DCUM Weblog

As has been my habit, I skipped this blog over the weekend so today I'll look at the most active threads since my last post on Friday. The most active thread during that period was titled, "Lock him up indictment FL" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread is about the indictment of former President Donald Trump on federal charges related to government documents that he took from the White House and kept illegally in his Mar-a-lago residence. The thread is 46 pages and, therefore, too long for me to read completely or provide much in the way of a summary. Suffice it to say that there are significant differences of opinion between Trump critics and Trump supporters. The first group was overjoyed with many posters repeating Trump's frequent demand with regard to Hillary Clinton to "lock her up". This expression, which is mocked in the thread's title, appears to have come back to haunt the former president. Trump's fans, on the other hand, also referenced Clinton, arguing that the failure to prosecute her displayed a double standard. While there is probably nothing that will break through the cloaks of ignorance in which these posters are determined to ensconce themselves, there are significant differences between the cases. As Secretary of State, Clinton established a private email server at the advice of predecessors. Investigations later showed that a very small number of the emails sent to the server contained classified information. However, investigators did not find evidence that Clinton had intentionally or willfully mishandled classified information. In addition, investigators could find no evidence that the server had been compromised by adversaries. Moreover, Clinton made no effort to maintain possession of the classified information once it was discovered. Similarly, a researcher discovered classified documents that had been inadvertently included among documents donated by then Vice President Joe Biden to the University of Pennsylvania. These documents were immediately returned to the government. Subsequent searches by Biden's lawyers discovered classified documents stored in other locations and they were also returned. In Trump's case, his possession of classified documents was discovered fairly quickly and efforts made to have them returned. Trump not only failed to comply, but — according to the indictment — actually obstructed the effort to return the documents. So, whereas the cases of Clinton and Biden involved the inadvertent mishandling of classified information which they cooperated to return, Trump's case involves the failure to comply and actual obstruction of efforts by the Government to regain possession of the documents. It is highly likely that had Trump cooperated instead of obstructing the retrieval of the documents, things would not have come to this.

Once again the two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed and, therefore, I'll start with yesterday's third most active thread. That thread was titled, "Sharing pronouns at work" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. The original poster says that she just attended inclusivity training at her company and, for the second time, employees were asked to include their pronouns in their email signatures and when they introduce themselves in meetings. The original poster did not comply the first time that employees were asked to do this and doesn't understand why her not doing so would offend others. She asks to be enlightened about the importance of sharing pronouns. The announcing of pronouns in work and social situations has been controversial on DCUM for a while. I am not sure that this thread advances the conversation in any meaningful way. As usual, there are posters who support sharing pronouns in order to be inclusive of those whose pronouns might not be obvious. They say that providing pronouns avoids those whose pronouns might not match their gender expression being singled out and it proactively signals acceptance to them. On the other hand, there are posters who consider listing pronouns to be nothing more than woke virtue singling. Some of them get irrationally angry over the subject and one poster considers a requirement to include pronouns to be a threat to democracy. Some posters don't care about the culture war aspects of pronouns. They just want to know how to address someone properly. For others, this is simply an issue of adhering to company standards. Some of the female posters who work in male-dominated industries have a different perspective. They prefer that their gender not be obvious because they feel they are taking more seriously if they are mistakenly considered to be male. Some will even make an effort to identify themselves ambiguously in order to make their gender less obvious. Whether true or not, there is a perception that the current emphasis on pronouns is being driven by youth. As a result, some of the resentment about sharing pronouns is mixed with disdain for young people. More than one poster would love for Zoomers to get of their lawn and take their pronouns with them.

The two most active threads yesterday were threads that I've already discussed so I'll skip them. As a topic, discussion of air quality easily overwhelmed everything yesterday with threads on various aspects of DC's smoke-filled air popping up in nearly every forum. One of those titled, "Red air quality, are you limiting activity?" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum, was yesterday's third most active thread. The original poster said that she had moved a meeting that had been planned for outdoors to the inside and was debating about what to do about her kids' swim team in the evening. In many ways, yesterday's reaction to the poor air quality was reminiscent of the COVID pandemic, right down to debates about masks. Many posters went into full panic mode, avoiding nearly any outside exposure and making dire warnings. Others proudly bragged about having just returned from long, maskless runs outside. Posters snarked at those showing concern, implying that they were Chicken Littles. While some posters described a range of adverse reactions to the smoke including watering eyes and sore throats, others claimed to feel nothing as a result of the poor air quality. Discussion turned to related topics such as how to mitigate poor air quality by using air purifiers and who or what was responsible for the smoke. Throughout the thread posters reported about various events being cancelled, again bringing back memories of COVID shutdowns. The COVID analogy was even more explicit in several posts with their authors engaging in past arguments from COVID discussions.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "what is with parents serving alcohol at parties for kids who are 15 and 16?" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. The original poster says that she has kids in two different "Big 3" priviate schools and in the past week both kids have been invited to parties marking either the end of the school year or graduation at which alcohol has been served by parents. The kids range in age from 15 - 18. When the original poster asked one of her children about this, she was told, "it's a private school thing mom. All the parents do it." The original poster asks if this is really true and if she is just out of touch. The responses to this post are, in my opinion, odd. This is basically a "yes" or "no" question, but rather than provide such answers, posters point out that drinking by teenagers is common in Europe, that drinking occurs at public school parties also, and that Americans are puritanical. So, I guess the answer is "yes" and these kinds of parties are common. In spite of this, several posters side with the original poster in thinking these parties are not a good idea. Some are simply opposed to young people drinking, but others are more concerned about legal liability and kids possibly driving home drunk. Comparing attitudes about drinking between the US and Europe is common throughout this thread, though even some Europeans opposed these type of parties. One topic of contention is what this behavior indicates about parenting. Several posters insist that adults who serve alchohol at parties are trying to be "cool" or friends with their kids. These posters argue that kids need "parents", not "friends" and consider this to be terrible parenting. Several posters said that they no longer let their children visit homes of parents that are known to serve alcohol to those who are under-aged. I didn't read every post in this thread, but I didn't see any posts from parents saying that they actually hosted such events and offering a defense of their behavior. Generally, justifications were of the "it's common in Europe" type.

Most of yesterday's most active threads might cause feelings of déjà vu. The first of those was titled, "$300k house near swim and tennis clubs, sports facilities, and great schools and jobs anywhere in the US" and posted in the "Real Estate" forum. I recently discussed a very similar thread in which the poster had a somewhat higher budget of $500,000. The original poster of this thread is recently divorced and must downsize. The poster has a child who is about to enter high school and who is a gifted athlete. The poster says where they live now is too expensive and she would like recommendations for a place where a house can be purchased for $300,000 and has good schools, available sports activities, and good jobs. The responses in many cases remind me of the expression, "good, fast, cheap, pick two" meaning that you can't get all three of those things. In this case, those responding suggest the list is more like, "affordable, quality schools, good jobs, pick two" because as the availability of good jobs and good schools goes up, so does the price of housing. Even so, many responders have suggestions. However, most of the suggestions actually come from the original poster herself who has independently identified potentially suitable cities and asks for opinions about the high schools. Other posters caution about high property taxes in some areas that have otherwise affordable housing. The original poster also seems to prioritize the weather, ruling out several places because they are too cold and also worrying about the bugs and humidity in southern states. Suggestions from other posters as well as from the original poster herself are for locations all over the place with little coherence. One repeated suggestion that also came up in the earlier thread was to look for college towns based on the assumption that the professors would demand good schools.

Today I'll look at the most active threads since Friday. During that period, the most active thread was titled, "Why don’t college students understand that they’re supposed to preserve optionality?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Somehow this thread managed to escape my notice until just now and at 14 pages in length, I'm not able to do more than skim a few pages. Because I am unfamiliar with the term "optionality", I was immediately confused by the title. After reading the original post, I realized that the original poster simply meant "options". I see that the first poster to respond had almost idenical thinking. The original poster strongly believes that college majors and even first jobs should be chosen with the goal of preserving options. The poster recommends pursuing STEM majors and then working in the fields of investment banking or management consulting. Several of those responding have little regard for those fields and don't seem to believe any number of options would be worth preserving if working in such jobs were a requirement. Skimming this thread, it appears to be a rehash of a common theme of the college forum. The original poster sees the primary goal of college to be upward mobility, preparing students for a job which should put them firmly on a path for financial success (where "financial success" is defined as "wealthy"). Not explicitly said, but clearly implied, is that these students must, of course, attend elite colleges. The path of top high school -> elite college -> Goldman Sachs or McKinsey is somewhat of a DCUM archetype, aspired to if not always achieved by a number of posters. In contrast to this idea of the road to success is the view that the point of college is to get an education and that success is achieved through happiness and a range of goals beyond the purely financial. In some ways, this debate is a version of the STEM vs humanities clash that seem ever present in the college forum, but with a twist because the goal of the STEM degree is investment banking or management consulting rather than in a FAANG company. There are representatives of both sides of this dispute in the thread with many who see some truth in the original poster's position, either claiming to have followed a similar path or known those who did. In contrast are posters who are working in fields that they love and wouldn't wanted to have done things differently. As one of them says, "I’m 50 with a successful career and I can’t imagine anything worse than working for one of the Big 4 or similar types of consulting firm."

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Who are foreign people always talking to?" which was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that whether she is in a taxi, an Uber, or a nail salon, she encounters people speaking loudly on their telephones in foreign languages. The poster thinks this is strange behavior and wonders to whom these people are talking. When I first saw this thread yesterday, I assumed that it would be offensive and result in lots of upset posters. But, for the post part, that was not the case. Even those who objected to the original poster's observations kept their responses calm and substantive. I don't think any noteworthy fights broke out in the thread which is a pleasant surprise. Instead, those responding took the topic seriously and tried to provide useful responses. For instance, one of the first to respond said that her foreign-born mother is just gossiping with anyone available to take a call. Another poster who describes herself as an immigrant admits to being guilty of this and explains that she talks to a broad range of friends and relatives. She says that it is a cultural norm for them to keep in close touch and that they communicate about about a wide variety of topics. Several posters bring up the culture aspects and say that they come from much more communal cultures where people are rarely alone. Talking on the phone replaces the in-person communication to which they were accustomed. Several posters mentioned that they speak foreign languages and can often understand those on the phone. They report hearing themselves being talked about in many cases. On the other hand, a poster who described herself as a foreigner said that neither she nor her husband spend much time on the phone. She suggests that the original poster has "observational bias" and is simply more likely to notice and remember those speaking in foreign languages. Similarly, another poster has encountered many non-foreigners speaking loudly on their phones in the grocery store. One poster says her husband, who has no foreign ties, is also always on the phone and has a need to constantly be chatting. For some posters, the language being used on a call was of little matter. They hate hearing people talking on their phones regardless of the language.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Large early inheritance to only 1 of 3 siblings?" and posted in the "Money and Finances" forum. It's always somewhat surprising to me when the most active thread is one of which I was completely unaware. That is the case here, with the thread reaching 8 pages without me knowing about it. The original poster describes a scenario in which elderly parents have three children who are all married and professionally employed. One of the three siblings works in a church and, while financially comfortable, is less well off than the other two siblings. That sibling was the beneficiary of a $1 million gift from the parents that allowed them to live at a higher standard of living than the others, purchasing a large house in the most desirable neighborhood of the city and sending their children to private school. The parents do not plan to provide similar gifts to the two other siblings and any future inheritance will, presumably, be split evenly. The original poster asks for thoughts or advice about this situation. I almost immediately noticed that the original poster was sock puppeting on a fairly large scale. Most of those responding argue that the parents can do whatever they want with their money. The original poster, without identifying herself, doesn't disagree with that but describes it as "a bad idea" that is "strange" and "awkward". That provokes a question about why it is a bad idea. To which the original poster replies, again without identifying herself, "I’ve got three kids and it certainly seems like a bad idea to me." This sort of back and forth is a pattern throughout the thread. The original poster tries to support her original post surreptitiously, but only creates more questions and backlash. Other posters, not really engaged with the original poster's narrative, explain what they would have done in the parent's place or describe their own plans for dividing money between their own children. Several posters argue that good relations among siblings are more important than money and urge the original poster to focus on that. One poster finds the dispute so pathetic that she promises to give any estate she has to charity rather than have her children argue over money. The original poster, still not identifying herself, agrees that would make more sense than giving it to one child.

What would have been yesterday's most active thread is one that I ended up deleting. I'll talk more about that later, but the next most active thread was titled, "I do not want to see an NP!" and posted in the "Health and Medicine" forum. The original poster is upset because she wants to see an MD during her medical visits but is continually provided a Nurse Practitioner or other Advanced Practice Provider instead. Surprisingly to me, this thread reached 10 pages. That puts it beyond my reading stamina, so I'm not going to be able to say much about the thread. But, skimming the post, I see that a number of posters agree with the original poster, preferring MDs. On the other hand, multiple responders argue that the best nurses are promoted to Nurse Practitioners so they are happy to meet with them. There is some discussion about the reasons it has become so difficult to meet with a doctor. There is apparently a shortage. Posters complained about long wait times for appointments and then, like the original poster, having the doctor replaced by a Nurse Practitioner at the last minute. I believe the length of the thread can be attributed to debate over the qualifications and skills of nurse practitioners. Claims are made about training requirements and then those claims are disputed. I noticed at least one self-described nurse giving the idea that nurse practitioners are particularly skilled the side-eye. Her argument was that the increasing prevalence of online schools means that there are vast differences between programs and many nurse practitioners have not had experience as a nurse. Some see this primarily as a money issue with cheaper nurse practitioners replacing expensive MDs. Related to that, a poster argues that if they see a Nurse Practitioner, it shouldn't cost them as much but they get charged the same as if they were seeing an MD.

Memorial Day is a traditionally slow day on DCUM but, perhaps due to yesterday's bad weather in the DC area, traffic was a bit higher than might have been expected. How did DCUMers spend the holiday? Mostly talking about the Max (nee HBO Max, nee HBO) series "Succession". That thread received over three times the number of posts as the next most active thread. But, since I've already discussed that thread, I'll start with the runner up. That thread was titled, "Most beautiful place on earth you've seen, if you're a regular person?" and posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum. The original poster asks what is the most beautiful thing others have seen while traveling as a "normal person", by which she means those not being sent as part of a job and not "professional" adventurers. I always struggle to summarize threads of this sort that consist mostly of one or more suggestions per post. Without going through and making a tally of the locations, I'm not sure that I can draw many conclusions. But, nominations ranged from Burke Lake to Phuket, Thailand and the Fjords of Norway. I did notice that one of my personal favorites, Lake Louise, was repeatedly mentioned. Bodies of water in general were popular. Some posters appear to have had trouble narrowing it down and provided fairly long lists. One wonders if there wasn't a bit of bragging going on. One poster proposed Nelson Mandala’s prison cell on Robben Island. I can imagine that being interesting, historic, and perhaps even moving, but I have a hard time thinking of it as "beautiful". This would be a good thread for those seeking inspiration for a future trip and is also good for provoking memories of places you've been fortunate enough to visit.