Wednesday's Most Active Threads

Two of the threads that I discussed yesterday were also the top two most active threads again yesterday. Because I've already discussed those threads, I'll start with what was yesterday's third most active thread. That thread was titled, "Cori Bush defeated in Primary" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread is obviously about the defeat of Representative Cory Bush — note that the original poster misspelled her name — in Missouri's primary election on Tuesday. But, more than that, the thread is about the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC. Bush is a member of the "Squad", a group of progressive members of Congress who have failed to join in the lockstep support of Israel that is normal in the U.S. Congress. In American politics, if an elected official is not nearly 100% supportive of Israel, the official is considered "anti-Israel" or even "anti-Semitic". This has been the fate of most members of the Squad. For years AIPAC denied that it was involved in campaign funding, arguing that despite its name, it was not a political action committee or PAC. That was true. While AIPAC was not a PAC, its board members were linked to a number of PACs that contributed in a coordinated fashion to have tremendous financial influence on elections. I am not exactly sure when, but fairly recently AIPAC seems to have decided to end the charade. The organization created a related PAC called AIPAC PAC and not only contributes directly to campaigns, but in contrast to its past evasiveness about contributions, is now quite happy to have its influence publicized. Consistent with this new posture, AIPAC has been looking for scalps. AIPAC's modus operandi has been to focus on a candiate who has inherent weaknesses. In some cases these candidates have not even been anti-Israel. For instance, in the primary to choose a Democratic candidate to run for Katie Porter's open seat, AIPAC supported Joanna Weiss against Dave Min despite the two having nearly identical records regarding Israel. AIPAC is estimated to have spent over $1 million opposing Min, attacking him primarily because of a past DUI. Min nevertheless won the election. AIPAC is not always motivated by religion either. In 2022, AIPAC contributed heavily to defeat Michigan Representative Andy Levin who is not only Jewish, but had been president of his synagogue. During the current round of primaries, AIPAC has focused on Representatives Jamaal Bowman and Cory Bush. Bowman had been weakened by redistricting that created a district that was not very favorable for him. Bush is under investigation for illegal use of campaign funds. In addition, neither candidate has been particularly good at their job. In these candidates, AIPAC found vulnerable enemies and poured millions of dollars into defeating them. In the case of Bush, AIPAC spent at least $8 million and, in its opposition to Bowman, a whopping $14 million. On the other hand, AIPAC has more or less left alone Michigan Representative Rashida Tlaib and Minnesotta Representative Ilhan Omar, both effective politicians who are popular among their constituents. Tlaib was unopposed in her primary on Tuesday. AIPAC also targeted Pennsylvania Representative Summer Lee, spending $2 million through its United Democracy Project. Lee prevailed in her primary and AIPAC is now spending in support of her Republican opponent in the November general election. As in this thread, discussion of AIPAC and its influence can be touchy. Not everyone involved in funding AIPAC and its PACs is Jewish, but the organization is certainly dominated by Jews. Criticism can quickly become uncomfortably close to the anti-Semitic trope about rich Jews controlling politics. While AIPAC is not actually controlling political outcomes, it is certainly having significant influence. Moreover, that is not an influence about which the organization is in anyway shy. At least not these days.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "How the hell is anyone supposed to get into college now?", the original poster is not particularly coherent but seems to suggest that students who have straight As, were editor of their school's newspaper, and captain of a varsity sports team can't get accepted by Virginia Tech. He wonders what kids who are accepted by schools like the University of Michigan or Ivy League universities are doing in high school. Over the past few days, this poster has started multiple threads dealing with variations of "things are too hard now". It is not clear to me whether the poster is speaking generally or has a specific student in mind. If this academically high-achieving, newspaper editing, varsity captain is purely hypothetical, the original post has about as much value as rant by a drunk guy in a bar. If the student is real, with a bit more data DCUM's crack College Admissions Fantasy League players could readily diagnose what prevented the student from being admitted. Based on additional posts by the original poster, I assume the student is imaginary, or maybe better put, apocryphal. We are in the small break that today's college admissions calendar allows so I imagine that the admissions fantasy league players are bored. As such, this thread received reasonable and fairly serious attention. Posters provide plenty of examples of students who were admitted to top colleges and what they had to do for that to happen. One suggestion is to be full pay. I haven't read enough of the thread to know if anyone explicitly said this, but an ability to be full pay enables early decision applications which, at least according to posters in this forum, is the best way of being accepted by a top university. In addition, a very difficult load of high school courses is required. This may be 10 or more advanced placement classes. In addition, solid extracurricular activities are necessary. Even that combination won't guarantee acceptance by a student's first choice — there are far too many students with those qualifications — but should earn a place at a top school. What really comes across in this thread is that despite the effort — and ability — to put the winning package of grades and achievements together, a lot more students have done it than might be understood. When your neighborhood standout applicant applies to Harvard, he is competing with the standout applicant of thousands of other neighborhoods. Some of them will be rejected. But, none of those students are likely to be shutout everywhere. One poster was upset that a friend of her son was turned down by Harvard. Yet, the kid was accepted by Yale. Once you are in this pool of students, it's a dart toss whether you will be accepted or not. Expecting to find any rhyme or reason is being overly optimistic. Many posters argue in favor of taking a strategic approach, often involving the choice of major, in order to increase the chance of being accepted by a top school. But this raises the question of the goal of college acceptance. Should a student interested in computer science forgo a spot studying computer science at a lower ranked school and instead study classical literature at a higher ranked school because that is the best path to a top-ranked university?

Next was a thread titled, "Impossible to find love as a minority woman", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she is a 33 year old minority woman with an MBA from an Ivy League school. She obtained her undergraduate degree abroad. She says that she is employed in finance and earns over $300k annually. Despite all of this — and the good looks that she also describes — she has trouble with relationships. She hasn't been able to find the right guy. Part of the original poster's problem is that she is a troll. Days ago she started a thread about her husband. Not long before that she posted about receiving her undergraduate degree at the University of Virginia. As many of our posters are aware, UVA is not "abroad". It is unlikely that any single sentence in the original poster's post is true. The original poster couldn't even be bothered to return to the thread and post again. Therefore, the entire thread took place without her further involvement. Based on what I read of this thread, which frankly was only a few posts, there are posters in the situation described who have struggled with the same issue. Some have resolved it and some haven't. So, if you are an attractive, highly-educated, high-earning female who is unable to find love, you might find this thread useful. Alternatively, if you are a single guy who would like to be in a relationship with a woman of that description, you might find some tips in this thread. But, I am in neither of those categories so I won't devote further energy to the thread.

The next several most active threads were ones that I've previously discussed. Therefore, the final thread for today was actually the ninth most active yesterday. Posted in the "Kids With Special Needs and Disabilities" forum, the thread was titled, "Sent home from summer camp". The original poster said that her daughter — who I assume from the post suffers from anxiety — has been attending a two-week long sleep away camp. The previous day the original poster had been required to pick her daughter up from the camp because camp officials had called EMS due to her daughter superficially scratching herself. The original poster was told that her daughter could return if she were medically cleared. The original poster was able to get clearance from both a doctor and a counselor, but when they returned to the camp they were told that the camp does not have resources for one-on-one supervision and, therefore, the child could not return. Both the original poster and her daughter are very upset. For one thing, the original poster does not believe one-on-one supervision is required. The original poster included a draft of an email that she planned to send to the camp. The purpose of the email appeared to be threefold. First, to complain about the chain of events, second to inquire about the reasons for the camp's actions, and third to obtain a refund for the days her daughter was not allowed to attend the camp. While the original poster seemed to only want feedback on the email, several posters chose to comment on the events instead. This thread is illustrative of the challenges that parents of children with special needs often encounter. The high school and college kids staffing summer camps have no training in how to handle children with special needs. For that matter, even the camp nurse seemed to be beyond her skillset with regard to the original poster's child. The original poster emphasized that the scratches were barely noticeable and something that her daughter did when she was feeling anxious, akin to nail biting. Several posters, perhaps the camp nurse as well, interpreted this as more like "cutting" which is a serious problem among some teens. But the original poster stressed that this is not the case. The original poster doesn't understand why EMS was called, why her daughter was sent home, or why she was not allowed to return to the camp (despite being told that she could). The best explanation from posters was that the camp was unable to distinguish scratches resulting from a tic and scratches caused by self-harm. Thinking this was a case of self-harm, the camp overreacted. Many posters were sympathetic to the original poster and realized how disappointing this must have been for her daughter. On the other hand, a number of posters took the school's side and provided justifications for the school actions. Their explanation was that acts of self-harm could be contagious and lead to other girls engaging in such activity. As such, the camp — which again lacked the skilled staff necessary to handle such children — took the course of being safe rather than sorry. In the end, the original poster received considerable assistance to significantly modify her email to make it more effective.