2023

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "I think I win the Thanksgiving 2023 petty vents already" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. Complaints about family members around Thanksgiving are, of course, fairly common and threads about such issues are an annual DCUM tradition. Just as in the case of yesterday's bagel controversy thread, many of the complaints tend toward the petty end of the spectrum. The original poster of this thread owned the nature of her gripe which involved her in-laws arriving at her home 9 hours before the were expected. As the original poster acknowledges, it's not the worst thing that could have happened, but it was a nuisance. She and her husband were working at home during the day and, therefore, not available to entertain guests that early and had not finished their preparations. There was laundry still to be done and beds to be made. However, if the original poster thinks that this is going to be the most petty complaint over the holiday, she vastly underestimates DCUM. As this 16 page thread demonstrates, DCUMers can vent about a lot more petty things than this. The annual petty vent thread has a lot of fans. I guess it is sort of a guilty pleasure. Posters can enjoy other's misery but, since it's only petty, they don't really have to feel bad about it. Those who don't understand the concept and urge the venters to "get over it" are met with disdain. "Here for the petty, rolling my eyes at every poster who's told a venter to suck it up/she's the problem", wrote one poster. Because yesterday was a bit early for many posters to already have vents, petty or otherwise, some posters brought up things from previous years. One poster complained about her mother-in-law moving furniture around in order to search for dust bunnies. The poster recounted how she gave her mother-in-law the phone number for her cleaning service and asked her to lodge a complaint with them. Another poster's petty vent got quite a bit of attention. In this case the poster was the guest, visiting her brother and his wife. The poster says that she doesn't have high expectations for how she is treated, but it appears that her sister-in-law has taken the advice commonly offered on DCUM and made the poster her brother's responsibility. He, in turn, hasn't seemed capable of offering the poster a cup of tea, some cheese to eat, or even clean sheets or the bed. The initial post from this poster appeared to blame the lack of hospitality on her sister-in-law, causing a number of replies questioning why her brother was such a poor host and why the poster expected better treatment from her sister-in-law. This poster's story, buttressed by constant subsequent posts that did little to calm the storm, practically took over the thread and she was dubbed variously the "tea poster" or "cheese lady". She may well go down in the annals of DCUM folklore.

For only the second time since October 7, the Gaza war thread was not the most active. In fact, it slipped all the way down to fourth most active. This is really not a surprise as the thread has become unreadable and consisting of little more than an exchange of insults. The thread that was the most active was titled, "Hoping these kids are OK" and was posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The thread is about a tragic event that occurred yesterday morning at around 5 am. A SUV in which 7 teenagers were riding crashed into a tree, apparently at a high rate of speed, and spun several times before coming to rest across the street. Five of the occupants were ejected from the vehicle and one was trapped and needed to be extricated. Only the driver, who seems to have been the only one using a seatbelt, was able to walk away from the crash. The 17-year-old driver was initially charged with Driving Under the Influence, but was then released without charges. Charges remain pending and the investigation is continuing. The thread started out with posters simply trying to gather more details. Several posters, including the original poster, live near the scene of the crash and were very concerned about the condition of the kids. One topic posters wondered about was which school or schools the vehicle's occupants attend. That information began to trickle out as first one school, then another, and then a third, released statements. My understanding is that one of occupants attends McLean High School, one goes to Longfellow Middle School, and the rest are students at Marshal High School. Posters also focused on what might have lead to the accident. They found it odd — as do I — that teens would be out early on a school day morning and under the influence of drugs or alcohol. There was speculation that they might have stayed the night after a party or been up the entire night. Posters wondered why parents would allow their kids out over night. This launched a huge debate about the ability of parents to control headstrong teenagers who have been known to sneak out of their homes without their parent's knowledge. Some posters have apparently turned their houses into virtual prisons to ensure their kids are home at night. There is considerable discusion about whether poor parenting contributed to this tragedy with some posters more than willing to put full blame on the parents and others arguing that even the best parenting is sometimes not enough. In reaction to events such as this, there is often a rush to identify a factor that parents don't believe applies to them or their children in order to provide some assurance that this couldn't happen to them. This thread is full of such efforts. For instance the insistance of several posters that their kids would never be out at such hours without a legitimate need. But other posters are quick to remind them that you can't be smug when it comes to parenting.

The Gaza war thread continued as the most active yesterday. The most active thread after that one was titled, "Picky eaters and Thanksgiving (and holidays generally)" and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster's six-year-old daughter is a very picky eater who doesn't like most of the traditional Thanksgiving dinner food items. Last year, the only thing the child would eat was dinner rolls. The original poster has come up with three possible strategies. The first is to serve her daughter a big breakfast and then not worry about what she eats or doesn't eat at dinner. The second is to prepare side dishes that her daughter will like and others might enjoy as well and the third was to prepare a special plate for her daughter with food that she will eat. This thread managed to reach 24 pages as of this morning. As such, I can't read all of it. But, the first few pages showed that there were posters supporting each of the three options, though the first idea of providing a big breakfast and then not worrying about what the girl ate seemed to have the most supporters. To reach this length, there would most likely have to be a fairly big argument in the thread and I expected that such a debate would be provoked by a poster arguing that the girl should be told that she is expected to sit at the table and can either eat what is served or starve. However, no such post arrived until the 4th page. But then that post didn't cause much of a dispute, though a much more milder post caused a momentary contretemps. It looks like things really started to fall apart later over the issue of boxed macaroni and cheese, which ironically was not one of the original poster's suggestions but was offered by someone else. Apparently, DCUM posters have very strong feelings about boxed mac and cheese. Especially at Thanksgiving. The fight that I was expecting to be provoked earlier eventually did get started when a poster stipulated that, "When you are a guest you eat what is served." This caused a backlash, but one poster in particular stood out for her strident opposition to this idea. This poster, who appears to have posted at least 22 times in the thread, generally provided responses along the lines of "Oh, stuff it, MeeMaw", "What a nasty, rigid old bat you are", and "No one is interested in you dull old people." DCUM is so fortunate to have users of this sort to contribute such substantive and helpful content.

Once again the Gaza war thread was the most active. But, with just over 300 new posts, the thread barely held on to the position. The second most active thread was related. Titled, "Please share your ideas for SOLUTIONS to the middle east crisis", the thread was similarly posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster asks others about their ideas for a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Rather than slog through this 17 page thread, I'll address questions that I saw on the first page. The most commonly stated solution to the conflict is the "Two-State Solution" in which a Palestinian state consisting of Gaza and parts of the West Bank coexists with Israel. This solution is the basis of the original United Nations resolution that led to the creation of Israel, was reinforced in UN Resolutions 338 and 242, and was the foundation of the Oslo Accords. The United States officially supports this arrangement and President Joe Biden has restated that position several times in recent days. However, despite the wide-spread support internationally, the idea faces significant hurdles and, under current circumstances, can't reasonably be considered a serious proposition. The first hurdle to a two-state solution is the fact that Israel is a politically divided country. The political spectrum runs from those who would happily accomodate a Palestinian state in the majority of Gaza and the West Bank to those who don't want to give up an inch of the West Bank and would even like to take Gaza back. The Israeli settler movement which has been steadily seizing more and more territory in the West Bank is enacting a fait accompli and leaving less land for a Palestinian state every day. Israeli proposals for a Palestinian state have only allowed for a disjointed, non-contiguous territory that would not be viable. Moreover, Israel expects to maintain significant restrictions and important influence and control over such a country. This is obviously unacceptable to Palestinians. Under the status quo, Israel — which likes to advertise itself as the only democracy in the Middle East — faces a dilemma. It can be a Jewish state, which requires it to rule undemocratically over the Palestinians, or it can be a democracy and provide full rights to those in the occupied territories. But, given the number of Palestinians, in that scenario the country would no longer remain as a Jewish state. As a result, Israelis have a host of solutions that involve annexing territory while either outright expelling Palestinians or leaving them powerless. None are acceptable to the Palestinians. A few Israelis and an increasing number of Palestinians favor a "one-state" solution in which Israelis and Palestinians share a democratic country in which both communities have equal rights. This maintains Israel's democracy while sacrificing its Jewish identity. This is the solution supported by the "Free Palestine from the River to the Sea" slogan that has been popular at pro-Palestinian demonstrations. This idea, of course, also has little chance of being implemented in the foreseeable future. In the absence of progress toward a resolution, Palestinians live under harsh Israeli oppression and watch more and more of their land disappear under settler feet every day. This results in a unstable and periodically violent situation. This leaves, at best, incomplete half-measures that might relieve the worst of the Palestinian suffering and reduce violence. Such steps would include crackdowns on settlers including the removal of some settlements, political reform of the Palestinian National Authority, and increased freedoms for Palestinian residents.

The most active thread yesterday continued to be the Gaza war thread but the next most active thread was titled, "White flight from MCPS" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. Posters in almost all of the public school forums seemed completely convinced that their school systems are collapsing. There is thread after thread complaining about one aspect or another of schools. This thread is another of that genre. The original poster, after three tries, managed to embed a graphic that was taken from a Board of Education presentation that showed trendlines of enrollment by race and ethnicity. The graphic clearly showed a decline in White, Non-Hispanic enrollment and an increase in Hispanic enrollment. Universally, this seems to be considered a bad thing, though exactly why is never quite explained. Several posters offer various explanations for the enrollment trends. One poster blames segregation of schools and suggests boundary changes might fix it. Others say that educated or affluent families are choosing private schools. Some posters don't think White families are fleeing, but rather fewer White families are having children and the ones that do are having fewer children. In their view, the number of White students is decreasing because the number of White children is decreasing, not because White families are leaving MCPS. A number of posters blame the changes on immigration. Along with this were a number of posts blaming Hispanics for a number of ills that plague the schools. Before too long, the thread completely lost its focus on enrollment trends and, instead, simply became a litany of complaints about MCPS. A huge number of posters appear concerned with vaping which has apparently taken over every bathroom in middle and high schools. The most recent posts in the thread are debating which ethnicity has committed the most gruesome crime.

The two most active threads yesterday were both threads that I've previously covered. The Gaza war thread saw somewhat of a revival of interest and gained over 800 new posts. The Speaker of the US House of Representatives thread was second with 325 new posts. The Republicans finally managed to elect a speaker so maybe that thread will see a decline in interest. Both of those threads were in the "Political Discussion" forum, as was the next most active thread. Titled, "When the smallest doubt is treated as support of the other side", the original poster complains that political partisans require full support for their cause of the day and consider the slightest disagreement to be unacceptable. This is a 12-page thread and I don't have time to do more than skim a few pages of it. But, I see that a number of examples of events, political causes, or topics are presented in which this type of thing has occurred. A point with which I agree may have been made earlier in the thread, but I noticed it in a post on the last page. That post suggests that social media and online communication has probably contributed to this phenomenon. In a world in which support for a cause is represented by changing an avatar or through short bits of text, there is little room for nuance. To the contrary, everything becomes very black and white. The response I referenced above also touched on what I think is the other side of this coin which is a hypersensitivity to disagreement. In subsequent posts, the original poster listed a number of things she claims that "you can't say". In fact, you can say them. No law prevents you from saying them. But, if you say them you may well have someone disagree with you and state their objection. As the saying goes, if you can't take the heat, don't go into the kitchen. In addition to the folks who are ready to pounce at anything less than full compliance with their agenda, there are a whole bunch of people who are very heat adverse and don't want to go anywhere near the kitchen. Going back to social media, I think that it reinforces both of these tendencies. The medium does not encourage nuance and polite phrasing is rejected for more directness. But, the type of thing that might be acceptable when said privately between two friends is unwelcome when it is essentially a public rebuke posted on social media. Another aspect of this may be rooted in the American two-party system. Whereas many countries have multi-party systems that provide for a variety of views, our two-party system encourages picking a side. This is reinforced when the media interprets "objectivity" as presenting "both sides". There are many issues that have more than two sides, but those nuances get lost. If increased respect for the views of others could be combined with everyone having a bit thicker skin, we might all be better off.

The thread about the war in Gaza continues to lead as the most active thread with over 750 new posts yesterday. The next most active thread is somewhat related to that conflict. Titled, "Wealthy donors pull funding from from Harvard and U Penn for failure to denounce ‘antisemitism’" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the thread is about wealthy donors to universities pulling funding to the schools because the institutions have not been forceful enough in speaking out against anti-Semitism. There are a number of different issues that come up in the thread. The first, something that the original poster touched on, is whether universities even have a duty to comment on political topics. Several posters pointed out that schools have issued statements in regard to other issues and that being silent at this time would be seen as condoning anti-Semitism. But, this immediately led to disputes about whether actual anti-Semitism is involved in these cases. After the the Hamas attack on Israel, many supporters of Israel demanded unequivocal condemnations of Hamas. Because almost everyone expected massive retaliation by Israel that would result in significant numbers of Palestinian civilians being killed — something that is now coming to pass — many of those issuing statements combined denunciations of Hamas with expressions of concern about Gazans. In some places, including a few colleges, there were protests in support of Palestinians and, in some cases, even in solidarity with Hamas. Any or all of these actions were labeled as "anti-Semitic" by various parties. In response, others argued that even in the most extreme of these examples, the activities were anti-Israel, not anti-Jewish. This touches on a long-running debate about whether being anti-Israel or anti-Zionist is anti-Semitic. Another long-running debate is about free speech and the ramifications of being punished due to speech. Several posters saw the withdrawing of funding as anti-free speech actions while others disagreed, saying that free speech often comes with a cost. Many objected to what they perceived as wealthy Jews using their influence to control what is considered to be acceptable speech at universities. But, one of the examples highlighted by the original poster, Jon Huntsman Jr, is not Jewish. Moreover, the trope of rich Jews controlling society is itself anti-Semitic. Universities have been hotbeds of contention over the Israel-Arab conflict for some time and it is clear that pro-Palestinian viewpoints have made significant headway among students. Whether reactions such as these will influence this trend one way or another remains to be seen.

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.

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.