April

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "DC shut out from all but one, now wants a gap year" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. As the title explains, the original poster's son, who had applied to a range of colleges, was shut out of all but his least favorite schools. Now, her son has lost interest in that college and no longer wants to attend. Instead, he wants to take a year off and work on his grandparents farm. Due to labor shortages, his grandparents are thrilled to have his help. However, the original poster and her husband not happy with this idea. They are concerned that next year will be even harder for their son to get accepted to his desired colleges and fear that he might not want even want to go to college next year. As you can expect, posters are divided about what to do. A considerable number support the son, thinking that he will have a year to mature and have a better idea about what he wants to do. They also argue that it is a bad idea to force a kid to attend a college against his wishes. Others believe gap years are a waste of time and that the son is reacting emotionally to a set-back. Some warn that his admissions options might even be worse next year and that he will be left with no choice beyond community college. Several posters focus on making the best of the gap year with suggestions such as taking online classes that can be transferred later and deferring his current acceptance so he will still have that opportunity. Another suggestion is to encourage him to attend the college to which he was admitted, but consider transferring to another school that he might like better. There is general agreement among those responding that a year spent helping his grandparents on their farm is a significantly more understandable use of a gap year than backpacking across Europe. Some posters think that an application essay based on that experience would write itself.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Biden will run again" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The thread follows President Joe Biden's announcement by video that he will run for reelection. This thread exemplifies much of what is wrong with the DCUM political forum and, indeed, the entire US political system. First, the initial post is lazy, simply complaining that the country is incapable of nominating anyone less than 70 years old. Hopefully that poster realizes that an announcement of a candidacy is not a nomination. A nomination is still to come. Moreover, the country has previously nominated a number of candidates younger than 70, so this statement is actually untrue. Finally, this topic could have done with a bit more substance. If the original poster is not happy with the current candidates, who does he propose take their place? Which person younger than 70 does the original poster prefer, and why? Most of those replying share the original poster's concern that Biden is too old and another candidate would be better. However, there a few ideas about who that candidate might be and those that are proposed are also met with criticism. Democratic-leaning posters seem to be frustrated with their inability to identify a perfect candidate who lacks even a single flaw. This is a problem because many posters demonstrate that even the slightest flaw is a dealbreaker. Probably the clearest example of this is a poster who says she would not vote for California Governor Gavin Newsome because his ex-wife is in a relationship with Donald Trump, Jr. Has anyone checked on the relationship status of Marla Maples to see if that would disqualify former President Trump? Biden enter the presidential race last time because he believed defeating Trump was essential and he believed that he had the best chance to do it. Enough Americans agreed with him to put him into the White House. Biden seems to believe the same thing continues to be true. Democrats don't seem happy about it, but few have presented much of a case to show that Biden is wrong. To paraphrase former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, you go into the campaign with the candidate you have, not the candidate that you wished you had. As things stand now, the election appears that it will be little more than a referendum on Trump. Biden's main campaign issue will be Trump and all the dangers he presents. Trump's main campaign issue will also be Trump because nothing else matters to Trump other than Trump.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Tucker out at Fox News????" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread is obviously about Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson leaving the network. While Fox's announcement said that the network and Carlson had "agreed to part ways", it is pretty clear that this was a decision taken by Fox management and came as a complete surprise to Carlson. Both Carlson fans and detractors were similarly surprised and the early responses in the thread were a mixture of surprise and joy. The general sentiment was that this was a much deserved outcome to Carlson's years of lying and provocation. A number of posters wondered what Carlson would do next with many speculating that he would simply join another network. Some speculated that he might run for president or vice president. There was quite a bit of discussion about why Carlson was suddenly removed from his position. He had concluded his Friday night broadcast by saying, "We'll be back on Monday" but his unceremonious removal on Monday morning prevented that. Many posters, including myself, guessed that Carlson's departure had something to do with the Dominion lawsuit that just cost Fox $787.5 million in a settlement fee. The Washington Post reported that it was due to private comments Carlson made about colleagues and Fox executives that were revealed as part of the Dominion lawsuit. Yet a third explanation that was widely circulated claimed Carlson's firing was related to a lawsuit by Abby Grossberg, a former booker for his show, that alleged sexual discrimination and a hostile workplace. Carlson fans were in short supply in this thread. A few showed up to defend his intelligence or to predict great things for him in the future, but, in general, they were surprisingly quite. One thing I noticed from reading this thread is the stature given Carlson, not just as a Fox News personality, but as an informal leader of the Republican Party. In many ways, former President Donald Trump has sucked the oxygen out of the party with the leading elected Republican, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, often viewed as a "Republican in name only" or RINO who doesn't command the loyalty of many grass root party members. Only Carlson, with his Fox megaphone, has been able to break through the Trump distortion field. It is unlikely that whoever replaces Carlson at Fox will have near the politcal impact.

As is my habit now, I skipped blogging for the weekend. Therefore, today I'll review the most active threads since Friday. During that period, the most active thread was titled, "Why don’t U.S. hospitals let women sleep quietly for the night in the hospital after giving birth?" and posted in the "Expectant and Postpartum Moms" forum. The original poster argues that hospitals should allow postpartum mothers to sleep through the night while the baby is put in a nursery. The poster says that recovery should be treated like recovery from a surgery with no interrupted sleep. A nurse immediately corrects the original poster to say that patients recovering from surgery are also awaken several times per night to take vitals, administer medicine, and draw blood. Nevertheless, several posters agree with the original poster that new moms should be allowed to sleep. Multiple posters explain that this is what is known as "baby-friendly" care aimed at encouraging breastfeeding and bonding. The majority of those responding clearly consider it "mother unfriendly". This is a 21 page thread so I can't read it all, or even very much of it. But, from what I see, posters have strong opinions about the best way to treat mothers who have just given birth. Most, like the original poster, would be happy to get a good night's sleep after hours of labor. A few don't want to give up their babies for even a minute and prefer the baby be left with them. While the original poster was addressing the immediate aftermath of giving birth, quite a few of the responders looked at the topic more broadly. Several described checking out of the hospital within 24 hours and recovering at home. There are clear socio-economic and cultural factors at play. Posters with means were able to hire postpartum doulas and other homecare professionals. Obviously, not every woman could afford to do this. There is considerable discussion of birth and recovery practices in other cultures and countries. The US healthcare system is subjected to considerable criticism. Much of the discussion stems from the fact that medical care in the US is largely treated as a business. Therefore, hospitals strive for efficiency and cost-savings and adequate staffing is often an issue. In other countries, healthcare is viewed as a service and emphasis is placed on its quality and efficacy, resulting in what many posters view as more appropriate practices. One of the biggest differences of opinion concerns whether the baby should be treated as a patient with staff dedicated to its care or whether care of the baby should be primarily left to the mother and whatever support she can muster (the father being the most common suggestion). Advocates of both viewpoints weigh-in vociferously.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "The Witch Trials of JK Rowling podcast" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. As can be expected from the title, the thread is about a podcast discussing JK Rowling and her views regarding the transgender community. The original poster says it is one of the best podcasts to which she has listened recently and she considered it to be balanced and rational. I haven't listened to this podcast, but it doesn't appear that many of those posting have either. Moreover, the discussion isn't so much about the podcast but rather Rowling and trans people. Topics on trans issues have become among the most controversial on DCUM and tend not to go well. As such, I generally end up locking or deleting them. In the case of this thread, I eventually locked it. Threads on transgender topics tend to have a familiar arc. They start out with posters demonstrating the best intentions, stressing that they are not anti-trans, indeed they are actively supportive, but they have questions or slight disagreements. In the case of this thread, Rowling is essentially used as a proxy to demonstrate this position rather than posters immediately attributing it to themselves. For instance, one of the first to respond writes, "Rowling is consistently measured in her speech and clearly has real compassion for transgender people...". But, as such threads continue, more and more responses are not only not "measured" but clearly anti-trans. The same poster claiming that Rowling has "compassion" for trans people goes on to imply that trans individuals are suffering from "delusion". Apparently the podcast compares support for the trans community to the Salem Witch Trials. Many of those responding point out that Rowling is succeeding brilliantly as a best-selling author and extremely wealthy person. Newly-passed laws are not limiting the rights of those like Rowling — who at worst risk being the target of mean tweets — but transgender people who are seeing restrictions on their most basic rights. On the other hand, a poster who describes herself as the "mother of a trans teen" who has listened to the podcast argues that Rowling is not exactly transphobic and that activists have overreacted to her. The real threat, this poster suggests, comes from right-wing politicians. As is common in such threads, posters complain that they can't engage in "respectful debate". The problem is that posts like those suggesting that trans people are "delusional" go unchecked or are even made by the folks who claim to be "measured". It is hard to have a respectful debate when one side's starting position is that the other side is delusional. In the case of this thread, it turned into a several page argument about whether criticizing Rowling meant support for rape and arguments that the trans community was motivated by misogyny. Rowling, and many of those posting, see advancement of trans rights as often resulting in set-backs for women's rights. Posters argue that they, and Rowling as well, only want to protect women's places. Because this necessitates restricting access by trans women to those places, this is viewed by supporters of trans people's rights as anti-trans. Repeated experience has proven that a nuanced discussion of that point is simply not possible on DCUM.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Massive pentagon leak re Ukraine conflict" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started back on April 6 after the New York Times reported about a leak of secret US military documents regarding Ukraine. The thread gained interest yesterday due to the arrest of the alleged leaker. This story, and as a result the thread, has had an interesting trajectory. When the leak first occurred, it was portrayed as being bad for the Biden administration because it allegedly documented that that Ukraine-Russian war was going worse for the Ukrainians than it was being portrayed. When it was shown that some of the leaked documents had been doctored, many concluded that this was a Russian disinformation operation. As is true of almost everything these days, posters reacted based mostly on their political leanings. Biden supporters blamed the leaks on MAGA supporters aligned with Russia and downplayed the importance of the leaked information. Anti-Biden posters claimed that the leaks undermined public statements about the war and demonstrated that Biden was a liar. Much of the discusion focused on the origin of the documents. The New York Times article noted that the documents were circulating on Twitter and Telegram, but posters soon learned that prior to reaching those networks, the documents had surfaced in various discussion groups on Discord. The trail eventually led to a Discord group that had been disbanded. Many posters were convinced that the leaker must be member of Congress and there was quite a bit of discussion about which Member of Congress or which party might be behind the leak. Those suspicions eventually proved unfounded. The New York Times, working with an investigator from Bellingcat, was able to identify and interview a member of the now disbanded group and provide information about the leaker whose name the newspaper revealed yesterday. The leaker turned out to be a member of the Air National Guard who allegedly only intended to use the documents to educate members of the small Discord group about world affairs. Liberal posters were quick to claim vindication for predicting a conservative was behind the leak. Conservative posters were not able to respond with a cohesive message. Some tried to portray the leaker as a libertarian rather than a conservative. Posters who followed Donald Trump's lead and insisted that this was the most damaging leak in the history of leaks suddenly saw this as the brave act of an anti-war patriot. Some of the more conspiratorial-minded theorized that the airman was a fall guy for higher ups and urged posters not to trust the New York Times or Washington Post who are — according to these posters — in Biden's pocket.

Because I took the weekend off from writing blog posts, today I'll review the most active threads since Friday. The most active thread during that period was titled, "Mother of 2 from VERY prominent Richmond family arrested by FBI for child p@rn, exploitation, etc" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. In brief, the thread discusses the arrest of Eleanor Hunton Hoppe for distributing child pornography and charges related to child sexual abuse. Hoppe is a member of a prominent family in Richmond, Virginia and known by the original poster and several other posters in the thread. In addition to being horrified by the charges, many posters are concerned about the lack of media attention to this case. There appears to have been no news about the case for three weeks after the arrest and then very little. This led several posters to conclude that Hoppe's prominent family was suppressing information. The original poster linked to court documents about the case, including a "Statement of Facts" which is quite explicit. The document details how an FBI undercover officer corresponded with Hoppe to arrange a meeting at which Hope was planning to participate with a purported father while the father sexually abused his 8-year-old daughter. Hoppe was arrested when she arrived at the planned meeting. Several posters noted that it is unusual for women to be involved in such offenses and there are many posts seeking to understand what might have led to Hoppe's actions. There is a quite a bit of speculation, much of it informed by posters who claim to know Hoppe personally (at least two posters even claim to have had sexual relations with her). While I understand the interest in this thread, I am concerned about how long it will be able to remain on the site. Google has already flagged several pages and I am doing my best to keep it within the advertising terms of service. But the nature of the topic makes that difficult. Several posters are convinced that Hoppe's family are applying financial and/or legal pressure to suppress the story and would likely blame the family for the thread's demise. But, in the eventually that I remove the thread, it will likely to be due to advertisers.

Yesterday's most active threads had a notable political slant to them. The most active thread of the day was titled, "The Fascist Part of the US strikes again in Tennessee" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The thread focuses on a protest at the Tennessee state Capitol building in which students demanding that something be done about school shootings briefly took over the building. During the protest, three Democratic legislators took to the floor of the chamber to encourage and support the protesters. In response, Republican lawmakers who dominate the assembly proposed bills to expel the three Democrats. Subsequently, two of them — both young Black men — were expelled while the third — an older White woman — was not. This is likely to be a Pyrrhic victory at best for the Republicans because both the members will probably be back soon to fill the seats from which they were just expelled. Liberal posters in this thread see the expulsions as anti-democratic acts to squelch free speech and pointed out that the legislature rarely expelled anyone, not even admitted sex offenders. Conservative posters compared the protest to the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol and supported the expulsions as deserved for such behavior. A similar split occurred over the racial connotations of the expulsions with liberals pointing to the poor optics of expelling two Black legislator while excusing their White colleague. In response, conservatives contorted themselves to contrive differences in the behavior of the three who had acted in unison. A conservative poster insisted that Americans are tired of the race card being played and would be happy that the legislators were being punished for their "bad behavior". Without missing a beat, the same poster suggested that liberals would be gleeful if white men were being expelled. Given the implication that the real victims of racism are white men, I suspect this poster's complaint is not about "race" cards, but the wrong race card. The protests that led to the expulsions were in response to gun violence, specifically the recent school shooting in Nashville. Many posters compared the legislature's failure to take action in regard to school shootings to its determination to remove the legislators, saying that this clearly demonstrated Republican-dominated body's priorities. One poster pointed to a proposal by the Tennessee governor for armed guards in schools. I'm not sure this was as strong an argument as the poster believes as it simply highlights that the Republican response has been nothing more than a proposal that has not been acted upon. But, of course, the response now includes racially-charged expulsions.

The top three most active threads yesterday were all threads that I've covered in the last couple of days. So, I'm starting with the thread that was actually the fourth most active yesterday. Titled, "Women's NCAA championship game" and posted in the "Sports General Discussion" forum, I believe this may be the first thread from the sports forum that I've discussed in these blog posts. If you have had even the slightest contact with news about the women's college basketball championship game, you will probably be aware that most of the discussion is not about buckets, blocks, or rebounds, but rather hand gestures. More specifically, hand gestures by Louisiana State University's Angel Reese. As soon as the game was over, Reese was inundated with allegations of being unsporting, classless, and even "ghetto" for a hand gesture that imitated one made by an opposing player, Caitlin Clark of the University of Iowa. Much of the discussion in this thread focuses on the disparate reactions to the same gesture being made by the two players. Whereas Reese, who is black, was generally criticized and described in negative terms, Clark, who is white, was generally described positively such as "having swagger" or being a "fierce competitor". The original poster of the thread drew attention to this racial divide which was repeatedly demonstrated throughout the thread. Just about the only thing to distract from the debates over Reese and Clark was the fashion choices of LSU coach Kim Mulkey. Jill Biden also became a topic of discussion after she suggested inviting both teams to the White House. This reinforced the view of those who felt that Reese and LSU were receiving unfair treatment. Traditionally only the winning team received such an invitation and LSU supporters viewed this as just another case of double standards. When Reese rejected Biden's suggestion, some posters doubled-down on complaints that she lacked class. But, eventually Biden backed off of her suggestion and even Clark rejected the idea. Clearly, however, there were posters prepared to interpret everything about Reese in the most negative light possible. These racial divisions continued later in the thread with posters complaining that Reese said that she hoped to inspire girls that looked like her. Other posters pointed out that Clark had made similar statements about inspiring girls in Iowa and again asked why similar behavior was treated differently. To be sure, Reese has her defenders in the thread and she may be proving the expression that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" true. As several of her supporters point out, her popularity has only grown and her earning potential has increased.

Because I took the weekend off from writing blog posts, today I'll look at the most active threads over the last three days. The most active thread during that period was titled, "Big 3 Nightmare" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster laments that it has been a difficult year in terms of college acceptances for the top students at the "Big 3" private schools in the DC Metro area. I guess I should start off by noting that the term "Big 3" is controversial on DCUM with posters unable to agree on what schools should be included in the group, or even if "3" is the proper number with some arguing for a "Big 5" or another designation. At any rate, you can be sure that Sidwell Friends and Georgetown Day School will be included in any discussion of this sort and St. Albans is also repeatedly mentioned in the thread. But, it can be assumed that this discussion is not limited to those three schools. Beyond that, this thread is a perfect illustration of what I've coined as the "DCUM Paradox" in which parents choose schools or neighborhoods on the assumption that their choices will enhance their children's college acceptance opportunities. But, at least since I've been following this topic, it turns out that they end up competing with their classmates and students at similar schools who all have roughly the same qualifications, actually making acceptance more challenging as colleges seek diverse student bodies. As I have written before, no Ivy League school is going to accept the entire Sidwell senior class, so simply graduating from Sidwell is not going to be enough for an Ivy acceptance. Posters in this thread report that this year has been especially difficult with essentially only "hooked" students (i.e. athletes, underrepresented minorities, legacies, big donors, etc.) being accepted. Some posters say that even legacy status has not been enough. Several posters in this thread take a certain amount of joy in the idea that students privileged enough to attend these pricey schools are finding that their privilege has limits. Other posters argue that while the opportunities at the very top universities may be limited, these students still have very good chances at other highly-ranked universities. There is quite a bit of discussion about how much college admission opportunties figured into parent's choices of private schools. Some posters concede that was part of their calculus while others point to broader goals. Inevitably, the discussion leads to comparisons with local public schools with some posters suggesting some area public high schools have similar college acceptance records without the financial outlay. It is safe to say that argument was not universally accepted. However, some posters tell stories — possibly apocryphal — of parents switching their children to public schools for their final years or even enrolling in rural schools in order to improve their admissions chances. The bottom line is that while the top area private schools may have a lot going for them, they are clearly not guaranteed paths to the top universities.