2024

The most active thread yesterday was the thread that I've already discussed about being offended by the suggestion that someone else is raising your kids. That thread is a classic stay-at-home-mom versus work-out-of-the-house-mom thread, and I probably should put it out of everyone's misery. After that was a thread titled, "Gov. Youngkin issues statement after DOJ files lawsuit over noncitizen voting in Va." and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, which is the case with all the threads I will discuss today. The background of this thread is that on August 7, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin issued an executive order requiring non-U.S. citizens to be removed from Virginia's voting rolls. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit to stop the action because it violates the National Voter Registration Act, which requires a 90-day quiet period during which maintenance of voter rolls must be paused. The justification for the pause is that mistakes are often made during the mass removal operations. Youngkin's executive order fell on the 90th day before this year's election. Youngkin claims that his order is aimed at removing non-citizens, who are not allowed to vote in any case, from the voting rolls. The U.S. Justice Department's position is that the effort violates the NVRA and can wrongly hinder eligible voters' right to vote. In at least one case, the Justice Department has been shown to be correct. For instance, Nadra Wilson of Lynchburg, VA, who was born in Brooklyn, NY, and moved to Virginia 9 years ago, had her registration cancelled. A federal court ruled in favor of the Justice Department and ordered Youngkin's voter removal effort to stop. However, the case was appealed, eventually reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, which stayed the lower court decision and allowed Youngkin's program to continue. What complicates cases like this is that it is never clear if the actors involved are acting in good faith. Republicans, claiming to be acting in the interest of election integrity, have raised continual barriers to voting. They have also repeatedly alleged that Democrats encourage non-citizens to vote. The idea that Democrats are encouraging mass immigration and then allowing those migrants to vote is central to the racist "great replacement theory" that once was confined to QAnon types and mass shooters, but has rapidly become part of mainstream Republican thought. Youngkin, who postures as a serious Republican in contrast to extremist MAGAs, attempted to provide plenty of leeway to those who are being removed to demonstrate that they are citizens and should remain eligible to vote. However, in the real world, many of those provisions fail. For instance, in the case of Wilson, the letter sent to inform her that her registration would be cancelled was sent to a previous address. Once it made its way to her, the deadline to respond had passed. Wilson can still take advantage of same-day registration in order to vote and can prove her citizenship with a passport, but not everyone has a passport, and, in some cases, birth certificates are not easily located. As a result, there is still some chance that eligible voters will be wrongly stripped of their registrations. Most troubling about this is the action of the U.S. Supreme Court. The conservative majority has made a number of voting-related decisions. There has been no legal consistency among the rulings. Rather, the common element has been that the decisions generally favor Republicans. Such decisions often are handed down even, as was the case in this instance, the Court is clearly ignoring federal law.

The most popular threads over the weekend were almost all political. Eight of the top 10 most active threads were in the main political forum, another one was in the local political forum, and one of the remaining two was in the family relationship forum but dealt with a political topic. That left only one non-political thread and was one that I've previously discussed and, therefore, will skip today. Moreover, all of these threads are very long and I can't read them in their entirety. The result is that today is going to be a lot of my own opinions on the threads rather than summaries of them. The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Women who say they aren't voting on the single issue of abortion rights" and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As the title says, the original poster directed this thread towards those women who are not single issue abortion rights voters. The original poster asks them whether they have daughters, sisters, or nieces and lists several women's health issues that can be restricted by prohibitions on abortion. Essentially, the original poster is describing health risks to women presented by anti-abortion laws and asks why the women she is addressing would expose their loved ones to such dangers. In my opinion, there was no need for the original poster to limit this thread to women. Men also have daughters, sisters, or nieces, and wives. As such, this topic should be equally important to them. The position of anti-abortion posters in this thread basically amounts to a mass burial of heads in the sand. According to these posters, there are no unexpected negative ramifications to abortion bans. For instance, one poster writes, that "A D&C is not abortion", suggesting that a medically necessary dilation and curettage procedure would not be prevented by abortion bans. That would come as a surprise to Amber Thurman. It would, that is, if Thurman had not died after being denied a D&C due to Georgia's anti-abortion laws that classified the procedure as a felony for which doctors can be jailed for up to 10 years. As I am sure many others do, I find the abortion debate extremely frustrating. To be clear, I have no problem with abortion rights supporters. It is not for me to decide what women can do with their bodies. My issue is with those who want to restrict abortion. In this regard, I am much more sympathetic to those who believe that life begins at conception. I disagree with them, but I respect their belief. What I don't understand is how anyone can have that position and then support exceptions for which abortion is allowed. Aren't those, in these individuals' opinion anyway, exceptions for which murder is allowed? Similarly, I understand, and to an extent, agree with restrictions based on fetal viability. I just haven't seen evidence that there is any demand for aborting a fully viable fetus. Rather, there is limited demand for aborting fetuses that are incompatible with life and whose parents are devasted. I question the humanity of anyone who would force these parents to undergo unnecessary psychological and, in the case of the mother, potential medical, trauma. Between these two parameters, it is hard to see abortion restrictions as anything more than attempts to punish women for having sex. As a result, abortion restrictions might more honestly be called "sex restrictions". If men who support prohibiting abortion realized that they are actually supporting restrictions on sex, including for married men (married couples also have unwanted pregnancies), they might view this issue differently. Yes, yes, birth control exists, for now anyway. But birth control methods are imperfect and I don't see anyone supporting abortion exceptions for the cases in which birth control failed.

Yesterday was another day in which many of the most active threads were ones that I've already discussed. Therefore, I'll start with the third most active thread which was titled, "DUI and Death on Harrison" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that a group of kids have been drinking in Cherry Valley Park for almost a year now and he has repeatedly contacted the police who, according to the original poster, did nothing. Now, the original poster says, "one of those kids is dead". I, and I assume many others reading this post, have no idea about what the original poster is talking. I have no idea where Cherry Valley Park is located, who died, or under what circumstances. Some posters, however, do seem familiar with the incident that the original poster is discussing, but they point out that he has the details wrong. Apparently, the kids drinking in the park are high school and middle school kids. However, the death to which the original poster alluded involved college students home for a break. The kids who had apparently been drinking were in a car and the driver hit several parked cars causing his car to overturn. One passenger was ejected from the vehicle and died at the scene. The driver has been charged with "DUI/Involuntary Manslaughter and Breath/Blood Test Refusal". Posters immediately launched into a debate about who is to blame for this incident. The original poster had denounced the driver, his parents, and the police, all of whom he believed bore responsibility for the incident. However, it was his mention of parents that set some posters off. Several posters rejected the notion that parents had any responsibility for the acts of college students who are technically adults, if only barely (the driver is 18 and the deceased passenger was 19). Other posters, however, argued that many parents have a permissive attitude about alcohol which results in their children being cavalier about drinking and driving. Some parents are even accused of being enablers of underage drinking. Moreover, some posters thought that allowing teen children to stay out with what was likely a family car until the early hours of the morning is irresponsible. There is considerable discussion in the thread about the dangers of young adults drinking and driving. Posters pointed out that college freshmen back from school often have just had their first taste of freedom and may be attending colleges with strong drinking cultures. They want to assert their independence at home and can be especially prone to drunk driving. Posters have vastly different views of the incident. While almost universally they express sympathy for the families involved, many posters are adamant that responsibility should be placed on the driver and they are happy that he is being charged. Other posters, however, consider this to have been a tragic accident which will undoubtedly severely impact several families. They argue for compassion and understanding. One big division is between posters who point out all the bad choices that were made that led to this tragedy and insist that it could have been prevented, often by better parenting. Other posters warned against believing that something like this could not happen to those posters or their kids. Even good kids with good parents occasionally make bad choices. Most of the time they are lucky to get away with it, but sometimes the result is terrible.

Once again several of the most active threads yesterday were threads that I've already discussed and will skip today. As a result, just as was the case over the past two days, I am starting with what was actually yesterday's fourth most active thread. That thread was titled, "HoCo dresses- Could they be any shorter" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. At first I assumed that residents of Howard County have been wearing especially short dresses for some reason. Later I deduced that the thread's title actually referred to homecoming dresses. I am used to DCUM's annual tradition of bashing girls' high school prom fashion choices, but I guess that this is now going to be a twice a year event. The original poster writes that the dresses "literally couldn't be any shorter or tighter". But that was said last year and will be said again next year. Therefore, I can comfortably predict that they can, in fact, get shorter and tighter. I find this sort of thread to be especially tedious. There is no better way to make yourself sound old and out of touch than by complaining about what "the kids today" are wearing. Making some old foggy clutch her pearls is basically a rite of passage for high school kids. As one poster wrote, "It is the God-given duty of teenagers to wear/do/say things that are shocking to their elders. I’m sure the prehistoric cave parents stood around and clucked about the appalling trends in mastodon skins." There is rarely anything new in these threads. This one, just as all the others before it, has posters who agree with the original poster that nobody should be allowed out of the house dressed in such a manner. Others tell the original poster to mind her own business. Still others defend the dress choices. Some posters cloak their disapproval in notions of practicality, arguing that the dresses are uncomfortable and make bending over difficult. Others suggest that regardless of the propriety of wearing such clothing, many of the girls don't have the body type necessary for the dresses. A number of posters complained about being "forced" to look at girls' private parts. In response, a poster says, "I have no idea what those posters talking about private parts are on about. They sound like internet perverts." A popular tactic was to compare the attire to that worn by prostitutes. This seems to especially raise the hackles of those supportive of the girls. Parents of girls who dress in such styles argue that this is not a battle worth fighting and question why others care about it so much. One poster asks, "why do the choices of unrelated teen girls get people so furious?" Another issue that posters bring up is that only girls' clothing is policed in such a manner while the boys are ignored. This is excused by a poster who suggests that it is because boys aren't the ones showing up "mostly naked". Some of the anti-short-dress crowd suggest that girls dress in such a manner because they lack self-esteem. In response, some posters who support allowing girls to dress however they want suggest that it is actually those posters who are offended by the dresses who have issues. As one poster responded to them, "You also have serious hang ups with sexuality. Yours and, weirdly, other peoples. And you’re beyond strange [because] of it".

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.

The most active thread yesterday was the vice presidential debate thread that I discussed yesterday and will skip today. After that was a thread titled, "the Atlantic: The Elite College Students Who Can't Read Books", and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to an article in "The Atlantic" and provided a brief summary of the article's main points. According to the article, students are showing up at elite colleges such as Columbia University unable to read an entire book. The reason for this is that they were never assigned complete books in their previous schooling. Rather, they have only read excerpts previously. As a result, professors have been forced to water down the curriculum. In response, several posters discuss their children's experience in high school, detailing the number of books that they were required to read. In most cases, the number was quite small, frequently only one or two through their entire high school experience. Posters offer a number of explanations for this situation. One theory is that students who are selected by elite universities such as Columbia are singularly focused on checking boxes needed for college applications. If there is not a box saying "read an entire book", then they don't devote time to doing that. Others blame the spread of technologies such as mobile phones and social media that encourage shorter attention spans and distract students from reading for long stretches. Some posters argue that schools have traditionally assigned books that students find boring and that if more interesting books were chosen, there would be more interest in reading them. A poster who graduated from Columbia pointed out that Columbia's curriculum is particularly heavy in reading and, even when the poster attended decades ago, it involved way more reading than to what she was accustomed. A lot of the traditional forum arguments came up in this thread. Private school parents told of huge numbers of books their kids were expected to read, citing that as an advantage of private over public schools. Some posters blamed test optional admissions, a topic with which some posters are obsessed and blame for almost every problem with colleges today. Of course, grade inflation was also blamed. Several posters argue that this is a parenting issue and that parents should be ensuring that their kids read books. In response, several posters recount struggles they've had trying to get their children to read more. A number of posters suggested that the inability of today's kids to read entire books is due to the easily accessible alternatives they have to fake reading in order to pass an assignment such as Internet summaries. However, others pointed out that while the specifics might be new, the idea is not. Older generations might not have had Internet summaries, but they had Cliff's Notes.

The most active thread yesterday was, predictably, the thread titled, "Walz vs. Vance: VP Debate Oct 1 2024". Posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the thread is obviously about last night's vice presidential debate between Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Ohio Senator J. D. Vance. The thread is currently 84 pages long and well outside my ability to summarize. Therefore, I'll just give my own reaction to the debate which reflects many of the comments in the thread. The debate was between two very different candidates. On one side was Walz, folksy, rough-edged, earnest, and generally unwilling to offend. On the other was Vance, who was polished and mostly inoffensive, but dramatically transformed from the figure who has been on the campaign trail. Throughout the campaign Vance has mostly acted like little more than a Twitter troll, fixated on childless cat ladies and Haitians eating pets. In the debate, however, Vance did his best to appear reasonable, if not downright moderate. He did this mostly through obfuscation, deftly shifting the discussion to topics more advantageous to him and a lack of inhibition to lying. For instance, on the question of abortion, Vance almost appeared to be pro-choice, mentioning a friend who had an abortion. But he never really clarified his current position on abortion, only saying that Republicans need to earn trust from the public on the topic and stressing his support for families. He outright lied about his previous positions regarding abortion. The Vance who showed up at the debate is so different from the Vance who has been campaigning, that the public could rightly ask which is the real Vance? This is where I think Walz errored. Generally, vice presidential debates have little impact on the election and I believe Walz, realizing that he was up against a practiced and skilled debater, was simply playing for a draw and hoping for an evening that would be mostly forgettable. Still, I think Walz missed the opportunity to remind the public that the moderate-sounding Vance has another side. When discussion of Springfield came up, Walz passed on the opportunity to explicitly mention Vance's lies about Haitians eating pet cats and dogs. Walze let Vance get away with repeatedly praising the economy during the administration of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. He could easily have reminded the public that during the Trump administration, Americans struggled to obtain toilet paper. Walz never brought up Vance's fixation on childless cat ladies or challenged Vance's denigration of women who haven't given birth to children. On the discussion of the bipartisan immigration bill that Trump tanked, Walz should have pointed out that Vance himself voted against the bill. Instead, Walz mostly tolerated Vance's technique of ignoring tough questions and pivoting to lies that sounded reasonable. Vance personifies the expression that "if you act like you know what you are talking about, most people will think that you do". His strength is saying something that sounds like it says exactly the opposite of what it really means. But he says it confidently and without shame. Vance lied about Trump going along with a peaceful transfer of power. That is true only in that Trump did this after his attempted insurrection failed. Vance lied by claiming that Trump saved Obamacare when, in reality, Trump spent his entire administration attempting to get rid of Obamacare and would have succeeded were it not for the late Senator John McCain. Vance even lied about solar panels from China. One frequent pivot by Vance was to bring up alleged censorship by big technology companies. Nevermind that X, formerly Twitter, is owned by a Trump supporter and right-wing troll, Vance himself is currently being protected by both Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg who are censoring a leaked Trump campaign background document about Vance. Walz' best moment came near the end of the debate when he attempted to pin down Vance about whether Trump had lost the 2020 election. Vance ignored the question and, as was his tendency all night, tried to change the subject. Then Walz pointed out that there is a reason that former Vice President Mike Pence was not on the stage, reminding viewers of the chants to "Hang Mike Pence".

The first thread that I will discuss today was actually the third most active over the weekend because the first and second most active were threads that I've previously covered. The thread was titled, "Can someone explain the mentality of never being proactive or organized to me?" and was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that her husband who has ADHD, which he has been treating with medicine, is never proactive and lacks basic administrative skills. As a result, the original poster is responsible for 95% of household administration and is also the main breadwinner. She essentially has to micromanager her husband, providing a recent example of her frustrations. While the original poster was out of town, her husband was supposed to help their son buy a birthday present and take him to an 8-year-old's birthday party. However, her husband overslept which meant their son was late to the party and they weren't able to buy a present. The husband put cash in a card instead. The original poster wonders whether her husband just expects her to do everything or is engaging in "weaponized incompetence". She doesn't understand what benefit there would be to her husband acting this way. This topic has repeatedly come up on DCUM over the years and I have read countless threads of a similar nature. This really has highlighted two things: 1) the significant number of husbands who suffer from ADHD, and; 2) the similarly large number of husbands who apparently expect their wives to treat them like their mothers probably did. It is the ADHD aspect that really catches other poster's attention in this thread and a lively debate breaks out on that topic. There are a number of posters who believe that ADHD not only explains the original poster's husband's behavior, but also provides an excuse. As such, the original poster is criticized for acting "superior" and not being sympathetic about her husband's condition. However, several posters who say that they have ADHD themselves, including the original poster, argue that ADHD, especially when medicated, is not an excuse. It may mean that individuals with such a condition need to work harder, but they should still be expected to be able to manage basic parenting tasks. Other posters argue that the husband is simply being lazy. He slept in and didn't get a present because he didn't think the party was important and didn't care about it. Had the event been something he prioritized, they content, his ADHD would not have gotten in the way. Some posters who have been in marriages like this have reconciled themselves to it and simply taken over most of the household management. One poster said that she has lowered the bar for her husband so low that it is on the floor and that she expects little more from him than basic childcare. But, of course, the DCUM relationship forum being the DCUM relationship forum, several posters recommended divorce. Some posters took an entirely different approach and argued that while oversleeping was not ideal, providing cash instead of a gift was perfectly fine and might even be preferred by some kids.

The most active thread yesterday was the same thread about the election being close that was the most active thread on Wednesday as well. Since I discussed that thread in yesterday's blog post, I'll skip it and go on to the next. That thread was also related to the election. Titled, "Harris interview with MSNBC Sept 25 - 24minute video" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the original poster embedded an interview that Vice President Kamala Harris gave to Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC. There are really two ways to evaluate Harris in circumstances like this. She can be judged in a vacuum, solely on her performance and the quality of her responses. Alternatively, she can be compared to her opponent in the election, former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. Those responding in the thread do both. Posters are divided about her performance, some believing that she did a good job, was relatable, and seemed competent. Others found her answers lacking substance and had stylistic objections. Generally, these responses fell along partisan political lines. Compared to Trump, however, there is really no contest. While Harris may not have been 100% accurate in her responses, she was generally truthful. Trump, on the other hand, routinely spews a fountain of lies that overwhelms both those questioning him and fact-checkers who simply don't have enough hours in the day to correct them all. This creates a structural disadvantage for Harris because coverage of her speaking will often concentrate on the one or two missteps and ignore the rest. Trump, on the other hand, will start talking about sharks and electric boats or Hannibal Lector and will be covered as if he delivered the Gettysburg Address. It is pretty clear to me that Harris and her campaign have chosen to stick to broad strokes and avoid delving into details. They are running a campaign based on themes and ideas. In other words, similar to Obama's campaigns. Harris is not pretending to be Hillary Clinton and enumerating the 15 steps of the four phases of her 40 page plan. This is a good thing. Even with the minimal details Harris provided in this interview, posters found fodder for criticism. More details would simply generate more criticism. This is a big picture election. Voters care about abortion rights, the economy, foreign policy, the environment, crime, and yes, immigration. Harris and Trump have vastly different ideas on all of these topics. Harris' job is to convince voters that her stances are in their interest and that she can be trusted as a leader. She will do that by making them believe in her, not by boring them to death with a mountain of data. Trump is certainly not going to provide details of his plans. Of course, those details are provided in Project 2025 from which Trump is doing his best to run away.

As I have said a number of times, DCUM has almost entirely grown organically with very little of it being planned. For the most part, we have followed the direction set by the users rather than trying to steer things in any particular direction. But to the extent that we had a vision for the website, we saw it as being primarily used for the exchange of helpful information. We wanted it to be a place where struggling parents might find advice to help them confront the challenges of parenthood in the District of Columbia. Obviously, things have turned out somewhat differently. For one thing, rather than relying on DCUM to indulge in their role as parents, for many users it is a temporary escape from those responsibilities. As such, DCUM is often simply a distraction and mindless entertainment. Today's most active thread is a case in point. Titled, "Things that make you irrationally angry" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum, the original poster is irrationally bothered by people in the grocery store taking too long to choose pasta sauce or bananas. She wonders what similarly irrational irritations others have. The original poster is not alone in being bothered by the behavior of others at grocery stores. A number of other posters are similarly angered by various grocery-shopping activities. The other major provocation for irrational anger seems to be driving. Just as with grocery shopping, almost any aspect of driving, no matter how normal, is likely to make someone nuts. Obviously this thread was not meant to be taken too seriously, though some posters did address serious topics. More often posters took a humorous approach, such as the poster who is irrationally angered by monocles. Some posters get so irrationally angry when they can't find the scissors that I would hate to be anywhere near them when they finally did find the scissors. Adults eating various types of fruits also seems to set off a number of posters. Eating in general is apparently the source of much irrational anger. I was going to say that all of my anger is rational so I personally have nothing to add to this thread. But then a poster used the term "narc" to refer to someone that they considered to be narcissistic and I nearly flung my laptop across the room. A "narc" is either a narcotics officer or someone who narcs on you. Look it up.