DCUM Weblog

Some days are just déjà vu all over again. As was the case earlier this week, the top two most active threads were the Hunter Biden pardon thread and the soccer league age bracket change thread. Skipping those, the next most active thread was titled, "How to know a college is safe for POC" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This thread is also a bit of déjà vu since similar threads come up regularly. The original poster says that her son is interested in a top liberal arts college but, according to the Common Data Set, only 22 Black students out of a class of 436 were accepted during the last cycle. Her son was hoping to find a community and is very discouraged by these numbers. The original poster asks whether they should just "throw in the towel". Threads such as this always attract posters who appear offended that the topic was even brought up. They normally call the original poster a troll and suggest that the poster is making things up. I deleted posts of that sort from this thread and the remaining posts were generally very helpful (or at least seemed to be from my point of view — I can't speak for the original poster). The replies generally fall into two different camps. One is the "don't give up on the school" camp. Posters in that group urge the original poster to contact current students at the school and try to hear their experiences firsthand. They argue that simple numbers don't reveal the entire story. These posters suggest contacting any Black-student affinity groups that might exist on campus or the admissions office to arrange video calls with current students. The college in question later turned out to be Pomona College and one poster in the thread has a child attending the school now. That child is a person of color, though not Black. Still, the poster was able to provide links to many helpful resources and describe her child's experience at the school. The second camp consists of posters who argue that there are better options than Pomona. They suggest universities instead of liberal arts colleges. Suggestions include Duke University, Emory University, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia. The original poster said that her son was not interested in historically Black colleges and universities, but posters kept suggesting them. Some posters struggled to understand the vast spectrum of colleges that exist between one with 22 Black students and an HBCU, leading to some vitriolic exchanges. Many posters suggested that the original poster's son has very competitive statistics and would likely have opportunities at many top colleges or universities. However, those colleges also tend to have smaller Black communities. Therefore, this presents a struggle between a better school or a larger Black community. Despite the few bitter posts that I removed, most of the posts in this thread were quite supportive of the original poster and her son. One of the nicest, I thought, was posted by a poster of Korean heritage who described her desire to find a Korean community at college and chose a university accordingly. She attributed much of her success in college to that community.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that had been most active over the weekend and discussed in yesterday's blog post. Those were the threads about President Joe Biden pardoning his son Hunter and the one about childcare conflicting with returning to the office. After those two, the most active thread was titled, "In praise of Olive Garden and Hampton Inn; praise YOUR lowbrow favorites!" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster just returned from a trip to her hometown in the Midwest. DCUM posters have a reputation for sneering at the Midwest, or what they call "flyover country", as well as the chains of restaurants, stores, and motels with which they associate the region. "Enjoy Applebee's" was once a popular DCUM expression of disdain for those leaving the vibrant city for less exciting areas (which, for the record, included DC suburbs). However, the original poster's experience was quite enjoyable. As she says, "My parents' house is beautiful, their neighbors are kind and generous, and my hometown is delightful." On the trip home, her family spent a night at a Hampton Inn along the way and dined at an Olive Garden. Both exceeded the original poster's expectations and she has only good things to say about them. As such, she invites others to suggest their "lowbrow" favorites. Two reactions were immediately apparent among the responses. One was to agree that Hampton Inns are normally nice motels and good choices for an interstate travel stop. There was really nothing but praise for the chain. The same is true for Embassy Suites. The other reaction was surprise that Hampton Inns and Embassy Suites are considered "lowbrow". For many posters, those chains are almost considered luxury hotels compared to what they were used to staying in while growing up. For the most part, however, this thread was a list of fast food indulgences. Most posters had a favorite fast food option or two. For some, those are regular treats of which they partake normally. For others, fast food is mostly limited to travel, especially by car. There were a few surprises for me in this thread. I understood IKEA as a popular lowbrow choice for furniture and home accessories, but I was not prepared for it to be praised as a dining venue. I had to agree with the poster who wrote, "I am legit fascinated by the PP who’s eating freaking rainbow trout in a furniture store." I'm glad that this was mostly a good-natured and positive thread. The only hint of conflict involved Ann Taylor, a clothing chain that some consider "lowbrow" while others consider fairly upscale. My only contribution to this discussion is to say that if you want to develop lowbrow tastes, take a road trip in an electric vehicle. You will soon become a connoisseur of Sheetz and Walmart dining and bathroom options. As for motels, anywhere with free charging will do.

The most active thread over the weekend was the thread that I previously discussed about plans by the Elite Club National soccer league to change the age cut-off date for players. This thread has been at or near the top of the most active list for months. I think that it is worth reflecting on the fact that, despite all that is happening in the world today, the division in which kids born in the fall should play soccer is dominating discussion. After that thread was one titled, "Anyone else depressed that our country elected a disgusting man to the presidency?", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster lists several negative personality characteristics of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and describes his cabinet picks as "the lowest of the low". She wonders how Trump's followers do not see this and says that she is very depressed about this situation. This is one of many threads that have been posted since the election in which liberals are demonstrating their difficulty dealing with the result. During the campaign, many liberals predicted a number of terrible outcomes if Trump were to win. While some Trump supporters agreed that such things would come to pass, they were excited at the possibility. But much more often were posters who accused those issuing warnings of being "chicken littles" who were simply fear-mongering. The most obvious example involves Project 2025, which has been the subject of multiple threads in the political forum. Trump opponents repeatedly warned that Project 2025 would be the blueprint of a second Trump administration. When Trump disassociated himself from the project, many of his supporters took that at face value. They routinely accused those warning about Project 2025 of either lying or being misleading. Now that Trump has won, he has selected the architects of Project 2025 for high-level administrative positions, and many of the Project 2025 ideas are being promoted by Trump's cabinet choices. It is clear, in this case, that the "chicken littles" were correct. While there have been several threads demanding that Democrats engage in self-reflection in order to understand why they lost, I am not aware of any calls for those who told us that concerns about Project 2025 were simply fear-mongering to do their own self-reflecting. To the contrary, as this thread shows, Trump defenders are still not willing to face reality. Despite all evidence to the contrary, posters repeatedly tell the original poster that she is overreacting and that there is nothing to fear from Trump and his loony bin cabinet. One poster even called the original poster a "childless cat lady", suggesting that some posters are experiencing a sort of arrested development that has left them frozen in October. I think we are in a strange situation in which depression and anxiety are the more logical reaction than remaining calm (which requires some self-delusion), but I am worried about the impact of widespread severe depression and anxiety. If you are on a beach and see a tidal wave approaching, is it better to panic or set up a picnic lunch to assure yourself that everything will be fine? Obviously, the best solution is to run like hell, but most of us don't have that option.

Last February, a thread in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum alerted me that a novel centered on a fictional District of Columbia-based private school that is clearly meant to be Sidwell Friends was going to be published. The thread, which was titled "Novel based on Sidwell coming out in summer", also mentioned that the book featured a parenting website named "dcparentzone.com" that is clearly a fictionalized DCUM. I was intrigued that DCUM, even in fictional form, might figure in a novel and made a note to read the book, which was named "It's a Privilege Just to Be Here: A Novel", once it was available. Before I had the chance to read the novel, I learned of a second novel named, "All the Dirty Secrets", that went even further in portraying DCUM. This book not only used the real name of the website but included fictional posts said to have been in the forum. I promptly added that book to my reading list as well. I was then contacted by Jon Hart about his debut novel, "Party School", that he thought would be of interest to DCUM readers. That book also went into my queue. I've now had a chance to read all three novels and want to provide brief overviews of each.

I didn't write a blog post yesterday because I was devoting myself to helping with Thanksgiving preparations. Moreover, Thanksgiving is traditionally one of the slowest days of the year on DCUM. Today I will discuss the most active threads of the past two days, the most active of which was titled, "Trump will rollback student loan forgiveness" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a story on politico.com discussing plans by the incoming administration of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump to roll back initiatives by President Joe Biden to forgive student loans. Republicans have consistently opposed student loan forgiveness, and the Biden administration was marked by a pattern of forgiveness efforts being implemented by Biden which were then rejected or stalled by the courts. The result is a number of efforts at various stages, many in limbo. Unrolling the various initiatives will be a complicated process, but one that Trump appears to be prioritizing. Student loan forgiveness is, in many ways, the perfect topic to illustrate the reality of today's politics. People have incredibly strong feelings about it, but most lack the most basic understanding of the details. The issue lends itself to demagoguery, which means that it is practically tailor-made for Republicans. To hear Republicans tell it, student loan forgiveness is a handout to privileged individuals who unnecessarily took out loans in order to pursue worthless liberal arts degrees that left them unemployable, and who now want the poor working people of America to pay for them. Reality is more complicated. As college degrees became increasingly essential, the cost of college increased. Easily obtainable loans were practically shoved into students' pockets, often with promises that repayment would be a breeze. What ended up happening, however, is that millions of graduates were chained to never-ending college debt. Most of those whose loans Biden wanted to forgive had already paid more than they originally borrowed and still have more to pay. Significant college debt has led to putting off purchasing homes, getting married, or starting a family. There is a strong argument that loan forgiveness has important economic and social benefits that reach far beyond those whose loans are forgiven. Nevertheless, MAGAs thrive on resentment, and the idea that the working class was being forced to pay the loans of freeloading college students was a powerful motivator of resentment. Making things worse was a generational divide. Older Americans have generally not understood the massive increases in college costs. Those who decades ago paid for their college tuition with a summer job don't understand why today's students can't do the same. A summer job wouldn't even pay for the meal plan at many universities these days. The bottom line is that student loan forgiveness makes sense when the details are understood. But in the lack of such understanding, it is easy to caricature. In the current climate in which Republicans are eager for revenge, the opportunity to stick it to liberals is too appealing to miss.

Because the top four most active threads yesterday were all ones that I've already discussed, I'll start with the fifth most active thread which was titled, "What's weird about where you are staying - Thanksgiving 2024 edition" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. As the original poster suggests by including a designation of the edition of this thread, topics of this sort are an annual tradition on DCUM. There will likely be a series of similar threads during the holiday season. Several posters didn't have any interesting stories to add to the thread, but joined to encourage others to post and to say how much they enjoyed these annual threads. The original poster of this thread is visiting her mother-in-law who keeps her house so cold that the original poster is freezing despite being wrapped up in a blanket. In addition, the original poster's mother-in-law insists on hosting Thanksgiving even though she hates cooking and does not have a full-sized oven. The original poster ends up doing the cooking which is a struggle in the circumstances. This set off a series of posts complaining about dull knives, old spices, and room temperatures that were either too cold or too hot. One notable post involved a new requirement for the poster and her family to wear paper booties inside the poster's in-laws' house. She thought that her mother-in-law might have suddenly become a neat freak, but it turned out that she had adopted three rescue dogs that had gone to the bathroom all over the house. The booties were to protect them from the stains that covered the carpets. The temperature at which those hosting Thanksgiving keep their homes was an especially big topic this year. There were posters who reported being forced to wear jackets inside the house because it was kept so cold and other posters who were sweltering because they were visiting homes that were kept too hot. In some cases, posters resorted to staying in hotels due to the temperature of the house. In some other cold houses, posters snuck in space heaters or electric blankets. I laughed at the poster who is stuck sleeping in a "little tikes fireman bed that was probably made in 1987". On top of that, the house is in the middle of nowhere in Wisconsin and doesn't appear to have heat in her room. In some cases, posters were actually hosting for the holiday, and their complaints were about their guests. One of the funnier examples was a poster who left her mother-in-law alone in the house for a couple of hours. The mother-in-law then asked in front of the entire family what was in "the red container in the basement freezer", suggesting that she had snooped through the entire house while the others were out. Based on other posts, it seems that snooping mother-in-laws are not uncommon. As for the contents of the red container, as of this writing, that remains a mystery.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and will, therefore, skip today. After those was a thread titled, "Backlash against college educated women" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster feels like this year's election was a backlash against college-educated women more than anything. She thinks that men are gaslighting women by claiming that colleges are indoctrination centers. In addition, she thinks that social media pundits have been so successful at denying centuries of women having no rights that other women have even come to believe it. Most polling of voting motivations suggests that concerns about the economy were the primary driver. Therefore, I don't think the original poster is correct to claim that a backlash against women played more of a role than anything else. But that is basically a nitpick with her argument. I don't think that there can be any doubt that resentment of women played an important role in the election's outcome. One need look no further than the triumphant taunting by Nick Fuentes claiming, "your body, my choice" to see where his mind immediately went after the election. Even earlier Democratic strategist James Carville argued that "too many preachy females" were turning men away from the Democratic Party. In recent years, women have outpaced men in college attendance, resulting in better employment and financial success. As a result, women are less likely to be dependent on men in general. This lack of dependence has enabled women to become more selective in the dating market, resulting in some men facing difficulties in finding a partner. Undoubtedly, this has led to increased resentment in some quarters. But not all women are on board with the original poster's argument. Indeed, despite hopes that things might finally change, the majority of White women once again voted for President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. While Vice President Harris did win among college-educated women, plenty of them also voted for Trump. Ultimately, women — like all other voters — had a variety of motivations for their voting choices. For some, concerns about inflation were foremost. As was pointed out in earlier threads that I discussed, in many families women do the bulk of the grocery shopping and, therefore, are more cognizant of price increases for food. Similarly, many women were likely to have the same concerns as male voters with regard to a range of issues such as public safety, immigration, and foreign policy. While I don't have any evidence to support my gut instinct on this, I suspect that women might have even been more likely than men to vote based on concerns regarding Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza. Some women, including some posters in this thread, agree that colleges are, in fact, liberal indoctrination centers. Still, I think the role of misogyny in the election cannot be discounted. I have written before that Harris was held to a much higher standard than Trump. Trump, who has been married three times, is a serial cheater, was found liable for sexual assault, and convicted of covering up payments made in connection to having sex with a porn star, was somehow the candidate of those with strong religious convictions. Harris, on the other hand, was attacked for not having given birth to children. The suggestion that women's primary role should be motherhood — rather than academic or professional achievement — is still soundly embedded in society.

The most active threads over the weekend were mostly ones that I've already discussed. That was the case with the most active overall, but the second most active thread, which was titled, "Here’s Why Asian Americans Shifted Right by 9 points" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, was one that I haven't previously addressed. Therefore, I'll start with that one. This thread was started on Saturday and is currently 26 pages long. I was a bit confused reading the first post of the thread because the original poster did not indicate that the text was entirely a quote. When I started reading, I was under the impression that the original poster had personally conducted detailed research into the voting patterns of Asian Americans. I eventually figured out that the original poster was actually quoting from an article published on the Real Clear Politics website. The main point of the quote is that Asian Americans voted for President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump in greater numbers than was initially believed and that their motivation was the Democrats' focus on "woke" issues, especially affirmative action. I think that it is worth pointing out that Real Clear Politics is a right-leaning website, the author of the article is an employee of the conservative Manhattan Institute, and it appears that only right-wingers were quoted in the article (at least in the portion quoted). That doesn't mean that the conclusions are wrong, but it is worth noting the perspective being presented. What was wrong, however, is the spin the original poster gave the thread. The thread's title suggests that the thread will explain why Asian Americans shifted toward Trump. Then the quoted passage only deals with "woke" issues, giving the impression that Asian Americans were mostly motivated by opposition to woke policies. However, the article itself says that Asian Americans were primarily motivated by concerns about the economy and secondarily by worries about public safety. The original poster, who did not mention the economy or public safety, was quite misleading in how this was presented. "Asian Americans" are getting a lot of attention these days, especially in topics surrounding education such as affirmative action. What is normally missing from such discussions is the diversity of the Asian American community. Not only are there East Asians and South Asians who differ significantly, but there is tremendous diversity even within those groups. It is somewhat ironic that at a time when Democrats are being criticized for "identity politics", it is conservatives engaging in identity politics when it comes to Asians. Moreover, there are some shortcomings in the analysis presented in this article. The author appears to have entirely judged the "shift" in Asian American voting based on presidential votes. It would be interesting to know if a similar voting pattern occurred in other races. In addition, the author seems to have relied on sources who are far from objective. For instance, local right-wing firebrand Asra Nomani is quoted throughout the article. Nomani's perspective is not all that widely shared even locally among Asians — at least as I can determine from DCUM posts — let alone nationally. Nevertheless, she is quoted as citing admissions changes at Thomas Jefferson High School as a reason for changes in Asian American voting. Call me skeptical that anyone outside the Northern Virginia region even knows about TJ, let alone changed their votes because of the admissions changes.

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.