Monday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was once again the thread about the attempted assassination of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. But I'll skip that thread today because I have already discussed it. After that was a thread that was also Trump-related. Titled, "Official Trump VP thread", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the thread was created back in January to discuss potential candidates to be Trump's vice president. The original poster provided a list of frontrunners for the position and third on that list was J. D. Vance, the junior Senator from Ohio. Yesterday Trump announced that he had picked Vance to be the Republican candidate for Vice President. Nearly 40 pages were added to the thread after that, consisting of sometimes heated back and forth about Vance. Vance first gained public stature due to his book, "Hillbilly Elegy". When the book was first published, my Twitter feed was filled with praise making it sound like one of the most enlightening analysis of recent times. When I read it myself, I found the book to be severely lacking and was confused that so many who I believed to be more knowledgeable than me were impressed by it. I wrote a very cautious review of the book on DCUM in which I outlined some of my criticisms. Now, years later, I believe that I was correct in my judgement and that I was far too tempered in my review. My criticism, in short, is that Vance took an ideological framework and fit the facts of his life — sometimes with a bit of artistic license — into it. In other words, he made the facts fit his conclusion rather than the other way around. In doing so, he put far too much blame on individuals while ignoring the external influences that impact their lives. I think that it is somewhat ironic that Vance's thesis in the book, that hillbillies suffer because they make poor choices, is at odds with the MAGA ethos that the plight of the White working class is caused by immigrants, coastal elites, the government, and "globalization", or almost exactly the opposite of Vance's earlier position. To the extent that Vance may have values and beliefs, they are far from rock solid and extremely flexible. Also of concern with Vance is his relationship with billionaire Peter Thiel. Thiel contributed $15 million to Vance's Ohio senate campaign, a record contribution at the time. Thiel has been unabashed about his political leanings, once writing that "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible." Vance appears to be quite sympathetic to this viewpoint and is an admirer of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Russian President Vladimir Putin, both of whom represent this "freedom through dictatorship" style of governing. Vance appears to be primarily focused on self-promotion and willing to contort himself as necessary for personal advancement. Having once suggested that Trump might be an "American Hitler", it is really no surprise that Vance would seize the opportunity to serve as Trump's vice president. Vance's ambition is such that advice I read saying that, if Trump wins the presidency, Vance should not be allowed to have sharp instruments in Trump's vicinity is not much of an exaggeration.

The next most active thread yesterday was yet another Trump-related thread. Also posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the thread was titled, "Breaking News - Judge Dismisses Trump Classified Documents Case". This thread was created after Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutional and dismissed the secret documents case against former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. Trump supporters in this thread were over-joyed, claiming that justice had been done and that this was another indication that the multiple legal cases against Trump were all Democratic hoaxes. The anti-Trump reaction was just the opposite, declaring Cannon's action to be a perversion of justice and proof that Trump is corruptly being allowed to avoid the consequences of his misdeeds. This thread is 22 pages long and, as such, I don't have time to read it. Therefore, I will again subject you to my own analysis which is, as they say, free and worth every penny. The roadmap for Cannon was contained in the opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas concurring with the majority in the the Trump immunity case. In that opinion, Thomas contended that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was invalid and he provided a legal rationale for that conclusion. Cannon cited Thomas three times in her decision. Cannon's ruling flies in the face of years of precedence. In fact, two other special counsels, Robert Hurr, who has been investigating President Joe Biden and David Weiss, who is investigating Hunter Biden, were appointed under the same authority. Therefore, if Thomas and Cannon prevail, those investigations would also be in trouble. Cannon, who was Trump appointed, has appeared determined to delay Trump's trial while also holding off appeals which have tended to go against her. This ruling, however, will give Smith the opportunity to appeal and could lead to Cannon being removed from the case. In theory, that would be good for Smith given the difficulty he has been having with Cannon. But, realistically, if Trump wins the election, the case will likely disappear. Alternatively, appeals could continue to the Supreme Court where Thomas' opinion may carry the day, though that seems unlikely. If nothing else, this case highlights the luck that Trump has been having with his court appointments. Cannon has almost single-handedly waylaid this case which should have been an easy conviction. She is backstopped by Trump's three Supreme Court appointees who ruled that Trump has broad immunity. On the other hand, rulings such as this do real damage to the rule of law in America and make a mockery of the idea that nobody is above the law.

Next was a thread titled, "Anyone touring top schools and finding then all to be dumpy and unimpressive?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she has a rising senior child and a rising junior. They have been touring Top 25 universities trying to decide which school to target for an Early Decision application. She says that she has found the campuses to be less than impressive, frequently being poorly maintained and often having "pretty odd students". They have found little sense of community and very large class sizes. She says that her impression is that these schools expect to impress based on reputation and prestige but don't really deliver. Generally, her kids are feeling let down and being forced to accept something that they really don't feel measures up to their expectations. Most of those replying disagree with the original poster, saying that in their experiences the top schools are impressive. Some concede that the amenities at top universities may be lacking because money is spent to attract top scholars rather than on amenities. Another poster says that buildings are sometimes not improved due to alumni pressure to maintain tradition. There is actually more discussion about why the original poster is bothering with tours, especially in the summer. A number of posters don't think that summer tours offer much value because most of the students are not there. Some argue that attending an official tour indicates interest in the university and may help with admission, but other poster dispute that idea. Other posters suggest touring while school is in session and skipping the official tour. Some posters argue that if amenities are prioritized, looking at schools below the Top 25 might be better. Their theory is that schools that need to attract students will offer better dorms and so on. In some cases, opinions are relative. One poster bragged that her kids attend schools that have small classes with none larger than 200 students. Other posters exclaimed that classes with 200 students are huge. The college forum has a significant bias in favor of top universities and many posters were clearly not prepared to entertain criticism of the schools. Therefore, many posters reacted defensively. Several posters also pointed out that everyone has different priorities. Therefore, it was perfectly okay for one person to dislike a particular university because its buildings were in disrepair while someone else valued the same school because of its world class faculty. The original poster conceded that money might be going to professors rather than amenities, but questioned how much value the typical undergraduate might actually benefit from those scholars. Ultimately, there did seem to be general agreement that top universities don't have to do much to attract students and that their prestige accounts for much of their value.

The next two threads were ones that I've already discussed and will skip today. Therefore, the last topic for today is one that was posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. Titled, "SSFS HOS leaving", the original poster says that the head of Sandy Springs Friends School just announced that he is leaving, effective immediately. The original poster then outlined a number of areas in which the school appears to be struggling and asked if anyone knows what is going on. During the years that we have opperated DCUM many heads of various schools have come and gone. It is not uncommon for these events to provoke emotionally-laden and contentious threads. Such is the case here. There are posters who are sorry to see this head of school leave and those who are overjoyed. Generally, as in this case, the reason for and circumstances of the departure are not known and employment policies prevent them from being revealed. As such, rumor and speculation thrive. In this instance, the former head of school apparently owns a company that was often hired to provide services to the school, leading to charges of a conflict of interest and allegations of self-enrichment. On the other hand, some posters speculated that the head's race and sexual orientation might have contributed to an unfair playing field for him. Threads of this nature always present a challenge in terms of moderation as we weigh the value of free discussion and conversation concerning factual information against the disparagement of a named individual. Nobody enjoys being publicly pilloried, especially by an anonymous mob. Still, in my experience, heads of schools have demonstrated considerable patience regarding the criticism they receive on DCUM. Just as I began to write this post I received an email from a law firm representing the former head of school. The email was polite and non-threatening, but asked whether the former head could report posts that were either defamatory or false. Obviously, just as any other individual, he may. But, such reports will be treated no differently than a report submitted by a random anonymous user. In terms of the thread, much of the recent discussion has been devoted to activities that are taking place as a result of the head's departure. Some posters are quite suspicious of what has been planned with many posters having questions about the scheduling and purpose of the events. The school faces a conflict between the questions that are being posed and the information that can legally be revealed. This will, of course, provide continued motivation to speculate anonymously on DCUM and will undoubtedly result in additional messages being reported.