August

The most active thread yesterday was one I've already discussed about the presidential election poll numbers. I'll skip that one and start with a thread titled, "I’m breadwinner, dh asked me to help with side hustle", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster and her husband are both attorneys. However, the original poster's husband lost his job several years ago and, while he currently works full time, he is severely underemployed. For these many years, the original poster has been the family's breadwinner, earning almost twice as much as her husband. However, during that time the original poster has also acted as the default parent, dealing with the bulk of the parenting tasks. This has understandably stretched her pretty thin and, in a moment of having too much to do and not enough time to do it, she lost patience with her husband. The original poster revealed her resentment about not having a full partner and feeling like the only adult in the home. A week after this, the original poster's husband approached her about a side gig opportunity in which he is interested. However, he said that because he is not very organized, he would like the original poster to participate and handle the organizing. The original poster lost her patience, not believing that after describing how she is overwhelmed her husband would approach her with the idea of adding more work to her plate. The original poster wants to know who is right or wrong in this issue. What is going on here seems pretty clear to me. Early in their relationship, the original poster's husband out-earned her. That justified to both of them that the original poster should undertake the responsibilities of the default parent. In a better world, they would have shared responsibilities more evenly even then. But many families don't live in such a better world and the original poster's situation is not unusual. Problems began when the couple's salary disparity reversed but their responsibilities didn't. Not only does the original poster's husband show no interest in correcting the current imbalance, but he actually wants to make things worse. No wonder the original poster is resentful. As clear as this seems to me, the vast majority of the responses in this thread are really disappointing. A good portion of the responses appear to be from women who may well be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. They argue that the original poster and her husband should be a team and that the original poster should support her husband with his new venture. This ignores that the couple has not hitherto acted as a team and that the original poster's husband's concept of a team is him as captain and the original poster as team manager. Another large portion of the responses are from misogynist males who believe that it is unquestionably the original poster's duty to attend to parenting tasks and that she should fully support her husband by helping with his new business. Intermixed are a number of responses from posters who are trying to be helpful by suggesting strategies for the original poster to deal with her husband. Many of these seem to infantilize the man, something that I don't think is either required or appropriate. Eventually the thread more or less turned into a battle between wives who do everything and like it and those who want equal partnerships.

The two most active threads over the weekend were threads that I've already discussed. Therefore, I will start with the third most active thread which was titled, "Just got yelled at for leaving my kid alone in in the car while I went to the pharmacy" and posted in the "Elementary School-Aged Kids" forum. The original poster says that she had to run into the pharmacy and her 7-year-old son didn't want to come in, even after the original poster had tried tempting him. Therefore, she left him alone in the car with the car running. When she returned about 10 minutes later, a security guard began yelling at her, saying that she could not leave her child in the car until he is a teenager. The security guard also questioned the original poster's son. The original poster wants to know if it is really a crime to leave her son alone in the car for 10 minutes. Whether or not leaving the child in the car is a crime depends on state and local laws. One responder says that in Maryland children must be at least 8 years old to be left alone in the car. Another poster copy and pasted regulations for DC, MD, and VA. DC law requires children to be 10 years old to be left alone. However, in Virginia it is only illegal to leave children 4 years old or younger alone. Because the original poster said that this happened in Virginia, her actions were apparently legal. Many posters agreed with the original poster that leaving her son alone for 10 minutes was okay, but they were concerned about the car being left running. One fear was of carjackers. That concern is not without merit as a huge number of carjacked cars in the region seem to have kids in them. Other posters worried about the child accidentally doing something to the car that could be dangerous, such as putting it in gear. Those concerns aside, many posters fully supported leaving an unattended child in the car for a brief time. But that opinion was far from universal. Many other posters considered the original poster's actions to have been "lazy" parenting and poor judgement. In addition to the concerns about the running car, these posters had other objections. For instance, the original poster may have been expecting to take only 10 minutes but could have been delayed and taken considerably longer. Several posters acknowledged the dangers of leaving an unattended child alone in a car, but admitted doing so nevertheless. They had found themselves in difficult situations with no good options and decided that briefly leaving their child alone was the least bad choice. Other posters seem to take pride in leaving their kids alone in the car, feeling that any objections were a result of overly-protective parenting. On the other hand, regardless of the wisdom or legality of leaving children alone in the car, some posters were most bothered that the original poster didn't simply tell her son he had to come with her and not allow him a choice. They saw that as her parenting failure.

Once again yesterday the most active thread was the one about the Democratic National Convention and, once again, I will skip the thread because I've already discussed it. After that, the most active thread was titled, "MIT releases post-affirmative action class of 2028 data" and was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a New York Times article reporting on admissions results at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT is the first highly-selective university to release statistics regarding the composition of its freshmen class since the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited using race as a factor in college admissions. The topic of race and admissions has been the subject of many lengthy and heated discussions in DCUM's college forum. The results at MIT were almost exactly what critics of race-based admissions had predicted. The number of Asian applicants admitted increased while the number of Black and Hispanic students decreased. Both the NYT article and posters in the thread noted that the MIT results defied expectations by some that universities would use information gleaned from student essays to advantage Black and Hispanic students as a way around the Supreme Court restrictions. MIT, at least, does not appear to have done this. Posters in the thread described that sort of work-around as "cheating" and the Times article suggested that schools that engaged in the practice might expose themselves to legal action. Still, colleges seem to want to recruit diverse student bodies. Even Sally Kornbluth, MIT's president, seemed to lament the loss of diversity in a quote reported in the Times article. However, the MIT data would seem to present a significant roadblock to maintaining diversity. By being the first out of the gate, MIT's results set the benchmark by which other universities will be judged. If the admissions statistics of other top universities do not show similar drops in Black and Hispanic admissions, the schools will be accused of having "cheated". While many of the posts in this thread mention "Asians" and make broad generalizations about them, what comes across if you are paying attention is the significant diversity in that community. On the one hand are Asians who, despite the MIT results showing increased admissions of Asians, seem to feel that everything is stacked against them and, as a minority, they are prejudiced against. On the other hand are posters who seem to believe that the MIT results show that Asians will soon dominate. As one poster writes, "in 10-20 years most of these institutions will be led by Asian Americans." But, in the middle are Asian posters who value diversity and are not thrilled with the MIT results. Given that the term "Asian" encapsulates both east and south Asians, we might want to begin using other designations. China and India are the world's two most populous countries. That's a lot of people to identify by a single label. This issue is a topic of dispute in the thread. The missing element from the MIT data is the demographics of those who applied. Apparently, MIT did not collect that information. There seems to be general agreement among posters that the vast majority of applicants to elite schools have the academic qualifications required and are separated by other factors. Therefore, a drop in the number of Black and Hispanic applicants might explain their drop in admissions. It would also be interesting to see if those groups have higher or lower rejection rates. But we simply don't have those numbers.

The most active thread yesterday was the thread about the Democratic National Convention which had a big night last night. But since I have already discussed that thread, I'll move to the next most active thread which was titled, "To my husband’s work AP", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster writes an open letter to her husband's affair partner who works with the original poster's husband. The original poster tells the affair partner that after working with her husband for so long, she should know that the man can be sloppy. As a result, he didn't cover his tracks regarding the affair very well and the original poster found out about it. Now, the original poster warns, she plans to tell the affair partner's husband about the affair. The original poster seems to take considerable delight regarding the problems that this wil cause in the affair partner's family. This thread is a bit of a mystery. The original poster sock puppeted throughout the thread, repeatedly offering support for herself. In one post, she alluded to earlier threads which she posted on this topic and I did find an earlier thread that is mostly consistent with this one. While I initially thought that the "open letter" format used by the original poster was just a stylistic technique, later in the thread the original poster demonstrated that she truly believes that the affair partner has not only been reading, but participating in the discussion. The original poster posted several messages in response to posts she believed were from the affair partner. As if to confirm the original poster's suspicions, another poster responded to say that she was the affair partner and because she and her husband have an open relationship, her husband would not be bothered by the original poster's revelations. The original poster did not immediately buy what this poster was saying and asked for evidence that the poster really was her husband's affair partner. The original poster has not posted on DCUM since then and the evidence has not been provided by the other poster, who I believe was trolling in any case. That is all to say that I am not sure what to make of this thread. On the one hand, the original poster may be a troll with a flair for the dramatic, being trolled by another poster who also enjoys drama. On the other hand, the original poster could be a slightly deranged, revenge-seeking, obsessive who probably should not be left alone near bunny rabbits and pots of boiling water. I am not sure which alternative is preferable. Frankly, it is not clear to me that most of those reading the thread care whether it is true or not since they are enjoying the drama so much. A few even managed to sleuth out one of the original poster's earlier threads. At this point the original poster might have legitimate concerns that one or more of those involved — assuming the story is true — might be identified.

Yesterday was another day in which politics dominated discussion. Over half of the ten most active topics were political, including the top four that I will discuss toda. The first of those was titled, "2024 Democratic National Convention" and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started Saturday in advance of yesterday's opening day of the Democratic National Convention. The original poster appears to be a Republican who asked if anyone was planning to attend the convention and then quickly turned to expectation setting by suggesting that the DNC might get a bigger audience than the Republican National Convention because the RNC was held while everyone was on vacation. It is clear to anyone that enthusiasm and momentum have clearly switched to the Democrats since Vice President Kamala Harris replaced President Joe Biden as the presidential nominee. That even Republicans understand this is evident from the preemptive excuse-making of the original poster and the apocalyptic tone of many of the Republican posts. For instance, one MAGA poster claimed that the DNC would be "watched for decades to come as the death of democracy in America". The thread was 10 pages long before the convention even got started as posters debated whatever political issue crossed their minds. I have long since given up that any thread in the political forum will stay on topic for longer than a few posts. In this thread, posters were debating Harris' anti-price gouging position and Doritos, both of which have their own threads. Once things finally got started, the thread settled into a routine of each side trying to spin events as much as possible. There have been expectations of large, possibly violent, protests against Israel's war in Gaza. As it turned out, the number of protesters was smaller than expected. Police had erected several rows of fences to contain the protesters and, while protesters broke through one row at one point, things remained under control and there was no real violence. That didn't stop some posters from fixating on the protests and doing their best to blow them out of proportion. On the other hand were posters who attempted to minimize the authentic anger aroused by Biden's complete and total support for Israel while it kills tens of thousands of Palestinians, blaming the protests on Iran. With regard to the speeches, things were much the same. Conservative posters found many things about which to complain while liberals were full of praise. Much of the discussion revolved around Biden and his stepping down from the race. Many posters, most of whom were probably Republicans, claimed that there was something irregular about Harris replacing Biden at the top of the ticket. Former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump has been referring to this as a coup and some of his supporters in this thread followed suit. Several posters asserted that nobody had voted for Harris and, therefore, her accession to presidential nominee was anti-Democratic. Factually, due to the peculiarities of the American political system, voters in the primary elections actually select delegates rather than an actual candidate. The majority of the delegates elected were pledged to Biden. When he stepped down, however, Biden asked his delegates to support Harris. Those delegates were free to support any candidate of their choice, but most chose to support Harris. There is nothing anti-Democratic about this, particularly since Harris was Biden's running mate in the first place.

The most active thread on DCUM over the weekend was titled, "Price gouging as her first policy announcement? Really?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Some days I feel like there is practically a contest on DCUM to see who can post the most uninformed post. Today is one of those days and this thread is one of those threads. A corollary to this is a widespread desire to be contrarian as if that automatically bestows some sort of intelligence on the poster. It doesn't. The original poster of this thread transgresses in both of these ways, at least in my opinion (admittedly, completely worthless). The original poster's primary point in her post is to question why Vice President Harris chose price gouging as her first major policy announcement and to argue that such a policy is unnecessary and brings back memories of 1970s price controls. As the very first response in this thread points out, this is not Harris' first major policy announcement. She had already announced plans for the national protection of reproductive health and support for the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Second, the original poster clearly knew nothing about Harris' proposal and, therefore, was misleading in her post. However, had the original poster made an effort to inform herself before posting, she might have some lingering confusion for which she could be forgiven. Harris did not exactly announce a policy but rather a plan to develop a policy. Her announcement promised the development of "clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can't unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries." She also committed to authorizing the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to “impose strict new penalties” on companies that price gouge. Harris would also address anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions that cause grocery price increases. Because none of the details of these initiatives were announced, a lot of exactly what Harris will do is unknown. But, nothing Harris outlined suggested that there would be price controls. Moreover, several states have existing anti-price gouging laws and don't impose price controls. Many of those responding are supportive of Harris, noting that posters have been complaining about inflation generally and grocery prices specifically for months. Now Harris is promising to address those concerns. The MAGA reaction is as expected. They accuse Harris of being a communist. There is literally no policy that Harris could announce which would not cause MAGA posters to claim that she is a communist. Somewhere in the middle were those who oppose former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and would like to support Harris, but are opposed to this initiative. Some of them claim to be professional economists. What I have noticed over the past few years is that mainstream economists have adopted a fairly conservative view of economics. For instance, the acclaimed Lawrence Summers repeatedly argued that unemployment would have to reach 10% in order to control inflation. President Joe Biden somehow managed to get inflation under control while keeping unemployment at historic lows. I normally respect expertise. But, professionals in two specialities, weather forecasting and economics, really seem to be wrong more than they are right. I no longer have much faith in either one.

The two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed and, as such, will start today with the third most active thread yesterday. That thread was titled, "10+ AP classes" and posted the "College and University Discussion" forum. I'm sure that everyone is aware but on the slight chance there is someone who is not, "AP classes" are "Advanced Placement" high school classes that use college curriculums. Examinations offered after completing the classes can, if passed with a sufficient score, provide college credit. The benefits of AP classes is that they are more challenging, look good on college applications, and can shorten the time needed to complete undergraduate studies, which also saves money. The original poster of this thread says that she has seen reports of kids taking more than 10, sometimes as many as 20, AP courses in high school. She does not know how this is possible because she has looked into her child's schedule and the maximum possible number is 10. Several posters whose kids have taken more than 10 AP classes explain how it was done. Some schools allow 9th graders to take one course, so many of the students get a head start that way. Next, these kids try to take two classes as sophomores. During junior and senior years, they take 5 each year. Doing this accumulates 13 APs. However, many posters report that their children exceeded even this number, sometimes taking as many as seven AP courses a year. One poster even reported that her child took an AP class while in 8th grade. A lot of this depends on what schools offer, with opportunities being less available in many schools. Similarly, school policies outlining the number of classes that can be taken and during what years differ significantly among schools. AP classes are another area in which an arms race has developed. Not only can a large number of AP classes help a student get into a university, it can provide advantages to the student once they are in the school. They are able to skip classes for which they passed the AP exam and start with higher level courses. No surprise than that many parents push their kids to take as many AP classes as possible. Some posters worry that this is an unhealthy attitude and that these parents are too focused on their children getting into a prestigious college. One poster worried that kids in this situation will be too focused on passing AP classes and college acceptance, believing these things will bring them happiness. They will then arrive at college with feelings of "anxiety and depression and constantly compare themselves to their equally high strung peers." Posters are also divided between what they view as the primary benefit of AP studies. Some posters prioritize the impact on college admissions and, therefore, value only the highest scores on AP Exams, believing that admissions officers won't be impressed by lower scores regardless of how many AP classes were taken. Other posters are less concerned about the exam score as long as it is high enough to receive college credit. They value the savings in time and money that passing an AP exam allows more than any benefit that it might provide to admissions.

The most active thread yesterday was a political topic but with a twist. Titled, "I live in Takoma Park. I’m voting for Trump!", the thread had both national and local aspects. The original poster chose the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum for the post. That was the twist because much of the discussion ended up being about national politics. The essence of the original poster's post is that the original poster is a legal immigrant and a registered independent who wants to put a sign supporting former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump in her front yard. She lives in Takoma Park, MD which is famously ultra-progressive. While the original poster believes that it would be a positive demonstration of freedom of expression in America to dissent from the vast majority of surrounding opinion, she is worried about possible vandalism or social harm to her family. Reading this I thought that this story sounded invented. Taking a look at the original poster's other threads, there is a reasonable possibility that this was a troll attempt (and a fairly successful one at that). The original poster has previously demonstrated a liberal perspective on politics and even referred to Trump supporters as "magats". On the other hand, the original poster has previously shown opposition to undocumented immigrants, a position that she reiterates in this thread. Therefore, potentially she might vote for Trump based on that single issue. But, I am doubtful. She has also written favorably about Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and unfavorably about Ohio Senator J. D. Vance, the two party's nominees for Vice President. Beyond that, a proper response to the original poster's concern depends on the specifics of her home's location. Does she live on a main drag where thousands of people a day might see her sign or is her house tucked back on a side street where only immediate neighbors might notice a sign in its yard? In the first case, there is no telling what a random hothead who happens to be driving by — and might not even live in Takoma Park — might do. In the second, it depends on the neighbors. Presumably the original poster knows her neighbors and would have some idea how they might react. None of those responding in this thread know those specifics and, instead, most answer based on stereotypes of Takoma Park residents. Right-wingers get tremendous joy from exposing what they consider liberal hypocrisy when liberals are not welcoming of right-wing views. This is often based on the right-wing's rather strange understanding of free expression which they believe should allow them to express whatever sentiments they wish but that liberals should not be able to state their dislike for those sentiments because that would be intolerant and liberals are supposed to be tolerant. As such, there is considerable drooling over an opportunity for Takoma Park liberals to expose themselves as hypocrites. Discussion eventually turned toward Trump's political agenda and what some posters don't like about it. Another popular trend among DCUM's conservative posters is to disassociate themselves from all but a small portion of Trump's positions. They might argue that they are personally pro-choice, support LGBTQ rights, aren't racist, and so on, but due to one or two specific reasons, they have decided to vote for Trump. In the original poster's case, this reason is immigration. But, as other posters see it, when you put up a Trump sign, you are supporting the whole enchilada. Intentionally or unintentionally, you are telling everyone that you support Trump's attacks on democracy, his threat to the rule of law, and his plan to forcibly expel a million undocumented migrants.

Politics continues to dominate the most active topics being discussed over the weekend and seven of the top ten most active threads were political. Many of those were threads that I've already discussed, including the most active thread (the choice of Tim Walz to run for Vice President). The first of the threads that I haven't already talked about was titled, "Trump is awful but I want helicopter money and illegal immigration to stop" and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The background to this title is that during the COVID pandemic the government made considerable amounts of money available to keep the economy afloat. This was metaphorically described as "dropping money from helicopters". This influx of cash has been blamed by many for the rise in inflation. The original poster says that she believes that former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump is "awful" and his running mate, J. D. Vance was "the wrong pick". Nevertheless, she says that she cannot take Vice President Kamala Harris seriously about the border and immigration. She says that there is a chance that Trump can fix these things because he will have other individuals at the helm running things. The original poster believes, however, that this would not be the case if Harris wins. I am not going to bother with the rest of the thread because there is plenty here on which to comment. While it seems to have vanished from our collective memory, there were economic stimulus programs during Trump's administration. This includes the $2 trillion CARES Act that provided direct payments to Americans and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) that provided forgivable loans to millions of U.S. businesses. Therefore, if the helicopter drops were bad, Trump is also to blame. While I accept that the conventional wisdom is that the helicopter drops of money caused inflation, I believe that this is a case in which the conventional wisdom is either partially or fully wrong. What I think most people don't consider is the alternative to the helicopter drops. Respected economists were expecting a severe recession with massive loss of employment. The influx of cash kept many businesses alive and was welcome income to lower and middle class Americans. Prices did rise, but so did corporate profits. As such, corporate greed is also responsible for inflation. Under the stewardship of President Joe Biden, the U.S. economy has led the world and Biden has engineered a "soft landing" that many thought impossible. Inflation is now under control and prices are dropping. Harris will likely continue this trend. In contrast, Trump proposes a 10% tariff on all imports. This would undoubtedly be inflationary as it would lead to price increases on imported goods. With regard to immigration, this is another case of viewing Trump's presidency through rose-colored glasses. Migration actually rose during Trump's administration. His policies were either ineffective or inhumane. Many children separated from their families as a result of Trump's brutal policies still have not been reunited with their parents. Trump is now promising the forced expulsion of a million undocumented residents which would result in even greater human tragedy and potential social upheaval. Harris has been tasked with exploring the root causes of migration. As such, she likely has a more comprehensive and long term view of how to control immigration. Moreover, she supports the bipartisan immigration bill that Trump prevented from being passed. Harris would follow a course of action that has broad support from both political parties and would likely be much more effective than the inhumane approach proposed by Trump. Even in the case of appointees, there is every reason to believe that Trump's would be much worse than Harris before we even consider court nominees. 

Yesterday was another day in which political topics dominated the most active threads with three of the four threads that I will discuss today posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The first of these was titled, "HARRIS IS SELECTING MARK KELLY" and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster started this thread on Wednesday saying that Vice President Kamala Harris would announce that evening that she had chosen Arizona Senator Mark Kelly to be her running mate. The original poster provided no source for this claim, though in a follow-up post said that she has a "source who knows stuff". Apparently her source is a posterior body orifice given that Harris has yet to declare a choice, let alone announce that it is Kelly. I believe that I intended to remove this thread at the time it was created but got distracted. The thread duplicated another thread on the topic of Harris' Vice Presidential pick and was obviously not supported with any sort of legitimate source. Later in the thread the original poster, without identifying herself, claimed that Harris had selected someone other than Kelly and started sock puppeting answers to her own posts. Therefore, all indications are that this was a troll thread from the start. Regardless, the thread did provide the opportunity for many DCUM posters to give their opinion about Kelly. From the moment Harris emerged as President Joe Biden's replacement as the Democratic nominee for President, conventional wisdom assumed that she would choose a straight White male as her running mate. This was exactly what former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had done and such a move would balance the ticket nicely. For the most part, the only question is which bland White man would Harris choose. I agree with many of the posters in this thread that Kelly is as good a choice as any of them. Maybe not my favorite, but certainly not the worst selection. Kelly's strengths are that he can help carry Arizona and has a good reputation as a former astronaut and for his work on gun control. His weaknesses include a lack of executive experience and concern by unions that he has not been as supportive on labor issues as they would like. Generally, Kelly seems like he would be a solid pick and, if he didn't attract a significant number of voters to the ticket, he won't alienate many either. Whether Kelly will actually be Harris' choice remains to be seen. The original poster could turn out to be correct about the VP selection, if not the timing. But, ultimately, a troll could just be a troll and the nod will go to someone else.