DCUM Weblog

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I discussed in yesterday's blog post, the college protests thread and the thread about unpopular pop culture opinions. I'll skip those today and start with a thread titled, "7/24/23 Trial of Usman Shahid -- driver who killed two Oakton teens" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. First some background. Back in June 22, Usman Shahid was driving a BMW at 81 miles per hour down a residential street near Oakton High School when he struck a car attempting a left turn and then careened into three high school students who had just left the school. Two of the students were killed and one was severely injured. Subsequently, Shahid was indicted for involuntary manslaughter. His trial was initially set for July of last year and this thread was created in order to discuss that legal procedure. However, the trial was delayed until recently. Since this thread's creation last July, it has been kept active by occasional queries about the status and updates as events developed. In addition, there has been significant discussion of the tragic event and with whom, exactly, responsibility lies. Given the speed at which Usman was travelling, this would appear to be rather cut and dry. However, Usman defenders have repeatedly taken to this thread to blame the driver of the car that Usman struck. Their contention is that the collision was not caused by Usman's high rate of speed, but rather the other driver's failure to yield to him and, instead, turning into his path. This thread was active yesterday because Usman's trial was finally held. Just like Usman's supporters in this thread, his defense attorney attempted to put blame on the driver of the car that Usman hit. During the trial it was revealed that Usman did not yet have a driver's license, but only a learner's permit. The BMW had just been purchased a few days prior to the collision. The car's data recorder showed that Usman had accelerated from 60 to 81 miles per hour in the 35 mph speed zone prior to the collision. Usman's defense appears to be that he was trying to beat the traffic light that had just turned yellow and the other car unexpectedly turned in front of him. Usman's lawyer apparently argued that he had no choice but to accelerate. While that may be a reasonable (or not) explanation of what happened, it doesn't seem like much of a defense to me. While BMWs accelerate quickly, they also have excellent brakes. Not to mention that Usman was driving nearly twice the legal speed limit near a school while students were around even before accelerating. Yesterday, the case was sent to the jury which convened for less than two hours before quitting for the day. The jury will reconvene today. Most of the posters in the thread seem convinced that Usman is guilty, but are  very worried that he will somehow be let off. We will probably have an decision from the jury sometime today.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "USC and Columbia Protests" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Threads about protests on college campuses, especially Columbia, have been rampant over the past several days. As anyone who has paid attention to the news will know, Columbia University's President was called before Congress where she was castigated for not doing enough about demonstrations. She returned to the college and asked the New York Police Department to arrest student demonstrators who had camped out on campus. The original poster of this thread criticized the arrests saying that things were "going to end badly". The original poster also criticized the decision by the president of the University of Southern California to cancel the graduation speech scheduled to be delivered by valedictorian Asna Tabassum, a Muslim woman, due to unspecified security threats. The original poster concluded, "These high level administrators seem completely clueless and out of touch with their student bodies." Many of the responses in the thread described incidents at other universities in which students were punished for demonstrating against the Israeli devastation of Gaza and the US complicity in what the students describe as "genocide". The situation at Columbia, in particular, has deteriorated rapidly since this thread has started. Unfortunately, there has been considerable misinformation spread, much of it showing up in this thread. Based on first-hand reporting, the student demonstrations on campus have been peaceful and, far from being anti-Semitic as some claim, actually include many Jewish students. However, outside campus, groups not associated with the University have gathered and have frequently been very aggressive toward visibly Jewish students and have engaged in anti-Semitic rhetoric. Opponents of the demonstrators have attempted to treat both groups as one, suggesting that the peaceful student groups are committing the activities of those outside campus. In addition, the thread contains a significant amount of scolding by those who do not think the students should be protesting and who accuse the students of being uninformed and naive. Many posters warn, sometime suggesting hope on their part, that the students are endangering their future job prospects. The situation on campuses and the opposition to demonstrators on the part of many DCUM posters reminds me of something Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail". King wrote:

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Taylor Swift album Tortured Poets Department leaked early?" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. You may not have heard of Taylor Swift or her new album titled "The Tortured Poets Department", but Swift is a budding young artist who, despite being somewhat media shy, has been getting increasing attention. This thread was started Thursday evening by a poster concerned that Swift's latest album, which was due for release on Friday, may have been leaked in advance. She questioned whether a true Swift fan would listen to the album before it was officially released or flood the Internet with fake links to mislead others. But it soon became clear that most of those posting in the thread have indeed listened to the album. As a result, posters begin analyzing the lyrics as if they were the latest issuances of the Oracle of Delphi. Many posters view the lyrics as strictly biographical and draw sweeping conclusions from the simplest of lines. For instance, the line "you sacrifice us to the gods of your bluest days" is suggested as proof that a former boyfriend suffers from "major depression". Several posters were preoccupied with guessing which songs were about which boyfriend. Then the thread turned to posters offering opinions about their favorite songs from the album and other aspects of the music. As you would expect at this point, there is some pushback from those who believe Swift is overrated. Some complain that the songs all sound the same. There were also complaints about Swift's tendency to release multiple versions of an album and whether that is a simple cash grab. This proclivity was especially egregious in this case because Swift released the album and two hours later released an "anthology" version of the same album including more songs. A number of posters complained that anyone who had pre-ordered the album would have to now purchase the second version. But, as anyone who has had even the slightest contact with Swifties will know, criticism is not warmly received and most of it was roundly rebutted. To be fair, some of the critics do appear a bit foolish. The anthology version of the album has 31 songs and some posters, as well as the New York Times, complain that a shorter, better album could have been created instead. I am not sure how deep in the sand one's head needs to be to have missed the entire controversy about the shorter version of the album, but that's just lazy criticism. After reading a considerable number of the 40 pages that currently make up this thread, my conclusion is that many posters a decade or so ago were bitter over breakups and found solace in Swift's music which tends to focus on being bitter over breakups. Now, those same posters are married, have kids, and are well over any past breakups. Yet, Swift is still singing about them. So a gulf has developed between Swift and many of the posters in this thread. On the other hand, there are plenty of young women who are currently bitter about breakups so Swift's albums still sell in droves.

For years we've been considering going solar and having solar panels installed on our home. Finally, in January we decided to pull the trigger. Because I was pretty far behind the curve when it comes to solar energy, I had to learn a lot quickly. I thought it might be worthwhile sharing my experience, not only with solar panels, but other follow-on purchases. Beyond helping the environment, there are several ways that a homeowner can benefit from a solar electric system. The first is called "net metering". In a traditional electric supply, the electric meter on your home goes up as you use electricity from the grid. With solar, the meter runs both ways. When you use electricity from the grid such as at night or on cloudy day, the meter goes up just as before. But when you produce more solar energy than your home is able to use, the electricity is exported to the grid and the meter runs the other way. You don't pay for the electricity you produce that goes directly to your home and any electricity exported to the grid offsets electricity provided by the electric company. In March, our first full month of using solar, we came very close to breaking even, ending up having to pay about $3 for electricity. The second financial benefit comes from solar renewable energy credits (SRECs). Electric companies such as PEPCO are required to use a certain percentage of renewable energy each year. To meet that requirement, PEPCO purchases renewable energy credits. Solar energy producers, including homeowners, can sell credits reflecting their production. An SREC is created for each megawatt-hour of electricity your system produces, whether you use that energy or not. SRECs are sold on markets similar to stock exchanges, but the markets vary by state which each state having its own rules. The District of Columbia has very high prices for SRECs, maybe the highest in the nation. I was able to sell the first SREC our system produced for $430 minus a $2.50 fee for the exchange. In addition, we are eligible for a federal tax credit for 30% of the cost of the system.

Yesterday's most active thread was the thread about masking that I've already discussed and will skip today. But, I can't believe people are still arguing about masking generally and in that thread particularly. The next most active thread was titled, "Rockville Teen Charged with Threats of Mass Violence", and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)". The outline of this story is that on Wednesday, the Montgomery County Police Department arrested 18-year-old "Andrea Ye, of Rockville, whose preferred name is Alex Ye". Ye was charged with one count of threatening mass violence. The threat was said to have been targeted at Wootton High School. The basis of the charge appears to be 129-page document that MCPD described as a "manifesto" but the Washington Post described as a "memoir". The document, which carries a disclaimer saying, "This is a work of fiction", described an attack on a school by a character named "James Wang". Apparently someone who had encountered Ye in a psychiatric facility in which Ye spent quite a bit of time alerted Baltimore area police that the "James Wang" had many similarities to Ye. At the time the thread was started, there were very few details of the case available and and posters in the thread immediately latched on to indications that Ye is transgender. The very first poster to reply asked, "So is this person a biological male or female?" This fixation on gender dominated the thread, eventually provoking me to lock it. But let's just get this out of the way. Officials were silent on Ye's gender beyond using male pronouns and there is no indication that Ye has undergone any gender affirming care either socially or medically. Nevertheless, posters quickly speculated about the effect of testosterone and links between transgender people and mental illness. There seems to be no question that Ye suffers from mental illness. According to the Washington Post, he has been out of school for most of the past two years while being repeatedly hospitalized for mental health reasons. According to court documents referenced by the Post, Ye "claimed to be Jesus Christ and was going to crucify himself." Some posters viewed Ye as "a young person in crisis" primarily in need of treatment. Others perceived him as a dangerous threat and applauded police for their action. It seems that this case will hinge on whether a document clearly labeled as fiction, written by someone who does not appear to have made any overt act such as obtaining a weapon, can constitute a "threat". Another question is whether the potential 10 years imprisonment that Ye faces is the best course of action in this case. But there was very little discussion of such topics in the thread which was, instead, dominated by repeated questions about Ye's gender.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "My boyfriend steals groceries", which was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that her boyfriend routinely only rings up 75% of the items when he goes through self-checkout. His justification is that stores assume that people are stealing and have baked that into the price. He also claims that most men do this. There is pretty solid agreement among those responding that most men do not do this. Moreover, several posters claim that this in an indication of a lack of ethics on the original poster's boyfriend's behalf and that they would not want to be involved with such a man. One poster suggested that if the original poster were with her boyfriend while he was stealing and he got caught, she could also be arrested. In a follow-up post, the original poster said that was something which she had not considered. In an even later follow-up, the original poster said that her boyfriend is a government lawyer with a security clearance which makes the theft even more confounding. The general consensus among those responding is that the original poster should break up with this guy because of this huge moral lapse which, many argue, is probably an indication of other serious flaws. One interesting thing that came out in this thread is the sort of sliding moral compasses many posters seem to have. While almost everyone is appalled that the original poster's boyfriend routinely steals 25% of his groceries, several admit to their own more limited theft. Multiple posters claim that they intentionally ring up items incorrectly to save money. For instance, identifying one type of apple as a less expensive apple. Others say that if an item doesn't ring up after an attempt or two, they will go ahead and put it in their bag. Therefore, the issue is not that the boyfriend is stealing, but that he is stealing too much. I wonder what would be the acceptable limit? For instance if he paid for 90% or even 98% of his groceries, would there be less condemnation? Most of the posters don't have to struggle with this question, however. For them, any theft is wrong. Some even describe extra efforts they've made to pay for items that they could otherwise have gotten away with for free. As more than one poster noted, it is rare for a DCUM thread to have such unanimity in responses. Nobody found the theft to be acceptable and nobody thought that men are more apt to shoplift than women (some argued that the opposite is true). A few posters struggled to find explanations that would make the stealing more understandable, hinting, for instance, that the guy might be a minority in an urban area. But, the opposite turned out to be true, which, sadly, probably did nothing to cause these posters to rethink their prejudices.

Yesterday must have been groundhog day, at least as far as the two most active threads were concerned. Both dealt with topics that I thought had been put behind us. The first of these threads was titled, "People still masking every day at work" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that she works in a federal office and there are a few people who mask every day. She finds this weird and wonders if they are not vaccinated or just super paranoid. The first poster to respond claims that those who are not vaccinated are unlikely to wear masks. I am fairly certain that nobody disputed this contention. Other posters claim that these individuals are likely just very concerned about catching COVID, though not necessarily without justification. For instance, they may have conditions that put them at high risk or live with someone who does. Multiple posters pointed out that for some people having COVID was very traumatic, in some cases requiring long hospitalization and causing them to be near death. Others lost family members. In such cases, the individuals might be suffering from something akin to PTSD. I noticed that when masking was common, a number of those who suffer from allergies found that masks provided relief. Along these lines, some posters said that they know of people who are now masking due to allergies or asthma. Several posters took the position that it is none of the original poster's business why people mask and argued that it is strange to care so much about this. To be fair, the original poster simply seems to be curious and doesn't really appear to care all that much. On the other hand, masking seems to infuriate some people and send them completely over the edge. One poster compared those masking today to "an unkempt man muttering to himself". Another wrote that "They're mentally ill and should not be coddled". Some posters just can't stop themselves from turning everything political such as the poster who argued that "lefties are nuts about Covid." One poster suggested that masking and showing other signs of being overly COVID cautious was simply a ploy by those individuals to be "weird out" their colleagues and, thereby, be allowed to work from home. The 2024 version of Corporal Klinger from M*A*S*H, I guess. Personally, I agreed completely with the poster who wrote:

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "BOE - who are people voting for?" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. There have been a number of threads about the upcoming Montgomery County Board of Education election. An earlier thread discussed which candidates were entering and what posters thought of them. Another thread focused on one of those candidates, Bethany Mandel. This thread takes off where the first one leaves off. Now that the slate of candidates has been settled, the original poster wants to know for whom others are voting and why they are making those choices. This is a rather long thread, as have been the previous ones. As a result, I haven't been able to read the complete threads. That has left me a bit confused about a couple of points which may or may not have been explained in the threads. For instance, on May 14 a primary election will be held and voters will be able to choose one At-Large candidate, one candidate for District 2, and one candidate for District 4. All voters will be able to vote in all three races. To me, this seems like three At-Large races because despite being a representative of a specific district, those board members will be accountable to the entire county, not just voters in their district. Similarly, while this is a "primary" election, it is non-partisan. As far as I know, only one winner in each race will be selected. Therefore, the November general election will not be a run-off, but simply a race between the primary winner and any candidates that enter the general election. Since this is a non-partisan election and there is not a run-off, I really don't see the reason for having a primary. Perhaps someone can enlighten me in the comments? As for the candidates, there is a fairly large number. The At-Large contest has six candidates and District 2 has five. District 4 has a relatively paltry three candidates. One thing this thread has done well is help group the candidates according to various factors. For instance, each race has an incumbent who basically represents the status quo. Each race also has an "Apple Ballot" candidate who is endorsed by the the Montgomery County Education Association. Finally, each race has one or more "outsider" candidates who is essentially a bomb-thrower that wants to shake things up. One of the biggest disputes in the thread is over whether, despite a seemingly widespread desire for change, the outsider candidates would be actually be effective at bringing about reform or would instead simply be disruptive and interfere with any actual work being done. Two of the candidates homeschool their children, raising questions about why they would strive for leadership of a school system they have rejected. I assume that we can look forward to approximately another month of this thread being active and then on to the general election.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Now That Iran Has Retaliated Against Israel?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The thread was started Saturday afternoon when the media began reporting that Iran had launched an attack on Israel. When the thread was created, details were sparse and the Iranian weapons — which subsequently turned out to be a combination of drones, cruise missiles, and rockets — were still in the air. Therefore, much of the early discussion in the thread occurred before anyone knew the results of the attack. The original poster argued that Iran's attack was to be expected because Israel had bombed an Iranian diplomatic building in Syria, killing several Iranian military figures. The original poster further expressed his opposition to the US getting involved in the conflict because he is sick of "my tax dollars being used to clean up Israel’s disastrous missteps." Threads of this sort have become absurd farces. Never mind that posters were making policy suggestions before the outcome of the attack was even known, these threads now attract a consistent collection of weirdos. There is a poster who blames everything on "globalists" who he sees as having a full agenda of items he opposes. Another poster constantly blames "dual citizen" politicians, by which I assume he means "Jews". The anti-Israel posters on DCUM represent a motley crew of right-wing conspiracy theorists, dithering liberals, and left-wing zealots who seem to oppose just about everything. There is considerable consternation about President Joe Biden's close embrace of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who almost everyone opposes. Biden has created a predicament for himself. Conservatives who view him as a bumbling senile fool naturally oppose him. Many Democrats, alienated by the President's Middle East policies, are frustrated with him. Only a tiny group of supporters who appear willing to ignore anything other than Biden's support for abortion rights continues to defend him. Most of those posting in the thread expected that Israel would retaliate against Iran and a cycle of tits for tat would commence and naturally suck in the United States. This was primarily blamed on Biden. On the other side of the debate were the pro-Israel posters who themselves have devolved to ludicrous caricatures. Their single argument appears to be that anyone who criticizes Israel is, at best, a Hamas supporter — or in this case an Iran supporter — or, at worst, an anti-Semite. Many of them also oppose Biden who they, incredibly, view as anti-Israel. As it turned out, a coalition of Israeli, US, United Kingdom, Jordanian, and Saudi air defenses shot down most of the Iranian weapons. I think the exposure of the Jordanians and Saudis as Israel's body guards is probably the most stunning aspect of this entire event, but the ramifications of that may take a while to appear. Then, according to reports, Biden told Netanyahu to take the win and not to retaliate. We will see how long this lasts, but for the moment World War III has been avoided, much to the surprise of most of the posters in this thread. Even more incredibly, it appears that despite the concerns of most detractors, including me, Biden may have pulled off a foreign policy success.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Harvard will require Test Scores starting next year", and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. As the title says, Harvard University announced yesterday that it will require students who are applying for the Fall of 2025 to provide standardized test scores. Harvard follows a number of other selective universities in reversing course regarding tests. I have discussed several similar threads on the topic of standardized tests and I don't see much in this thread that is different from previous discussions. For years there was opposition to standardized testing because opponents believed that testing favored the privileged who could afford test preparation classes and multiple retakes. Then the COVID pandemic caused test centers to close and universities resorted to test optional policies. In the midst of all this the US Supreme Court, partially due to evidence that applicants with higher test scores were being refused admission in favor of minority students with lower scores, prohibited the use of race as a factor in admissions. Joyful test supporters celebrated a return to a time in which the best and the brightest — as evidenced by test scores — would be selected for college. But standing in the way of that vision were test optional admissions policies which critics viewed as a way to continue admitting less qualified minority students. Now that selective colleges are again requiring test scores, this group believes their goal is being achieved. But, not so fast, at least if you believe university officials. As a string of prestigious colleges have reinstated test scores requirements, they have all consistently broadcast the same message. School administrators have argued that test scores, far from disadvantaging underrepresented minority students, can actually help them and, they argue, test optional policies have harmed rather then benefitted URM applicants. So standardized tests, previously viewed as a hurdle to the disadvantaged, are being reintroduced not in the manner that test supporters have hoped — as a clear cut means of distinguishing academic capability — but rather as a tool for increasing diversity. As the Washington Post article cited by the original poster quotes Harvard Professor Raj Chetty as saying, "Considering standardized test scores is likely to make the admissions process at Harvard more meritocratic while increasing socioeconomic diversity." The argument about tests has flipped 180 degrees. The argument being made by the universities is that a student from a disadvantaged background who has fairly decent test score may be seen as a better candidate than a more advantaged applicant with a higher score. By not submitting those less than top scores, these applicants have been hurting their chances. Now their chances will improve as the test scores are viewed in the wider context of a student's background. This raises two questions for me. One, are these school officials to be believed? Are they really going to select disadvantaged students with lower test scores than advantaged students they reject? Or, is this just a nice argument that makes the policy change more appetizing? Second, if schools actually do follow through and do this, won't they end up back in court?