DCUM Weblog

Again the Gaza war thread was the most active thread of the day yesterday. The most active thread after that one was somewhat related. Titled, "Capitol currently in lockdown" and posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum, the thread is about a lockdown of the US Capitol building that resulted from a demonstration at the Democratic National Committee headquarters. Both this thread and much of the media reporting of the story show how a distorted understanding of events can become widespread. Semafor reporter David Weigel was at the DNC when events occurred. He posted a considerable amount of video of what took place on X (formerly Twitter). In addition, other witnesses also made video available. Based on first-hand reports which are supported by video, what occurred was that a group of peaceful demonstrators consisting of members of mostly Jewish peace groups who support a ceasefire in Gaza blocked all or almost all doors of the DNC headquarters. This building is located about 3 blocks from the Capitol grounds and is not part of the Capitol complex. The protesters stood with their backs to the doors and locked arms in a human chain. They made no attempt to enter the building. Police tried to pull the protesters away, but this was made difficult due to their interlocked arms. Police appeared to get frustrated and angry and became more violent as time went on. In addition, at least one of the doors was at the top of a set of stairs. As police pulled protesters away from the door and shoved them down the steps, some protesters fell. The scene grew very chaotic as police struggling with protesters who were resisting being removed intermixed with one another with police doing a lot of pushing and shoving. Video and photographic evidence shows one police officer unleashing pepper spray at the protesters. None of the protesters were shown to be using pepper spray and none of the witnesses reported such a thing. Other than Weigel, I don't think any reporters from major media outlets were on the scene. They, therefore, had to rely on second-hand information and many led with an account by Congressman Brad Sherman that was extremely misleading. Sherman accused the protesters of being "pro-terrorist" and "pepper spraying police officers and attempting to break into the building." None of this is supported by either first-hand accounts or photographic evidence. In fact, as I have said, the opposite appears to be true. This sort of misleading report was circulated widely and became the basis of many people's understanding of the event. Right-leaning posters in this thread seized on the misleading account to compare the protest to the January 6 insurrection led by former President Donald Trump. Pro-Israel posters challenged the authenticity of the Jewish organizations behind the protest. But, soon enough the thread went completely off-topic in several different directions. At that point, I locked the thread.

The Gaza war thread continued as the most active thread yesterday with over 500 new posts. The most active thread after that one was titled, "Rob Reiner: a vote for No Labels, Bobby Kennedy, Cornel West or Jill Stein is a vote for Trump". The thread was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a tweet by actor and filmmaker Rob Reiner in which he made the claim in the thread's title, essentially that a vote for anyone other than President Joe Biden is a vote for former President Donald Trump. This, of course, is only true if you would have otherwise voted for Biden. As one poster pointed out, if you choose to vote for a third party rather than voting for Trump, your vote helps Biden. This is the dilemma of a two-party system. Third parties act as little more than spoilers. It is no surprise that right-wing billionaire Harlan Crow, who has famously lavished extravagant gifts on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has given a maximum donation to the presidential campaign of Cornel West. Crow obviously has no interest in West becoming president and probably doesn't agree with him on a single policy issue. However, Crow does have an interest in seeing West draw votes away from Biden. Many of those who agree with Reiner portrayed those who might vote for a third party as naive or childish. One pro-Biden poster referred such voters as "idiots" and "morons". I am not sure that such language is going to be helpful in attracting others to your viewpoint. It is true that some of the posters who rejected Reiner's stance appear to be motivated primarily by emotion, but that is probably true of voters across the political spectrum. One, non-emotional argument that I see in response to Reiner is that third-party voters are disaffected and that they wouldn't vote for Biden in any circumstances. As one poster put it, "If Cornel West dropped out, his voters would either vote for another hopeless 3rd party candidate, sit out the election, or vote for Trump—in that order." While I didn't notice it in this thread, one of the biggest groups of disaffected voters that I've noticed are those who sympathize with the Palestinians in Gaza. They tend to strongly oppose Biden due to his complete support for Israel in the Gaza conflict. Their criticism of Biden has often been countered with a reminder that Trump will likely impose a Muslim ban and also be pro-Israel. Nevertheless, many of those concerned about Gaza have signalled that it is the line in the sand for them. They are essentially single-issue voters and should be viewed no differently than single-issue voters on any other topic. Moreover, with increasing frequency, I've heard the argument that Trump may ban Muslims, but Biden is participating in killing them. They don't necessarily see Trump as the lesser evil. Ultimately, attempting to guilt, shame, or bully voters to your viewpoint is probably self-defeating. If such voters are important to you, then they should be treated as such.

Once again the Gaza war thread was the most active thread of the day yesterday. The continued interest in the war was further demonstrated by the fact that the next most active thread was directly related to the war. Titled, "Pro Israel demonstration in DC?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the thread was originally started back on November 5th by a poster asking if a pro-Israel demonstration was being planned. Discussion meandered along as the demonstration was planned, discussing logistics and specific focuses of the event. Yesterday was the day that the demonstration was finally held and, as such, the thread added 24 pages of discussion, resulting in a thread that is currently 42 pages long. I won't have time to read the entire thread, or even all of the new pages, but since several posts in the thread were reported to me yesterday, I did get some exposure to the discusion. As the day started, most of those posting were concerned about possible violence provoked by pro-Palestinian counter-demonstrators. This emphasis reflects the mindset of the pro-Israel posters. They tend to see Palestinians and their supporters as inherently violent. Similarly, any support for Palestinians is portrayed as support for Hamas. As a result, much of the early discusion involved debate over whether there is significant support for Hamas, with many posters contending that there is not, and that those demonstrating against Israel's attacks on Gaza don't present a violent threat. Many of the pro-Israel posters argued that the demonstration would be aimed at opposing antisemitism, supporting Israel's right to exist and to self-defence, and to call for releasing the hostages. But, as the event proceeded, these messages were somewhat undermined. As noted in the thread, the Israeli Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, suggested that Gaza could not survive as an independent entity and that it would be a welcome development if the Palestinians were displaced to another country. One of the more prominent speakers at the event was Pastor John Hagee, a notorious antisemite. But, as the Forward magazine says, "support for Israel has long overridden or excused antisemitism within many Jewish circles" and, hence, Hagee was welcomed at the event. Those attending the demonstration routinely broke out into chants of "No Ceasefire" which distinguished them from pro-Palestinian protesters who generally call for a "Ceasefire Now", but did little to alleviate the claims by critics in the thread that the demonstration was in support of genocide. The anti-ceasefire chants may prove awkward as rumors circulated all day yesterday that a ceasefire will soon be announced as part of a hostage exchange. Less controversially, the event was attended by many leading politicians including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. However, the attendance of the top Congressional Democrats did little to quell claims in the thread that Democrats are anti-Israel.

The Gaza war thread continued as the most active yesterday. The most active thread after that one was titled, "Picky eaters and Thanksgiving (and holidays generally)" and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster's six-year-old daughter is a very picky eater who doesn't like most of the traditional Thanksgiving dinner food items. Last year, the only thing the child would eat was dinner rolls. The original poster has come up with three possible strategies. The first is to serve her daughter a big breakfast and then not worry about what she eats or doesn't eat at dinner. The second is to prepare side dishes that her daughter will like and others might enjoy as well and the third was to prepare a special plate for her daughter with food that she will eat. This thread managed to reach 24 pages as of this morning. As such, I can't read all of it. But, the first few pages showed that there were posters supporting each of the three options, though the first idea of providing a big breakfast and then not worrying about what the girl ate seemed to have the most supporters. To reach this length, there would most likely have to be a fairly big argument in the thread and I expected that such a debate would be provoked by a poster arguing that the girl should be told that she is expected to sit at the table and can either eat what is served or starve. However, no such post arrived until the 4th page. But then that post didn't cause much of a dispute, though a much more milder post caused a momentary contretemps. It looks like things really started to fall apart later over the issue of boxed macaroni and cheese, which ironically was not one of the original poster's suggestions but was offered by someone else. Apparently, DCUM posters have very strong feelings about boxed mac and cheese. Especially at Thanksgiving. The fight that I was expecting to be provoked earlier eventually did get started when a poster stipulated that, "When you are a guest you eat what is served." This caused a backlash, but one poster in particular stood out for her strident opposition to this idea. This poster, who appears to have posted at least 22 times in the thread, generally provided responses along the lines of "Oh, stuff it, MeeMaw", "What a nasty, rigid old bat you are", and "No one is interested in you dull old people." DCUM is so fortunate to have users of this sort to contribute such substantive and helpful content.

The Gaza war thread was back leading the most active thread list over the weekend. It has less traffic than in the past, but is obviously still quite active. The most active thread after that one over the weekend was titled, "Woman charged with felony for having a stillbirth" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster linked to a story about a woman in Ohio who had a stillbirth at 22 weeks of pregnancy. She attempted to flush the remains down the toilet but the toilet clogged. She was arrested and charged with felony abuse of a corpse. According to court testimony, the woman had gone to the doctor twice about her pregnancy. But, beyond that, there are very few details that are known about this case. As a result, many posters made assumptions or educated guesses about what occurred. This, in turn, spurred a lot of complaints about the thread and even a separate thread in the "Website Feedback" forum. Some posters were upset about the thread's title because, strictly speaking, the woman's charges concern the treatment of the remains rather than the stillbirth itself. Very few posters in this thread believe the case is really about how the woman treated the remains of her stillbirth. One of the most common theories is that this is part of an effort to grant fetuses personhood and, therefore, make abortion tantamount to murder. As such, much of this discussion is wrapped up in posters' views about abortion. Abortion opponents tend to see this as the woman having delivered a baby — albeit not one that was alive — and mishandling its corpse in a callous manner. They object to this treatment of a baby's corpse and think the woman should be held accountable. However, such posters are very much in the minority. There is considerable suspicion that Ohio's restrictive abortion laws contributed to this situation, with posters speculating that the woman had been denied dilation and curettage surgery and was forced to undergo a miscarriage. The thread is dominated by posters who are outraged by the charges against the woman. Several posters provided first-hand accounts of their own miscarriages and argued that the woman's behavior was perfectly normal and understandable. For many posters, this case represents a further erosion of women's rights. They argue that women are being held accountable for natural processes and that the opinions of mostly male, mostly fundamentalist Christian lawmakers are being imposed on them. One thing that comes across in this thread is the visceral reaction of many posters, especially those who have dealt personally with miscarriages. For many, this is not a theoretical dispassionate discussion, but a deeply personal topic that causes real anger.

The Gaza war thread returned as the most active thread yesterday. But, with fewer than 350 posts, the thread is a shadow of what it once was. The most active thread after that was titled, "FBI HQ in PG!" and posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum. The original poster appears to be very happy that the General Services Administration, the government's landlord, announced that a site in Greenbelt, Maryland had been selected to be the location of a new Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters. A new headquarters is necessary because the Hoover Building in downtown Washington, DC is literally crumbling and falling apart. The search for a new location has been long and arduous. The quest had already lasted a decade when the search was cancelled in 2017. At that time Congress showed little interest in funding a new headquarters and then president Donald Trump was opposed to moving the headquarters due to fear that its current site might be taken over by a luxury hotel that could compete with his own near by hotel. The search was revived after Trump left office. The selection of Greenbelt met with immediate controversy, as reflected in posts in the thread. Greenbelt is located in Maryland's Prince George's County, an area with a large Black population that has a reputation for high crime rates. Some of the opposition to Greenbelt was explicitly racist. One poster wrote, "Feel bad for the largely white FBI that won't be living in PG County". But fans of Prince George's fought back, arguing that the county didn't deserve it poor reputation and that it is actually a nice place to live. Many Maryland residents immediately began speculating about the impact on property values. Further controversy erupted when news arrived that FBI Director Christopher Wray had notified FBI staff about his own concerns with the location choice. According to Wray, a three-person panel charged with selecting a location had picked a site in Sterling, Virginia. This decision had been over-ruled by a single GSA official who had been given that authority. The Greenbelt property is currently owned by WMATA and that official had previously worked for WMATA. Therefore, Wray suggested, there was an inappropriate conflict of interest. This caused posters to immediately begin trumpeting the specter of Congressional investigations and maybe even the official's arrest. In response, Greenbelt proponents noted that the Sterling location, which is currently full of GSA warehouses that would have to be relocated and then demolished, would increase the price of the project by a billion dollars. With controversy aplenty, it looks like this saga if far from over.

For the first time since the Hamas attack on Israel, the thread about the Gaza war was not the most active. The thread was not even the second most active, but fell to third. I am not really surprised as the thread has become unreadable, bogged down in unending petty arguments about esoteric topics. The most active thread was titled, "School board results?" and posted in the "Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)" forum. This thread was started late Tuesday evening by a poster in search of the Fairfax County Public School Board of Education election results. As I mentioned in yesterday's blog post, candidates endorsed by the Democratic Party won every seat. The FCPS school forum has been filled with threads describing alleged failures of the school system and criticizing current Board members. There was clearly a hope by some that this election would reduce the Democratic dominance of the school board. The outcome left posters with such hopes in despair. "So depressing. I don't understand how FCPS will continue their reputation with thus (sic) trajectory", wrote one. In response, a number of posters lamented that centrist and independent candidates simply were not popular. As one poster said, "I tried voting for non progressives but they are getting crushed." Another wrote, "I voted for the independents. No one else did though." A common theme of the thread is that while the candidates endorsed by Democrats might not be perfect, the Republican-endorsed candidates had failed to focus on the issues that really mattered to voters. As a poster wrote, Republicans "should have stayed away from book banning and crucifying trans kids. As well as slamming equity like it is a slur." Similarly, another poster wrote, "Run on reasonable changes and I’ll listen. Run on MAGA talking points and I am not voting for you." As the results sunk in, posters turned to discussing what they believed would be the future of the school system. The primary criticism was what some posters believe to be an inordinate focus on "equity". By this they mean too much attention to making sure that all students achieve a minimum standard. Such posters want to see more opportunties provided for high-achieving students whose needs they believe are not being addressed as teaching is concentrated on the lowest common denominator. I am not an expert on FCPS, but from what I read in the forum there is a plethora of Advanced Academic Programs (AAP) and other programs for high-achievers. We even created a separate forum for such programs. So, I am a bit confused about the complaints concerning equity. One poster strongly dislikes "Skills Based Grading" and dominated the last several pages with her criticism. If this thread is any indication, the future of the FCPS forum will be much like its past. Full of threads complaining about the school system and blaming the board for the system's demise.

Once again the Gaza war thread was the most active. But, with just over 300 new posts, the thread barely held on to the position. The second most active thread was related. Titled, "Please share your ideas for SOLUTIONS to the middle east crisis", the thread was similarly posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster asks others about their ideas for a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Rather than slog through this 17 page thread, I'll address questions that I saw on the first page. The most commonly stated solution to the conflict is the "Two-State Solution" in which a Palestinian state consisting of Gaza and parts of the West Bank coexists with Israel. This solution is the basis of the original United Nations resolution that led to the creation of Israel, was reinforced in UN Resolutions 338 and 242, and was the foundation of the Oslo Accords. The United States officially supports this arrangement and President Joe Biden has restated that position several times in recent days. However, despite the wide-spread support internationally, the idea faces significant hurdles and, under current circumstances, can't reasonably be considered a serious proposition. The first hurdle to a two-state solution is the fact that Israel is a politically divided country. The political spectrum runs from those who would happily accomodate a Palestinian state in the majority of Gaza and the West Bank to those who don't want to give up an inch of the West Bank and would even like to take Gaza back. The Israeli settler movement which has been steadily seizing more and more territory in the West Bank is enacting a fait accompli and leaving less land for a Palestinian state every day. Israeli proposals for a Palestinian state have only allowed for a disjointed, non-contiguous territory that would not be viable. Moreover, Israel expects to maintain significant restrictions and important influence and control over such a country. This is obviously unacceptable to Palestinians. Under the status quo, Israel — which likes to advertise itself as the only democracy in the Middle East — faces a dilemma. It can be a Jewish state, which requires it to rule undemocratically over the Palestinians, or it can be a democracy and provide full rights to those in the occupied territories. But, given the number of Palestinians, in that scenario the country would no longer remain as a Jewish state. As a result, Israelis have a host of solutions that involve annexing territory while either outright expelling Palestinians or leaving them powerless. None are acceptable to the Palestinians. A few Israelis and an increasing number of Palestinians favor a "one-state" solution in which Israelis and Palestinians share a democratic country in which both communities have equal rights. This maintains Israel's democracy while sacrificing its Jewish identity. This is the solution supported by the "Free Palestine from the River to the Sea" slogan that has been popular at pro-Palestinian demonstrations. This idea, of course, also has little chance of being implemented in the foreseeable future. In the absence of progress toward a resolution, Palestinians live under harsh Israeli oppression and watch more and more of their land disappear under settler feet every day. This results in a unstable and periodically violent situation. This leaves, at best, incomplete half-measures that might relieve the worst of the Palestinian suffering and reduce violence. Such steps would include crackdowns on settlers including the removal of some settlements, political reform of the Palestinian National Authority, and increased freedoms for Palestinian residents.

As is usual now, the Gaza war thread continued to be the most active yesterday. But, with fewer tha 500 posts, activity was lower than it has been since the initial attack. The most active thread after that was titled, "Millennial women are saying no thanks to parenthood" and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a Washington Post article that analyzed data showing that while the number of families with one child has stayed stable since the 1980s, the number of childless women has increased markedly. Moreover, the increase has coincided almost completely with the progress of millennial women through childbearing years. Let me start with my obligatory disclaimer that I dislike generational labels. Even the Post article describes such categorizations as "squishy, man-made distinctions". Others, of course, embrace such labels. The original poster says that the Post's conclusions follow what she is seeing in her personal life and, with millennials hitting 40, she says the trend is unlikely to turn around. While I didn't read much of this 16 page thread, what I did read did not reveal many, if any, posters disagreeing that being child-free is a trend. Many of those responding cited personal examples of either themselves, relatives, or friends choosing not to have children. The reasons for millennials choosing not to have children varied. Several posters blamed the cost of childcare and the need to upscale housing. Others claimed that choosing not to have children was a rational reaction to the examples of older women who were expected to work full time and still be perfect moms. As one poster said, "Until men step up women are smart not to fall into the trap." Another reason that came up and which was also mentioned by the Post is that millennial women seem less likely to marry. Many threads in DCUM's relationship forum have revealed that as women have become better educated, received more challenging and fulfilling job opportunities, and earned higher incomes, they have become less dependent on a spouse and, therefore, more picky about marriage. Both in the experience of many of those responding and as described by the Post, unmarried women are less likely to have children. We have operated DCUM through most of the millennials' childbearing years. As such, I've probably read thousands of posts that touch on this topic. In my view, the explanation was captured best by a sentence attributed to "just about every source we consulted" that said, "Hammered by the Great Recession, soaring student debt, precarious gig employment, skyrocketing home prices and the covid-19 crisis, millennials probably faced more economic headwinds in their childbearing years than any other generation". Prior generations had a sort of pattern: graduate from college, get a job, get married, buy a house, adopt a pet (okay, some leave this out), have children. Lots of millennials have been stymied after the first step.

The Gaza war thread continued as the most active thread over the weekend, with just over 1,000 posts. The thread is not as active as it once was, but continued to produce over twice as many posts as the next most active thread. That thread, titled, "Saturday - Thousands expected to attend pro-Palestine march in DC for ceasefire in Israel-Hamas war" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, was obviously related to the war. The thread was started by a poster who had just heard about what was then an upcoming protest and was concerned that it might be violent. Other posters also had pessimistic expectations for the protest with a number of those responding concerned that there would be displays of antisemitism or hatred of Jews. Proponents of the protest argued that the protest was aimed at promoting a ceasefire and bringing an end to Israeli's massive bombing that has killed thousands of Palestinians. A major issue in this discusion was distinguishing Hamas from the Palestinian people. This is a distinction that even President Joe Biden has made. Nevertheless, some posters argued that a ceasefire would benefit Hamas and, therefore, supporting a ceasefire was effectively pro-Hamas. Similarly, some posters sought to distinguish between Jews and Israelis. One poster wrote that it is understandable that pro-Palestinian posters separate Hamas from Palestinians, but that the same people are often "totally ok with Israel being equated with all Jews rather than saying ‘Israeli government actions.’" The poster said this was upsetting. I happened to agree with that poster. But, when a pro-Israel poster stated that Israel's Iron Dome anti-rocket system was "protecting Jews" and I interjected that it was actually protecting Israelis, reminding that Jews and Israel are not synonymous, the poster called me an antisemite. This is an example of the overly-cavalier labeling in which some posters have engaged. I was advocating a position that many Jews hold and is actually a distinction that helps combat antisemitism resulting from blame being wrongly placed on all Jews for Israel's actions. Once the protest began and in its aftermath, critics of the event quickly began looking for any aspects that could be used to portray the protest in a negative light. None of their expectations for waving of Nazi symbols or chants to kill Jews seem to have been fulfilled. But, one poster did fixate on a single protester who, along with the flag of Trinidad and Tobago, had a small Hezbollah flag. This was said to show that the protesters supported terrorism. More attention was paid to red paint — used to demonstrate blood on the US administration's hands — that defaced a wall near the White House entrance. Some posters insisted that this would be the defining image of the protest and would impact upcoming elections.