The Most Active Threads Since Friday

The most active thread on DCUM over the weekend was titled, "Price gouging as her first policy announcement? Really?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Some days I feel like there is practically a contest on DCUM to see who can post the most uninformed post. Today is one of those days and this thread is one of those threads. A corollary to this is a widespread desire to be contrarian as if that automatically bestows some sort of intelligence on the poster. It doesn't. The original poster of this thread transgresses in both of these ways, at least in my opinion (admittedly, completely worthless). The original poster's primary point in her post is to question why Vice President Harris chose price gouging as her first major policy announcement and to argue that such a policy is unnecessary and brings back memories of 1970s price controls. As the very first response in this thread points out, this is not Harris' first major policy announcement. She had already announced plans for the national protection of reproductive health and support for the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Second, the original poster clearly knew nothing about Harris' proposal and, therefore, was misleading in her post. However, had the original poster made an effort to inform herself before posting, she might have some lingering confusion for which she could be forgiven. Harris did not exactly announce a policy but rather a plan to develop a policy. Her announcement promised the development of "clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can't unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries." She also committed to authorizing the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to “impose strict new penalties” on companies that price gouge. Harris would also address anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions that cause grocery price increases. Because none of the details of these initiatives were announced, a lot of exactly what Harris will do is unknown. But, nothing Harris outlined suggested that there would be price controls. Moreover, several states have existing anti-price gouging laws and don't impose price controls. Many of those responding are supportive of Harris, noting that posters have been complaining about inflation generally and grocery prices specifically for months. Now Harris is promising to address those concerns. The MAGA reaction is as expected. They accuse Harris of being a communist. There is literally no policy that Harris could announce which would not cause MAGA posters to claim that she is a communist. Somewhere in the middle were those who oppose former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and would like to support Harris, but are opposed to this initiative. Some of them claim to be professional economists. What I have noticed over the past few years is that mainstream economists have adopted a fairly conservative view of economics. For instance, the acclaimed Lawrence Summers repeatedly argued that unemployment would have to reach 10% in order to control inflation. President Joe Biden somehow managed to get inflation under control while keeping unemployment at historic lows. I normally respect expertise. But, professionals in two specialities, weather forecasting and economics, really seem to be wrong more than they are right. I no longer have much faith in either one.

The next most active thread was the one about Minnesota Governor Tim Walz being selected as the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee. Since I've already discussed that thread, I'll skip it today. After that was a thread posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "Child leaving for college in five days - pain is gut wrenching", the original poster says that while she is excited for her daughter to start her new adventure, she is extremely sad that, "her childhood and my days of raising a child are ending." She asks for advice from those who have gone through this. At least initially anyway, most of the posters assured the original poster that her feelings were normal and that many of them have felt the same way when their kids left for college. They suggested that while it was hard at first, she would soon feel better. Several advised her to focus on her child's happiness rather than her own sadness. This thread was actually started back in August of last year. Reading it today I noticed the occasional post referring to "awful" or "terrible" posts that weren't there. While I don't remember removing posts from this thread (it was a year ago after all), I must have done so. On the fourth page a poster mentioned that the thread was 8 pages long. So, I must have removed about half the posts up to that point. I guess those were the bad ones. The thread was revived in February of this year after being dormant for over 5 months. The poster who brought it back to life was just realizing that her child would not be home much longer and she was wondering if those who had posted about their feelings earlier in the thread had any updates. Most of those responding replied to earlier posts rather than addressing that question. One poster, however, did respond to say that she was still struggling. The thread died again after just a few posts only to be reawakened last week just two days after its anniversary. A poster revived the thread to say that she was now dealing with the same emotions as the original poster because her child was preparing to go off to college. Fairly shortly things took a disappointing turn. A poster in three short sentences accused the original poster (who, after a year, is probably not reading this thread) of being immature and using her child for emotional support, having something wrong with her, and making every special occasion about herself. This must have been the sort of post that I removed a year ago, though nobody reported it to me this time. The thread then gained 15 pages of posts over the weekend. While supportive posts continued, there were a number of very nasty posts. A number of them reacted to possibly hyperbolic posts describing posters' grief and sadness. The nasty posters not only didn't understand such emotions, but like the poster I mentioned above, they interpreted them as reflecting poorly on those who experienced such feelings. Posts of that sort generated their own backlash culminating in a poster who wrote that these are "parents who basically despise their children, and they hate parents who demonstrate any sort of closeness with their kids." Much of the thread turned into a debate between those posters who thought it was both normal and expected for parents to be sad when their kids leave for school and those who thought it was unacceptable. One poster, clearly in the second group, wrote, "If you are going to center your despair over your child’s happiness, well then, I called it like I saw it." In the last few pages the thread completely fell apart and I am not even sure what posters were talking about. It seems to have something to do with Ivy colleges, DEI, and MAGAs. I decided to lock the thread.

Next was a thread titled, "VDOE is banning phones bell-to-bell" and posted in the "VA Public Schools other than FCPS" forum. The original poster linked to a news article reporting that "The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) has published its draft guidance for cell phone policies in Virginia schools". The draft policy recommends that "students should be kept from using their phones from ‘bell-to-bell’." The original poster overstated the guidance, which I emphasize is still a draft, saying that "phones are banned". After accepting public input regarding the draft, VDOE will issue final guidance next month. Then individual school systems will need to develop policies that are informed by the guidance. Posters are divided about this guidance. The idea of preventing phone use during school started with an executive order by Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin. Some posters reflexively oppose anything suggested by Youngkin and, therefore, oppose this policy. Other posters strongly support prohibiting phones at school and support the guidance regardless of its origin. Other posters are concerned about limits on phone usage by their children because they like to be able to reach them easily. One problem, not unique to this thread, is that many of those responding are uninformed about what is being proposed. Some are under the impression that phones would be banned from school completely, meaning kids couldn't even bring them and keep them in their lockers. One poster who apparently has such an understanding expressed concern that her child wouldn't be able to let her know when it was time to be picked from after school activities. Many posters are critical of those who support restrictions on phones. They argue that if parents don't want their kids to have phones at school, they should just take the phones away. Some posters suggest ways that kids can bring phones to school but usage would be controlled. One idea is the use of Yondr pouches or something similar that prevent phones from being used. Other posters argue that this would create an administrative nightmare for schools and cause more problems than are solved. The thread pretty much settled into a cycle of posters arguing why their kids need phones and others disputing those needs. Part of the complexity is that today's smart phones are more than just phones. I suspect that if kids were equipped with simple flip phones that did nothing but work as telephones, this would be much less of an issue, But today's phones are also cameras, music players, Internet devices and more. Students may frequently use their phones to take pictures used in their studies or for other school-related purposes. Therefore, phone restrictions can interfere with their studies. Obviously, those of my generation survived school just fine without phones, but today's kids are much more reliant upon technology. Based on this discussion, I am fairly certain that whatever polices school systems end up developing, there will be vocal critics of their work.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Swimming and Diving" forum. Titled, "Is MoCo taking advantage of Rockville's pool", the original poster is upset that non-Rockville, Maryland residents are using the Rockville Swim and Fitness Center facility. I am at a bit of a disadvantage with this thread because I am not involved in swimming or a resident of the jurisdictions involved. If I understand correctly, individuals who are not Rockville residents are able to become members of and participate in activities at Rockville's pool. The original poster alleges that residents of other areas, particularly Potomac, use unfair advantages to join the swim teams at the pool. There are, therefore, fewer places for Rockville residents on those teams. The original poster further alleges that many Rockville kids are faster swimmers than those who are members of the Rockville-Montgomery Swim Club, which uses the Rockville pool. But those kids are unable to get spots on club teams because they are taken up by non-residents. The original poster has even written to his Council Members about this issue and was not satisfied with their explanation that non-residents pay more which subsidizes the pool for Rockville residents and without the higher fees these non-residents pay, fees would have to be raised beyond market rate for residents. Many of those responding agree with this explanation and disagree with the original poster's complaint. The original poster seems to believe that there are plenty of resident children who would replace non-residents if the non-residents were restricted from joining. Even if this were true, there would still be a revenue shortfall since those kids would be paying less than the non-residents. Moreover, many of those responding are critical of the original poster who they allege wants a private pool experience while paying subsidized public pool prices. On top of everything else, the original poster also has criticisms of some of the coaches. As a result, throughout the thread there is a debate about the quality of the swim coaches. I finally gave up reading because I was having trouble following the discussion. As best that I can tell, the original poster is upset that he pays taxes but can't enjoy his pool because it is too crowded, is further upset that non-residents pay for private coaching but then take spaces on Rockville's swim teams, and the coaches for whom his tax dollars are paying are, in his opinion, not very good. Every one of his complaints is disputed by other posters who either think he is simply wrong or a bothersome complainer. Some posters suggest that the original poster's child was simply not good enough to make the team and the original poster is now scapegoating non-residents and the coaches. I would advise skipping this thread unless you have a personal dog in the fight or you need reinforcement for a decision not to encourage your child to participate in organized swimming.