DCUM Weblog

The first thread that I will discuss today was actually the third most active yesterday since the first two were threads that I've already discussed. The thread that I will start with was titled, "DH says his success is my success" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she and her husband met in grad school and when they got married they both had demanding careers. However, the original poster later "mommy tracked", eventually becoming a stay-at-home-mom. Meanwhile her husband has been very successful in his career, earning a very high salary that has allowed the family to have a very wealthy lifestyle. However, when the original poster recently had a college reunion, she decided to skip it, partially because she is embarrassed that she no longer works. Her husband says that she has the right to be proud because his success is her success. The original poster is not sure how to think about that and asks if others view the success of their children and spouse as their success. Many posters agree that the original poster's spouse's success is her success because she supported his career and contributed to an overall successful life. Others don't really comment on whether his success is her success, but argue that the original poster has a life that is considerably better than most people's and has a spouse who recognizes her contributions. That is enough in which to take pride and she should simply be happy about it. Similarly, some posters think the original poster is being ridiculous and does not appreciate all that she has. A small number of posters contend that, like the original poster, they would be embarrassed to attend their college reunions because they don't see marrying a rich husband as being an achievement. Many posters argue variations of the idea that there is no perfect life. Instead, everything involves trade-offs. Had the original poster not made sacrifies in her own career, her husband likely would not have achieved the same level of success that he has or something else in their lives would have suffered. These posters suggest that the original poster just needs to accept the trade-offs for what they were. In some ways this thread may reflect changing ideas of feminism. In the 1960s, the expression, "Behind every great man is a great woman" was adopted by the feminist movement as a way to recognize the contributions of often ignored women who frequently enabled the success of their husbands. But these days, many woman don't want to be recognized for standing behind a man, but rather want to be up front or, at least, on equal footing. Also at issue is what is meant by "success". While many can agree that the original poster may not have succeeded professionally, she has contributed to a successful family life. Many see that as "success".

Fully half of yesterday's top ten most active threads were ones that I have previously discussed. That includes the most active thread overall which was the thread about Usman Shahid, the young Virginian whose speeding resulted in a collision and the death of two high school girls. He was convicted of two charges of involuntary manslaughter yesterday. The first thread that I will discuss today was titled, "Nate Silver: ‘Go to a state school’" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Most readers are probably familiar with Nate Silver, a stats-whiz who founded FiveThirtyEight and has been a leader in data-driven journalism. The original poster of this thread linked to an article by Silver in which Silver argues that most students should choose state schools over Ivy League or other selective private schools. Those who have paid attention to Silver over the past few years will know that he transitioned from a purely data-driven, "let the stats tell the story", analyst to a leader in the "take industry". These days, Silver seems to pay a lot more attention to "vibes" than to data. This article is no exception. Silver claims that the Ivy League has lost its luster. His evidence for that? A poll showing declining perceptions of higher education. Not Ivy League education, but higher education in general. The Nate Silver of a decade ago would have been embarrassed to offer such flimsy, and misleading, support for an argument. To be sure, for many students state schools are compelling options. It would be interesting to see an analytical study comparing various outcomes such as salary level, employment opportunities, and other factors between top state schools and top private schools. At one time, that would be the sort of thing to expect from Silver. But not anymore. Instead, we get things like suggestions that Ivy students are "coddled". Exactly how do you quantify that? Silver's article is more a collection of right-wing memes than serious analysis. In the thread, there are those who agree with Silver, including posters who agree that Ivy students are coddled. But plenty of posters disagree as well. Like Silver's article, most of the posts in the thread are based on perception. Perception is affected by many things, not all of them accurate. The value of Silver's past brand of data journalism was that it distinguished what is believed from what is real. We don't get that from him any longer. There has been thread after thread lamenting various aspects of today's Ivy League, yet I doubt that a single poster would turn down the opportunity (for either them or their child) to attend if it were reasonably available (i.e. not financially out-of-reach). As for those claiming that they would not apply, as I have written before, that's like me deciding not to try out to be the starting quarterback of the Kansas City Chiefs.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I discussed in yesterday's blog post, the college protests thread and the thread about unpopular pop culture opinions. I'll skip those today and start with a thread titled, "7/24/23 Trial of Usman Shahid -- driver who killed two Oakton teens" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. First some background. Back in June 22, Usman Shahid was driving a BMW at 81 miles per hour down a residential street near Oakton High School when he struck a car attempting a left turn and then careened into three high school students who had just left the school. Two of the students were killed and one was severely injured. Subsequently, Shahid was indicted for involuntary manslaughter. His trial was initially set for July of last year and this thread was created in order to discuss that legal procedure. However, the trial was delayed until recently. Since this thread's creation last July, it has been kept active by occasional queries about the status and updates as events developed. In addition, there has been significant discussion of the tragic event and with whom, exactly, responsibility lies. Given the speed at which Usman was travelling, this would appear to be rather cut and dry. However, Usman defenders have repeatedly taken to this thread to blame the driver of the car that Usman struck. Their contention is that the collision was not caused by Usman's high rate of speed, but rather the other driver's failure to yield to him and, instead, turning into his path. This thread was active yesterday because Usman's trial was finally held. Just like Usman's supporters in this thread, his defense attorney attempted to put blame on the driver of the car that Usman hit. During the trial it was revealed that Usman did not yet have a driver's license, but only a learner's permit. The BMW had just been purchased a few days prior to the collision. The car's data recorder showed that Usman had accelerated from 60 to 81 miles per hour in the 35 mph speed zone prior to the collision. Usman's defense appears to be that he was trying to beat the traffic light that had just turned yellow and the other car unexpectedly turned in front of him. Usman's lawyer apparently argued that he had no choice but to accelerate. While that may be a reasonable (or not) explanation of what happened, it doesn't seem like much of a defense to me. While BMWs accelerate quickly, they also have excellent brakes. Not to mention that Usman was driving nearly twice the legal speed limit near a school while students were around even before accelerating. Yesterday, the case was sent to the jury which convened for less than two hours before quitting for the day. The jury will reconvene today. Most of the posters in the thread seem convinced that Usman is guilty, but are  very worried that he will somehow be let off. We will probably have an decision from the jury sometime today.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "USC and Columbia Protests" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Threads about protests on college campuses, especially Columbia, have been rampant over the past several days. As anyone who has paid attention to the news will know, Columbia University's President was called before Congress where she was castigated for not doing enough about demonstrations. She returned to the college and asked the New York Police Department to arrest student demonstrators who had camped out on campus. The original poster of this thread criticized the arrests saying that things were "going to end badly". The original poster also criticized the decision by the president of the University of Southern California to cancel the graduation speech scheduled to be delivered by valedictorian Asna Tabassum, a Muslim woman, due to unspecified security threats. The original poster concluded, "These high level administrators seem completely clueless and out of touch with their student bodies." Many of the responses in the thread described incidents at other universities in which students were punished for demonstrating against the Israeli devastation of Gaza and the US complicity in what the students describe as "genocide". The situation at Columbia, in particular, has deteriorated rapidly since this thread has started. Unfortunately, there has been considerable misinformation spread, much of it showing up in this thread. Based on first-hand reporting, the student demonstrations on campus have been peaceful and, far from being anti-Semitic as some claim, actually include many Jewish students. However, outside campus, groups not associated with the University have gathered and have frequently been very aggressive toward visibly Jewish students and have engaged in anti-Semitic rhetoric. Opponents of the demonstrators have attempted to treat both groups as one, suggesting that the peaceful student groups are committing the activities of those outside campus. In addition, the thread contains a significant amount of scolding by those who do not think the students should be protesting and who accuse the students of being uninformed and naive. Many posters warn, sometime suggesting hope on their part, that the students are endangering their future job prospects. The situation on campuses and the opposition to demonstrators on the part of many DCUM posters reminds me of something Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail". King wrote:

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Taylor Swift album Tortured Poets Department leaked early?" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. You may not have heard of Taylor Swift or her new album titled "The Tortured Poets Department", but Swift is a budding young artist who, despite being somewhat media shy, has been getting increasing attention. This thread was started Thursday evening by a poster concerned that Swift's latest album, which was due for release on Friday, may have been leaked in advance. She questioned whether a true Swift fan would listen to the album before it was officially released or flood the Internet with fake links to mislead others. But it soon became clear that most of those posting in the thread have indeed listened to the album. As a result, posters begin analyzing the lyrics as if they were the latest issuances of the Oracle of Delphi. Many posters view the lyrics as strictly biographical and draw sweeping conclusions from the simplest of lines. For instance, the line "you sacrifice us to the gods of your bluest days" is suggested as proof that a former boyfriend suffers from "major depression". Several posters were preoccupied with guessing which songs were about which boyfriend. Then the thread turned to posters offering opinions about their favorite songs from the album and other aspects of the music. As you would expect at this point, there is some pushback from those who believe Swift is overrated. Some complain that the songs all sound the same. There were also complaints about Swift's tendency to release multiple versions of an album and whether that is a simple cash grab. This proclivity was especially egregious in this case because Swift released the album and two hours later released an "anthology" version of the same album including more songs. A number of posters complained that anyone who had pre-ordered the album would have to now purchase the second version. But, as anyone who has had even the slightest contact with Swifties will know, criticism is not warmly received and most of it was roundly rebutted. To be fair, some of the critics do appear a bit foolish. The anthology version of the album has 31 songs and some posters, as well as the New York Times, complain that a shorter, better album could have been created instead. I am not sure how deep in the sand one's head needs to be to have missed the entire controversy about the shorter version of the album, but that's just lazy criticism. After reading a considerable number of the 40 pages that currently make up this thread, my conclusion is that many posters a decade or so ago were bitter over breakups and found solace in Swift's music which tends to focus on being bitter over breakups. Now, those same posters are married, have kids, and are well over any past breakups. Yet, Swift is still singing about them. So a gulf has developed between Swift and many of the posters in this thread. On the other hand, there are plenty of young women who are currently bitter about breakups so Swift's albums still sell in droves.

For years we've been considering going solar and having solar panels installed on our home. Finally, in January we decided to pull the trigger. Because I was pretty far behind the curve when it comes to solar energy, I had to learn a lot quickly. I thought it might be worthwhile sharing my experience, not only with solar panels, but other follow-on purchases. Beyond helping the environment, there are several ways that a homeowner can benefit from a solar electric system. The first is called "net metering". In a traditional electric supply, the electric meter on your home goes up as you use electricity from the grid. With solar, the meter runs both ways. When you use electricity from the grid such as at night or on cloudy day, the meter goes up just as before. But when you produce more solar energy than your home is able to use, the electricity is exported to the grid and the meter runs the other way. You don't pay for the electricity you produce that goes directly to your home and any electricity exported to the grid offsets electricity provided by the electric company. In March, our first full month of using solar, we came very close to breaking even, ending up having to pay about $3 for electricity. The second financial benefit comes from solar renewable energy credits (SRECs). Electric companies such as PEPCO are required to use a certain percentage of renewable energy each year. To meet that requirement, PEPCO purchases renewable energy credits. Solar energy producers, including homeowners, can sell credits reflecting their production. An SREC is created for each megawatt-hour of electricity your system produces, whether you use that energy or not. SRECs are sold on markets similar to stock exchanges, but the markets vary by state which each state having its own rules. The District of Columbia has very high prices for SRECs, maybe the highest in the nation. I was able to sell the first SREC our system produced for $430 minus a $2.50 fee for the exchange. In addition, we are eligible for a federal tax credit for 30% of the cost of the system.

Yesterday's most active thread was the thread about masking that I've already discussed and will skip today. But, I can't believe people are still arguing about masking generally and in that thread particularly. The next most active thread was titled, "Rockville Teen Charged with Threats of Mass Violence", and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)". The outline of this story is that on Wednesday, the Montgomery County Police Department arrested 18-year-old "Andrea Ye, of Rockville, whose preferred name is Alex Ye". Ye was charged with one count of threatening mass violence. The threat was said to have been targeted at Wootton High School. The basis of the charge appears to be 129-page document that MCPD described as a "manifesto" but the Washington Post described as a "memoir". The document, which carries a disclaimer saying, "This is a work of fiction", described an attack on a school by a character named "James Wang". Apparently someone who had encountered Ye in a psychiatric facility in which Ye spent quite a bit of time alerted Baltimore area police that the "James Wang" had many similarities to Ye. At the time the thread was started, there were very few details of the case available and and posters in the thread immediately latched on to indications that Ye is transgender. The very first poster to reply asked, "So is this person a biological male or female?" This fixation on gender dominated the thread, eventually provoking me to lock it. But let's just get this out of the way. Officials were silent on Ye's gender beyond using male pronouns and there is no indication that Ye has undergone any gender affirming care either socially or medically. Nevertheless, posters quickly speculated about the effect of testosterone and links between transgender people and mental illness. There seems to be no question that Ye suffers from mental illness. According to the Washington Post, he has been out of school for most of the past two years while being repeatedly hospitalized for mental health reasons. According to court documents referenced by the Post, Ye "claimed to be Jesus Christ and was going to crucify himself." Some posters viewed Ye as "a young person in crisis" primarily in need of treatment. Others perceived him as a dangerous threat and applauded police for their action. It seems that this case will hinge on whether a document clearly labeled as fiction, written by someone who does not appear to have made any overt act such as obtaining a weapon, can constitute a "threat". Another question is whether the potential 10 years imprisonment that Ye faces is the best course of action in this case. But there was very little discussion of such topics in the thread which was, instead, dominated by repeated questions about Ye's gender.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "My boyfriend steals groceries", which was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that her boyfriend routinely only rings up 75% of the items when he goes through self-checkout. His justification is that stores assume that people are stealing and have baked that into the price. He also claims that most men do this. There is pretty solid agreement among those responding that most men do not do this. Moreover, several posters claim that this in an indication of a lack of ethics on the original poster's boyfriend's behalf and that they would not want to be involved with such a man. One poster suggested that if the original poster were with her boyfriend while he was stealing and he got caught, she could also be arrested. In a follow-up post, the original poster said that was something which she had not considered. In an even later follow-up, the original poster said that her boyfriend is a government lawyer with a security clearance which makes the theft even more confounding. The general consensus among those responding is that the original poster should break up with this guy because of this huge moral lapse which, many argue, is probably an indication of other serious flaws. One interesting thing that came out in this thread is the sort of sliding moral compasses many posters seem to have. While almost everyone is appalled that the original poster's boyfriend routinely steals 25% of his groceries, several admit to their own more limited theft. Multiple posters claim that they intentionally ring up items incorrectly to save money. For instance, identifying one type of apple as a less expensive apple. Others say that if an item doesn't ring up after an attempt or two, they will go ahead and put it in their bag. Therefore, the issue is not that the boyfriend is stealing, but that he is stealing too much. I wonder what would be the acceptable limit? For instance if he paid for 90% or even 98% of his groceries, would there be less condemnation? Most of the posters don't have to struggle with this question, however. For them, any theft is wrong. Some even describe extra efforts they've made to pay for items that they could otherwise have gotten away with for free. As more than one poster noted, it is rare for a DCUM thread to have such unanimity in responses. Nobody found the theft to be acceptable and nobody thought that men are more apt to shoplift than women (some argued that the opposite is true). A few posters struggled to find explanations that would make the stealing more understandable, hinting, for instance, that the guy might be a minority in an urban area. But, the opposite turned out to be true, which, sadly, probably did nothing to cause these posters to rethink their prejudices.

Yesterday must have been groundhog day, at least as far as the two most active threads were concerned. Both dealt with topics that I thought had been put behind us. The first of these threads was titled, "People still masking every day at work" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that she works in a federal office and there are a few people who mask every day. She finds this weird and wonders if they are not vaccinated or just super paranoid. The first poster to respond claims that those who are not vaccinated are unlikely to wear masks. I am fairly certain that nobody disputed this contention. Other posters claim that these individuals are likely just very concerned about catching COVID, though not necessarily without justification. For instance, they may have conditions that put them at high risk or live with someone who does. Multiple posters pointed out that for some people having COVID was very traumatic, in some cases requiring long hospitalization and causing them to be near death. Others lost family members. In such cases, the individuals might be suffering from something akin to PTSD. I noticed that when masking was common, a number of those who suffer from allergies found that masks provided relief. Along these lines, some posters said that they know of people who are now masking due to allergies or asthma. Several posters took the position that it is none of the original poster's business why people mask and argued that it is strange to care so much about this. To be fair, the original poster simply seems to be curious and doesn't really appear to care all that much. On the other hand, masking seems to infuriate some people and send them completely over the edge. One poster compared those masking today to "an unkempt man muttering to himself". Another wrote that "They're mentally ill and should not be coddled". Some posters just can't stop themselves from turning everything political such as the poster who argued that "lefties are nuts about Covid." One poster suggested that masking and showing other signs of being overly COVID cautious was simply a ploy by those individuals to be "weird out" their colleagues and, thereby, be allowed to work from home. The 2024 version of Corporal Klinger from M*A*S*H, I guess. Personally, I agreed completely with the poster who wrote:

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "BOE - who are people voting for?" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. There have been a number of threads about the upcoming Montgomery County Board of Education election. An earlier thread discussed which candidates were entering and what posters thought of them. Another thread focused on one of those candidates, Bethany Mandel. This thread takes off where the first one leaves off. Now that the slate of candidates has been settled, the original poster wants to know for whom others are voting and why they are making those choices. This is a rather long thread, as have been the previous ones. As a result, I haven't been able to read the complete threads. That has left me a bit confused about a couple of points which may or may not have been explained in the threads. For instance, on May 14 a primary election will be held and voters will be able to choose one At-Large candidate, one candidate for District 2, and one candidate for District 4. All voters will be able to vote in all three races. To me, this seems like three At-Large races because despite being a representative of a specific district, those board members will be accountable to the entire county, not just voters in their district. Similarly, while this is a "primary" election, it is non-partisan. As far as I know, only one winner in each race will be selected. Therefore, the November general election will not be a run-off, but simply a race between the primary winner and any candidates that enter the general election. Since this is a non-partisan election and there is not a run-off, I really don't see the reason for having a primary. Perhaps someone can enlighten me in the comments? As for the candidates, there is a fairly large number. The At-Large contest has six candidates and District 2 has five. District 4 has a relatively paltry three candidates. One thing this thread has done well is help group the candidates according to various factors. For instance, each race has an incumbent who basically represents the status quo. Each race also has an "Apple Ballot" candidate who is endorsed by the the Montgomery County Education Association. Finally, each race has one or more "outsider" candidates who is essentially a bomb-thrower that wants to shake things up. One of the biggest disputes in the thread is over whether, despite a seemingly widespread desire for change, the outsider candidates would be actually be effective at bringing about reform or would instead simply be disruptive and interfere with any actual work being done. Two of the candidates homeschool their children, raising questions about why they would strive for leadership of a school system they have rejected. I assume that we can look forward to approximately another month of this thread being active and then on to the general election.