DCUM Weblog

The first step for preparing to write these blog posts is to get a list of the top ten most active threads from the previous day (or week, if it is a Monday). Today's top ten threads are all related to the actions of cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump. Except one. That thread is about Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni (although the subject line of the thread calls him Jason). Of course, I discussed that thread yesterday. So, that leaves nine threads related to Trump to discuss today. Moreover, several of these threads duplicate each other. That is the case with the most active thread yesterday. Titled, "Buyouts for Feds?" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum, the thread is on the same topic as another one posted in the "Political Discussion" forum and titled, "Trump buyout: resign by Feb 6, get paid until Sept 30". That thread was yesterday's 5th most active and would normally be the last one I discuss today due to skipping the Lively thread. But, since the threads are on the same topic, I'll discuss both together. The original poster of the first thread posted nothing but a link to Axios, which is a violation of DCUM policy. We require that some discussion be included when starting a thread. But since I didn't notice this thread until it was about 20 pages long, I let it go. The original poster of the second thread provided the same link, but also went on to say that several of his coworkers would likely take the deal that was being offered because they were close to retirement anyway. There was considerable confusion about exactly what was being offered. Axios reported that the Trump administration was offering "buyouts" of federal employees. That is not correct. Instead, what was offered was deferred resignation. Employees who resign before February 6 will remain employed until September 30, but be relieved of all "in-person work requirements". On the face of it, the only benefit to accepting this offer is not being required to return to the office. The email sent to employees describing this offer, however, hinted that those who submit their deferred resignations might be placed on administrative leave. The OPM operation is being run by Shadow President Elon Musk and, in making this offer, he copied directly from his past actions at Twitter. He even used the same name, "Fork in the Road", for OPM's offer that he used at Twitter when he invited employees there to resign. Feds who wanted to accept the offer were told to reply to the email with the word "Resign" in the body of the text. Musk and company have a complete inability to write clear memos and this email, like earlier OPM memos, left employees confused and bewildered. Nobody was completely clear what was being offered. Much of the early discussion was based on the understanding that employees were being offered buyouts, as Axios reported. They are not. As many posters pointed out, federal law limits the legal amount of a buyout and there is no money appropriated for such a thing in any case. The benefits of Musk's offer are so meager that many posters determined that they would be better off getting RIF'd.

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Schedule F Memo is Out" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. The original poster linked to an Office of Personnel Management memo regarding the reclassification of career civil service employees as essentially political appointees. As has happened before, the original poster's link has stopped working. The MAGA crew into whose hands cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump has placed the future of our government is supposed to revolutionize federal service but can't manage to keep a web link operational for more than 24 hours. This is a repeat, on steroids you might say, of an action Trump took during his first term. Career civil servants are supposed to be non-political and enjoy job protection. Trump reclassified certain positions as so-called "Schedule F" which removed normal civil service job protections, making the employees easier to fire. Those positions could then be filled with political loyalists. Among the avalanche of executive orders Trump issued during the first days of his new term was one reinstating the Schedule F reclassification. The OPM memo fleshes out that EO and provides more detail about the positions to be reclassified. As the original poster says, "It is very broad". Not surprisingly, a number of posters are not happy about the changes. Some question the legality of the effort. It is very likely that this move can be legally contested but it is equally likely that Trump doesn't care. As I have commented in multiple recent blog posts, Trump is clearly breaking the law on a near-daily basis without any real pushback. Therefore, we can expect him to continue doing so. It is understandable that many posters are upset because their jobs are at risk. But, while that is obviously, and justifiably, an important issue to them personally, it is not really the most important issue here. A non-political, professional civil service is critical to a stable government. If Trump removes experienced professionals and replaces them with loyalists, it is almost a sure bet that the next president will do the same, especially if that president is a Democrat. Does anyone believe that a nearly complete change of management every four years is really the best way to run the government? Trump's move will transform a professional service into one in which the upper — and in many cases, middle — echelon is simply a patronage system filled by those chosen for their loyalty rather than competence.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Colombia blocks deportation flights, Trump responds with tariffs" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started soon after U.S. flights repatriating Colombian citizens were turned back by the Colombian government. Cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump reacted angrily to Colombia's refusal to accept the flights and threatened immediate tariffs on Colombian imports to the U.S. as well as immigration restrictions. Within hours, both sides announced that the impasse had been resolved, with the White House suggesting a complete capitulation by the Colombians. However, that account is likely overstating things. What is known is that the U.S. has conducted regular deportation flights to Colombia for years. The flights have generally been non-events. In this case, Colombian President Gustavo Petro seems to have been angered by two factors. One, while the U.S. normally uses civilian aircraft for the deportations, these flights consisted of military aircraft. Central and South American countries are particularly sensitive to the use of military aircraft, something that Trump, in contrast, considers important. Second, video of the Colombian nationals being loaded onto the aircraft that circulated widely on social media showed them shackled on their hands and feet. Many Colombians perceived the treatment as dehumanizing. The tariffs that Trump threatened would have caused significant harm to Colombia's economy, which relies heavily on exports to the U.S. However, the tariffs would likely have been problematic for the U.S. as well. The largest Colombian import to the U.S. is oil, with coffee being second. Any price increases in those two goods would have been immediately noticeable to U.S. consumers. Moreover, the third largest Colombian import is cut flowers. Tariffs on those just before Valentine's Day would also not be welcome. Trump's reaction of essentially going nuclear thrilled a number of the posters in this thread. They see this as a sign of strength and the reported Colombian capitulation as a demonstration of respect for a strong American President. It is almost assured that Colombia did not cave completely as Trump is suggesting. Rather, there has likely been some sort of agreement that satisfies Colombian objections. Convincing Trump supporters of this, however, will be impossible. Other posters are concerned about the long-term damage Trump may be doing. Colombia had already shown interest in establishing closer relations with China and the BRICS countries. This episode will likely push the nation further in that direction. A common retort by those who oppose immigration is to tell immigration supporter to house immigrants in their own homes. Based on this logic, a reasonable solution would have been to ask proponents of deportation to load migrants into their cars and drive them to Colombia.

The three most active threads yesterday were all ones that I've previously discussed and will, therefore, skip today. The fourth most active thread was titled, "What are your favorites of Trump’s early accomplishments?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster is a diehard fan of cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump. He considers Trump's first term to have been "unquestionably successful". The original poster could not be happier with the beginning of Trump's second term, specifically noting Trump's revocation of former President Lyndon B. Johnson's Executive Order 11246. To say that the original poster is delusional is to put things extremely mildly. According to the original poster's understanding, Executive Order 11246 was one of the "starting points of affirmative action and discriminatory hiring practices". What the EO does is require U.S. government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." I would be very interested in hearing exactly why the original poster opposes that language, especially because the original poster describes himself as "being a minority". The original poster provided an explanation for his completely backwards understanding of this issue when he concluded his post by saying, "I’ve been glued to my TV and X". Well, no wonder. Trump's avalanche of executive orders was largely aimed at pleasing his supporters like the original poster. They have been very effective in that regard. Their real-world impact is another question. Trump's EO regarding birthright citizenship has already been blocked by a federal judge. His EO dealing with electric vehicles reversed a mandate that didn't exist, paused funds that have already been disbursed, and didn't touch EV tax rebates. Trump's federal employee return to office order will primarily create chaos and may not actually result in many employees returning to their offices. Certainly, Trump has done some real damage — something the original poster would probably consider an achievement — but that is buried under a mountain of illegal, unworkable, and meaningless bluster. Simply separating fact from fiction will be a significant challenge. Never mind trying to convince those like the original poster that their understanding of things is the complete opposite of reality.

The two most active threads yesterday were the Bishop Mariann Budde thread discussing her remarks at the inaugural prayer service and the Blake Lively thread, which actually inspired a second thread in the Website Feedback forum asking for it to be closed. Since I have discussed those threads already, I will start with one titled, "DEI RIFs" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. Among the slew of executive orders issued by cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump immediately after his inauguration was one prohibiting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs within the federal government. The Office of Personnel Management then followed up by ordering all DEI staff members to be placed on paid leave by 5 p.m. yesterday. Agencies are expected to develop a "reduction in force" policy for the DEI staffers within a week. The original poster of this thread wants to know if these staffers will have the right to "bump" less senior employees in other parts of the agency. Trump's EOs have generally followed a pattern of being poorly thought out, confusing, and fairly amateurish. OPM memos have not been much better and, in some cases, arguably worse. In this case, posters can't even agree about whether or not a RIF is mandated. Posters have a host of questions, including who exactly is considered DEI staff. In some cases, DEI duties are shared with other responsibilities, and posters wonder whether someone who only handles DEI as a small part of their duties will be included. Many of those responding seem to hate the DEI programs in their agencies and hold DEI staff in low regard. For the most part, they are glad to see them go and don't really care what happens to them. Others are concerned with the legalities of the move and are mainly interested in discussing the technicalities of it as a labor issue rather than specifically tied to DEI. Several other posters, however, are concerned about the fate of the DEI staff. A number of such posters explain that the DEI staff in their offices are simply human resources personnel that rotate through the role. Some took the position simply because it was a promotion or seemed like an interesting opportunity. They are not "DEI careerists," and many posters seem to dislike them being caught up in this matter. Eventually, this thread turned into nothing more than a debate about DEI, which is really irrelevant to the thread's topic. Personal views about DEI don't really matter to this discussion. More important is the fate of those who are being swept up by the OPM memo.

For the second day in a row, a thread about a weather-related delayed opening in Montgomery County Public Schools was the most active thread. This one was titled, "School delayed and no sports or activities for 3 days straight just for cold weather?!?" and, of course, posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. Due to the cold and icy conditions in Montgomery County, the school system has delayed opening by 2 hours for both today and tomorrow. This has upset a number of posters, including the original poster of this thread, who writes, "So many musicals, concerts, after-school clubs, school events, sports just cancelled...". Several of those responding complain that, in the past, schools didn't close simply because it was cold outside and they don't see a need for these delayed openings. Other posters, in contrast, insist that MCPS has always closed or delayed opening due to cold weather. There just hasn't been such cold weather for the past couple of years. Several posters also argue that the delayed openings are justified due to safety reasons. A trend that I've noted before continues in this thread. That is, posters who clearly oppose the delay for their own personal reasons argue against it because it will be harmful for others, such as the poor and less privileged. This seems a bit disingenuous. Once again, the biggest opposition to the delay comes from working parents for whom the delay interferes with their job schedule. Some of these posters believe that the school system is going beyond simply being inconsiderate to working parents and actively trying to make life miserable for them. As one poster writes, "MCPS administrators despise working parents." Another poster quickly weighed in to say that it is not only administrators, but the Board of Education as well. Other posters argued that it was actually the teachers' union, the Montgomery County Education Association, that is calling the shots. Teachers were accused of being drunk and hungover and, therefore, unwilling to get to school on time. I will once again ask why parents who seem to have so little respect for teachers always seem to be the ones who are the most adamant that their children should be in the care of teachers. If you disrespect teachers so much, why aren't you homeschooling? Why are you entrusting the education of your kids to those you claim to be lazy drunks? As it turns out, some of the original poster's concerns may not have been justified. It appears that unclear wording on the MCPS website may have led some to believe that afternoon activities were cancelled when, in fact, they were not.

The most active thread yesterday was the thread about moving the inauguration inside that I discussed yesterday because it had also been the most active thread over the weekend. Skipping that thread, the next most active was titled "School Opening Predictions for Tuesday?" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. This thread was started early Sunday by a poster concerned that if it snowed, as was predicted, staff would not be available on Monday due to the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and, therefore, the snow might not get cleared before Tuesday. Therefore, the poster was asked what others predicted with regard to Montgomery County Public Schools opening today. Posters in this forum are beyond obsessed with weather-related school closures and delayed openings. I can't count the number of posters who posted at least a half-dozen times in the thread. But that's nothing compared to the numbers put up by others. One poster posted at least 30 times, another at least 60. But the winner, by some distance, was a poster who posted over 100 posts. That poster, to put it mildly, was not happy about the possibility of a closure or delayed opening because it would interfere with her job. This morning I even noticed a poster sock puppeting. The poster repeatedly posted the same question and then began answering her own question. I have no idea what she was hoping to accomplish, but she is currently experiencing a delay using DCUM that is significantly longer than the two-hour delay that MCPS ultimately decided upon. A threat of snow closing schools soon dissipated because there wasn’t very much snow. But that didn't stop the clamor among posters for closing or delaying school. These posters were worried about the cold and ice which they thought would make getting kids to school dangerous. As I have said in previous discussions of snow day threads, school systems can never win when it comes to decisions like this and will be criticized regardless of what they decide. In this thread, there were those like the 100-post poster who didn't seem willing to accept a delay or closure under any circumstances. Others didn't want to open schools if there were a square foot of ice anywhere in the county. The delay opening was criticized because no other area employers implemented such a measure. The thread also contained a lot of criticism of teachers as a result of the belief among many posters that teachers are lazy and want schools to be closed. There is actually no evidence that many teachers have such an attitude, and I ended up locking the thread after the teacher-bashing got out of hand.

The most active thread over the weekend was the thread I discussed before about childfree weddings. That topic turns out to be more divisive than even I expected. After that was a thread titled, "Inaugural on Monday Moved Inside" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As I am sure everyone is aware, today is Inauguration Day and President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump will become President, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. I'll have to update my macro. While I am sure that we were all looking forward to hearing about the biggest crowd ever that stretched from the steps of the Capitol to the shores of the Potomac River, we will have to live with our disappointment. Instead, Trump's inauguration has been moved inside the Capitol rotunda. This is said to be due to the weather, which is quite cold in D.C. today. However, it was colder during former President Barack Obama's inauguration, and that was held outside. But, this is what happens when a Florida man wins the election. This is a strange thread because liberals are mostly poking fun at Trump for being a wimp who is afraid of the cold. Conservatives, on the other hand, repeatedly accuse liberals of "raging" and being angry about the change. I am not sure to which liberals these posters are referring, but they don't exist in this thread. The conservatives clearly have a difficult time dealing with mockery. Several even blame liberals for the move. Rather than the weather, they claim liberal plans to disrupt the inauguration (plans that only appear to exist within MAGA minds) are the reason for the change of venue. Others claim that there are security concerns. After all, Trump only has so many ears that he can give for his country. I suppose that this thread is representative of what we have to look forward to for the next four years or so. MAGAs tend to thrive on resentment, and their primary technique for political discussion is to manufacture outrage. That is a little harder to do when your party controls every aspect of the federal government. As such, MAGAs will either fight among themselves, invent imaginary enemies, or attack liberals whose primary "crime" is likely to be criticizing MAGAs. In that regard, criticize is something that you can count on liberals to do. Whether it is capitulating to the weather or cutting social security, there will be plenty of Republican actions to criticize.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "No Kids at Wedding - Why So Much Anger?!" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. The original poster says that she and her husband did not allow children at their wedding. She now has three kids and understands the challenges of childcare and other issues when invited to a "no kids" wedding. However, she supports other couples not inviting children to their weddings and wonders why some people get so angry about "no kids" weddings. This topic comes up routinely on DCUM, and I have even discussed threads on the topic previously in this blog. There are a few issues involved, all of which are discussed in this thread. As one poster early in the thread points out, this really is the confluence of two different trends. On the one hand, couples desire "perfect", or as the poster puts it, “Instagram worthy," weddings. On the other hand, there seems to be an increase in unruly kids whose parents don't parent them. Both of these trends increase the pressure for childfree weddings. Contrary to the proponents of childfree weddings, however, are posters who see weddings as family events and, therefore, believe children should be invited. They are willing to put up with disruptions in order to be inclusive. As one poster put it, "I would rather have kids at my wedding than have a perfect wedding." Things get more complicated depending on the relations of those who are involved. Leaving out the children of close relatives, especially nieces or nephews, can cause resentment. But making exceptions for them but not for friends who might have travelled a long distance to participate has its own set of problems. Several posters outline their own personal parameters for how they react to childfree weddings. For instance, one poster says that she is happy to attend a local wedding without her kids. However, if a wedding is out of town or scheduled to involve several events over multiple days, she will decline if her family is not invited. Still, for others, this is a much more emotional topic. The bottom line for many posters is that the wedding is for the couple getting married, and they have the right to set whatever rules they want. They should not be criticized for their choices. On the other hand, everyone invited has the option to decline if the arrangements don't work for them.

Yesterday's most active thread was one that I discussed yesterday, the thread about downward mobility of children due to college choices. That thread was active because it went completely off the rails, and I eventually had to lock it. The next most active thread was titled, "How many men would stay w/o sex" and was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster refers to the book "Intermezzo" by Sally Rooney. Apparently, the book has a male character who is deeply in love with his college girlfriend. However, several years after college, she has a car accident which creates painful conditions for her and essentially prevents her from having sex. Her boyfriend initially wants to stay together with her, but eventually finds the lack of sex to be a problem and begins a relationship with another woman, maintaining his emotional connection to his college girlfriend. The original poster wants to know how many men would actually stay in such a situation. The problem with this sort of thread is that DCUM is not a laboratory in which a controlled experiment can be conducted. It is full of posters carrying all sorts of baggage who are in no position to speak for "men" generally. Initially, a number of male posters responded to say that if their wives were unable to have sex, they would leave them or cheat. But the conversation was soon caught up with scenarios in which wives were perfectly capable of having sex but simply didn't want to. Many posters suggested that men would leave or cheat in this situation as well. But, as other posters pointed out, the forum is full of men complaining that they are in sexless marriages and have not left or cheated. But what really dominated this thread was a dispute about whether sex is a "need". One problem is that posters define "need" differently. For some, a need is only something that being without will result in death. So, food and water are needs, but sex is not. Au contraire, say other posters. To them, sex is very much a need, regardless of whether or not they can physically go on living without it. The thread highlights the differences between individuals. There are men and women who would not be willing to continue a relationship without sex, and there are members of both sexes that either are doing exactly that now or say that they could do so.