Tuesday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's most active thread was the thread about Fairfax County Public School boundaries which I discussed some time ago. The thread continues to be active with posters completely freaked out about rezoning plans that I am fairly certain don't actually exist at this point. The most active thread after that one was titled, "Is debate prep a waste of time?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster assumes that former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump will easily win tomorrow's presidential debate and wonders why President Joe Biden is bothering to prepare at all. This post, and a great number of the responses, really demonstrate the MAGA attitude toward knowlege. In short, they consider it better not to have any. Going back to Trump saying that he loves "the poorly educated", MAGAs are suspicious and distrustful of those who who are highly educated. The entire idea of getting prepared for a major event is contemptible to them. Another MAGA characteristic is amnesia. Not a single one of them seems to remember that Trump has also participated in debate preparation. Famously he infected Chris Christie with COVID while they were preparing for Trump's debate against Biden in 2020. This time around Trump is preparing in a less formal manner, but is still preparing. Like Trump, the MAGA posters in this thread can't quite make up their mind about Biden. On the one hand, they describe him as a feeble old man suffering from dementia. On the other hand, they are worried that Biden will easily exceed the very low expectations they have set for him. As a result, like Trump, MAGAs suggest that Biden will be drugged in order to have a good performance during the debate. They are also in full attack mode with regard to the CNN newscasters who will moderate the debate, accusing them of bias and predicting that they will favor Biden. Again, their amnesia prevents them from recalling that Trump and his team agreed to the moderators. Trump is orchestrating, and the DCUM MAGAs are participating in, a combination of referee-working and expectation setting. They seem to believe that if they accuse CNN's Jake Tapper and Dana Bash of bias frequently and loudly enough, the two will be intimidated into acting more favorably toward Trump. At the same time, this sets up a ready-made excuse for a poor Trump performance. If Trump does badly in the debate, it will not be because of his own shortcomings such as his lack of mental acuity, grasp of the issues, or failure of preparedness, but rather because the moderators were biased and Biden was on drugs. The MAGAs will not reflect on this thread and ask why Trump did not engage in more intense preparation, but rather will excuse his poor performance because Biden took a week to prepare, as if that is a bad thing. Trump famously when discussing immigration accused Mexico of not sending its best. When I see the quality of MAGA posters in threads such as this, I can't help thinking that Trump himself is not sending the best. Or, even worse, maybe these posters are among the best.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum and titled, "Plane etiquette". The original poster complains about the behavior of others during air travel, specifically mentioning reclining seats and standing in the aisle while sitting passengers are stuck level with backsides of those standing. This is one of the ironies of modern travel. Airlines seem to be doing their best to make air travel as miserable as possible. Passengers hate it and complain incessantly, but still flights are packed and it seems like there is no limit to what travellers will tolerate. Many posters argue that seat reclining is much more common than the original poster suggested, though there is clearly no consensus among posters regarding its frequency. Another poster adds passengers grabbing the seat in front of them while getting up from their seat as another behavior they don't like. With both reclining and seat grabbing, there are plenty of posters who defend the practices. This is why those like the original poster will always be frustrated. Try as you might to convince people to think of the common good, there will always be those who put their own interests first and care nothing about the negative impact their actions might have on others. The topic of reclining is particularly divisive with many posters being strongly opposed to reclining seats, considering it rude and self-indulgent. But others don't understand what the issue is and have no problem with reclining their own seat or those in front of them reclining theirs. They are, or at least claim to be, astonished that some people consider reclining to be rude. Some posters, however, describe being hit in the head when those in front of them reclined forcefully or coincidentally with them leaning forward. Based on responses in this thread, asking before reclining might go some way to alleviating problems. But many posters in the thread report never having been asked or seeing anyone asked before a passenger reclines their seat. Many of the responses in this thread are impacted by individuals' physical characteristics. Tall posters tend to be more opposed to reclining whereas short people often don't understand the concern. Those with physical problems such as back issues or weight struggles view things differently than those without such problems. In many cases, those with such issues don't receive much sympathy from the others. Some posters appear to have been making detailed observations about the propensity of passengers to recline their seats, detailing their experiences over multiple flights and distinguishing common practices on different types of flights. Based on their findings, reclining is more common and faces less opposition on international flight and night flights.

Next was a thread titled, "MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere" and posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum. Not long ago one of the most active threads that I discussed was about plans in Maryland's Montgomery County to modify zoning regulations to encourage more development along transit lines. The same poster who started that thread later created this thread because county officials have proposed additional zoning changes, this time impacting areas zoned for residential neighborhoods. According an excerpt from a news article posted by the original poster, the proposals will "allow for a duplex, triplex or even a fourplex to be built in areas zoned as 'residential'". This thread was started on June 13th and has already grown to 40 pages. Due to its length, I can't read it all, but I have looked over many of the 10 new pages created yesterday. At the root of the issue being discussed in this thread are two opposing and apparently incompatible desires about which I have written many times. On the one hand, housing is expensive. Many people cannot afford to purchase a home locally and are forced to choose between renting or buying outside the local area. Urban planners view increasing the housing supply as the best way to make homes more affordable. On other other hand for many people their home is their most valuable asset. The last thing that they want to see is for it to lose value. Telling a home owner that something will reduce the value of their home is the surest way to motivate them to oppose whatever it is. Most of the responses in this thread represent the views of current home owners and, as such, are opposed to the zoning proposals. However, the impact of the proposals on home values is a little unclear. What is clear is that current residents in single-family home neighborhoods are convinced that the addition of multi-unit housing into their neighborhoods will cause the area to be less attractive and, therefore, cause homes to lose value. Some posters attribute this to increased traffic, more crowded schools, and a general increased demand on infrastructure. Others seem more concerned about the type of families that might move into the units, though those concerns are often cloaked in broader worries about "changing the nature of the neighborhood" and so on. But, whatever their thinking, many posters are convinced that their property values will drop if multi-unit developments are allowed. However, this is not completely clear. It may turn out that developers planning to replace a single home with 2 or even 4 units would be willing to pay more than someone seeking a single-family home. Instead of decreasing the value of the remaining single-family homes, multi-unit developments might actually cause their value to increase by making the supply of single-family homes even more constrained. The real question is the market demand for units in multi-unit structures. How many people will want to live in them and how much will they be willing to pay? Zoning changes will have no impact whatsoever if there is not demand for increased-density housing.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Who really pays full price for college", the original poster quoted from an article in New York Magazine saying that so-called "donut hole" families — those earning too much to qualify for need-based financial aid but too much to easily afford college — are increasingly being provided merit aid by universities. In some cases, families are even comparison shopping in order to find the best deal. Many posters responded saying that they either paid full price themselves, paid full price for their children, or are paying full price for their kids now. The responses range from the type such as that posted in the first response in which the poster said she paid for her own college by working full time and being forced to pay rent to her parents. Given the costs of today's top colleges, being able to do that sort of thing now is fairly unrealistic. Others accepted that they would have to pay the full amount because their kids did not have the academic qualifications to earn merit aid. Others had significant savings in 529 and other college savings plans and, therefore, could afford to pay the asking price. The common theme among posters who are now paying full price is that they believed this was their only option for the schools that their kids had chosen. They were convinced that these schools were the best choices for whatever reason and, one way or another, were able and willing to pay for them. As one poster wrote, "a happy kid is well worth the full pay price for us." Those who prioritized cost above other factors could, and many did, simply go down the rankings to lower colleges and try their luck at them. In many cases, this would result in offers of merit aid. Some posters said that they had turned down offers at schools from whom they were not offered aid because the percentage of full pay students was so low. As one said, "We didn’t want to be the only chumps full pay". In some cases, such posters may have paid the same or even more at schools that had a higher percentage of full pay students. One poster noted that the New Yorker article detailed parents' response to an inquiry about whether they would simply prefer to see the price of college lowered rather than having the price offset by merit aid. The majority of the parents said that they prefer the way things are currently. They like the idea that their children attend an expensive college and being able to brag that their kids have received scholarships. Based on this thread, it appears that there is a common struggle between school quality — real or perceived — and cost. Families will pay more for what they consider to be a better college. But, in cases where schools may be close in perceived quality, cost can be what makes the difference and where merit aid can be the deciding factor.