DCUM Weblog

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's most active thread was one that I discussed in yesterday's blog post about predictions for the election winner. I'll skip that one today and start with a thread titled, "Michael Moore expects large female turnout on Abortion" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Frankly, this is the sort of thread that I hate and I should have deleted it as soon as it was created. Just about everything is wrong with the thread. As most probably know, Michael Moore is a filmmaker who has produced such movies as "Roger & Me", "Bowling for Columbine", and "Fahrenheit 9/11". Moore is also a political activist with left-wing populist views. He tends to be pretty perceptive. At a time when Washington pundits were literally laughing at the idea that former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump might win the presidential election, Moore predicted — accurately as it turns out — that Trump would win. Apparently Moore has said something about female turnout in the election due to the abortion issue. The original poster did not link to any such statement and I haven't bothered to Google it and, as such, I have no idea what Moore said. Nor do any of the participants in the thread as far as I can tell. The original poster takes issue with Moore's expectation, asking where these women were in 2022. Before I read a single response in this thread, I already had a second reason for not liking it. The original poster's memory of 2022 is faulty. While it is true, as the original poster notes, that Republicans gained control of the U.S. House of Representatives, it was was by a small margin. Predictions had been for a "red wave" that was supposed to nearly wipe out the Democrats. The red wave never materialized. The Democratic loss can be attributed to New York State Democrats completely mishandling their redistricting process and basically handing several seats to Republicans. Where the women were in 2022, the original poster should know, was at the polls and voting for Democrats. Moreover, since then a number of special elections, ballot initiatives, and referendums have shown that the abortion issue has been a potent motivator of women. Again, without seeing Moore's actual statement, I would be more likely to criticize him for stating the obvious rather than for being wrong. There are a small number of MAGA women on DCUM who rush to threads like this to proclaim that they are not single issue voters and, to the extent that abortion is a priority at all to them, it is a very low one. But other women are just as strident to say that abortion rights, which realistically are inseparable from women's healthcare generally, are their prime motivator. The thread then turned into a debate about abortion which is the third reason that I hate this thread. DCUM has had innumerable abortion debates. There is nothing left to be said. If posters want to repeat the same arguments from countess previous threads, I have no issue with it but I would rather not have to read such posts for the millionth time. I seriously doubt that a single abortion rights proponent will change their mind because an anonymous MAGA called them a "baby killer" or claimed that Democrats support abortion after birth. I suppose that there is some hope that an abortion opponent might be persuaded when informed that abortion bans create health dangers for women that have nothing to do with abortion. Perhaps that is enough to justify this thread, but I am doubtful.

For the first time in a long time, yesterday's top 4 most active threads did not include any threads that I've already discussed. However, the top threads were heavily weighted towards the political forum, with 3 of the top 4 being posted there. The first of those was titled, "Who do you think is going to win and why?" and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As you would expect, this thread mostly consists of posters responding with the name of the candidate they expect to win and, in most cases, some commentary supporting their answer. I've only skimmed this thread, but what I noticed is the very different attitudes generally reflected by Democrats and Republicans. For reasons that I've never understood, nearly the entire Democratic Party turns into Woody Allen during campaigns. Democrats in this thread are anxiety-ridden, pessimistic, and practically ready to concede before a single vote has been counted. Republicans, on the other hand, are euphoric and, opposite the Democrats, prepared to claim victory before a single vote has been counted. I suspect that both parties are being affected by the same Republican-led efforts. For weeks, Republican-leaning "polling firms" — I put that in quotes because these firms are really activist organizations pursing political agendas rather than authentic polling companies — have flooded the zone with garbage polls that show former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump easily winning the election. These polls have been used to convince Trump's cult followers that he is leading. One impact of this manufactured expectation is increased enthusiasm among MAGAs, but I suspect that the more important goal is to make eventual claims that the election was stolen more believable. If Trump loses, which I expect, he will say that the Democrats cheated and the proof is that he has been leading the polls. The near total conviction with which MAGAs have been predicting Trump's victory has rubbed off on others, including some Democrats. Democrats, predisposed to being disappointed in the first place, have generally been timid in pushing back on the Republican irrational exuberance. I've long understood that I could hardly act with the authority and alleged subject matter expertise that I do here in many places outside the DCUM sandbox. But that phenomenon is often even more extreme for our anonymous posters who are free to represent themselves any way that they would like. Based on some of the responses in this thread, our forum is filled with a number of Nate Silver and Nate Cohn wannabes. They crunch some numbers, provide some intelligent sounding analysis, and make their predictions. They sound like they know what they are talking about, but do they? Time will tell. I recently saw a warning on one of my social media feeds that professional campaigns have a lot of detailed data about voters and voting trends, going down to the block level. As such, they can make sense of information such as early voting numbers in ways that us mere mortals can't. Therefore, it is probably not wise to put too much emphasis on the data that is coming out now about early voting, mail-in ballots and such. Those who really know are probably not telling. My own prediction, based on little more than my gut and the analysis of pundits that I trust, is that Vice President Kamala Harris will edge out a comfortable victory. I have one caveat, however, which I will discuss later in this post.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Spin Off - Do a Kids’ Parents Political Views Impact You Allowing A Friendship?" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. With the election two weeks away and this website being based in Washington, DC, a lot of our users' minds are on politics. While we have two political forums — one for local politics and one for the rest — politics is finding its way into almost every forum. It's been a bit of whack-a-mole trying to keep up with them. That was the case with this thread which I didn't know about until earlier this morning when it was reported to me. Admittedly, the original poster has a nice story to discuss, dare I say heartwarming even. As the original poster explains, her daughter, who is Black, made friends at her public elementary school with another girl who is White. The other girl's parents supported a political candidate who the original poster could not stand. Because of these political differences, the original poster did not pursue a relationship with the other mother and hoped that the girls' friendship would die down. However, despite her hopes, the girls became best friends. Moreover, she discovered that the other girl and her mom were literally the nicest people she had ever met. The other family eventually moved away but after the George Floyd murder, the other mother wrote to the original poster describing how that had impacted her and asking if they could talk about it. The original poster never talked about politics with the other mother and the point of this post seems to be that close friendships are possible despite political differences. Fair enough, but I am not sure what this has to do with private and independent schools. Not surprisingly given DCUM's audience, most of those responding are Democrats. Therefore, the families who have different political views are mostly Republicans. What becomes clear almost immediately is that many of the posters make distinctions between traditional Republicans and supporters of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. The liberal posters don't seem to have much of an issue with those who are Republican because they support lower taxes, fewer business regulations, smaller government, and tough on crime public safety measures. But they have real problems with MAGAs. Most of the posters would be fine socializing with families whose political views are of the first category, but many would do their best to avoid those in the second. The posters who would avoid either Republicans generally or Trump supporters specifically are criticized for being intolerant and narrow-minded. But many of them offer no apologies for avoiding those who they claim are tolerant of racism, sexism, homophobia, and who support Trump despite his felony convictions and liability for sexual assault. I will say to my fellow liberals, particularly those who refuse to tolerate MAGAs, that you might consider opening your mind a bit. On a personal level, most MAGAs with whom I associate are very nice. Contrary to what you may believe, they don't have horns spouting from their heads. Generally they are not eager to bring up politics and, when they do, it is very gingerly. There is really no reason to be concerned about your kids making friends with their kids. As for this thread, it eventually turned into a general political debate that had no connection to the original topic, let alone private school issues. As a result, as soon as it was reported to me this morning I locked it.

The most active thread yesterday was the one that I discussed yesterday about the presidential candidates and McDonald's. I finally locked that thread because it was ridiculous. After that was a thread titled, "Divorced women in their 40s seem to be doing better in the dating market", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster repeats the claim made in the thread's title that divorced women in their 40s seem to be doing better in the dating market. Better than what is not quite clear. Better than when they were younger or better than other age groups? Who knows? The original poster makes a second claim that divorced men in their 40s are having less success. So perhaps she means that women in their 40s are doing better than men in their 40s? The original poster wonders why the women are more successful then men in this age group. If you detect an underlying note of skepticism in my tone, it is not your imagination. The original poster provides no information concerning how she arrived at these conclusions. Did she conduct a nationwide poll? Survey online dating sites? Or has she relied on purely anecdotal examples? Again, who knows? Nevertheless, most of those responding seem to accept the original poster's claims as true. This thread was really hard for me to follow because many of the posters seem to be on a completely different wavelength than me, and frequently from each other. Like the original poster, those responding kept making broad pronouncements about the state of dating but then, almost universally, someone popped up to contradict the statements. For instance, in response to the claim that men in their 40s are having less success, men in that age bracket posted about having tremendous success with dating, even — as one says — when balding with a "dad bod". Several responses suggest that short-lived flings are not hard to find. Many posters made clear that there are lots of divorced women in their 40s who are not interested in long term relationships, but rather are seeking short term intimacy. In those cases, there are plenty of younger guys willing to serve, not to mention men of the same age. Therefore, the success that divorced women in their 40s may be experiencing could be simply due to their interest in brief sexual encounters, something for which there is obviously always a market. One suggestion that comes up repeatedly is that while women in their 40s interested in sexual hookups can easily find younger guys, who for that specific purpose might be better prospects, guys in their 40s can't as easily find younger women. But guys in their 40s don't seem to be suffering from relationship droughts. In some cases they are finding matches with women who are seeking longer term or more serious relationships and, in other instances, their wallets make up for their other shortcomings. After reading this thread, I am fairly confident that the only generalization that can be made about divorced folks in their 40s and dating is that you can't make any generalizations. If there is anything eye-opening about this thread — and it is only eye-opening because I really hadn't thought about it before — it is the large number of women, especially those who are divorced, in their 40s who are not interested in long term relationships. If they were seeking such relationships, I suspect that their rate of success would be considerably lower.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Al Smith Dinner" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster says that former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump was "hilarious" during his appearance at the "Al Smith Dinner", formally named the "Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner". The dinner is an annual white tie event that raises funds for Catholic charities in the Archdiocese of New York during which politicians exchange lighthearted jokes and are supposed to set aside differences for the night. While Trump attended the dinner this year, Vice President Harris chose to skip the event in order to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan. Harris did provide a video in which she spoke while being repeatedly interrupted by Molly Shannon in a reprise of her “Saturday Night Live” character Mary Katherine Gallagher, a Catholic schoolgirl. Trump's speech was quite pointed and, in several instances. off-color. Many of the posters responding in the thread agreed with the original poster that Trump was very funny. They did not seem concerned about whether or not Trump's jokes were appropriate for a ceremony hosted and attended by Catholic leaders. What this thread really demonstrates is the insatiable urge by conservatives to turn everything into a controversy. They immediately criticized Harris' absence, describing it as an insult to all Catholics and a personal snub of Cardinal Timothy Dolan. They also panned Harris' video which many seemed not to understand. Conservative posters made predictions that missing the dinner would harm Harris' election prospects and portrayed her absence as a huge political miscalculation. Trump's opponents were either critical of the former President or simply didn't care, even if they agreed that he was funny at times. It is doubtful that anyone attending the dinner or watching it remotely would change their vote as a result. Most voters have already made up their minds and the few who remain undecided have failed to have been swayed by a lot more important things than a fundraising dinner. Several critics of the Catholic Church in the thread were happy that Harris missed the dinner. One pointed out that just days earlier the Archdiocese of Los Angeles had agreed to a payment of $880 Million to settle sex abuse cases. These posters didn't think Harris should be doing anything to honor the Catholic Church. Moreover, many posters were not particularly impressed with Trump's speech. One poster described it as, "Poor delivery. Looking down and mumbling a bunch of someone else's dumb jokes." One of Trump's jokes that seemed to get lots of good reviews was based on a falsehood that appears to have been accepted as fact by many Trump supporters. Trump said that he didn't know men could get periods until he met Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. This seemed to allude to an accusation — subsequently proven to be false — that Walz was responsible for a law requiring that tampons be placed in high school boys bathrooms. In fact, Minnesota's schools did not do such a thing though Republicans widely believe that they did.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and, therefore, I will start with yesterday's third most active thread. That thread was titled, "Event everyone can celebrate: terrorist leader Sinwar dead", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster started this thread soon after reports emerged that Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, had been killed in Gaza by Israeli forces. The original poster believes that this is an event that will please both Israelis and Palestinians. In addition, the original poster expresses hope that Sinwar's death will lead to an end to the fighting in Gaza, the release of the hostages being held by Hamas, and peace in the Middle East. I don't want to be too critical of the original poster because this view was commonly expressed yesterday, including by those much more prominent than the anonymous original poster. But this perspective mostly highlights the disconnect between U.S. perceptions of the war and the reality of what is actually occurring. Far from bringing an end to the war, Israel is continuing to widen the conflict in the region. Almost immediately, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assured his nation that the fighting would continue. What will happen with the hostages is unclear. It is possible that some will be killed in retaliation. More likely there will be no real impact. It is probable that even before Sinwar's death, Hamas had lost most of its ability to exert top down control of its members. The fate of the hostages could well be left to the individual groups that are holding them. As for peace in the region, it will be a long time before Gaza is anything more than a catalyst for further violence in the region. Moreover, as I wrote recently on this blog, Netanyahu's personal motivations are for continual war. Based on what I observed on social media, the reaction of Palestinians and Lebanese, even among some who were no fans of Sinwar, is not one of celebration. Israel released video from a drone that entered the building in which Sinwar had taken refuge after a firefight with Israeli troops. Sinwar's right arm appeared to have been amputated near his wrist and he seems to have applied a tourniquet himself. Using his left arm, he threw a stick at the drone. Arabs point out that rather than hiding in a tunnel, Sinwar was above ground leading the battle against Israeli forces and resisted to the last moment of his life. It appears that Israel may have just created a martyr whose life will inspire others. We have seen how little impact Israel's assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has had as Israel continues to face stiff resistance in southern Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah are resistance organizations whose members face the choice of fighting to the death or surrendering their homelands. Quite a few will prefer the former. The biggest impact of Sinwar's killing may be on U.S. - Israeli relations. For President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, this provides an off-ramp for Israel. Rather than the continued slaughter and starvation of Gazans which is costing Harris votes and possibly even the election, she would much rather see an end to the violence which might decrease the war's importance as an election issue. But Netanyahu appears determined to bomb and starve Gazans into submission. Biden and Harris will be forced to choose between their own interests and Netanyahu's.

The most active thread by some measure was the thread that I have already discussed about Vice President Kamala Harris' round of interviews that she has been conducting this week. Yesterday Harris was interviewed by Fox News' Bret Baier and posters' reactions to that event added several more pages to the thread and, as a result, the thread had nearly three times the number of posts yesterday as the next most active thread. The second and third most active threads were also ones that I've already discussed and I will therefore start with the fourth most active thread today. That thread was titled, "DEI at Michigan--NYT article" and was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to an article by the New York Times but offered no description or summary of the article, simply saying that it is a "must-read." Unfortunately, the article is extremely long and a summary would have been very helpful. The article is about the diversity, equity, and inclusion program at the University of Michigan. The university launched its first DEI program over a decade ago and is now on the second version of the program. The Times article describes how DEI has been deeply integrated into almost every aspect of the university. Considerable time, energy, and money has been devoted to implementing DEI, but, according to the article, the result has not been positive. Minority students don't believe the program is having the intended result, non-minority students often react with disdain, and professors are often fearful of being accused of violating DEI policies. The DCUM college forum is full of posters absolutely obsessed with affirmative action, the use of race in college admissions, and the demographics of admitted students. A number of such threads have been among the most active threads and I have, therefore, discussed them in this blog. It is no surprise then that this thread attracted a lot of attention. It is also not a surprise that most of the posts were by posters opposed to DEI and that the thread largely consisted of criticism of the university's program. Posters criticized DEI generally and the University of Michigan's implementation of it specifically. They claimed that the program was a waste of money that could have been used more effectively to help minorities in other ways. Some posters claimed that DEI creates resentment and increases racial conflict rather than lessoning it. Other posters went to the defense of Michigan's DEI efforts, arguing that racial relations in the country are terrible and at least Michigan was trying to address the topic, even if its efforts weren't perfect. Other posters were willing to defend DEI more broadly and claimed that most of the criticism was from those who had previously been privileged and were now upset that they no longer held a special place in society. The University of Michigan generally has a good reputation on DCUM but also has a number of critics. Many from the second group used this opportunity to bolster their claims that Michigan is not as good as its reputation would suggest. Those accusations resulted in considerable pushback from Michigan boosters. Posters argued that DEI or not, the school was still a top school.

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.

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.