Monday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday was another day in which many of the most active threads were ones that I've already discussed. I've mentioned this before, but a fairly new phenomenon on DCUM is that older threads frequently stay active for a long time. As a result, threads show up repeatedly on the most active list. Just as was the case with yesterday's post, the top three most active threads yesterday were ones about which I've already written. As a result, I will start today with the fourth most active thread. That thread was titled, "Ton of sit down interviews this week for Harris", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As the original poster of the thread notes, there have been weeks of hang-wringing by posters concerned that Vice President Kamala Harris has not been doing one-on-one media appearances. A cottage industry has developed to either criticize Harris as being unable to speak in unscripted situations or defend her reluctance to spend time with the press. This week, however, Harris has scheduled a number of one-on-one interviews with a variety of media outlets. Of course, her detractors are still not satisfied. They seem to believe that only an appearance on Fox News or maybe even Newsmax would be convincing. While one of Harris' appearances was on CBS's "60 Minutes", a traditional interview for presidential candidates, most of her schedule consisted of non-traditional media. For instance, one of the first was an appearance on the "Call Her Daddy" podcast. I confess that I had previously not heard of this podcast, despite being a podcast enthusiast. But the show is apparently the most-listened-to podcast among women and the second-most-listened-to podcast overall. So Harris' media advisors seem to have known what they were doing. By all appearances, many of Harris' critics were also unfamiliar with the podcast because they had to quickly Google for information with which to bash her. Other planned appearances for Harris included "The View", "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert", and "The Howard Stern Show". Harris will also do a Univision town hall. Harris detractors complained that these are "lovefests" in which no hard-hitting questions will be asked. They want Harris to be grilled on her past relationship with Willy Brown and her husband's past relationships. Harris and her campaign are not interested in playing the conservatives' games and serious reporters would ignore those topics in any case due to their irrelevance to the presidency. Instead, as many posters noted, the wisdom of Harris' media strategy is that she is using platforms that allow her to delve into topics and discuss nuances rather than being focused on talking points and soundbites. More importantly, she is reaching voters who generally ignore the traditional media. The vast majority of those tuning into MSNBC or Fox News have long ago made up their minds about for whom they will vote in this election. The non-traditional outlets allow Harris to talk directly to those who rarely vote, who may not pay attention to politics, and who may still be persuaded to support Harris. In addition, the longer formats and specialized interests of these shows allows Harris to delve into issues that traditional media — often focused on the horse race and conventional topics — tends to ignore.

Yesterday's next most active thread was also posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Tampa Bay days away from getting largest hurricane in city’s history", the original poster embedded a tweet showing a huge hurricane, subsequently named "Milton", gathering in the Gulf of Mexico and headed toward Tampa Bay, Florida. Coming in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, the thread was immediately inundated with the same politicalization that dominated discussion of the earlier hurricane. The first poster to respond questioned why conservatives deny the reality of climate change. The second poster to respond then denied climate change. This is extremely frustrating. Earlier this year, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a law that erases most references to climate change from state law. Not only do Republicans like DeSantis deny climate change, they even want to prohibit the term from being used. Beyond denying climate change, many Republicans are devoting themselves fulltime to lying about the federal response and preparedness. As an immediate measure, FEMA provides those in disaster areas $750 is cash. Right-wing media, including Fox News, and MAGA politicians from former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump on down have been busy misleading the public into believing that this immediate cash handout is all that victims can expect to receive. In fact, thousands of additional dollars in assistance are available depending on need. The political realities are such that DeSantis actually sees hurricanes as politically beneficial to him. He skipped President Joe Biden's visit to the area and refused to take a phone call from Vice President Kamala Harris. He then gave a press conference in which he said that "We rely on FEMA to basically be a bank account" and criticized what he considered a slow response to Helene. In reality, what DeSantis is explaining is how things are supposed to work. FEMA funds local organizations to act as first responders. FEMA experts follow in the aftermath. Furthermore, DeSantis knows that he can insult both Biden and Harris and still expect them to devote the full resources of the federal government to assist his state. Ironically, he probably could not get away with that if Trump were President. Posters from Florida are of two minds. On the one hand, they are eager to point out that not all Floridians are climate-change-denying Neanderthals and, in fact, there are many liberal parts of Florida, including the Tampa Bay area. They are as upset with DeSantis as anyone else and maybe more so. While these posters stress that Floridians are used to hurricanes and will not be caught by surprise, they also concede that they have barely recovered from the last one and could easily be overwhelmed by this one. Florida Republicans in general, and DeSantis in particular are playing a dangerous game. They are hoping that the state's response will be sufficient to earn them credit — all the while doing their best to deny the federal government credit. If things go badly, they will, of course, resort to scapegoating the feds. But, for the moment, they are building quite the track record of denying that the federal government is involved. DeSantis wants to be in a positon to take credit if things go well, but he is also setting himself up to take the blame if things go wrong. Peoples lives are a strange thing with which to make political bets.

Next was a thread titled, "If you're Jewish, how has October 7 impacted your outlook?" and, like the previous two posts, was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Yesterday was the anniversary of the October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel and many have been reflecting upon events since then. One of the most noticeable developments in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attack was the division between many Jewish Americans and some on the political left. Jews, who have often dominated liberal organizations and movements and have been at the forefront of confronting oppression, racism, and violence, expected solidarity from those on the left. In many cases, not only was that solidarity not forthcoming, but much of the left's hostility towards Israel was alienating to them. This appears to have been the experience of the original poster. She describes political beliefs held by some on the left which she describes as "Outrageous and offensive" and goes on to suggest that American Jews may have been under the false illusion that anti-Semitism is not as prevalent in the U.S. as it is in Europe. Now, however, she says that American Jews are not as likely to automatically consider those on the left to be friends of Jews. For me as moderator of this website, the last year has been a near constant struggle over the issue of anti-Semitism. This is not a black and white issue and there is very little agreement over what is anti-Semitism. Indeed, one of the first responses in this thread was from a Jewish poster who described the original poster's post as "BS". I see three factors that make this a particularly difficult issue. First is the fact that there is no agreed upon definition of anti-Semitism. Second is a failure to distinguish between "Jews" and "Israel". Ironically this tendency is apparent among both those who are pro-Israel and those who are anti-Israel. Third, is a dispute over the authoritative source regarding the meaning of language. Who determines what something means? The one saying it or someone else? With regard to the first issue, there are many who argue that those best to judge what is anti-Semitic are Jews and that non-Jews, such as myself, shouldn't have a say in the matter. This position ignores that there generally is not agreement about such things even among Jews. It also positions "anti-Semitism" as something that is purely subjective and basically existing only in the eye of the beholder (assuming the beholder is Jewish). Both those supportive of Israel and those critical of the state are frequently guilty of equating "Jews" and "Israel". For instance, someone might say that "Jews" have been bombing Gaza. Technically, that may be true. But the controlling authority responsible for the bombing is the government of Israel and those doing the bombing are acting as Israelis, not Jews. Similarly, when Hamas fires rockets indiscriminately into Israel, they are often said to be attempting to kill Jews. More accurately, they are attempting to kill Israelis and often kill Israeli Arabs in the process. Jews have been among the most vocal supporters of Palestinians and opponents of Israeli aggression and it is important to remember that range of views that exist within the community. Regarding language, a repeated phenomenon has been individuals making statements that they say mean one thing while others claim that the statement means something else. The most common example has been the slogan, "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free". I have repeatedly written that I do not like this slogan and do not use it. But, those who do use the slogan have constantly stressed that their quest for freedom means freedom for everyone in the area of historic Palestine and that Jews, far from being harmed, will be included in that freedom. Many using the slogan even say that the desire expressed by the slogan is compatible with the continued existence of Israel. Nevertheless, many individuals and organizations, including the U.S. Congress, have determined that the slogan is anti-Semitic. This is particularly ironic given that Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly said that Israel has authority from the River to the Sea but is not similarly condemned. The result of the three factors I've described has been a growing gulf, not necessarily between Jews and non-Jews, but between those who have different understandings of what constitutes "anti-Semitism". Those who consider anti-Israeli sentiment as anti-Semitic are likely to have increasing differences with the left. Those who hold to stricter definitions of anti-Semitism focused on anti-Jewish opinion and behavior will likely apply the label more often to those on the right. In some cases, individuals will find fault with both sides of the spectrum.

The next two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed. As a result, the final thread about which I will write today was actually the ninth most active yesterday. That thread was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum and titled, "Vandy, wow…". For those who, like me, had other things on their plate this past weekend and didn't pay attention to college football, Vanderbilt University defeated the number one ranked University of Alabama. Depending on who you believe in this thread, this was either the greatest upset in the history of the Southeast Conference, maybe the greatest upset in football, or perhaps even the greatest upset in the history of sports. Alternatively, it was an interesting surprise that will be forgotten by next week. The original poster was quite specific in declaring the victory the biggest sports win by a top 20 team in a very long time. After slagging off Duke University for reasons that were not quite clear, the original poster went on to predict that the win would make it harder to be accepted at Vanderbilt next year because high school kids watching the game would be eager to attend. This idea that a single football upset would radically increase interest in the school was repeated throughout the thread. I am a believer that a strong sports program, particularly in the sports of football and basketball, can increase interest in universities. If nothing else, strong athletics helps increase name recognition. But I am not sure how much impact a school's athletics program has when the school's strongest selling point is academics. For instance, how many students have been attracted to Ivy League schools because of their football teams? But many posters believe that many applicants will compare Vanderbilt and its football team to other top universities and head to Nashville. Almost as many posters feel more like I do and don't believe that the game will have much of an impact, if any, on interest in the university. Several posters argued that students with the statistics to be accepted by Vanderbilt would not be influenced by football and those students who would be influenced, probably don't meet the requirements for acceptance. Several other posters argued that regardless of the excitement over the game with Alabama, Vanderbilt's team would soon return to its normal state of mediocrity and the victory would soon be forgotten. The thread also contained a long-running and ridiculous off-topic dispute about whether or not the University of Notre Dame is a member of the Atlantic Coast Conference.