DCUM Weblog

The three most active threads yesterday were all ones that I've previously discussed and will, therefore, skip today. The fourth most active thread was titled, "What are your favorites of Trump’s early accomplishments?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster is a diehard fan of cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump. He considers Trump's first term to have been "unquestionably successful". The original poster could not be happier with the beginning of Trump's second term, specifically noting Trump's revocation of former President Lyndon B. Johnson's Executive Order 11246. To say that the original poster is delusional is to put things extremely mildly. According to the original poster's understanding, Executive Order 11246 was one of the "starting points of affirmative action and discriminatory hiring practices". What the EO does is require U.S. government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." I would be very interested in hearing exactly why the original poster opposes that language, especially because the original poster describes himself as "being a minority". The original poster provided an explanation for his completely backwards understanding of this issue when he concluded his post by saying, "I’ve been glued to my TV and X". Well, no wonder. Trump's avalanche of executive orders was largely aimed at pleasing his supporters like the original poster. They have been very effective in that regard. Their real-world impact is another question. Trump's EO regarding birthright citizenship has already been blocked by a federal judge. His EO dealing with electric vehicles reversed a mandate that didn't exist, paused funds that have already been disbursed, and didn't touch EV tax rebates. Trump's federal employee return to office order will primarily create chaos and may not actually result in many employees returning to their offices. Certainly, Trump has done some real damage — something the original poster would probably consider an achievement — but that is buried under a mountain of illegal, unworkable, and meaningless bluster. Simply separating fact from fiction will be a significant challenge. Never mind trying to convince those like the original poster that their understanding of things is the complete opposite of reality.

The two most active threads yesterday were the Bishop Mariann Budde thread discussing her remarks at the inaugural prayer service and the Blake Lively thread, which actually inspired a second thread in the Website Feedback forum asking for it to be closed. Since I have discussed those threads already, I will start with one titled, "DEI RIFs" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. Among the slew of executive orders issued by cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump immediately after his inauguration was one prohibiting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs within the federal government. The Office of Personnel Management then followed up by ordering all DEI staff members to be placed on paid leave by 5 p.m. yesterday. Agencies are expected to develop a "reduction in force" policy for the DEI staffers within a week. The original poster of this thread wants to know if these staffers will have the right to "bump" less senior employees in other parts of the agency. Trump's EOs have generally followed a pattern of being poorly thought out, confusing, and fairly amateurish. OPM memos have not been much better and, in some cases, arguably worse. In this case, posters can't even agree about whether or not a RIF is mandated. Posters have a host of questions, including who exactly is considered DEI staff. In some cases, DEI duties are shared with other responsibilities, and posters wonder whether someone who only handles DEI as a small part of their duties will be included. Many of those responding seem to hate the DEI programs in their agencies and hold DEI staff in low regard. For the most part, they are glad to see them go and don't really care what happens to them. Others are concerned with the legalities of the move and are mainly interested in discussing the technicalities of it as a labor issue rather than specifically tied to DEI. Several other posters, however, are concerned about the fate of the DEI staff. A number of such posters explain that the DEI staff in their offices are simply human resources personnel that rotate through the role. Some took the position simply because it was a promotion or seemed like an interesting opportunity. They are not "DEI careerists," and many posters seem to dislike them being caught up in this matter. Eventually, this thread turned into nothing more than a debate about DEI, which is really irrelevant to the thread's topic. Personal views about DEI don't really matter to this discussion. More important is the fate of those who are being swept up by the OPM memo.

For the second day in a row, a thread about a weather-related delayed opening in Montgomery County Public Schools was the most active thread. This one was titled, "School delayed and no sports or activities for 3 days straight just for cold weather?!?" and, of course, posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. Due to the cold and icy conditions in Montgomery County, the school system has delayed opening by 2 hours for both today and tomorrow. This has upset a number of posters, including the original poster of this thread, who writes, "So many musicals, concerts, after-school clubs, school events, sports just cancelled...". Several of those responding complain that, in the past, schools didn't close simply because it was cold outside and they don't see a need for these delayed openings. Other posters, in contrast, insist that MCPS has always closed or delayed opening due to cold weather. There just hasn't been such cold weather for the past couple of years. Several posters also argue that the delayed openings are justified due to safety reasons. A trend that I've noted before continues in this thread. That is, posters who clearly oppose the delay for their own personal reasons argue against it because it will be harmful for others, such as the poor and less privileged. This seems a bit disingenuous. Once again, the biggest opposition to the delay comes from working parents for whom the delay interferes with their job schedule. Some of these posters believe that the school system is going beyond simply being inconsiderate to working parents and actively trying to make life miserable for them. As one poster writes, "MCPS administrators despise working parents." Another poster quickly weighed in to say that it is not only administrators, but the Board of Education as well. Other posters argued that it was actually the teachers' union, the Montgomery County Education Association, that is calling the shots. Teachers were accused of being drunk and hungover and, therefore, unwilling to get to school on time. I will once again ask why parents who seem to have so little respect for teachers always seem to be the ones who are the most adamant that their children should be in the care of teachers. If you disrespect teachers so much, why aren't you homeschooling? Why are you entrusting the education of your kids to those you claim to be lazy drunks? As it turns out, some of the original poster's concerns may not have been justified. It appears that unclear wording on the MCPS website may have led some to believe that afternoon activities were cancelled when, in fact, they were not.

The most active thread yesterday was the thread about moving the inauguration inside that I discussed yesterday because it had also been the most active thread over the weekend. Skipping that thread, the next most active was titled "School Opening Predictions for Tuesday?" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. This thread was started early Sunday by a poster concerned that if it snowed, as was predicted, staff would not be available on Monday due to the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and, therefore, the snow might not get cleared before Tuesday. Therefore, the poster was asked what others predicted with regard to Montgomery County Public Schools opening today. Posters in this forum are beyond obsessed with weather-related school closures and delayed openings. I can't count the number of posters who posted at least a half-dozen times in the thread. But that's nothing compared to the numbers put up by others. One poster posted at least 30 times, another at least 60. But the winner, by some distance, was a poster who posted over 100 posts. That poster, to put it mildly, was not happy about the possibility of a closure or delayed opening because it would interfere with her job. This morning I even noticed a poster sock puppeting. The poster repeatedly posted the same question and then began answering her own question. I have no idea what she was hoping to accomplish, but she is currently experiencing a delay using DCUM that is significantly longer than the two-hour delay that MCPS ultimately decided upon. A threat of snow closing schools soon dissipated because there wasn’t very much snow. But that didn't stop the clamor among posters for closing or delaying school. These posters were worried about the cold and ice which they thought would make getting kids to school dangerous. As I have said in previous discussions of snow day threads, school systems can never win when it comes to decisions like this and will be criticized regardless of what they decide. In this thread, there were those like the 100-post poster who didn't seem willing to accept a delay or closure under any circumstances. Others didn't want to open schools if there were a square foot of ice anywhere in the county. The delay opening was criticized because no other area employers implemented such a measure. The thread also contained a lot of criticism of teachers as a result of the belief among many posters that teachers are lazy and want schools to be closed. There is actually no evidence that many teachers have such an attitude, and I ended up locking the thread after the teacher-bashing got out of hand.

The most active thread over the weekend was the thread I discussed before about childfree weddings. That topic turns out to be more divisive than even I expected. After that was a thread titled, "Inaugural on Monday Moved Inside" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As I am sure everyone is aware, today is Inauguration Day and President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump will become President, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. I'll have to update my macro. While I am sure that we were all looking forward to hearing about the biggest crowd ever that stretched from the steps of the Capitol to the shores of the Potomac River, we will have to live with our disappointment. Instead, Trump's inauguration has been moved inside the Capitol rotunda. This is said to be due to the weather, which is quite cold in D.C. today. However, it was colder during former President Barack Obama's inauguration, and that was held outside. But, this is what happens when a Florida man wins the election. This is a strange thread because liberals are mostly poking fun at Trump for being a wimp who is afraid of the cold. Conservatives, on the other hand, repeatedly accuse liberals of "raging" and being angry about the change. I am not sure to which liberals these posters are referring, but they don't exist in this thread. The conservatives clearly have a difficult time dealing with mockery. Several even blame liberals for the move. Rather than the weather, they claim liberal plans to disrupt the inauguration (plans that only appear to exist within MAGA minds) are the reason for the change of venue. Others claim that there are security concerns. After all, Trump only has so many ears that he can give for his country. I suppose that this thread is representative of what we have to look forward to for the next four years or so. MAGAs tend to thrive on resentment, and their primary technique for political discussion is to manufacture outrage. That is a little harder to do when your party controls every aspect of the federal government. As such, MAGAs will either fight among themselves, invent imaginary enemies, or attack liberals whose primary "crime" is likely to be criticizing MAGAs. In that regard, criticize is something that you can count on liberals to do. Whether it is capitulating to the weather or cutting social security, there will be plenty of Republican actions to criticize.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "No Kids at Wedding - Why So Much Anger?!" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster says that she and her husband did not allow children at their wedding. She now has three kids and understands the challenges of childcare and other issues when invited to a "no kids" wedding. However, she supports other couples not inviting children to their weddings and wonders why some people get so angry about "no kids" weddings. This topic comes up routinely on DCUM, and I have even discussed threads on the topic previously in this blog. There are a few issues involved, all of which are discussed in this thread. As one poster early in the thread points out, this really is the confluence of two different trends. On the one hand, couples desire "perfect", or as the poster puts it, “Instagram worthy," weddings. On the other hand, there seems to be an increase in unruly kids whose parents don't parent them. Both of these trends increase the pressure for childfree weddings. Contrary to the proponents of childfree weddings, however, are posters who see weddings as family events and, therefore, believe children should be invited. They are willing to put up with disruptions in order to be inclusive. As one poster put it, "I would rather have kids at my wedding than have a perfect wedding." Things get more complicated depending on the relations of those who are involved. Leaving out the children of close relatives, especially nieces or nephews, can cause resentment. But making exceptions for them but not for friends who might have travelled a long distance to participate has its own set of problems. Several posters outline their own personal parameters for how they react to childfree weddings. For instance, one poster says that she is happy to attend a local wedding without her kids. However, if a wedding is out of town or scheduled to involve several events over multiple days, she will decline if her family is not invited. Still, for others, this is a much more emotional topic. The bottom line for many posters is that the wedding is for the couple getting married, and they have the right to set whatever rules they want. They should not be criticized for their choices. On the other hand, everyone invited has the option to decline if the arrangements don't work for them.

Yesterday's most active thread was one that I discussed yesterday, the thread about downward mobility of children due to college choices. That thread was active because it went completely off the rails, and I eventually had to lock it. The next most active thread was titled, "How many men would stay w/o sex" and was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster refers to the book "Intermezzo" by Sally Rooney. Apparently, the book has a male character who is deeply in love with his college girlfriend. However, several years after college, she has a car accident which creates painful conditions for her and essentially prevents her from having sex. Her boyfriend initially wants to stay together with her, but eventually finds the lack of sex to be a problem and begins a relationship with another woman, maintaining his emotional connection to his college girlfriend. The original poster wants to know how many men would actually stay in such a situation. The problem with this sort of thread is that DCUM is not a laboratory in which a controlled experiment can be conducted. It is full of posters carrying all sorts of baggage who are in no position to speak for "men" generally. Initially, a number of male posters responded to say that if their wives were unable to have sex, they would leave them or cheat. But the conversation was soon caught up with scenarios in which wives were perfectly capable of having sex but simply didn't want to. Many posters suggested that men would leave or cheat in this situation as well. But, as other posters pointed out, the forum is full of men complaining that they are in sexless marriages and have not left or cheated. But what really dominated this thread was a dispute about whether sex is a "need". One problem is that posters define "need" differently. For some, a need is only something that being without will result in death. So, food and water are needs, but sex is not. Au contraire, say other posters. To them, sex is very much a need, regardless of whether or not they can physically go on living without it. The thread highlights the differences between individuals. There are men and women who would not be willing to continue a relationship without sex, and there are members of both sexes that either are doing exactly that now or say that they could do so.

Yesterday's most active thread was, believe it or not, the thread about the ECNL soccer league changing its age brackets. I didn't check to see what provoked this burst of interest so that will remain a mystery. After that was a thread titled, "Hegseth Hearing Live Now" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This is the first of several threads that I will discuss today from that forum. This thread was started just as the U.S. Senate confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth was getting underway. President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump has nominated Hegseth to be the Secretary of Defense. While Hegseth is a veteran, having served in the National Guard, he is best known as a Fox News commentator. He is a controversial choice due to his inexperience but also because of several personal issues. Like Trump, he has a history of cheating on his wives and has fathered children with three different women, in one case out of wedlock. In addition, Hegseth was accused of sexually assaulting a woman and eventually agreed on a monetary settlement with her. On top of all of that, Hegseth is said to have a drinking problem. As such, Hegseth is not exactly a model nominee. Nevertheless, MAGA Republicans are determined to see him confirmed. One Republican Senator, Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, went so far as to suggest that many of his colleagues are drunks and to say that he has committed jail-worthy offenses for which his own wife has forgiven him. It's notable that personal failings that would prevent a normal person from getting a security clearance have practically become badges of honor for MAGA Republicans. As for the thread, posters debated developments in the hearing as they occurred. For the most part, Democrats had their worst fears confirmed. Republican posters, on the other hand, either defended Hegseth or attempted to switch the conversation to Democratic officials whom they believe are also flawed. One policy-related aspect of the hearings that was newsworthy involved Hegseth's view toward women serving in combat. For years, Hegseth has railed against women in combat. But, with his confirmation on the line, Hegseth has had what Senator Elizabeth Warren referred to as a "confirmation conversion". Now Hegseth wants us to believe that he supports women in combat roles. Whether this was a conversion of convenience meant to get him across the voting threshold or an actual change of heart is, I guess, something that remains to be seen.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Why do so many idiots ask to switch seats on planes these days?" and was posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum. The original poster says that he will not change seats so that another traveler can sit together with their spouse or kids. The poster says that he ordered a special meal and if he switched seats, it would create difficulties getting the correct meal to him. The original poster goes on to complain that "morons" don't book seats together in the first place. He concludes, "Just sit in your own damn seat people and shut up." This is a strangly hostile post for such a common and rather mundane interaction. Calling people "idiots" and "morons" seems pretty over the top. As several posters point out, families often end up separated through no fault of their own. Flights get cancelled and, despite booking seats together — and paying extra for them — travelers get rebooked into seats they did not request and which are not together. Sometimes even when passengers are willing to pay more, seats together simply aren't available. The original poster assumes that passengers are intentionally not booking seats together and, therefore, it is their fault that they are separated. But as countless posts explain, that is not always the case. Two different posters described booking three seats together but then having their planes changed to other models. They were offered two seats in an exit row and one elsewhere in the plane. Since kids can't sit in exit rows, their young children (one was four) would be expected to sit far from their parents. But the original poster's reaction to this and other posts was to say, "Boo hoo. It's not my problem as a passenger who may have picked their seat." The issue here is not whose problem it is, but basic civility and kindness. Many posters expressed a willingness to make reasonable accommodations. For instance, an aisle seat for an aisle seat or, even better, a middle seat for an aisle. Other posters describe how they have had other passengers switch with them so that they could sit with their children. But the original poster was not swayed in the least. The original poster's attitude was so unreasonable that I began to suspect the poster was actually trolling. I came across a post in another thread from the same poster that complained that Americans are no longer courteous. The original poster concluded that post by saying "Everyone in the US is all about I got mine and F you these days." This is a perfect description of the original poster himself, though I am not sure he has the self-awareness to recognize that.

The most active thread over the weekend was the one about the Los Angeles fires that I've already discussed. Skipping that one, the next most active thread was titled, "Were Attendance Levels Status Quo Today?" and was posted in the "Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)" forum. The entire text of the first post was "Subnet says it all." The original poster should have done two things: 1) wrote a more explanatory post, and; 2) proofread before posting. She obviously meant "Subject says it all". Almost every day last week, a thread about the Fairfax County Public Schools system being closed due to snow was the most active thread of the day. I finally locked that thread on Friday when the schools reopened, albeit two hours late. That thread had reached 220 pages in length, and posters were clearly not done talking about snow. This thread was started almost immediately after I locked the previous one. On the face of it, this thread is supposed to be about the attendance levels at school on Friday. In reality, it just became a continuation of the thread that I had locked. The point of opening schools two hours late is to allow any morning freezing to begin melting. However, it throws off the schedules of many parents who have to be at their jobs on time, not two hours late. This is especially problematic when parents need to be involved in getting their kids to school, either by taking them there or walking them to the bus stop. Some of these parents believe that schools should have opened at the normal time. Others argue that schools should have closed for another day. As I have said in other posts about school snow days, school systems will be criticized regardless of what decision they make. There is simply no possible way for them to please everyone. Some posters reported that attendance was way down, though it was not clear how they were able to know that. Teachers that posted tended to report that attendance was essentially normal, though at least one said that about half of her students were out. In many ways, this thread simply highlights the reversal of fortunes of the two sides to the snow day debate. Those who favor closing schools had been getting their way throughout the week. Now they weren't. So now they were upset that the shoe was on the other foot. Their attitude towards those who wanted schools to open didn't change, however. Just as in the other thread, the pro-closing posters accused the pro-opening posters of not wanting to parent their kids and preferring to spend their time at the spa or Pilates classes rather than caring for their kids. One poster who was especially upset about the opening claimed that it was disruptive to her job. It is not clear to me how closing schools for the day would have been less disruptive if she, indeed, would have spent her time caring for her kids. There was an interesting discussion about whether sending kids to school when roads and sidewalks might be icy is risky or whether the challenge might actually be healthy for kids who are being too overly protected these days.