2024

The most active thread by a very considerable margin yesterday was titled, "Official debate thread get in here and bring your smile" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Needless to say, this thread is about last night's presidential debate between President Joe Biden and former president, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. The interest in this thread was amazing and while it was only created just before 9 p.m. last night, it has already reached 85 pages and over 1,100 posts. Obviously, it is not possible for me to read a thread of that length. As for the debate, what can be said? The bar for Biden had been set so low that I didn't believe there would be any way that he would not exceed expectations. Clearly I was wrong. Biden, whose voice was raspy apparently as a result of a cold, was difficult to understand, he repeatedly lost his train of thought, he constantly appeared confused and lost, and, perhaps due to camera angles, almost always seemed to be looking out into space. It's not so much that that Biden didn't reach the low bar that had been set, but rather that he precisely met the expectations that Republicans had set for him. The Republicans claimed that Biden is a feeble, tired, old man who lacks the mental capacity for the job. That is likely exactly how most viewers perceived Biden last night. Republicans are obviously overjoyed and practically dancing in the streets. Democrats, who panic even when things are going well, are completely beside themselves. The airwaves, as well as this thread and at least one additional thread, focused on how Biden might be replaced as the Democratic candidate. As I said in a recent post, replacing Biden is not straight forward and I have generally held the position that it is not going to happen. One hurdle that I don't hear mentioned very often is Ohio's deadline to be on the ballot that is earlier than the Democratic National Convention. The current Democratic plan is to formally nominate Biden through a virtual vote held before Ohio's deadline, in which case the convention would be purely ceremonial. It would take a true act of back room politics to convince Biden to bow out and then agree on an alternative candidate before Ohio's August 7th deadline. This would be an amazing feat and I am not sure that there is anyone in a position to make it happen. Of course Democrats could sacrifice the Ohio ballot position and choose a candidate at the convention, but there is an important Senate race in Ohio and Democratic turnout might suffer if there were not a meaningful Democratic presidential candidate on the ballot. Democrats might even be forced to run a write-in campaign for their candidate. Objectively, Biden had his moments during the debate. But by the time those came along, I think most people had already come to their conclusions about his performance. Moreover, the negative impressions will snowball as they are repeated incessantly over the next few days. While Biden clearly lost the debate, there is still a question of the debate's impact on the election. Plenty of posters in this thread were adamant that Biden could even do worse than he did and they would still vote for him. If polls over the next few days don't show a decline in support for Biden, the interest in replacing him will likely decrease. But, any significant drop-off will create additional impetus to find a new candidate.

Yesterday's most active thread was the thread about Fairfax County Public School boundaries which I discussed some time ago. The thread continues to be active with posters completely freaked out about rezoning plans that I am fairly certain don't actually exist at this point. The most active thread after that one was titled, "Is debate prep a waste of time?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster assumes that former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump will easily win tomorrow's presidential debate and wonders why President Joe Biden is bothering to prepare at all. This post, and a great number of the responses, really demonstrate the MAGA attitude toward knowlege. In short, they consider it better not to have any. Going back to Trump saying that he loves "the poorly educated", MAGAs are suspicious and distrustful of those who who are highly educated. The entire idea of getting prepared for a major event is contemptible to them. Another MAGA characteristic is amnesia. Not a single one of them seems to remember that Trump has also participated in debate preparation. Famously he infected Chris Christie with COVID while they were preparing for Trump's debate against Biden in 2020. This time around Trump is preparing in a less formal manner, but is still preparing. Like Trump, the MAGA posters in this thread can't quite make up their mind about Biden. On the one hand, they describe him as a feeble old man suffering from dementia. On the other hand, they are worried that Biden will easily exceed the very low expectations they have set for him. As a result, like Trump, MAGAs suggest that Biden will be drugged in order to have a good performance during the debate. They are also in full attack mode with regard to the CNN newscasters who will moderate the debate, accusing them of bias and predicting that they will favor Biden. Again, their amnesia prevents them from recalling that Trump and his team agreed to the moderators. Trump is orchestrating, and the DCUM MAGAs are participating in, a combination of referee-working and expectation setting. They seem to believe that if they accuse CNN's Jake Tapper and Dana Bash of bias frequently and loudly enough, the two will be intimidated into acting more favorably toward Trump. At the same time, this sets up a ready-made excuse for a poor Trump performance. If Trump does badly in the debate, it will not be because of his own shortcomings such as his lack of mental acuity, grasp of the issues, or failure of preparedness, but rather because the moderators were biased and Biden was on drugs. The MAGAs will not reflect on this thread and ask why Trump did not engage in more intense preparation, but rather will excuse his poor performance because Biden took a week to prepare, as if that is a bad thing. Trump famously when discussing immigration accused Mexico of not sending its best. When I see the quality of MAGA posters in threads such as this, I can't help thinking that Trump himself is not sending the best. Or, even worse, maybe these posters are among the best.

Many of the most active threads over the weekend were ones that I've already discussed and, therefore, will skip today. The first new thread among the most active was titled, "NFL quarterback's wife tells podcast she slept with his backup to make him jealous" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The original poster embedded a TikTok clip of Kelly Stafford, wife of Matthew Stafford, the quarterback for the NFL's Los Angeles Rams, discussing her early relationship with Mathew. It isn't often that a thread on DCUM makes me downright angry, but this is one of those times. What upset me is that this thread was not posted in good faith and misrepresents the facts to serve the original poster's personal agenda. I am not sure exactly what motivated the original poster, but perhaps jealously. At any rate, in the TikTok clip, Kelly implies that while in college she and Matthew had an on again and off again relationship, saying "I hated him, I loved him" while Matthew was just trying to date casually. Kelly goes on to say that at one point she dated the back-up quarterback who lived in the same dorm as Matthew. She says that she did this to "piss him off" and "it worked." Seeing her car there, Matthew jumped in her car as she was leaving and told her that the backup quarterback was not right for her. It was left unsaid, but we can deduce, that this led to Matthew becoming serious about their relationship. They went on to get married and now have four children. Kelly obviously meant this as a cute and funny story. But the original poster is apparently outraged by this and made it a personal mission to disgrace Kelly to the fullest extent possible. Posting well over 20 times in the thread, the original poster described Kelly as "trashy", "jersey-chasing", an "idle rich housewife", having hit the "bimbo lottery", "shameless and shallow", and a "whore". In addition, the original poster repeatedly accused both Kelly and Matthew of being serial cheaters and also suggested that Kelly's mother had advised her about how to manipulate Matthew. The original poster did not bother identifying herself as the original poster and, as such, her numerous follow-up posts may appear to most posters as coming from different posters. But, having the ability as I do to distinguish the original poster's posts and read them all at once, they paint a picture of someone with a deep-seated psychological problem. Just for the record, in the TikTok, Kelly only said that she "dated" the backup quarterback and didn't detail what level of intimacy may have occurred. The original poster insists that Kelly and the other player had sex, which may be the case but certainly was not confirmed. Moroever, the original poster also made it sound like this occurred while she and Matthew were married, which it obviously did not. Basically, this thread was one person's effort to exercise her own rage over the fact that another women had reached a point in her life in which she could comfortably laugh at earlier behavior about which she may not be particularly proud. Personally, I can unequivocally say that in this thread Kelly Stafford comes off looking considerably better than the original poster.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I discussed in yesterday's blog post, the college protests thread and the thread about unpopular pop culture opinions. I'll skip those today and start with a thread titled, "7/24/23 Trial of Usman Shahid -- driver who killed two Oakton teens" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. First some background. Back in June 22, Usman Shahid was driving a BMW at 81 miles per hour down a residential street near Oakton High School when he struck a car attempting a left turn and then careened into three high school students who had just left the school. Two of the students were killed and one was severely injured. Subsequently, Shahid was indicted for involuntary manslaughter. His trial was initially set for July of last year and this thread was created in order to discuss that legal procedure. However, the trial was delayed until recently. Since this thread's creation last July, it has been kept active by occasional queries about the status and updates as events developed. In addition, there has been significant discussion of the tragic event and with whom, exactly, responsibility lies. Given the speed at which Usman was travelling, this would appear to be rather cut and dry. However, Usman defenders have repeatedly taken to this thread to blame the driver of the car that Usman struck. Their contention is that the collision was not caused by Usman's high rate of speed, but rather the other driver's failure to yield to him and, instead, turning into his path. This thread was active yesterday because Usman's trial was finally held. Just like Usman's supporters in this thread, his defense attorney attempted to put blame on the driver of the car that Usman hit. During the trial it was revealed that Usman did not yet have a driver's license, but only a learner's permit. The BMW had just been purchased a few days prior to the collision. The car's data recorder showed that Usman had accelerated from 60 to 81 miles per hour in the 35 mph speed zone prior to the collision. Usman's defense appears to be that he was trying to beat the traffic light that had just turned yellow and the other car unexpectedly turned in front of him. Usman's lawyer apparently argued that he had no choice but to accelerate. While that may be a reasonable (or not) explanation of what happened, it doesn't seem like much of a defense to me. While BMWs accelerate quickly, they also have excellent brakes. Not to mention that Usman was driving nearly twice the legal speed limit near a school while students were around even before accelerating. Yesterday, the case was sent to the jury which convened for less than two hours before quitting for the day. The jury will reconvene today. Most of the posters in the thread seem convinced that Usman is guilty, but are  very worried that he will somehow be let off. We will probably have an decision from the jury sometime today.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "USC and Columbia Protests" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Threads about protests on college campuses, especially Columbia, have been rampant over the past several days. As anyone who has paid attention to the news will know, Columbia University's President was called before Congress where she was castigated for not doing enough about demonstrations. She returned to the college and asked the New York Police Department to arrest student demonstrators who had camped out on campus. The original poster of this thread criticized the arrests saying that things were "going to end badly". The original poster also criticized the decision by the president of the University of Southern California to cancel the graduation speech scheduled to be delivered by valedictorian Asna Tabassum, a Muslim woman, due to unspecified security threats. The original poster concluded, "These high level administrators seem completely clueless and out of touch with their student bodies." Many of the responses in the thread described incidents at other universities in which students were punished for demonstrating against the Israeli devastation of Gaza and the US complicity in what the students describe as "genocide". The situation at Columbia, in particular, has deteriorated rapidly since this thread has started. Unfortunately, there has been considerable misinformation spread, much of it showing up in this thread. Based on first-hand reporting, the student demonstrations on campus have been peaceful and, far from being anti-Semitic as some claim, actually include many Jewish students. However, outside campus, groups not associated with the University have gathered and have frequently been very aggressive toward visibly Jewish students and have engaged in anti-Semitic rhetoric. Opponents of the demonstrators have attempted to treat both groups as one, suggesting that the peaceful student groups are committing the activities of those outside campus. In addition, the thread contains a significant amount of scolding by those who do not think the students should be protesting and who accuse the students of being uninformed and naive. Many posters warn, sometime suggesting hope on their part, that the students are endangering their future job prospects. The situation on campuses and the opposition to demonstrators on the part of many DCUM posters reminds me of something Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail". King wrote:

For years we've been considering going solar and having solar panels installed on our home. Finally, in January we decided to pull the trigger. Because I was pretty far behind the curve when it comes to solar energy, I had to learn a lot quickly. I thought it might be worthwhile sharing my experience, not only with solar panels, but other follow-on purchases. Beyond helping the environment, there are several ways that a homeowner can benefit from a solar electric system. The first is called "net metering". In a traditional electric supply, the electric meter on your home goes up as you use electricity from the grid. With solar, the meter runs both ways. When you use electricity from the grid such as at night or on cloudy day, the meter goes up just as before. But when you produce more solar energy than your home is able to use, the electricity is exported to the grid and the meter runs the other way. You don't pay for the electricity you produce that goes directly to your home and any electricity exported to the grid offsets electricity provided by the electric company. In March, our first full month of using solar, we came very close to breaking even, ending up having to pay about $3 for electricity. The second financial benefit comes from solar renewable energy credits (SRECs). Electric companies such as PEPCO are required to use a certain percentage of renewable energy each year. To meet that requirement, PEPCO purchases renewable energy credits. Solar energy producers, including homeowners, can sell credits reflecting their production. An SREC is created for each megawatt-hour of electricity your system produces, whether you use that energy or not. SRECs are sold on markets similar to stock exchanges, but the markets vary by state which each state having its own rules. The District of Columbia has very high prices for SRECs, maybe the highest in the nation. I was able to sell the first SREC our system produced for $430 minus a $2.50 fee for the exchange. In addition, we are eligible for a federal tax credit for 30% of the cost of the system.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "My boyfriend steals groceries", which was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that her boyfriend routinely only rings up 75% of the items when he goes through self-checkout. His justification is that stores assume that people are stealing and have baked that into the price. He also claims that most men do this. There is pretty solid agreement among those responding that most men do not do this. Moreover, several posters claim that this in an indication of a lack of ethics on the original poster's boyfriend's behalf and that they would not want to be involved with such a man. One poster suggested that if the original poster were with her boyfriend while he was stealing and he got caught, she could also be arrested. In a follow-up post, the original poster said that was something which she had not considered. In an even later follow-up, the original poster said that her boyfriend is a government lawyer with a security clearance which makes the theft even more confounding. The general consensus among those responding is that the original poster should break up with this guy because of this huge moral lapse which, many argue, is probably an indication of other serious flaws. One interesting thing that came out in this thread is the sort of sliding moral compasses many posters seem to have. While almost everyone is appalled that the original poster's boyfriend routinely steals 25% of his groceries, several admit to their own more limited theft. Multiple posters claim that they intentionally ring up items incorrectly to save money. For instance, identifying one type of apple as a less expensive apple. Others say that if an item doesn't ring up after an attempt or two, they will go ahead and put it in their bag. Therefore, the issue is not that the boyfriend is stealing, but that he is stealing too much. I wonder what would be the acceptable limit? For instance if he paid for 90% or even 98% of his groceries, would there be less condemnation? Most of the posters don't have to struggle with this question, however. For them, any theft is wrong. Some even describe extra efforts they've made to pay for items that they could otherwise have gotten away with for free. As more than one poster noted, it is rare for a DCUM thread to have such unanimity in responses. Nobody found the theft to be acceptable and nobody thought that men are more apt to shoplift than women (some argued that the opposite is true). A few posters struggled to find explanations that would make the stealing more understandable, hinting, for instance, that the guy might be a minority in an urban area. But, the opposite turned out to be true, which, sadly, probably did nothing to cause these posters to rethink their prejudices.

Yesterday must have been groundhog day, at least as far as the two most active threads were concerned. Both dealt with topics that I thought had been put behind us. The first of these threads was titled, "People still masking every day at work" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that she works in a federal office and there are a few people who mask every day. She finds this weird and wonders if they are not vaccinated or just super paranoid. The first poster to respond claims that those who are not vaccinated are unlikely to wear masks. I am fairly certain that nobody disputed this contention. Other posters claim that these individuals are likely just very concerned about catching COVID, though not necessarily without justification. For instance, they may have conditions that put them at high risk or live with someone who does. Multiple posters pointed out that for some people having COVID was very traumatic, in some cases requiring long hospitalization and causing them to be near death. Others lost family members. In such cases, the individuals might be suffering from something akin to PTSD. I noticed that when masking was common, a number of those who suffer from allergies found that masks provided relief. Along these lines, some posters said that they know of people who are now masking due to allergies or asthma. Several posters took the position that it is none of the original poster's business why people mask and argued that it is strange to care so much about this. To be fair, the original poster simply seems to be curious and doesn't really appear to care all that much. On the other hand, masking seems to infuriate some people and send them completely over the edge. One poster compared those masking today to "an unkempt man muttering to himself". Another wrote that "They're mentally ill and should not be coddled". Some posters just can't stop themselves from turning everything political such as the poster who argued that "lefties are nuts about Covid." One poster suggested that masking and showing other signs of being overly COVID cautious was simply a ploy by those individuals to be "weird out" their colleagues and, thereby, be allowed to work from home. The 2024 version of Corporal Klinger from M*A*S*H, I guess. Personally, I agreed completely with the poster who wrote:

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Harvard will require Test Scores starting next year", and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. As the title says, Harvard University announced yesterday that it will require students who are applying for the Fall of 2025 to provide standardized test scores. Harvard follows a number of other selective universities in reversing course regarding tests. I have discussed several similar threads on the topic of standardized tests and I don't see much in this thread that is different from previous discussions. For years there was opposition to standardized testing because opponents believed that testing favored the privileged who could afford test preparation classes and multiple retakes. Then the COVID pandemic caused test centers to close and universities resorted to test optional policies. In the midst of all this the US Supreme Court, partially due to evidence that applicants with higher test scores were being refused admission in favor of minority students with lower scores, prohibited the use of race as a factor in admissions. Joyful test supporters celebrated a return to a time in which the best and the brightest — as evidenced by test scores — would be selected for college. But standing in the way of that vision were test optional admissions policies which critics viewed as a way to continue admitting less qualified minority students. Now that selective colleges are again requiring test scores, this group believes their goal is being achieved. But, not so fast, at least if you believe university officials. As a string of prestigious colleges have reinstated test scores requirements, they have all consistently broadcast the same message. School administrators have argued that test scores, far from disadvantaging underrepresented minority students, can actually help them and, they argue, test optional policies have harmed rather then benefitted URM applicants. So standardized tests, previously viewed as a hurdle to the disadvantaged, are being reintroduced not in the manner that test supporters have hoped — as a clear cut means of distinguishing academic capability — but rather as a tool for increasing diversity. As the Washington Post article cited by the original poster quotes Harvard Professor Raj Chetty as saying, "Considering standardized test scores is likely to make the admissions process at Harvard more meritocratic while increasing socioeconomic diversity." The argument about tests has flipped 180 degrees. The argument being made by the universities is that a student from a disadvantaged background who has fairly decent test score may be seen as a better candidate than a more advantaged applicant with a higher score. By not submitting those less than top scores, these applicants have been hurting their chances. Now their chances will improve as the test scores are viewed in the wider context of a student's background. This raises two questions for me. One, are these school officials to be believed? Are they really going to select disadvantaged students with lower test scores than advantaged students they reject? Or, is this just a nice argument that makes the policy change more appetizing? Second, if schools actually do follow through and do this, won't they end up back in court?

The three most active threads yesterday were all ones that I've previously discussed and will skip today. Those were the Gaza war thread, the Fairfax County murders thread, and the thread about not allowing children to attend a wedding. Yesterday's fourth most active thread, but the first that I will discuss today, was titled, "Biden’s latest Poll numbers" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started back in January and has been more or less active since then. Apparently it was particularly active yesterday though I am not exactly sure why. As with the last several elections, polls are a source of great controversy these days. Conservatives, in particular, have long argued that polls are biased against them and a popular theory during the last two elections was that former President and current cult leader Donald Trump's poll numbers were lower than his real support because Trump supporters refused to talk to pollsters. More recently, suspicion of polls has shifted towards the left due to the belief that younger voters — who are more likely to vote for Democrats — would more likely voluntarily undergo a root canal operation than answer an unidentified caller. It is true that since the US Supreme Court ruling overturning the Roe vs. Wade decision, Democrats have out-performed the polls. The result is an almost total flip of positions regarding polls. As poll after poll shows Trump leading President Joe Biden, Republicans tout poll results as infallible and clear indications of a certain Trump victory in November. Democrats, on the other hand, warn that the polls shouldn't be taken seriously and that they don't reflect the eventual outcome. If there is one thing that does seem to be consistent with polling of the Presidential race, at least at the national level, it is that they show the election to be close at this point. One day Trump may be slightly ahead and the next day Biden is ahead by a hair. But, the Presidential election is a state-by-state election rather than a nationwide vote. In the critical battleground states, Trump has been consistently leading most of the polls. But, not to fear say Democrats. Biden still has time to build support and Trump will be hanged on his own petard due to his opposition to mail-in voting. This thread demonstrates that there are two battles going on. One to publicize favorable poll results and the other over the interpretation of those results. This creates a pattern in which partisans rush to post results of polls that support their side while simultaneously criticizing and expressing disbelief about poll results that are not favorable to them. I believe that there is a rule of thumb that you should not pay attention to opinion polls before Labor Day. If this is true, we still have several months of what is likely to be meaningless chatter in this thread.