Thursday's Most Active Threads

Once again, the two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed. Coincidentally, both of those threads involve school controversies. The most active thread for the past several days has been the one about the Hayfield football team scandal. With all that is going on in the world, it is interesting that high school football is getting so much attention. The second was the thread involving the former Head of School of the National Child Research Center preschool. That one is likely to stay near the top of the most active list for some time. After those was a thread titled, "Matt Gaetz is out" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As I am sure readers are aware, Matt Gaetz was a Congressman from Florida who has been embroiled for years in a sex scandal involving a 17-year-old that Gaetz allegedly paid for sex. Gaetz was chosen by President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump to serve as Attorney General in Trump's second term. Almost immediately after the announcement that Trump had picked him, Gaetz resigned from Congress. Now, as the original poster of this thread says, Gaetz has withdrawn his name from consideration for the Attorney General post. Gaetz always seemed like a long shot to be confirmed, with even Trump reportedly saying that Gaetz only had a 50% chance of confirmation. A number of Republican Senators announced that they vote against Gaetz's confirmation. When the news that Gaetz would no longer pursue the Attorney General position broke, posters in this thread immediately began speculating about what had caused him to drop out. One theory is that the entire thing was orchestrated, possibly by Trump, to simply get Gaetz out of Congress. I'm not much of a believer in the theory that Republicans in Congress were able to rope Trump in on a conspiracy against Gaetz. A more likely theory is that the ethics report that has been drafted regarding Gaetz's sex and drug escapades was going to be particularly damaging. It is true that Gaetz's unusual resignation from Congress came just before the Ethics Committee was due to vote on the release of the report. Release of the report was ultimately voted down on party lines. Interestingly, however, the Republicans were not actually against the release of the report, just the release in draft form. This suggests that if Gaetz remained in federal politics, the report might be finalized and then released at a later date. As a result, some posters suggested that the report probably hardened opposition to Gaetz in the Senate. But, as other posters pointed out, Gaetz has been uniquely successful at alienating members of his own party. Some of the harshest and most revealing statements opposing Gaetz were provided by other Republicans. Therefore, some posters suggested that Gaetz would probably not have been confirmed even if the report were not an issue. Finally, just after Gaetz said that he would no longer pursue the Attorney General position, CNN issued a statement saying that less than an hour earlier they had contacted him about plans to report on an allegation of a second sexual encounter with the 17-year-old. That might have also motivated Gaetz. Other discussion revolved around what Gaetz would do next. There was some speculation that he would return to Congress since he was elected to serve in the next Congress. However, his resignation statement had ruled that out. Others suggested that he might run for the Senate seat being vacated by Senator Marco Rubio, who has been picked as Trump's Secretary of State. More than likely, however, Gaetz will avoid anything that will cause his past to be investigated. Therefore, his most likely fate is an appointment in the Trump administration, perhaps in a White House role.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. Titled, "Revealing affair", the original poster says that she contacted the spouse of her spouse's affair partner and informed him of the affair between their two spouses. She says that she did this because she no longer wanted to hold onto the secret and that revealing the affair has been a great relief and freeing for her. She says she is sharing for anyone else in this situation. The issue of revealing affairs to unsuspecting spouses has repeatedly come up on DCUM. There are always arguments in favor and against, and this thread is no different. Some posters congratulate the original poster and say that they too would have told the other spouse. Many present this as an issue of ethics, saying that the other spouse has the right to know. Not only do they believe that the cheated-upon spouse should know what's going on, but they argue that affairs increase the chance of sexually transmitted diseases being passed on, and the spouse should be informed so that they can protect themselves. But many posters suspect that the motivation for revealing affairs is less a sense of duty and more a simple quest for revenge. They argue that the original poster is simply a spurned woman seeking vengeance. Posters present a number of arguments against revealing affairs, particularly the harm that it might bring to children if the revelation results in a bitter divorce. Others criticize the original poster for involving herself in someone else's family, an argument many posters find ironic given the involvement of the affair partner in the original poster's family. There is some concern that the affair partner's husband might be abusive — with that perhaps even being the motivation for an affair — and that the revelation could result in physical harm to the affair partner. Others, however, argue that any negative ramifications from the affair being revealed are the responsibility of the cheater who brought it on themselves. At any rate, in a subsequent post, the original poster makes clear that she doesn't care about any negative impact. Instead, she says that the affair partner's spouse thanked her. Several other posters whose spouses cheated on them post their own perspectives on this. Generally, those who were informed by others about their spouse's affair are happy to have been told. Posters seem to make a distinction between those like the original poster who they believe is acting selfishly out of their own need for revenge, and someone who discovers their friend is being cheated on and lets them know. Posters see the friend acting due to loyalty to a friend, whereas the motivations of the original poster are believed to be less noble. To paraphrase one poster, intentionally acting in a way that you know will hurt someone just to make yourself feel better is questionable. There is also the suggestion that some cheated-upon spouses would prefer to be left in the dark rather than confront the ramifications of dealing with an affair. At any rate, a theme throughout this thread is that revealing an affair to an unknowing spouse can lead to a number of different results. Those like the original poster should be prepared for unexpected consequences that they never intended.

Next was a thread titled, "FCPS comprehensive boundary review" and posted in the "Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)" forum. This thread was started in early October and is currently over 100 pages long. It is entirely possible that this thread has previously been among the most active and that I skipped it because I thought that I had already discussed it. In fact, I was almost going to skip it today for that reason. After checking, however, I don't appear to have addressed this thread yet. Instead, I wrote about a very similar thread back in May. The earlier thread reached 434 pages before I locked it. I locked the earlier thread because no actual proposal for boundary changes had been offered, and posters were devoting their time to debates about changes that existed only in their imagination. Ironically, the same appears to be true of this thread. What I learned from the earlier thread is that the Fairfax County Public Schools Board of Education had approved a series of guidelines to govern boundary changes and had agreed to a schedule for periodic reviews. In line with those decisions, the Board is currently discussing a comprehensive review of boundaries. The original poster quoted a Board Member as saying during a work session on the review that "every high school pyramid to be impacted". The original poster therefore concluded that boundary changes would be much broader than those previously discussed in the forum. Boundary changes are always controversial, but I have never seen a reaction comparable to that in the FCPS forum. Over 500 pages written, and I again stress, before any actual proposal has been offered. Parents, of course, want their children to be inbounds for the highest quality school possible. Overcrowding that may be affecting some schools is obviously a concern. The convenience of getting to and from a school is an understandable issue. But I really think a lot of this is simply a struggle for status. Some posters want to see schools that they see as entitled to take a hit, while others want to protect their school's exclusivity. Admittedly, I don't understand the internal politics of the areas covered by FCPS, but reading this thread, it is quite clear that nobody in their right mind would want to be caught in a struggle between Langley High School and McLean High School parents. Furthermore, I suspect that parents from both schools don't warn their misbehaving children that if they don't shape up, they will end up in prison. Rather, they warn them that they will be sent to Herndon High School. And don't think for a minute that the folks at Herndon don't resent how they are perceived. Consider the reaction of a Herndon parent when told that she didn't have to worry about Langley families being sent to her school because they would use their political influence to stay within Langley's boundaries. She responded by saying, "I was not looking forward to having to work the concession stand with a disgruntled ex-Langley parent." She followed this up by saying, "I truly hate the people over there." This rather extreme reaction appears to be motivated by the knowledge that the Langley families wouldn't want to go to Herndon in the first place. It's really high school-level behavior about high schools. You would think the parents are the ones who will be attending the schools.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum and titled, "Questions about DOGE and RTO". The title refers to the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which is not actually a department of government. Rather, it appears that it will be a federal advisory committee led by First Lady Elon Musk and failed businessman Vivek Ramaswamy. Ramaswamy recently made a statement warning federal employees, many of whom have been teleworking for years, to prepare to return to the office. The original poster asks several detailed questions about how Ramaswamy's plan will be implemented. The original poster's first mistake is assuming that Ramaswamy would have any idea about what he is talking. Almost certainly, Ramaswamy doesn't have a clue about how the government works, especially at the level of detail the original poster is describing. Musk and Ramaswamy are going to have a rude awakening when they begin to encounter bureaucratic intransigence. It's going to be like an F1 car running into a glacier. Consider one of the earlier responses that said, "The only ability to change telework / RTO policies rests in EOs, agency leadership, or Congress, depending on the agency, bargaining unit status, and CBA." Even without understanding this alphabet soup, it is clear that this is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. Whenever policies proposed by President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump are discussed, there are always posters who urge everyone not to worry because the policy will never come to pass. I think such posters are generally wrong, but in this case, I mostly agree with them. Musk and Ramaswamy will have no real power. They can't order anyone to do anything. They can advise Trump, and he can stomp his feet and maybe issue an executive order, but by and large, federal employees will simply yawn and get back to whatever it was that they were doing. DOGE may run into trouble before it even gets started due to a dispute over whether it must comply with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Compliance will require rigorous transparency and the representation of diverse and balanced points of view, two things Musk and Ramaswamy will probably resist. Every move Trump makes relative to federal employees is likely to end up in court. Here is a very practical reason that Musk and Ramaswamy will likely fail. Even prior to the COVID pandemic, many federal agencies had adopted robust telework programs. Generally, in these cases, this was more efficient. The work in question could be done just as easily, if not easier, from home, and the government was on the hook for less office space. During COVID, even more federal offices turned to telework. Entering the fourth year of that, some have started to adjust by reducing their office space. In all of these cases, a forced return to the office five days a week will result in a lack of physical space. If the first move to increase government efficiency results in a need for increased funding to cover additional office space, I think everyone will question just how efficient that effort actually is. The other issue is the motivation behind the proposed return to the office requirement. Ramaswamy has been pretty open about his hope that forcing federal employees to return to the office will result in attrition, as many quit rather than return to a daily commute. This is a braindead method of reducing staff. Logically, the more skills an employee has, the easier it will be for them to find another job that allows them to continue working from home. As such, the government will probably lose its best and its brightest. On the other hand, the most likely to be retained are those whose primary interest in the office is standing around gossiping. Regardless, my current rule of thumb is that the dumber the idea, the more likely it is to be implemented. Therefore, I have no doubt that Trump, Musk, and Ramaswamy will try to force federal employees back to the office. However, I am very skeptical that they will be successful.