Tuesday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday the most active thread was the Travis and Taylor thread that I've already discussed and will therefore skip today. The second was a thread about a two-hour delay in opening Montgomery County Public Schools yesterday. However, that thread was started with only a link — a violation of DCUM guidelines — and was simply 12 pages of posters complaining about the delay. It is no longer relevant and combined with the link-only first post, I decided to delete it rather than discuss it. That left the first thread to be discussed today to one titled, "The Senate passed a $95.3 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This aid package has had a long and complicated history. The Biden Administration originally requested significant aid to Ukraine as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, which Congress considered toward the end of last year. Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed the assistance unless it was accompanied by an immigration bill strengthening border security. As a result, the NDAA was eventually passed with only a small assistance package for Ukraine and a bipartisan group of Senators began negotiating an immigration bill that could be part of a larger aid package. This month, Republican Senator James Lankford announced that he had achieved bipartisan agreement on such a bill, but former President Donald Trump immediately announced his opposition to the bill because he would rather have border security be an issue during the presidential campaign. Reflecting Trump's influence, almost all Republicans — even some of those who had helped negotiate the bill — announced opposition to it. Ultimately only 4 Republicans would vote in favor of the legislation which failed to overcome a Republican filibuster. Senators then pulled the foreign assistance package from the combined immigration/foreign assistance bill and voted on it separately. This thread was started after passage of that legislation. However, the bill must now return to the House for passage in that chamber. House Republicans, who had joined Trump's opposition to the bipartisan Senate immigration legislation and rejected immigration reform, are now demanding that immigration reform be part of the bill. This reflects two 180 degree flips in the House Republican position since December. House Republicans face a number of challenges that are preventing them from producing any serious legislation. First, the caucus has a laser-thin majority which will become one seat less after the winner of yesterday's special election to fill the seat of disgraced Republicans Congressman George Santos is sworn in. This, combined with an insistance by Republican hardliners that important legislation be passed with a Republican majority rather than reliance on Democrats, makes a bill of this nature almost impossible to pass. Several Republicans outright reject any further aid to Ukraine and, like Trump, seem to have no concern about Russia taking over Ukraine. So, there just aren't enough Republican votes and passing such a bill with Democratic votes would likely result in the ouster of House Speaker Mike Johnson. Johnson, rather than risk his speakership or see the aid bill defeated by Republicans, prefers to cloud the issue with demands for immigration reform. The result will likely be a stalemate unless the defense industrial complex, with its eye on billions of dollars, can convince Johnson and his Republican colleagues to have a change of heart.

The next most active thread was posted in the "Infertility Support and Discussion" forum, making it the first thread from that forum to appear on the most active list. The thread was titled, "Surrogacy help" and discusses the original poster's desire to find a surrogate to carry a viable embryo that has been frozen for several years. One twist to this thread, which is in a forum that is normally almost exclusively female, is that the poster is male. He and his wife have one child, but his wife is no longer able to carry a fetus due to health reasons. The original poster is under the impression that their situation is not something with which agencies normally deal and, therefore, believes finding a surrogate without using an agency is a better strategy. He is looking for advice from others who have been in similar situations. Several posters disagree with the original poster about his assumption regarding agencies and suggest that his need is fairly inline with the services they provide. They urge him not to rule out working with an agency. But, the reason for the length of this thread is that there is considerable opposition to the entire concept of surrogacy. Several posters see the practice as exploitative of women and believe that it should be outlawed. This thread really could have used significant moderation and I am sorry that I was not aware of what was going on. While I recognize that posters hold a variety of views about surrogacy, this is not the thread or the forum for expressing those views. The title of the forum has "support" explicitly included in it because the infertility forum is meant to be a support forum, not a debate society. Posters who are not prepared to offer support should hold their tongues and simply move to another thread. Unfortunately, that did not happen in this instance. One poster was particularly assertive about posting, ultimately posting 55 times in this 8 page thread. In contrast, the original poster only posted 36 times. Later in the thread the original poster said that he enjoys the trolls, something that seemed apparent by his continual engagement with them and his failure to report any of the posts. But, the result is that most of the thread is simply an argument between one poster arguing that surrogacy is exploitative of women and should be outlawed and the original poster arguing that he is seeking someone to willingly provide a legal service and that the anti-surrogacy poster is attempting to prevent women from choosing what they can do with their bodies. Other posters have no qualms with surrogacy, but criticize the original poster for trying to save money rather than using the normal process of going through an agency.

Next was a thread titled, "Family member has Covid and is going to work, super bowl party, happy hour etc unmasked - is it illegal?" and posted in the "Health and Medicine" forum. As explained in the title, a family member of the original poster has tested positive for covid and is displaying minor symptoms. However, the individual is not isolating but instead carrying on as normal. The original poster wants to know if there could be legal consequences or if the health department would do anything about it. Those questions are almost immediately settled. It is not illegal and the health department will not do anything. But, the discussion contines due to debates over whether the relative is behaving immorally or, rather, completely appropriately. It has long been apparent that people live in completely different realities as far as covid is concerned. On the one hand are those who see it as a significant health threat that is killing thousands of people a month in the US. One poster went so far as to call it "the plague of this century". On the other hand are posters for whom covid is "just a cold". While both sides in this debate claim to "follow the science", generally this means that they simply cherry-pick facts that fit their agenda. The most recent example of this was the reaction to reports that the Center for Disease Control would change it guidance regarding isolating when positive for covid. The current recommendation is for a 5 day quarantine. Instead, people will be asked to isolate until they have been fever-free for 24 hours and have mild or improving symptoms. There were a number of issues with how posters reacted to this. Several posters referenced these reports to claim that isolation is no longer recommended. This is a misunderstanding. First, despite the reports, the CDC has not changed its guidance at this point and we have no way of knowing if or when they might. Second, even if the reports about the new guidance are correct and the CDC does change its recommendations, isolation while experiencing a fever and then for an additional 24 hours will be recommended. But, based on posts in this thread, those opposed to isolation will simply ignore the details and justify not isolating due to their erroneous understanding. Or, in many cases, they won't bother with a justification at all. A number of posters seemed to believe that interacting in public while displaying covid symptoms is perfectly okay. They won't even know if they have covid because they won't bother to test. They don't care if they infect others or not. As or those who are medically-vulnerable and for whom covid could be a death sentence, these posters expect them to protect themselves rather than expecting others to take precautions.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum and titled, "BOE reconsidering the Virtual Academy, Leader in Me, and Innovative School Year Calendar". This one is going to require some unpacking. Neither the Board of Education calendar nor the original poster provide any information about these programs or what the Board intends to do with them. The Virtual Academy is an online school serving grades 1 - 12. Students enroll in their home school, but take classes through the Virtual Academy. The Leader in Me program is offered at a small number of MCPS schools and:

helps students learn how to become self-reliant, take initiative, plan ahead, set and track goals, do their homework, prioritize their time, manage their emotions, be considerate of others, express their viewpoint persuasively, resolve conflicts, find creative solutions, value differences, and live a balanced life.

The third program, the Innovative School Year Calendar is an extended school year that is used by two schools within MCPS. The only public information provided about the Board's intentions was that modification or elimination would be considered. Most posters assume that these changes are being considered due to budgetary reasons. However, many posters appear to oppose any non-traditional education initiative and would be happy to see all of them go regardless of budget considerations. Others find value in at least some of the programs, especially the Virtual Academy. Several posters seem to lack an understanding of the programs and base their position — mostly opposition — on false assumptions. For instance, a number of the posters view the Virtual Academy as part of the covid school closures and seem unable to separate it from those closures. Because they strongly opposed the closures, they oppose the Academy as well. But, other posters point out that the Virtual Academy is currently used to provide classes that are not otherwise available in some local schools. Similarly, some posters argue that the Virtual Academy takes funds that should go to the local schools, but others argue that the Academy is paid for with covid funds rather than the normal budget and that the home schools still get funding for the students even if they are only taking Virtual Academy classes. So, there is no drain of funds. Virtual Academy fans argue that closing it would trap Montgomery County in the past and behind most schools systems. Regardless, we will have to wait another week to see what action, if any, the Board decides upon.