2023

The Hamas-Israel thread continued to be the most active yesterday, but with only 600 some new posts. This is almost half of what we saw for the first few days, but still several times more than the next most active thread. I also wrote a Special Edition blog post based on my observations from moderating that thread. The next most active thread was titled, "MIL buying items on my baby registry for herself" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster says, as the title states, that her mother-in-law has been buying items that are on the original poster's baby registry but keeping them for herself. The original poster says that she has no plans to leave her baby with her mother-in-law for any length of time so she doesn't know the reason for these purchases. Posters assume that the mother-in-law is simply preparing for visits after the baby is born. The original poster clarified in a subsequent post that the mother-in-law is not marking the items as "complete" on the registry, so most of those responding don't think there is a problem. I didn't read very many of the posts in this thread because, frankly, the topic bored me. But, as best I can tell, this is a battle between those who think the original poster is being overly-sensitive and those convinced that this is a sign of a domineering mother-in-law. In the first group's view, the original poster is being ridiculous. According to them, it is not the original poster's business what her mother-in-law buys and, in any case, she can't predict what will happen after the baby is born and she might end up being happy that her in-laws' home is well-equipped for the baby. The second group thinks the mother-in-law is being controlling and will use the baby items as an excuse to demand more visits than the original poster prefers. The original poster was fairly diligent about identifying herself as the original poster in her replies through much of the thread. But, eventually she began to sock puppet a bit. It appears that the real issue here is that the original poster already has issues with her mother-in-law not respecting boundaries and, therefore, her buying baby items feeds that preexisting frustration. Personally, I can think of a hundred more important issues that commonly face new parents so I can't imagine giving this one a second's thought.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Glad MCPS is getting sued". Posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum, the original poster supports the right of parent's to opt their children out of school activities that deal with sexual orientation and gender identity. The poster linked to an article describing a lawsuit filed by three families demanding this opt-out right. Essentially, the battle over books in school dealing with sexual orientation and gender identity has come to MCPS, though in a pretty mild form. While there are posters on both sides of this issue, the majority seem opposed to the opt-out demand. They reject the religious concerns expressed by some posters on the basis of separation of church and state. A few posters are not concerned about the subject matter, but simply don't think that some MCPS's choices aimed at inclusivity are challenging enough. They are fine with LGBTQ-friendly books, they just want them to be better written. While much of the discussion focuses on the controversy aspects of sexual orientation and gender identity, others posters argue that this is actually a fairly technical dispute. As one posters outlines very clearly, the families behind the lawsuit are requesting to be allowed to opt-out based on regulations governing instruction about family life and human sexuality. Since the books in question have nothing to do with instruction of human sexuality, that leaves only family life. The poster asks whether the regulations should extend to any book that portrays family life even if that is simply parents, a baby brother, and a grandmother, or only LGBTQ family life? The lawsuit is clear that the families' objections are to gay families and trans gender people and are a result of the families' religious beliefs. While one family is Muslim, the others are various Christian denominations. Frankly, the books involved are fairly mild and both the original poster and the plaintiffs have to stretch a bit to make them appear controversial. At the same time, they are not asking for a ban on the books so MCPS has not entered in to Florida or Virginia territory yet. Nevertheless, despite protestations in the lawsuit that the plaintiffs believe people of all sexual orientations and gender identities must be respected, they appear quite unwilling to have their children simply learn about the existence of such people. As such, I question how much respect can be given to those about whom you don't even want your children to know.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "What parts of your life/lifestyle are unapproved by DCUM standards?" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster provided no further explanation about the topic of this thread beyond what was in the title. This is somewhat baffling to me because I am not aware of DCUM having approved standards. Rather, from its inception, DCUM has been known for the lack of agreement among its posters. If any conceivable difference of opinion can be found, DCUM posters will argue about it. As a result, I suspect that "standards" in this case are simply something that one or more random posters like while a similar or greater number of random posters don't like. DCUM almost never speaks with one voice and, frankly, if it did it would be rather boring. At any rate, I am fairly certain that "standards" is not the proper term to use in this context. The original poster's examples are vacationing in Wildwood, NJ and Ocean City, MD every summer. This basically makes my point. I don't know anything about Wildwood but a quick search on our travel forum shows that it has a number of fans due to its boardwalk. To the extent posters didn't like it, it's because they prefer Ocean City, NJ. As for Ocean City, MD, just about everyone in the DC area seems to have a love/hate relationship with it. Everyone hates it but everyone still goes there. Frankly, if DCUM had standards, this thread wouldn't meet them. Almost immediately it turns into posters simply posting snide remarks or non-sequiturs. One poster, for instance, claims that DCUM hates mothers. Very keen insight about a website dominated by mothers. And, of course, racists seize the opportunity to come out of their holes. True to form, multiple arguments appear to have broken out though I can't say much about them because I can't bring myself to read more than a few posts. I feel no end of disappointment about threads like this that I consider complete wastes of time.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed. The next most active thread was titled, "Republicans and the debt ceiling" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started back on January 11th, but has been revived and reinvigorated recently as we approach the end of the government's ability to borrow money and, therefore, have sufficient funds to pay its bills. The original poster refers to "20" who are eager to screw around with the debt ceiling. I don't remember the context in which this thread was started, but I assume that the original poster was asking about a group of House Republicans since they have been outspoken about using the debt ceiling as leverage to achieve political goals. The thread has now reached 61 pages, adding 8 pages yesterday alone. I have only read a few posts, but one thing I noticed is how many posters appear to have little understanding of the debt limit and the ramifications of reaching it. For example, one poster claimed, "These have happened before many times with no stock market crash or trillions lost in equity, or significant job losses." This is completely false. The US has never breached the debt limit. We came within two days of doing so in 2011 and that resulted in a downgrade of the US's credit rating which increased borrowing costs. In addition, there was a steep drop in the stock market. Given such confusion, it might be helpful to clarify some of the basics of the debt limit. There are two terms that are often confused, the national debt and the budget deficit. The debt limit applies to the first, the total amount of money that the US owes to lenders. Because of the second, the budget deficit, the government spends more than it takes in as revenue. Therefore, to pay its financial obligations, the government must borrow money. If we reach the debt limit, which we are now just days away from doing, the government will be unable to borrow additional funds and, therefore, will have insufficient funds to meet its financial obligations. The government would likely default on its loans, likely having global financial repercussions. As we saw in 2011, simply getting near the debt ceiling resulted in a credit downgrade and stock market upheaval. A default would have much more serious ramifications. Any number of government services would be impacted and many might cease operation. Another aspect of the debt ceiling that is frequently misunderstood is that the debt is necessary to finance prior spending, not future spending. We can reduce future spending all that we want, but we would still need to increase the debt ceiling simply to pay for past expenditures. Much of the debt is a result of tax cuts approved by Republicans during the Trump administration. This reduced revenue to the government and increased the amount of money that needed to borrowed. By arguing for future spending cuts (but exempting the military and entitlements), while refusing any tax increases, the Republicans are attempting to force major cuts to a relatively small number of programs that are favored by Democrats.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "NYTimes: College educated workers are leaving DC due to high housing costs" and posted in the "Real Estate" forum. The original poster linked to an article in the New York Times which reported that several major cities have become too expensive even for those with college degrees and, as a result, those cities are seeing a net outflow of college-educated residents. Washington, DC was one of the cities discussed in the article. The article addresses a concern that is discussed almost constantly in the Real Estate forum — the high cost of housing. For years, posters in the forum have posted their predictions that real estate prices would drop any minute now. But, prices continued to rise. It is perfectly understandable that some would eventually give up on the housing market and look elsewhere. For some reason, a number of posters in the thread were under the impression that those leaving DC were choosing rural areas instead. As a result, there are a number of posts comparing and contrasting rural areas to DC. But, as several posters pointed out, the outflow was mostly to other cities. One of the points in the article was that those making the move were still able to access that same amenities they enjoyed in DC, but more affordably. While some posters were quick to attribute the migration out of DC to crime and the increasingly visible unhoused population, others pointed out that the time period that the Times analyzed was during the pandemic, a time when urban amenities were much less available and working from home was prevalent. Both of those developments decreased the attractiveness of living in DC. Many of the posts in the thread are from posters describing their own personal experiences, several of them having moved from DC to other cities. Those posters seem generally happy with their choices. Other posters, many still living in DC or the environs, use the thread to describe a number of things that they dislike about DC. When it comes to complaints about DC, I understand dissatisfaction with crime or the high cost of living. Those are things outside an individual's control. But one of the most common criticisms I see is about DC residents who the posters describe as "pretentious", "materialistic", or "social climbers". This only describes a very limited subset of DC residents and people with those traits can be found nearly everywhere. If those are the only type of people to whom you are exposed in DC, you need to broaden your horizons. But, regardless of the posters' feelings about the friendliness of those living in DC, the discussion always returned to the cost of housing. There is a sort of "nobody goes there anymore, its too crowded" phenomenon going on. I suppose that as prices continue to grow out of reach of more and more people, they will either have to stabilize or even drop. The constant predictions of exactly this notwithstanding, it doesn't seem to be happening yet.

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.

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.

For the third day in a row, the most active thread was the thread about the school shooting in Tennessee. Since I've already discussed that thread, I'll move to the next which was titled, "Republican controlled states - Limiting college students’ voting rights" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Most of the most active threads yesterday were political in some way and several posters suggested this one should be moved to the political forum. But, since the original poster, who discussed Republican efforts to prevent college students from voting and anti-abortion moves, asked whether these developments should affect college choices, I decided to keep it in the college forum. The responses that I read concentrated heavily on the posters' personal experiences with voting during college. Those who voted in their hometowns by absentee either implicitly or explicitly suggested that other students should do the same. Those who voted in their college towns argued that such voting was proper because they spent most of the year there. Several posters opposed students voting because they believed it would be easy for students to also vote at home, thereby voting twice. Regardless, this dispute misses the point of the thread which is whether efforts to prevent voting, as well as lack of access to abortion, should be reasons to avoid such states. Many posters agreed that these states should be avoided and several said that they had avoided them during recent college searches. Nevertheless, most of the responses ignored the intent of the thread and focused on the issue of students' residency, addressing such issues as where students obtained drivers' licenses, where they paid taxes, or how long they lived in the state.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Git into a huge fight with brother's date at a wedding and ruined dinner" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster describes attending a family member's wedding when, during dinner, her brother's date began discussing politics and making increasingly racist statements. At some point, the original poster began challenging some of the woman's statements, leading to a sort of low-key argument which made others uncomfortable and possibly prompting some of them to leave. Now many people are angry with the original poster, but she refuses to apologize and asks what should be done in these situations. Sadly, but I guess not surprisingly, very few posters sympathize with the original poster. Most of the initial responders suggest that she should have excused herself from the table. But, when the original poster explained that circumstances did not allow that, posters begin to put blame on her. I think the responses in this thread, as well as its length, are illustrative of where our society currently stands with regard to dialogue on race. On the one hand, there is a constant drumbeat that society is "woke" and even completely innocent statements are being characterized as racist and leading to individuals being wrongly "cancelled". However, at the same time, appeals to racism and increasingly overtly racist statements have become distressingly acceptable and anyone standing against racism is criticized as being "woke" (which for some reason is considered to be bad). More often than not, it is not the borderline or full on racists who are castigated, but those who refuse to tolerate their racism. As such, the original poster is the target of most of the criticism in this thread. Posters argue that the woman's statements probably were not that bad with more than one poster suggesting that she probably said the sort of thing that you might hear on Fox News. Well, exactly. That is part of the problem. Sadly, where much of our society stands right now, anything less than the most blatant racism is supposed to be accepted while those who challenge it are blamed for intolerance. That is clearly demonstrated in this thread. Some posters even appear to take a sort of joy in ridiculing the OP for being offended, implying that she demonstrates a deranged liberal mindset. To be fair, there were a few lonely voices supporting the original poster. Even more posters agreed her brother's date was out of line, though those posters generally felt the original poster handled things poorly.