The Most Active Threads Since Friday

As has been my habit, I skipped this blog over the weekend so today I'll look at the most active threads since my last post on Friday. The most active thread during that period was titled, "Lock him up indictment FL" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread is about the indictment of former President Donald Trump on federal charges related to government documents that he took from the White House and kept illegally in his Mar-a-lago residence. The thread is 46 pages and, therefore, too long for me to read completely or provide much in the way of a summary. Suffice it to say that there are significant differences of opinion between Trump critics and Trump supporters. The first group was overjoyed with many posters repeating Trump's frequent demand with regard to Hillary Clinton to "lock her up". This expression, which is mocked in the thread's title, appears to have come back to haunt the former president. Trump's fans, on the other hand, also referenced Clinton, arguing that the failure to prosecute her displayed a double standard. While there is probably nothing that will break through the cloaks of ignorance in which these posters are determined to ensconce themselves, there are significant differences between the cases. As Secretary of State, Clinton established a private email server at the advice of predecessors. Investigations later showed that a very small number of the emails sent to the server contained classified information. However, investigators did not find evidence that Clinton had intentionally or willfully mishandled classified information. In addition, investigators could find no evidence that the server had been compromised by adversaries. Moreover, Clinton made no effort to maintain possession of the classified information once it was discovered. Similarly, a researcher discovered classified documents that had been inadvertently included among documents donated by then Vice President Joe Biden to the University of Pennsylvania. These documents were immediately returned to the government. Subsequent searches by Biden's lawyers discovered classified documents stored in other locations and they were also returned. In Trump's case, his possession of classified documents was discovered fairly quickly and efforts made to have them returned. Trump not only failed to comply, but — according to the indictment — actually obstructed the effort to return the documents. So, whereas the cases of Clinton and Biden involved the inadvertent mishandling of classified information which they cooperated to return, Trump's case involves the failure to comply and actual obstruction of efforts by the Government to regain possession of the documents. It is highly likely that had Trump cooperated instead of obstructing the retrieval of the documents, things would not have come to this.

The next most active thread is an older one about VHSL girls lacrosse that apparently had renewed interest over the weekend. But, I covered that thread some time ago so I'll move on to the next one. That thread was posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum and titled, "How does somebody look ‘American’?" The original poster believes that she can recognize Americans while travelling abroad based on "eyes and mouth and their facial expressions" as well as walking movements. This is a 13 page thread so, once again, too long for me to read. But, based on what I've seen of the thread, I haven't missed much by not reading it. While some posters claim that Americans can be recognized by large smiles and friendliness to strangers, others identify them loud and obnoxious. There appears to be a heated debate with regard to whether Americans are unique about eating food on the street. Given the proliferation of "street food" restaurants in DC, most of us around here should be aware that eating on the street is an international phenomenon. One version of this debate distinguishes between standing on the street eating from walking while eating. Some posters concede that other cultures will partake in the first but stil consider Americans identifiable in doing the second. Many of the posts focus less on what makes Americans identifiable and more on simply bashing Americans, especially as being overweight. Much is made the clothes worn by Americans which apparently is less likely to be tailored correctly than those worn by other cultures. A number of posters take obvious delight in describing how they are able to blend in when traveling. But others are skeptical that these posters fit in as well as they think they do. One poster argued that you only know if you fit in if others speak to you in a foreign language. Frankly, due modern travel and migration trends, all sorts of people with all style of dress can be found just about anywhere, so expecting everyone to fit into neat stereotypes is probably fruitless. I once heard a great story that doesn't exactly fit this situation, but I love it so I'm going to tell it. An Englishman was travelling on a train within the United Kingdom when he saw a woman in Muslim-style clothing, including a hijab, speaking to a young boy in a language he did not understand. He rudely said to her, "you should learn to speak the language of the country in which you are in". A lady near him responded, "She is speaking Welsh and we are in Wales."

Next was a thread titled, "Overtourism" which was also posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she has just read an article in the New York Times about Split, the second largest city in Croatia. Located on the Dalmatian coast, Split is a very popular tourist destination. The original poster is upset because, according to her, tourists who previously had not heard of a place now post about having visited it multiple times and the abundance of tourism is ruining such places. Since this is a 14 page thread I can't read it all and, frankly, I'm not sure I want to. Clearly nothing good is going to come out of this thread. The DCUM travel forum has an interesting cast of characters (whereby "interesting" is simply the most polite term I can bring myself to use). Exactly none of them want to be told they should not travel someplace. There are an amazing number of posters who appear to do little more than travel and then post their very strongly held opinions on DCUM. They are more than willing to tell others what they are doing wrong about travelling, but not at all willing to reconsider their own travel habits. A number of posters are proud of having travelled to now-popular places before they were popular. As near as i can tell, two things are blamed for tourism ruining places: 1) instagram, and 2) AirBnb and the like. Instagram because everyone seems to think that everyone else is only travelling in order to take photos to post on Instagram and one-up their friends whose pictures don't demonstrate equally exotic travel. AirBnb and other short-term rentals because they have led to price increases in housing that has made places unaffordable by locals. As a result, according to posters in this thread, many popular tourist destinations have few or no local residents living in them. In contrast to the critics of tourism, posters argue that tourism supports the economies of these locations which wouldn't survive without it. But, even this assertion is disputed by those claiming that the money doesn't necessarily go to locals. For instance, staying in a hotel puts money in the pockets of large corporations. Staying in a short-term rental will more likely support a local family. But, given the earlier blame placed at the feet of short-term housing, I guess it is a matter of picking your poison. Regardless, whatever choice you make it will be wrong, something that a poster in the forum will be more than happy to point out and explain how they are doing things correctly.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Is This What it Takes to Get Into a Top School Nowadays?", the original poster copied and pasted a post from Reddit in which a student listed his college application qualifications which included a high a grade point average, test scores, and other academic achievements. The student is white and from a lower middle class background. He graduated from a public high school and had an outstanding number of extracurricular activities with many significant achievements among them. He claims to have no hooks such as being a minority or athlete. He managed to get accepted by almost every Ivy League school and several other top colleges. But, he ultimately decided to attend Duke University. The original poster is concerned that this demonstrates an extremely high bar for unhooked applicants and makes her concerned about her child's chances next year. Very few of the posters seem to believe this example is indicative of the original poster's son's chances. This student's achievements are amazing, as is his acceptance at almost every top college. But, the original poster's child doesn't need to be accepted at so many elite universities, but just one. Getting accepted by a single university won't require such stats. Many of those responding believe the Reddit post is a troll and point to claims made by the poster that they don't think add up. Another posters accepts the post as authentic and points to testimony from the Harvard University case that is currently before the Supreme Court to argue that even among the top 1% of applicants there is a top 10%. That top 10% of the top 1% has such outstanding qualifications that they are virtually assured of being accepted anywhere. The real drama over admissions is among the students below them. At any rate, this thread meanders all over the place with posters debating the legitimacy of the post and, if true, what it says about admissions.