July

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "If you are wealthy would you send your kids to a W school over private?" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. For those not familiar with the nomenclature, "W" schools are Walt Whitman, Winston Churchill, Thomas Wootten, and Walter Johnson Montgomery County Public Schools high schools. All the schools have "W" somewhere in their name and all have student bodies that are generally wealthy and heavily White and Asian. Academically they are very good schools and, hence, highly sought-after. The original poster of this thread can afford private school but wonders if it is worth the cost and wonders, if cost were not an issue, if others would choose a private school over a "W" school. The background of this post is that private schools are often advertised as being notably better in a range of metrics than public schools. Whatever basis in reality this contention may have normally, it is a more difficult argument when applied to schools of the caliber of the "W" schools. Therefore, the original poster is asking about the value proposition of private schools in this scenario. Very broadly speaking, replies can be divided into two categories. On the one hand are those that favor one option or the other based on specific factors and how those will impact the student in question. For instance, one poster chose a "W" school because she believed her child with special needs would receive stronger support at that school. Other posters preferred private based on smaller class sizes that they believe better suited their children. The second category of responses might be described as focusing on the "soft" or "social" benefits of private schools. For example, in response to a post describing the academic achievement of a "W" school student, a poster asked, "Is you [sic] kids polished? Can he dress properly?" and "Does he have a Rolodex of very wealthy friends that can get him a job with the snap of a finger?" This school of thought essentially concedes that academically there is little difference between these public schools and privates (indeed, many parents argue the publics are better academically in some instances), but instead focuses on other presumed advantages. However, not all posters agree that those supposed advantages end up amounting to much and don't believe they are good reasons for choosing private schools. As is true with almost all school-related discussions these days, this one also gets sidetracked into arguments about COVID and how schools responded. One argument made is that public schools were closed longer than private schools which set students back further and therefore public schools are now at a disadvantage. Another debate is over whether private school students are ensconced in a bubble and, therefore, not prepared for the real world. This is countered by the proposition that "W" school students are in very similar bubbles. If true, that would seem to be a point in favor of the "W" schools which apparently provide the same bubble as private schools, but with no tuition fees.

If you can believe it, the thread I discussed yesterday about the University of Mary Washington was tied as the most active thread again. Since I've already discussed that one, I'll start with the thread with which it was tied. Titled, "Why does every tourist have a backpack" and posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum, the original poster is interested in the question posed on the thread's title. She doesn't understand the need for a backpack or a sling and explains how she and her husband equip themselves while touring. While no slings or backpacks are involved, she lists more than a half-dozen items that her husband carries in his pants pockets. To say that this thread did not go well for the original poster is probably an understatement. DCUM apparently has a very pro-backpack userbase. The first mistake made by the original poster, which was pointed out repeatedly, was not understanding that different people have different needs and different preferences. This is a surprising shortcoming for someone who professes to be a seasoned traveller given that one of the goals of travel is to see things that are different than in your own life. Being open to new ideas and not being judgemental are two qualities that help travel to be more enjoyable. Several posters took issue with the number of items the original poster's husband carries in his pockets, with several ridiculing him for possibly wearing cargo pants. The original poster's only subsequent post disabused the others of that idea and explained that the items, while plentiful, were all quite small. Still, the fact that she and her husband seem to never leave home without Pepto Bismol raised a few eyebrows. Posters have a host of reasons for carrying backpacks while touring, including carrying many of the items the original poster's husband stuffs in his pockets. In addition, quite a few carry water bottles and, especially if they have kids, snacks. Several of the female posters pointed out that their clothing often doesn't have pockets, so duplicating the original poster's strategy of carrying things in her pockets won't work. One irony of the thread is that as posters explained what they carry in their backpacks, they sometimes mentioned items that other posters hadn't considered, but could see being useful. Therefore, if this thread has any lasting impact at all, it might be to increase backpack usage, or at least the number of things carried in them. Also, given all the discussion of Pepto Bismol, I should probably charge Procter & Gamble a fee for product placement.

The most active thread over the weekend was the thread about Virginia's new policies regarding transgender students about which I already wrote. So, I'll move to the next most active thread which was titled, "Gosselins" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. I have led a fairly fulfilling life to this point with little to no exposure to the Gosselins. I would have been quite happy to keep things that way. I have heard the family's name in passing and I understand that there was a reality television show called "Kate Plus 8". But, beyond that, I know virtually nothing about them. So, this thread is very confusing to me with lots of names being cast about by posters who seem to have very detailed knowledge of everyone involved. The thread was started back on May 15 by a poster who simply asked if the "the twins" were graduating from college and where "the septuplets" were going to go to college. This was a major gaff by the original poster that was quickly pointed out. The Gosslins have "sextuplets", not "septuplets". The thread sort of languished until the past few days when, apparently, various members of the family began giving interviews criticizing each other. That reignited the thread which gained 12 pages over the weekend. I, of course, am not going to read the entire 28 pages of this thread or even the new pages. The only thing I could conclude from skimming some of the recent discussion is that this is not a thread that I am going to be able summarize. Posters have different opinions about different family members, but there is too much that I don't understand for me to have any idea about what anyone is talking. All I can say is that the family is divided and, similarly, posters are divided. I have been happy living in blissful ignorance regarding this family and I prefer to continue to do so. Therefore, rather than delve into the details of what is going on, I am just going to throw up my arms in resignation and leave it to those of you who are interested to read the thread for yourselves.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "New VA trans policies for schools" and posted in the "VA Public Schools other than FCPS" forum. The thread addresses new model policies issued by the Virginia Department of Education regarding the treatment of transgender students in schools. The new model policies require students to use facilities that match their biological sex and require referring to students by names matching the sex on their official record unless parents request something different in writing, It will be up to local school systems to adopt policies consistent with the new models. As would be expected, posters are strongly divided about the new guidelines. For instance, regarding the role of parents in a student's social transition, posters favoring parental rights strongly agree that parents should be informed if their children are using different names or pronouns at school. They consider a failure by schools to inform parents of such matters as "conspiring" against parents and, in the most extreme cases, examples of "grooming". The new model policies go beyond merely informing parents, however, and prevent schools from using names or pronouns that differ from the sex contained in the official records. Parents opposed to these policies want schools to be safe places for students in which children can confide in trusted adults without fear of repudiation by their parents. There is also considerable disagreement about the guidelines concerning bathrooms and locker rooms. There is a lot of fear and anxiety among some posters concerning students assigned as male at birth sharing girls facilities. These parents welcome the new guidelines that prohibit this. On the other hand are parents who view this as discriminatory. While I did not see it mentioned in the thread, my understanding is that this issue has already been decided legally in favor of transgender students. Ironically, this is based on legal proceedings that took place in Virginia. A transgender student, Gavin Grimm, sued the Gloucester County School Board when he was prohibited from using male bathrooms. Both the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rule in Grimm's favor and the US Supreme Court chose not to hear the case, leaving those rulings in place. This would seem to mean the new guidelines are in contradiction to legal findings. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin may welcome a legal battle on this issue given the political advantages he seems to see in attacking transgender rights. Moreover, the current Supreme Court Justices may not be as sympathetic to transgender students as in the past. At any rate, transgender issues remain among the most divisive topics on DCUM.

The Carlee Russell thread was back as the most active thread yesterday after local officials held a press conference. But, again, since I've covered that thread I'll move on to the next most active. That one was titled, "What do the non mask wearers think today when they see someone wearing a mask" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that she is a healthcare worker and still wears a mask when she goes out. She is glad that a few others do as well so that she won't stand out as much. Responses fall into roughly three categories. Many posters believe that those wearing masks may be ill, recovering from an illness, or live with folks who have health concerns. Several others simply don't care or assume whatever reasons the mask-wearer has are personal and not their business. The third category attributes mask wearing as a sign of anxiety or mental health problems. Eventually, a group of posters emerge who don't really address what they think about those who wear masks, but proudly and defiantly announce their own unwillingness to wear masks. Some nostalgically recount not masking at the height of the pandemic and feeling pleasure about the discomfort they caused in others. There is also a number of posters who see masks as political symbols and believe that those who wear them are engaging in political symbolism. Of course the mask debate is not new on DCUM. Far from it. But one thing that has changed in these discussions is that there is no longer much of an effort to persuade others to wear masks. To be sure, posters who still wear masks are willing to explain their reasons and defend themselves. But, almost no one is telling others that they should mask. But, past efforts to encourage masking seem to have left a number of posters traumatized to the point that they react to the mere sight of a mask as if it is an attempt to oppress them. There is a certain irony in seeing those who are riled to the point of anger by someone else wearing a mask questioning the mask wearer's mental health. For every overly-anxious mask wearer that probably needs to spend some time in a therapist's office (note, this applies to very few mask wearers) there is probably a rabid anti-masker who should be sitting right next to them. A new development in this discussion is that some posters have started using masks due to poor air quality, particularly on code red days caused by smoke from Canadian wildfires. Whereas in the past people might commonly be maskless outside but don a mask when entering a building, now the opposite happens with people wearing masks outside and removing them upon entering.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Will no longer shop at Giant- annoying checkout machine" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster is upset because the checkout lines at Giant that have cashiers are long and slow and the self-checkout machines are annoying and don't always work properly. While the original poster is specifically referring to the Giant in McLean, other posters report similar frustrations with Giants all over the DC region, at other grocery stores such as Harris Teeter and Wegmans, and at stores outside the area. Some posters report having better luck using a hand-scanner, but apparently those are not available at all stores. The positive stories about hand-scanners led to several requests for instructions about how to use them. However, other posters said that the hand-scanners are beginning to disappear because of increased theft. One poster said that the hand-scanners themselves were being stolen. A dispute broke out about whether Giant's increased use of self-scanners is due to theft or a desire to reduce staff and rid the company of a union contract. In contrast to the complaints about self-checkout, a number of posters were fans of the system with some even saying they go to Giant specifically because of the self-scanners which they find easy and quick to use. But far more posters report avoiding Giant due to the scanners. One strange thing I noticed was a poster who showed up posting several posts supporting Giant and its self-scanners. The poster would ultimately post 9 mostly consecutive posts defending Giant, mocking the complaints of others, and accusing them of whining. I normally don't take accusations of posters being corporate shills very seriously, but this poster certainly raises suspicions. Other posters find the in-store shopping experience so frustrating that they have resorted to ordering online and using curbside pickup. It is amazing how so many current issues impacting society are all represented in this thread. There is automation versus human staff, accusations of political tolerance of theft, inflationary prices during a time of rising corporate profits, differing comfort levels with technology, and a general dislike of change all impacting the common experience of grocery shopping. On a more basic level, I think this also reflects the impact of corporate MBAs in windowless offices fixated on spreadsheets and profit margins. The idea of increasing automation and reducing a unionized workforce probably sends those bar charts rocketing upwards. When the actual result is increased theft, they simply make the process more onerous for their customers. Their solutions always seem to result in transferring more responsibility to the customer. But, at what point will the customers no longer tolerate their grocery shopping experience turning into a miserable ordeal? For several posters in this thread, that point has already been reached.

The most active thread yesterday was the thread about Carlee Russell who is no longer missing but about whose disappearance very little has been revealed. Since I discussed that thread yesterday, I'll move to the next most active thread which was titled, "Am I the jerk?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of this thread or the original poster. I've received several reports suggesting that the original poster is a troll, but I have not observed any sock puppeting and prior threads from the poster (of which I can find very few) don't raise any red flags. Yet, the original poster is very hard to accept at face value. The thread begins with the original poster complaining that her kids have non-stop activities this summer. I assumed that she would go on to complain about the hassle of chauffeuring them around town, but it turns out that her husband does all of that. The original poster would like the kids to do fewer activities, but this has upset her husband because they enjoy the activities and the original poster is not the one karting them around in any case. The original poster believes that her opinion should matter despite the fact that her husband is doing all the work. Virtually everybody agrees that the original poster is indeed the jerk in this situation. To the extent that the original poster gets any sympathy, it is from posters who think she is suffering from stress caused by her job and taking it out on her family. Then, in what was apparently a surreal attempt to demonstrate her humanity, the original poster revealed that her husband is in recovery from alcoholism. Rather than supporting her husband's attendance of AA meetings, she complains that they are another activity to be juggled. With every response, the original poster loses more of the little sympathy others had for her and convinces even more posters that she is a troll. At some point, there is really no difference between a completely unreasonable poster and a troll and this poster has clearly reached that line. The impression that I get is that the original poster's husband may be less than perfect, but is doing everything within his ability to address his drinking problem and to parent their children. The original poster, on the other hand, is contributing very little other than criticism and complaints that her husband doesn't sufficiently consider her opinions. She appears to have considerable contempt for the man. The most sympathetic reading of this thread suggests that the original poster and her husband have a communications problem that could stand to be addressed. But frankly, I think the original poster is likely dealing with deeper issues. This is a case in which it might be better for all involved if the original poster is a troll.

The most active thread since my last post on Friday morning was titled, "Woman missing after reporting seeing a toddler on the highway" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. This thread was started Saturday based on a report that 25-year-old Carlee Russell had gone missing in Alabama in mysterious circumstances. While driving home Thursday night on Interstate 459, Russell had phoned 911 to report that a toddler was walking alone on the side of the road. Russell then pulled over and phoned a family member. Russell was heard asking someone if they were okay and then screamed, after which only noise from the road was heard. Police arrived to find Russell's car running with the door open and her phone and other belongings near by. But, there was no sign of her. Posters in the thread seemed convinced that Russell had been a victim of human traffickers who may have used a toddler as bait. A few posters found the idea that Russell was lured in to stopping unbelievable and proposed alternative ideas such as she was running away, had stumbled into a bad situation of sorts, or had even been attacked by a bear. Eventually the thread was mostly taken over by armchair detectives who appeared convinced that the mystery could be solved through Internet discussions. They would hustle back and forth between the WebSleuths website, Reddit, and DCUM, posting information from WebSleuths and Reddit without an ounce of skepticism. This led to considerable discusion of topics that don't appear to have any source beyond "a poster on Reddit" or similar. Seventeen pages into the thread, reports emerged that Russell had returned home and been taken to a hospital. The police eventually released a statement confirming that Russell was safe, but saying that they were holding off on questioning her in order to give the family some space. As such, almost nothing is known about what happened while Russell was missing or the circumstances under which she arrived at her home. This led to 20 more pages of theories and allegations, basically none of which had any factual basis. While many posters expressed joy that Russell had returned home safely and quite a few praised the handling of the situation by the police, a number of posters seemed determined to paint Russell as a sort of culprit in this situation. As of this morning, almost nothing has been released publicly about what happened to Russell, but that is not stopping rampant speculation.

Once again I am beginning this blog by talking about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. This was easily predictable as soon as the thread titled, "Prince Harry’s Latest Private Struggle: Hollywood or Home?" was created in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The original poster quotes an article suggesting that as Megan Markle is planning her next venture, Harry is considering a more subdued role. The original poster concludes by asking, "Is Harry ditching Hollywood?" I must say that the sourcing for this story in impecable, relying on the HeadlineReporter which, in turn, cites the Daily Mail. But, frankly, the source could have been the bathroom wall of an Irish pub and few of those responding would have cared. Clearly, most of those participating in this thread know the couple better than they know themselves. For instance, multiple posters claim that Megan wants to get a divorce but Harry doesn't. However, later in thread, posters claim that Harry is the one considering divorce. Despite their knowledge of the Sussex's, several of the posters struggle with geography. There is an initial dispute over whether the couple lives in Los Angeles. They don't, but rather in Montecito which is slightly over 90 miles from Los Angeles. Of course, everything west of the Rockies looks the same to us east coasters. Beyond this, there is little to differentiate this thread from the countless other Harry and Megan threads. Like those, this one will likely be locked soon. There is really no other topic that attracts obsessive posters like the Sussexes. Moreover, the posters spend a tremendous amount of time arguing about whether the fans or the detractors of the couple are the most obsessed. While I can understand fans wanting to post incessantly, I really don't understand the haters. Why do they find it impossible to simply ignore these two? It's really strange.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "The admissions change we can maybe all agree on . . ." and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The admissions change that the original poster proposes is to limit international students at US universities to no more than 5% of the class, creating more space for US citizens. At least at first, this suggestion is not well-received. Several posters argue that international students normally are full-pay and sometimes even pay higher tuition rates. That money helps universities meet financial needs that would otherwise have to be covered by increasing costs to other students. Other posters argue that universities have an interest in attracting the brightest minds and that often requires recruiting foreign students. Just about every assertion that the original poster included in the original post was contested. For instance, the original poster's claim about elite colleges having significant foreign enrollment was shown to be false. Similarly the claim that financial aid for international students is rare was challenged with data showing otherwise. One of the arguments in favor of international students was that they increase diversity on campus. The entire concept of "diversity" is controversial these days, especially after the Supreme Court's ruling about affirmative action. Many posters predict that Asians and Asian-Americans will dominate admissions at elite universities going forward. Some look forward to this development while others raise it as a concern. As a result, some of those responding interpret the original poster's argument as an simply another attempt to reduce the number of Asian students. The debate over whether this proposal was primarily aimed at Asians became so heated that I eventually locked the thread. While off-topic, another idea that received considerable attention in the thread was that we should expand our thinking about which universities are considered "elite". This argument is that universities beyond those currently considered to be among the top should be thought of as being of similar caliber and also targeted by top students.

The most active thread since my last post was the thread about the closing of Nottingham school that I discussed last week. I'll skip that one and start with the next most active thread which was titled, "Kate Middleton looks really happy lately" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The original poster started the thread by posting a series of photos in which the Princess of Wales is smiling. Started on Friday, the thread has only reached 14 pages which means that, despite a few efforts, the thread has not been taken over by posts about Meghan Markle. Had that been the case, this thread would be at least 50 pages and likely have been locked by now. As a rule, I avoid reading Royal Family threads so there is not much that I will be able to say about the responses. From skimming, it looks like many posters are not convinced that the Princess is truly happy. Others think that she is happy, but only because the scheming and conniving in which they believe she has engaged has paid off. To be sure, a few agree with the original poster and think that she does seem happy and not for nefarious reasons. The thread also seems to have veered off into a general discussion about the British Royal Family in general and the pros and cons of the family in the current day.