2024

Yesterday's most active threads returned to a more familiar situation in which several were threads that I've already discussed and will skip today. That included the most active thread of the day, which was about the school shooting in Wisconsin. The next most active thread was titled, "GA & MLS NEXT Form Strategic Alliance" and posted in the "Soccer" forum. This thread was a bit of a challenge for me to decode due to the alphabet soup employed throughout the thread to identify various soccer-related entities. For those, like me, who do not speak "soccerese", I can translate the thread's title thusly: "Girls Academy and Major League Soccer NEXT Form Strategic Alliance". "Girls Academy" is a girls’ soccer league consisting of a nationwide network of girls’ travel soccer teams. "MLS NEXT" is a boys’ league that is associated with Major League Soccer that, if I understand correctly, is aimed at developing talent for the professional league. Based on my very rudimentary research into these two leagues, this does not appear to be the first time the two groups have announced an alliance. As such, many of the first responses were that this is not a big deal and is nothing new. You really have to have pretty arcane youth soccer knowledge — something that I lack —  to understand this thread. But what I think is behind the interest in the thread is the potential impact of this alliance on another soccer league. That league, Elite Clubs National League or ECNL, is currently the home of many Girls Academy clubs. Many of these same clubs apparently have MLS NEXT boys’ teams. As such, they may be caught between ECNL and MLS NEXT. There may also be clubs in the opposite situation who have Girls Academy teams and ECNL boys’ teams. The concern seems to be that ECNL may suffer as clubs switch to MLS NEXT. While many posters believe that this is a realistic concern, other posters scoff at the idea. One argument that I thought made sense — though, again, I really know nothing about this topic — is that Girls Academy and ECNL are focused on a development path that leads to college soccer teams, while MLS NEXT aims to develop professional talent. Right now, women's professional soccer is not all that attractive — at least according to some posters in this thread — and the emphasis on college is more appealing to girls. A thread about ECNL's plans to change the age cut-off for which teams players should join has been among the most active threads for months. That issue also comes up in this thread with some posters arguing that Girls Academy will not adopt the same changes and, therefore, will be more compatible with MLS Next. Or, maybe the opposite is true. I was repeatedly confused by the discussion in this thread, so I could very easily have things backwards. The bottom line appears to be that, in many cases, this announcement will change nothing. But, in other cases, clubs may have to make a tough decision, and there are strong arguments in favor of multiple choices for that decision.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Honestly asking Trump voters: how can you support him after this bizarre episode?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a Washington Post article about a bizarre incident involving former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and asks what the thinking is of those who continue supporting someone who is so obviously mentally declining. The incident in question occurred during a town hall meeting Trump was holding in Pennsylvania. The event was interrupted twice by medical emergencies involving audience members. But after those were addressed, Trump suddenly said that he was done taking questions and suggested that music be played. He spent the next 39 minutes slowing dancing on stage as a list of his own personal bangers was played. Even before Trump decided that he would dance the night away, he had already displayed a lack of mental acuity. When an audience member noted that her grocery bill was still very high and asked Trump what he would do about inflation, Trump replied that people mention grocery prices to him a lot. But then Trump started talking about farmers and Chinese President Xi. Trump went on to say, "But you asked another question about safety and also about Black population jobs..". The audience member had not brought up those things at all. Trump then veered into talking about immigration and unions. After that, Trump rambled on about Hannibal Lecter for a while before turning his attention to the Border Patrol. Trump then discussed Springfield, Ohio, a city whose Haitian population he has falsely accused of eating pet cats and dogs, though he didn't bring pets up on this occasion. Finally, Trump wrapped up by complaining about early voting. Nothing in this response addressed how Trump would combat inflation. This thread is 23 pages long and I can't read it all. But from what I did read it looks like many posters provided additional evidence that Trump is losing his mental capacity. The day after his town hall, he cancelled a scheduled interview with CNBC. While he did appear at a question and answer session before the Chicago Economic forum, that did not go well for him. When asked if he would break up Google, Trump went on a tangent about voting rolls in Virginia, never mentioning Google. When President Biden was still in the race, conservatives repeatedly highlighted the slightest mental lapse he experienced, accusing Biden-supporters of being in denial about his condition. Now, the tables have turned and Trump-supporters deny what is plain for everyone to see. Just imagine the conservative reaction if Biden had spent 39 minutes swaying to music while in the midst of a town hall? Conservatives in this thread either simply denied that Trump is showing cognitive decline, claiming that liberals are providing biased descriptions of events. Otherwise, they tried desperately to change the subject. Their most frequent diversion was to Biden, who of course, is no longer a candidate.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Bill Maher explains the Middle East to Gen Z: Can anyone really dispute the facts?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a segment of "Real Time with Bill Maher" in which Maher directly addressed singer Chappell Roan, and by extension the entire Gen-Z, and provided what Maher and the original poster apparently believe to be an accurate history lesson about the Israel-Palestine conflict. According to both Maher and the original poster, Gen-Z is wildly uninformed about Israel due to relying on TikTok for information. The original poster finds Maher's version of history to be indisputable. I was an active participant in this thread and found several fundamental errors in Maher's version of history. One issue is less about historical fact and more about interpretations. Maher argues that Israeli Jews cannot be colonizers because Jews have a historic connection to the land of Israel. This ignores that the Jews who created Israel largely came from Europe which had been their home for hundreds, if not thousands of years. There is a legitimate debate over what rights are really construed by such a tenuous connection, especially when Palestinians with much more recent claims on the land are denied any similar rights. Maher also claimed that for 2,000 years, nobody was interested in the land that is today's Israel. This is so fundamentally wrong that it really undermines everything else Maher has to say. Multiple crusades were fought over the land. That hardly signifies a lack of interest. Moreover, Maher erases the thriving Palestinian cities, towns, and villages that existed there for hundreds of years. Maher implied that Zionism was a reaction to the Holocaust and Jews didn't begin migrating to today's Israel until after World War II. Factually, Zionism had its roots in the late 1800s and Jews were emigrating as early as 1882, the time of the First Aliyah. Maher also suggested that anyone opposed to Israel's killing of Palestinian civilians is a supporter of Hamas or Hezbollah. This is a logical fallacy often employed to delegitimize critics of Israel's policies. The irony of Maher's version of history and the original poster's praise for it is that Maher's rendition is more fundamentally flawed that any TikTok video could hope to be. Maher is really in no position to be criticizing anyone else's knowledge given his own apparent ignorance. As several posters pointed out, those like Maher and the original poster criticize young folks for allegedly relying on biased sources of information but Maher and the original poster also have generally only been exposed to equally biased sources. In the Middle East, history is more often used to obscure facts than to clarify them. When people say that the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is complicated, they generally mean that they are confused by history. But history really has little meaning to the current conflict. Jews and Arabs have not been fighting for thousands of years as many would have it. Instead, the conflict is relatively new and quite simple. Two different groups want to live on the same land. It is really not any more complicated than that. Maher's resort to distorted history is really an acknowledgement that Gen-Z is closer to the truth than he would like.

While many of the most active threads yesterday were ones about which I have already written, that was not the case with the most active thread overall. That thread was titled, "Are you offended when someone says they ‘didnt [sic] want someone else to raise my kids’?" and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster asked if the expression, "I didn't want someone else to raise my kids" is an appropriate response to questions about why one spouse chose to not to work out of the house or to work part time. This is a classic "work out of the house moms" vs "stay at home moms" debate. DCUM doesn't have these arguments as much as we used to, but — as this thread shows — they have not gone away completely. The fact that this thread generated 30 pages of discussion in just one day shows that this topic can still animate posters. After 20 years of reading variations of this dispute, I really have no interest in reading 30 pages, or even 3 pages about it. The fundamentals of the argument are well known. Some moms want to stay home and raise their children and they have the luxury of being able to make that choice. For these moms, being a stay at home mom is fulfilling and they enjoy it. If they are asked why they made that choice, responding by saying that this was something they wanted to do would be perfectly honest. I am not sure why anyone would object to such a response, but I expect that someone would anyway. Problems arise, however, if the responses is phrased some what differently. For instance, if they say that they wanted to be the one to raise their children or that they didn't want someone else to raise their children, it implies some amount of judgement that women who didn't make that choice didn't raise their children. Women who didn't stay home often find this implication rude or insensitive. Predictably, therefore, many posters respond to the original poster by saying that they are not necessarily offended by this expression, but that they do find it inappropriate. Moreover, these posters often go a step further and explain that they believe saying such a thing is revealing about the person who said it. For instance, it might indicate that the person has a myopic view of things or might be trying too hard to justify her own choice. A number of posters who did not stay home argue that they still raised their kids. While a nanny or daycare might have cared for their children for a few hours a day, the most important parenting decisions and involvement still came from the parents. The other side of this coin is the negativity with which work-out-of-the-house moms often view stay-at-home-moms. Remarks about staying at home not being intellectually rewarding or wasting an education or career are not uncommon and are often hurtful to moms who stay home. As a poster on the first page pointed out, the tables are turned in this debate once elementary school starts. Nobody accuses moms of having someone else raise their children when the kids are going to school. However, criticism of moms who continue to stay home can rapidly increase with suggestions that they are sitting home doing nothing while their kids are in school. The bottom line is that neither group likes to have its choice criticized. The more that everyone can learn to respect the choices of others and understand that people are different and have different priorities, the sooner we can get past threads like this. Mothers, and fathers, may take different paths, but they almost all have the same goal and are doing their best.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Why isn't the aftermath of Helene bigger news?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was actually created on Sunday but was particularly active yesterday. The original poster asks why the aftermath of Hurricane Helene is not getting more media attention. The original poster admits that both the Washington Post and the New York Times have covered the disaster, but he complains that the coverage is below that of the Middle East and the election. The supposed lack of media coverage was a common complaint among the MAGA crowd following the hurricane. While there are stories that the mainstream media miss, more frequently when posters complain that something is not getting coverage they are really complaining that the media sources on which they rely are not providing such coverage. Often, as in this case, mainstream outlets are covering the event. Moreover, as posters in the thread note, the destruction wrought by Helene presented a number of challenges to reporters. The media had been prepared for the hurricane to land in Florida and were positioned to cover events there. However, the deluge of rain dumped on Tennessee and North Carolina was, for the most part, a surprise. With roads closed, electricity out, and both land lines and cell phones unavailable, getting news out was difficult. Moreover, as in many parts of the country, private equity investors have purchased several local news outlets and purged many of the reporters. As a result, there was a scramble to get coverage in many areas. Nevertheless, there was significant reporting on events. Despite this, many posters insisted that due to specific agendas, the media was ignoring the situation. A common complaint was that the disaster was being ignored because it impacted conservative areas. As was again pointed out in the thread, this ignores that one of the worst hit cities, Asheville, NC, is one of the most liberal parts of the state. After it became clear that media coverage was not in short supply, the focus of the thread shifted to relief efforts. Again, conservative posters made unfounded accusations. They accused the Biden/Harris administration of not doing enough and not providing assistance because the victims were conservatives. In fact, the Republican governors of Georgia, Tennessee, and Virginia all praised President Joe Biden for the performance of FEMA and other federal agencies. There was also considerable debate about whether residents of the affected areas were properly warned about the potential destruction. Somewhat ironically, the MAGA posters most responsible for such complaints had little interest in former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's history of cutting funds from the agencies tasked with providing such warnings or the Project 2025 plan to get break up NOAA and commercialize the National Weather Service. Left-leaning posters also noticed that the Republican-led House of Representatives left town rather than staying in session to consider supplemental expenditures that may be needed to fund the recovery.

Yesterday's most active thread was a bit of a surprise to me. Titled, "2024 AP Exams - Results", and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum, the thread was literally about the results of the 2024 advanced placement exams. Started at 4:33 a.m., the thread was meant to alert posters that the scores had been released three minutes earlier at 4:30 a.m. I was a bit surprised that parents would be up at 4:30 to check their kids' test results, but then I noticed that the original poster was in California. Still, that would be 1:30 a.m. her time. Clearly, my dedication as a parent is not measuring up very favorably because I would be sound asleep at either 1:30 or 4:30 a.m. I would find out about my kids' test results if or when they got around to telling me about them. Because many of the parents posting in this thread were obviously learning about the results before their kids — who were likely still asleep — had had a chance to check them, there was some discussion about whether the parents should stay mum until the kids saw their scores themselves or go ahead and tell them. There were also concerns expressed that checking the scores was an invasion of the kids' privacy. But most of the thread was simply posters posting the results. Those whose kids received all 5s (the top score) were obviously thrilled. Some were pleased with a 4 but some were a bit let down. Some posters argued that the difference between a 4 and a 5 is minimal and doesn't indicate much about a student's abilities. Scores of 3 were a bit more controversial. Some colleges award credits for a 3 and, therefore, several posters were satisfied that their kids had received 3s. But others viewed 3s as disappointing. I didn't read the entire thread which is currently 18 pages long, but I did notice several posts saying that scores this year had improved over previous years. Some attributed this to better prepared students and pandemic set backs finally being overcome. But others argued that the tests are getting easier and that high scores should not be taken that seriously. AP scores are particularly important to those students who are applying to universities in the United Kingdom where ACT and SAT results are not accepted but AP exams are required. Therefore, in some cases, these results will determine where kids will be going to college next year. Despite the concentration on scores, there is quite a bit of additional discusion on the topic of AP exams. If you are not familiar with the exams or are interested in deepening your knowledge, this would be a good thread to peruse.

For the second day in a row, all of the most active topics were posted in the "Political Discussion" forum and all but one are related to the presidential debate. The shortest of these threads is 12 pages and the first one is over 50. So I am unable to read all of the posts in the threads and will only provide an overview of the topics. The most active thread yesterday was titled, "The President is Above the Law". This thread was started back in January after oral arguments before the Supreme Court regarding the question of whether former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump has immunity for his actions related to the January 6 insurrection attempt. During the hearing, Trump's lawyer was asked whether a president could order Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political opponent and enjoy immunity for the act. Trump's lawyer argued that Congress would surely impeach a president who did such a thing, but short of impeachment the President would have immunity. This led to the original poster creating this thread. Yesterday, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case, granting considerable immunity to the President. In her dissent, Justice Sonya Sotomayor returned to the example of Seal Team 6 being used to murder a political opponent, claiming that the majority ruling granted immunity for such an act. The majority ruled that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for "core constitutional powers", those duties specified in the Constitution. In addition, the Court ruled that presidents have presumptive immunity for "official acts", actions undertaken in the course of acting as president. Finally, the court confirmed that presidents enjoy no immunity for private acts. On the face of it, this sounds fairly reasonable. But, as they say, the devil is in the details. The Court also ruled that evidence involving acts for which the President is immune cannot be used against him. This presents a significant hurdle to prosecuting a president for crimes that were unofficial acts and for which even the Court agrees, there would be no immunity. As Sotomayor explains in her dissent, imagine that the President gave an official speech during which he stated his intention to prevent a political rival from passing legislation by any means. That would be an official act for which the President would have the presumption of immunity. If the President later hired a private hitman to murder the rival, that would be a private act, but the President's public admission of intent could not be introduced as evidence to support a murder charge. As things stand, the case against Trump has been remanded to the lower court where Judge Tanya Chutkan will have to review the case in light of the Supreme Court's decision. If the actions for which Trump has been charged appear to core constitutional acts, he will have immunity. It is very unlikely that any of Trump's January 6-related actions will fall in that category. However, there will certainly be an argument that the actions were official acts for which Trump should have the presumption of immunity. It will be up to Jack Smith to demonstrate that the acts were, in fact, private. One thing that is already clear is that some evidence, such as that involving Jeffrey Clark, will no longer be admissible because it involved official acts.

The list of most active threads over the weekend was heavily dominated by political topics and all of today's topics are from the "Political Discussion" forum. The most active thread of all was the presidential debate thread that I've already discussed. The most active thread after that was titled, "As a Democrat, it all feels hopeless.", and posted, of course, in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster says that in light of President Joe Biden's poor debate performance it appears that Republicans will "sweep to victory". But, even if that doesn't happen, the Supreme Court has already severely limited the possibilities of implementing liberal policies. Meaningful gun control is not going to happen, efforts to protect the environment are being set back and will be even more difficult after the reverse of the Chevron ruling. In addition, the boundaries between church and state are being erased. The original poster asks what there is to be happy about. This thread is 43 pages long and, as such, I am unable to read much of it. What I did notice is that almost immediately those responding engaged in two behaviors that I have seen dominating more and more threads in the political forum lately. The first is related to the expression, "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." There are a number of posters who seem to respond with their own pet diagnosis, regardless of the specific topic. Early in this thread, for example, posters fixated on age and seemed to blame much of what is happening today on those who are over 60 and suggested things would not improve until those folks were no longer with us. This response is much like the knee-jerk reaction to blame everything bad on "boomers" that we see across DCUM. A second behavior, related in many ways, is to not only bring up a pet issue, but an off-topic pet issue. An example of this was a complaint about the Democratic National Committee not allowing more primary choices. But, with regard to off-topic posts, that was just the beginning. The thread is basically a collection of general gripes and talking points that posters want to share which mostly have no connection to the thread's topic at all. I agree with the original poster that now is a very dismal time to be a liberal Democrat. But to undertand how we got here, I think we need to take a wider view of things than posters in this thread seem to be doing. For instance, I have my own pet issue. One of the most significant changes over the last 20 years or so has been the vastly increased wealth disparity. An ever-increasing amount of the world's wealth is being accumulated into the hands of an increasingly small number of people. This disparity interferes with the proper working of all other systems on which our political and economic systems are based. That disparity has allowed billionaires such as Harlan Crow to essentially purchase multiple Supreme Court justices. It allowed Elon Musk to purchase what was not long ago the World's most influential social media network and turn it into a haven for Nazis. The attitude of billionaire class appears to be to exploit our world for every penny that can be squeezed out of it and then fly off to Mars. People over 60 and the DNC's influence on the primary are small potatoes relative to this. And, yes, the fact that those influencing events have little interest in anyone's well-being other than their own does not inspire much hope. 

The most active thread yesterday was the campus protest thread that I have already discussed. That thread had nearly six times as many posts as the next most active thread which was titled, "Disney DAS" and posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she is anxious about upcoming changes to the Disney's DAS program and asked if anyone knows what to expect. I had no idea to what the original poster was referring and had to do some quick research. "DAS" is Disney World's Disability Access Service which, according to its web page, accommodates guests who "due to a developmental disability like autism or similar, are unable to wait in a conventional queue for an extended period of time." Apparently, guests with DAS access are assigned an entry time to an "experience" — as Disney calls them — that corresponds to the length of the current queue. Such guests don't have to physically stand in line, but just return at their assigned time. The current Disney webpage only contains information about DAS up to May 19 and it seems that changes to the program will be introduced beginning May 20. But with folks attempting to plan trips that will occur after that date, the lack of information about the changes is causing some frustration as in the case of the original poster. Those responding in this thread don't really have any more information about the upcoming changes than the original poster does, so instead replies focus on rumors or describe past experiences. Some posters complained that the DAS system has been abused in the past which might be the reason for the changes. In addition, the DAS program is compared to other programs that Disney offers such as Genie+ and Lightening Lanes. Several parents of children with autism explained how the program had been helpful to them and worried that it might not be continued. But parents with kids without autism complained that the long lines are difficult for young children generally and that Disney should rethink how it handles lines to better accomodate all young children. One poster reported that her family was approved for DAS post May 20 and that the rule changes were not significant. At some point the thread broke out into an argument about using both Genie+ and DAS. For those who, like me, know nothing about this stuff, Genie+ allows guests to use short, fast-moving Lightening Lanes for a select number of rides. Some posters reported using both Genie+ and DAS to keep line waits to a minimum. This upset other posters who thought that using both programs was taking advantage of system. As one poster wrote, "You shouldn't be able to use Genie + if you have DAS. It's double dipping." In response, a poster wrote, "It looks like you can only get a certain #of ride passes per day with the DAS. If you can use Genie + to get on other rides quickly, why wouldn’t you?" Most of the rest of the thread simply consisted of variations of this debate.

The two most active threads yesterday were the thread about college protests and the thread about paying off a spouses's student loans. I already discussed those threads in yesterday's blog post, so I'll skip them today. The next most active thread was titled, "Honestly, how do you manage dual income marriage with kids?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that both she and her husband have "highly intellectual jobs" that don't pay all that well but are intellectually stimulating, have prestige, are fun, but also are stressful. They each make around $200k annually, which caused some posters to question the original poster's description of their jobs as not paying well. They have two kids and, despite "a lot of help around the house" are increasingly having relationship conflicts. As the original poster explains it, between their long hours and frequent travel which also requires time for recuperation, the original poster and her husband are struggling with family life. The original poster is particularly frustrated because she feels that she picks up most of the load around the house and her husband, rather than recognizing that she is tired and overworked, expects her to be the "sexy available girlfriend" when it is convenient for him. She asks how others have made this situation work. On the face of it, what the original poster is describing is a very common scenario — a struggle to balance work with parenting. It has been a decade since Sheryl Sandberg urged women to "lean in", yet as the original poster demonstrates, while women struggle to overcome barriers at work, they also encounter barriers at home. This topic has been covered a million times in the relationship forum and most of the advice offered is standard fare. Posters suggest hiring more help, attempting to better balance responsibilities with her husband, cutting back on travel, etc. Some of those responding argue that the original poster is simply expecting too much and that she should accept that she can't have it all. Almost immediately I started receiving reports suggesting that the original poster was a troll. Initially, I couldn't find any indication that this was the case and I was baffled by the suggestion because this is such a common scenario. But, after considerable digging, I discovered that the original poster was sock puppeting throughout the thread, often replying to herself in the third person. Later in the thread she introduced a new twist to her story and then immediately sock puppeted a response. Ironically, some of the original poster's sock puppeted responses contained pretty good advice. So one of the original poster's personas should just listen to what her other persona has to say. I also note the irony of someone with an intellectually-challenging and prestigious job who lacks time and energy for sex toiling away having a conversation with herself on DCUM.