July

Yesterday I discussed the thread about the Olympics Opening Ceremony, devoting significant discussion to outrage at part of the opening that many Christians have interpreted as mocking "The Last Super" and, hence, Christianity itself. Yesterday's most active thread, titled, "Why are Christians insisting the opening ceremony depicted The Last Supper when it really was the Feast of Dyonisus?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, is specifically about that controversy. The original poster asks why the outrage among Christians is not only continuing, but actually escalating. The original poster even quotes a Christian paster attempting to clarify the misunderstanding. Finally, the original poster notes that, "It seems as if Christians are very invested in feeling persecuted and disrespected these days." Many posters agreed with the original poster that the anger being expressed was misplaced. The more charitable among them conceded that a misunderstanding about what was being depicted was understandable given that those angered are more likely to be familiar with the "The Last Super" than "Le Festin des Dieux". In contrast, several posters remain very upset and offended. For their part, they don't believe that they are confused. They are quite certain that the depiction was aimed squarely at mocking their religion and any contrary explanation is simply an attempt to gaslight. I have repeatedly written that resentment and anger are the motivating forces of MAGA adherents. This is a group that largely feels that every other group has been given advantages at their expense. Having taken what is rightfully theirs, the "others" have the temerity to mock or laugh at them. Many of those posting clearly love the opportunity to feel persecuted and they are not going to allow anyone to take that away from them. A sense of unfairness, that everything is rigged against them, is part of the MAGA world view. Hence the complaints that only Christianity would be mocked in this manner. Nobody would risk offending Jews or Muslims in a similar manner, they say. In fact, if the ceremony mocked anyone, it was Greek gods, not Christians. But the world view of the angry posters does not allow for such nuances. Similarly, the targets of these posters' anger is broad. They are, of course, upset with those who produced the ceremony. They are also angry with the French more generally. But they also hold U.S. Democrats responsible as well. Democrats obviously had nothing to do with the events but still they are blamed. The connection appears to be the Democrats' support for LGBTQ rights. The MAGA anger is not simply that (according to their view) Christianity was mocked, but rather that it was mocked by members of the LGBTQ community. Apparently, that makes it even worse. They seem to believe that Democrats, who support the LGBTQ community, share responsibility because they are obviously part of a worldwide effort to spread LGBTQ acceptance, replacing traditional Christian values in the process. The Olympic ceremony was simply one instance of that effort. The angry posters promised to take this out on Democrats in November, making the Olympic Opening Ceremony the least expected campaign issue so far.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Olympics Opening Ceremony" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture". This thread started without much drama. Posters seemed to enjoy the opening ceremony, though a few were put off by the beheaded Marie Antoinette that appeared at the beginning of the Gojira musical segment. While there was considerable praise for Lady Gaga, there was considerable criticism of Kelly Clarkson and Peyton Manning. Celine Dion was a big hit among posters whereas Snoop Dogg seemed to elicit nothing but criticism. But, then, there were rumblings of dissatisfaction. A rumor that American conservatives were bothered by what they thought were Satanic references in the ceremony. Then complaints that gay people, drag queens, trans gender people, and other colorful personalities had been included in a mockery of "The Last Supper" painting by Leonardo da Vinci which portrays the Biblical Last Supper. Soon this had turned into a full-blown avalanche of resentment. This was a mockery of Christianity, argued poster after poster. They would never do this to Muslims said posters who know absolutely nothing about French-Muslim relations (I suggest that they look into the National Rally party and its current popularity in France). Posters were certain that the French had intentionally gone out of their way to insult Christians, and American Christians in particular. It was a full-blown freakout. Posters were swearing off both the Olympics and France and condemning their infection by the "woke mind virus". There was so much talk about Satan that I assumed that he must be participating in one of the sports. But other posters assured us that he does not exist. Some posters argued that it was not "The Last Supper", but rather the Festival of Dionysus that was depicted. Another poster explained that it portrayed a painting by Jan van Bijlert named "Le Festin des Dieux", which depicts various Greek gods participating in a banquet on Mount Olympus. But, the outraged posters were not about to stop being outraged and simply would not accept this explanation. Moreover, they soon found an additional controversy concerning whether one of the participants in the Last Supper/Le Festin des Dieux event had displayed a private part. At least one poster who was initially convinced that this was the case later agreed that it was more likely a tear in his costume. But, generally, the opinion of upset right-wing Christians is that the Olympics had been turned into a global grooming event aimed at turning children trans and mocking Christians. If being outraged were an Olympic event, MAGA Christians would have taken the Gold, Silver, and Bronze medals.

The first two most active threads yesterday were Vice President Kamala Harris-related threads that I've already discussed and, therefore, will skip today. The third most active thread was titled, "Horrible dorm assignment!" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that her child is going to college in southern California and, despite requesting a roommate, was assigned a single room in the basement of a building without air conditioning. The original poster is quite unhappy, believing that the school can easily afford to install central air conditioning in the building, and says that the experience has soured them on the university before school even started. A large number of the responses are from posters who also lived in college dorms that did not have air conditioning. Because they survived it, they don't have much sympathy for the original poster's child. Moreover, several posters point out, most students would love to have a single room. Therefore, they suggest the student should be able to trade rooms with someone else fairly easily. Other advice is to open a window and use a fan and that the warm weather will only last a couple of months. A number of those responding are either from California or have spent time there and they explain that temperatures cool off at night and it is not as humid as DC. Therefore, the nights are comfortable and the lack of air conditioning won't be a problem. The attitude of a lot of the posters is that freshmen year dorm experiences are almost always bad and something about which it is normal to have concerns. But, the original poster's child will survive it and she shouldn't worry. Other posters argue that if comfortable dorms were a priority, the original poster should have researched that ahead of time and chosen a college that has nicer dorms. In contrast to the "suck it up" crowd, a number of posters have advice about how to facilitate a room change. Some of these strategies are fairly elaborate with one poster even suggesting that the student grow mold in the room and then justify a room change because of the presence of mold. Much later in the thread, the original poster insisted that the lack of air conditioning was not the most important issue. Rather, her child is going cross-country to school and would now be living in a single room in a corner of the basement and somewhat isolated from other students. The original poster thinks that all of this combined is not conducive to an enjoyable college experience. She was hoping that her child would have a great experience at the university and this has tarnished things. It's possible that the concerns about the room are more on the part of the original poster and perhaps not shared by the student.

Yesterday was another day dominated by presidential politics. The most active thread was the thread that I've already discussed about Vice President Kamala Harris running for president. After that was a thread titled, "Harris vs Trump poll numbers" which was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster started the thread with an excerpt from a National Public Radio story discussing a new poll that it had conducted along with PBS and Marist. The results showed that former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump led Harris by a single point and in a five-way contest that included the minor candidates, Trump and Harris were tied. A significant change from previous polling was a large increase in the number of undecided voters which the original poster suggested was a good omen for Harris. Any polls at this time need to be taken with a grain of salt. While the latest polls were conducted after President Joe Biden withdrew as a candidate, they still covered days in which his replacement by Harris was not a sure thing. Moreover, she has not yet selected a running mate, a decision that will likely have an impact. Also, as the original poster points out, national polls are not all that significant. Of more importance are polls of battleground states. These caveats, along with the immense desire of some posters to engage in advocacy instead of analysis, leads posters to generally interpret the data according to their partisan perspectives. Some posters argue that polls are useless altogether and have been consistently wrong, something that is not actually true. Others see what they want to see in the data and interpret it thusly. One thing that is clear in the early polling — and explicitly stated in the excerpt included by the original poster — is that Harris has caused a reset of the election. She clearly has momentum and I believe it is beyond dispute that she has a much greater upside than either Trump or Biden. Whereas voter opinion about the older candidates was fairly well set, Harris has shaken things up. More importantly, there is enthusiasm for her among groups that had been luke warm, if not outright hostile, to Biden. A major topic of discussion in this thread was the importance of Harris' choice for Vice President. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro was suggested repeatedly on the basis that he might help Harris carry the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania. Others suggested that he would be just as helpful if he remained as governor. U.S. Senator Mark Kelly was similarly proposed based on his presumed ability to help carry his home state of Arizona. Because of the perceived importance of the VP selection, the thread devolved into a debate mostly about that topic. In addition, a number of posters are disappointed, either in Harris or the method by which she replaced Biden. These posters seem to show up in every thread and disrupt it with their off-topic rants. Polling results mean nothing to these folks because they have everything figured out already. But, for the rest of us, we will probably have to wait a bit longer for things to shake out and for the polls to provide more useful results.

Yesterday's most active thread was the Kamila Harris thread that I discussed yesterday and will skip today. After that was a thread that was created back in April 2022 but was revived recently due to renewed interest in its topic. Titled, "What the hell happened to JD Vance?", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the original poster expresses surprise that J. D. Vance — at that time known mostly as the author of "Hillbilly Elegy" — had turned full MAGA during his Senate campaign. The renewed interest in the thread is obviously because Vance was recently selected as the running mate of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. I didn't read this thread when it was originally created and looking at it now, the first thing I noticed is how much the discourse surrounding "Hillbilly Elegy" had changed between the time it was published and 2022. When the book originally gained popularity, it was overwhelmingly praised. So much so that, as I wrote in an earlier blog post, when I discussed the book on DCUM I was half convinced that something was wrong with me for not being impressed by it. The posts discussing "Hillbilly Elegy" in this thread generally contained thoughts much closer to mine and the unvarnished praise that originally greeted the book was gone. More importantly, posters were frequently able to discern signals in the memoir that suggested that Vance was perfectly capable of making the transition from "intelligent, reasonable Republican" to MAGA cultist. Nobody seemed to believe that Vance's conversion was authentic. Rather, the general feeling was that Vance understood that turning MAGA was a political necessity. The more generous of the posters suggested that Vance might actually act more responsibly once he was in office. Now, two years after this thread was created, it is even more difficult to determine who is the real J. D. Vance. Vance was never the son of Appalachia as his book led many to believe. He grew up in suburban Ohio in a middle class neighborhood. Far from being a defender or advocate for those trapped in poverty in the mountains, Vance held them in disdain, viewing them as being responsible for their own failures. The people of Appalachia were little more than a prop that Vance used to promote the right-wing ideology favored by his billionaire mentor Peter Thiel. Now, in his new MAGA persona, Vance portrays himself as the proponent of the poor and working class that many wrongly assumed he was when "Hillbilly Elegy" first came out. But whereas this may have been believable back in 2016, despite his memoir demonstrating otherwise, few seem to believe it now. The opinion of Vance most frequently presented in this thread is that he is a valueless opportunist who will do whatever is necessary to gain power.

DCUM is a Washington, DC-based forum and Washington, DC, as the center of the federal government, is a political city. Nevertheless, it was still a bit surprising this morning when I looked at the list of yesterday's top 10 most active threads and discovered that 9 of the 10 were political. The most active was the thread about President Joe Biden's announcement that he would not accept the Democratic nomination for President. I discussed that thread yesterday and will skip it today. Not surprising, I guess, is that the next most active thread was titled, "Kamala Harris for President". The thread, of course, was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. In another thread over the weekend someone asked if Vice President Kamala Harris could defeat former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. I responded saying that not only did I think that she could, but should do so fairly easily. I was then asked to explain why I felt this way. My argument was that Biden has done a fairly good job as President. Inflation is under control, unemployment is low, the stock market is at near record highs, and the economy is growing. Biden has a fantastic record of passing legislation, something is even more impressive in light of the difficult political environment on Capitol Hill. As a result, if Biden were 20 years younger, this election would not even be close. Kamala Harris is not a 20 year younger version of Joe Biden, but she is as close as we are going to get. As Biden's partner during his administration, she can claim partial credit for his successes. While Biden achieved a lot, he believes that there is more to do. Harris will be the one to do it. Despite holding this position, I was still surprised by the wave of enthusiasm Harris' candidacy has met. As the original poster of this thread described, fundraising since Biden stepped down has been at record-breaking levels. Perhaps even more importantly, there appears to have been a massive psychological change among Democrats. Over night, a pessimistic, almost depressed, and — let's face it — kind of sour group has been transformed into a hopefull, enthusiastic, and excited bunch of believers. It will take a few days for the polls to catch up, but I expect huge poll shifts in favor of Democrats. In several states, Democratic Senate candidates have been over-performing Biden. I expect Harris will close that gap and maybe even exceed the Senate candidates in some cases. Meanwhile, it is now Trump — the oldest presidential nominee in history — who is old, confused, and worn out. He is still "truthing" about Biden and clearly has no plan to take on Harris, already trying to find an excuse not to debate her. To make things worse for Trump, early indications are that his vice presidential nominee, J. D. Vance, is a dud. In his first solo outing Vance practically put the audience to sleep before musing over whether he would be accused of racism for drinking a Diet Mountain Dew. Mountain Dew has long been associated with Appalachia and Vance was probably attempting to fake authenticity by choosing it as a drink. But the soft drink has also been blamed for tooth decay throughout the region — Vance even discussed "Mountain Dew mouth" in his novel, "Hillbilly Elegy". That probably explains why Vance chose the inauthentic, but less dentally problematic, Diet version.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and will skip today. That means that the first thread for today's post was actually the third most active yesterday. That thread was titled, "Do younger teens really do nothing all summer?" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster says that her 14-year-old son thinks the original poster and her spouse are being unfair because they require him to participate as a counselor-in-training at a half day summer camp and volunteer one evening a week. He claims that most of his friends are either doing nothing or only a 2-hour crew activity and, therefore, have more free time than him. The original poster thinks that her son has plenty of free time as it is and he wastes that playing video games. She asks whether what her son says about his friends is really true of most kids. Most of those responding say that their kids are involved in some structured activities. Counselor-in-training positions are popular as is volunteering. Many are involved in some sort of sport and quite a few other posters say that their kids are attending summer camps. A few even have jobs. But some posters prioritize allowing their children to have free time. Just about the only controversy in this thread involves a poster who accused parents who arrange structured activities for their kids of not wanting to parent and not wanting their kids to simply "exist". "Just let them be kids for awhile", she argues. Posters such as this one seem to have an idealized view of childhood in which carefree children spend their summers playing with friends, having their own adventures, and keeping themselves entertained. While there may be a few examples of this sort among the posters' kids, for the most part any free time kids have these days is filled by screens. In contrast to the oft-stated concern that kids spend too much time playing video games, the anti-structured activities poster didn't seem to be concerned about that, saying that there is nothing inherently wrong with playing video games. Moreover, while that poster suggested that parents force their kids into the structured activities, a number of posters argued that their kids want to do those activities and that don't need to be forced. None of the posters expect their kids to be busy every minute of every day for the entire summer. But, they also don't want their kids to be sitting around bored or doing nothing but playing video games all summer. What is clear is that some kids are able to take the initiative to find activities with which to keep themselves busy while others need a bit more engagement from parents.

Just as most days last week, the most active topics over the weekend were political. The first of those was titled, "ABC News interview TONIGHT with Biden" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster started this thread in the late morning on Friday in anticipation of the recorded interview of President Joe Biden that ABC News was going to broadcast that evening. The original poster expressed his opinion that the interview would be too short and the fact that it was pre-recorded would be insufficient to demonstrate Biden's cognitive fitness. The interview was scheduled to be recorded in the afternoon which the original poster described as Biden's "functional" window and would be conducted by George Stephanopoulos, a former Bill Clinton White House staffer. None of this was reassuring to the original poster. Others were even more strident in their criticism. Several posters were certain that a conspiracy was in the works. Biden would be provided the questions in advanced, they said. The interview would be edited, they claimed. There is no evidence of the first and ABC News explicitly denied the the interview would be edited. One poster even predicted that artificial intelligence would be used to fake or enhance the interview. The thread was already 15 pages long before the interview even aired. Once ABC News started the broadcast, posters posted their reactions as they watched. Most were not impressed. Once again Biden's voice sounded off and every stumble over a word resulted in a rash of posts. Biden's skin tone which had taken on an orange hue reminiscent of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's, was also the subject of many remarks. There is very little indication that the interview had successfully achieved its goal of assuring the public that Biden has the cognitive ability to run the country. The problem that Biden faces is that he is not currently a good communicator. His critics are assuming, or at least arguing, that Biden's communications struggles reflect problems with other skills necessary to serve as President. I am not sure that this is a good assumption, but Biden and his team are doing little to convince the public otherwise. This thread is currently 55 pages long and I am unable to read it all. But shortly after the interview ended it appears that the thread started going off topic and simply turned in to a presidential campaign free-for-all thread. In a way that is fitting. There is nothing that Biden can do to convince diehard Republicans that he is fit for office. Similarly, plenty of Democrats are willing to vote for Biden even if he has to be propped up like Bernie in "Weekend at Bernie's". As such, Biden's performance in the interview is of little matter to these folks. As for those who are basing their vote on Biden's fitness for office, based on the little evidence they provided in this thread, they want to see more of Biden in order to better make a decision.

The three most active threads yesterday were all posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. However, one of those was a thread that I discussed yesterday and will skip today. Still, half of the topics I will discuss today are political. The first of those was titled, "It is insulting to us American voters that we have to choose between a senile old man and a criminal". The original poster says that she is furious and cannot vote for either President Joe Biden or former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. She says that it is completely unacceptable that American voters have been put in this position and that the whole world is watching in horror. The worst part about our current conundrum is that it was not caused by our political system breaking down, but rather our political system working exactly as it should, at least in terms of selecting candidates. The Republican Party had a hard-fought primary with a number of credible candidates. Those candidates included several sitting or former governors, a U.S. Senator, and a former Vice President. Trump, as a former President — as well as a cult leader — always had an advantage. But the other candidates had a fair opportunity to defeat him and simply failed. Trump is clearly his party's preferred candidate. The Democrats' situation was somewhat different. It is rare that sitting Presidents face contested primary elections with anything other than token opposition, especially when the President has been successful as it can be argued that Biden has been. The stiffest opposition from Biden was from "uncommitted". But while the system functioned as designed, the institutions within that system have been weakened and/or are dysfunctional. Trump was twice impeached but each time the Senate, acting mostly along partisan lines, refused to convict. In the case of Trump's January 6 related impeachment, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell even agreed with the impeachment, but argued that Trump, as a former rather than sitting President, should be dealt with by the courts rather than Congress. It was the same McConnell who had previously engineered the appointment of three Supreme Court justices selected by Trump, once by refusing to confirm a nominee and once by rushing to confirm a nominee in record speed. The judicial system has simply not been up to the task of handling Trump and his Supreme Court picks are further assuring that he will not face legal consequences. On the Democratic side, most voters likely believed that Biden was going to be a one-term President. A bridge candidate who would defeat Trump, get the country back on track, and then prepare the ground for the younger generation. But somewhere along the way Biden, if he had ever agreed to this in the first place, changed his mind. Again, the institutions that could have played a role in easing him out failed. Mechanisms are grinding away now that may result in Biden's replacement, but whether that comes to pass is still an open question. The real challenge facing us is how we can strengthen the institutions that are fundamental to our democracy but which have simply not been functioning adequately. I don't really have an answer to that question.

Yesterday's most active threads were again dominated by political topics, even when the topics were not in the political forum. The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Biden weighing whether to drop out", and was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a New York Times article that currently reports that President Joe Biden has told allies that he understands that he must quickly convince voters that he is up to the job if he is to salvage his presidential campaign. This article originally said that Biden had talked to these allies about dropping out. While the current version of the article contains a quote from Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, denying that claim, the claim itself is missing. The article provides no information about why the original claim was removed or even any notice that it has been dropped from the article. After New York Times reporters tweeted out the claim that Biden had discussed dropping out, Biden campaign officials strongly pushed back saying that they had only been given 7 minutes to respond to the report and would have denied it then if they had had time. The upshot is that this thread is based on an allegation that has been removed by the newspaper and rejected by both campaign and White House officials. The discussion in the thread is mostly about who would take Biden's position at the top of the ticket. The most obvious choice is Vice President Kamala Harris. Legally, the campaign money raised by the Biden-Harris campaign can only be used by Biden or Harris. Nevertheless, in this thread, there is strong opposition to Harris. Posters are concerned that she is not popular and that her weaknesses can easily be exploited. Some posters argue that she should be removed as the vice presidential candidate, but that would mean that another campaign would have to start from zero in terms of money. Other posters suggest that she remain as the vice presidential candidate, but someone else be selected to run for the presidency. According to campaign finance experts, that arrangement would legally be a new campaign and could not access the current Biden-Harris money. Realistically, Biden and Harris are the only two candidates. Personally, I don't understand the opposition to Harris. Yes, we can all think of our dream candidates, but none of those are realistic options (unless either Biden or Harris is your dream candidate). Biden and Harris are both currently polling about the same against former president, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. I would think that Harris has a much bigger upside. Moreover, Harris's writ as candidate would be fairly simple. She would only need to support reproductive rights, support gun control, demand that corporations lower prices, and attack Trump on a long list of topics. Beating Trump does not require sophistication. It mostly requires demonstrating that you are not Trump and that you still maintain significant cognitive capability. What would be really damaging to Democrats is a long, drawn-out, process to determine whether Biden will stay or go. If he is going to step down, he needs to do it quickly. If he is not going to, all the Democrats calling for him to move aside need to shut up. Democratic infighting at this point is really not needed.