thread, the first responses all came from posters who generally oppose spanking, let alone "hitting" a child. In some cases, posters had zero tolerance positions and would not allow the grandmother to babysit in the future. One poster went so far as to say that the original poster's mother-in-law is "would be lucky if I didn't keep my kid from her forever." Others took a more moderate stance and argued in favor of the accepting the apology that the grandmother had offered and more or less putting her on probation. She would be allowed to babysit, but would be watched carefully for future transgressions. A number of posters viewed what occurred more as a "swat" than a "hit" and, like the original poster's husband, were not that concerned about it. At the far end of the spectrum were the "spare the rod, spoil the child" type posters. Many of these posters were more critical of the original poster than they were of the grandmother. One poster, blaming what she viewed as the original poster's lenient parenting style, wrote, "Your DC is a brat and no one, but you, can deal with him." Similarly, a number of posters pointed out that the original poster had apparently disciplined her mother-in-law, but not her son. They worried that this might send the message that he could disobey his grandmother with impunity. Heated arguments developed between advocates of differing approaches to parenting. Some posters suggested time outs instead of spanking but other posters declared that time outs are also abusive. Some of the posts were so extreme that it was impossible to tell whether they were trolling or serious. A poster who wrote, "Any child who was physically struck cannot ever grow up to be a normal, productive member of society" later declared that the grandmother deserved the death penalty and, as such, was pretty clearly trolling (at least I hope). But what about a poster who expressed hope that those who advocate spanking would be put "on some sort of watch list"? That poster seemed to be serious. Another poster suggested that the result of no longer spanking children is an increase in mental illness. That posters also appeared to be serious.