It's the same group that keeps trying to throw its weight around.

It's the same ever since DU3 started (before that I didn't notice).

Same bunch with the flame bait outrages every time, it just changes from misogyny to privilege to Hillary-is-great. The "outfit change" doesn't really make any difference. It's always about controlling what other people say and do and think. That's what they think politics is.

Some people won't go along with that. Wonder why. The flamers try to get all those people kicked off, as much as possible. Of course it mostly isn't posssible, and so they stay outraged, mostly over nothing. It's like a hive-mind tantrum. It would be interesting if it wasn't so stupid and pointless.

It's obvious by now this won't change, I just use "Trash Thread" a lot and move on.

CNN interview: ISIS captured 5000 blank Syrian passports in Raqqa

A Syrian who is resettled in France was being interviewed there, saying that it is easy to obtain a Syrian passport, that whatever a person states as his name is put on the document no questions asked. It's simply a matter of paying several hundred Euros according to the witness.

Just as the interview was ending, he said "That isn't the worst thing though. I want to say something very important that no one has reported". He went on to say that when ISIS captured Raqqa, it got 5000 blank Syrian passports.

5000. 5000 that ISIS can fill out any way it wishes. I'd say that's a relevant fact. I wonder why it hasn't been reported before. Surely the major players know about it.


(The interview was on between 3 am and 3:30 am EST. I want to see whether CNN reairs it in a while but if it doesn't, it's at least worth a post here.)

Edit to add: I didn't know who the interviewer was at first but I saw her on camera again -- it was Hala Gorani.

Edit again to correct number: not 500, but 5000

I think gun laws should mimic drivers' license laws

I never comment on any of the gun threads but this is what I think: there should be required just as much training, and just as much time, and just as much test taking, and re-certifying to own and carry a gun, as it does to drive and/or own a car.

(It's my understanding that currently in most places, the gun laws are a lot less demanding than the driving laws, if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will let me know.)

Obviously that would mean every person who owns or carries a gun being licensed, and having an ID (meeting national standards) stating that, and every weapon being licensed to a given owner, just the same as drivers and their cars are. If we can stand that level of government compliance to drive a car, I think we can manage the same for guns.

I also think that similar to driving laws, every gun owner/carrier should be required to carry insurance to cover any wrongful death or other damage that might occur given the type of weapon he/she owns. The heavier the weapon, the more insurance, the more certification. And yes, a basic psych test might be part of that.

I think the rapid-fire weapons shouldn't be allowed. at all An only exception might be in a person's own home, purely for defense.

We seem to recognize that cars are deadly but we can't seem to get it through our heads that guns are more deadly. Comparing guns to cars might help us out in that regard, and help us gauge what type of laws we need and how stringent they should be. Very few people question the driving laws, so comparison to those might help assure folks that the requirements make sense and are not punitive or infringing overly far on their rights.

My two cents, fwiw.

It's sick alright. Now there's a hit-thread on SMC22307 as well

A new one, just started by Bravenak:

http://hillaryclintonsupporters.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=833


The main gripe against SMC is that he/she doesn't buy the letter fiction. I don't either, but I got my only hidden post in 4 years for saying so. (It was worth it! and I decided that ahead of time.)


This one's interesting too, where Bravenak admits she's the source of that Froma Harrop garbage, prompting others to post it for her while she's suspended from DU:

http://hillaryclintonsupporters.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=615

Materialism without character is not first-rate.

It's more like sociopathic.

Basically what has happened in the last 3 to 4 decades is, the system has been taken over by cheaters, not achievers. It is rigged to vastly reward those who will violate all principles, and then those unjustly enriched predators were and are in a position to make all of society's decisions as self-serving as possible.

It's a corrupted mess. But no, the I'm-better-than-you arrogance is not the mark of the best, but an immediate giveaway to being anything BUT first-rate. Real first-stringers do not have to put others down, on the contrary, they comprehend the value of lifting all up. They are not threatened by others' advantages, gifts, or successes, but have confidence in their own, and do not need to step on people to get by or get attention.

Most people who have some sense are not into making as much money as possible for its own sake, but rather into making a living (not bare minimum poverty but "enough plus some&quot , and then using their limited time in this life as they see fit.

Those who are "successful" and are therefore in a position to determine the framework of laws by which everyone in society seeks to build their lives, HAVE FAILED because society should work (easily) for almost all people. Instead of creating a decent society, this generation of decision-makers has instead accumulated vaults of wealth at everyone else's expense, which they cannot even take with them out of this world. THAT IS EFFING STUPID, no matter how smart they think they are!

But fortunately, character is also its own reward if need be. And nothing can take it away from the person who has paid the price to have it. You are way ahead of those who claim to be better than you because they don't even have the bandwidth to see what they are lacking, and they are scummy enough to be willing to pat themselves on the back for winning at a cheaters' game (that's what today's society is). Meanwhile most of these "successes" are very ignorant except in a very narrow band of information. That, in my book, is nearly disabled, certainly dysfunctional -- anywhere except on the job.

Let the losers crow about winning, they aren't even playing the right game.

Our culture has devolved into a depraved, grotesque form-over-substance bubble (reflecting the mess that was made of our once-sane laws during the RW corporatist years), consisting at all levels top to bottom of well-programmed vapid posers and frauds, which will probably burst someday and it probably won't be pretty. But eventually, character will come to the fore again. I have no doubt of that whatsoever. Hopefully sooner than later, for everyone's sake.

Last point I want to make though, is the attitude you're describing is not American. My family didn't come here 400 years ago seeking freedom to chase money. That, is most definitely servitude. The revolutionary thing that makes this country worthwhile is: they were seeking the FREEDOM to pursue their OWN IDEA of what is important in life... "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Each of us who are alive should have the freedom from want and the freedom from domination to seek the meaning of life as best we can, as long as that does not interfere with someone else doing the same. That's what this country is about. (And may I say, frankly, foreigners need to stop coming here and trying to make it over into what they have left behind.)

Contrary to popular myth, self-serving types did not build this country. Community and cooperation were what kept people alive here in the early days, and they damn well knew it'! "The commons" was vital to survival here. No one would have lived, and nothing would have been built without it. Do these "me, me, me" types think that barns were built by one guy? It's ludicrous nonsense, promoted by puffed-up nincompoops who need to go and learn some real history instead of the lame propaganda that passes for it today. We can lie to ourselves but we can't cheat reality: the reality is, this country could not have been built the way people think it was, on "me-ism". That is a malevolent fairy tale.

I couldn't agree more with what you wrote in your op, and it was very well said.


I like what these Irish guys had to say about it, they "get it"...

For your Dad and your thought

There are laws against institutional or systemic bias.

Yet the statement is constantly made that systemic racism exists. So then what is being done about it? Where are the black and PoC lawyers bringing the cases challenging this institutionally racist behavior? As long as the phenomenon of institutional racism exists, the cases need to keep coming. That is how wrongs are righted under our system of government.

Why is it suddenly now up to white people to be all introspective and soul-seaarching in order to make progress in civil rights, when it has never been done that way before and there's no reason to expect that it would make any difference?

PoC keep asking why whites are not engaging in the race discussions. It isn't hard to figure out: 1) it's being framed in a very hostile, aggressive manner on premises that most whites disagree with, carry on doing that but don't expect a response; and 2) whites are being told they aren't needed, their past assistance in the effort counts for nothing, and to shut up and keep out of the way, so they are saying to themselves "fine, no problem" and they are doing just that. Who wouldn't?

Don't expect a different response until the message is different.

Additionally, as was noted in the article, white people don't think about race 1/10 as much as PoC do, in fact hardly at all. Yes, that's because they don't have to, but saying that ignores the fact of it. It isn't big on their list of issues. Now. The intersecting point between issues of all races is classism which includes (in addition to economic justice which is serious for all races) similar mistreatment of poor whites by some of the same institutions in the same ways (maybe not to the same numerical degree). That is where the bridge exists, classism. If PoC don't want to go there, fine. But don't expect motivation where none exists. Simply lamenting the fact that it doesn't exist and pointing more fingers, and making up off-base reasons for it is just an exercise in make believe.

PoC are always saying that white people shouldn't speak for them, and that is entirely reasonable. But then those same PoC, like the OP writer, turn right around and assume the right to speak for white people, and don't notice or don't care that they're engaging in another double standard. Comments like whites are afraid, they feel guilty, they feel reverse-oppressed, blah, blah, blah, are all this kind of thing... and it goes on constantly. Ascribing motives to other people on the other side of your argument is dishonest in a basic way. Don't expect that convo to go anywhere either.

There is a principle in law called "clean hands" which means that when a person comes to the law to seek justice, they shouldn't be guilty of wrongdoing themselves. "Clean hands" is what is entirely missing from the discussion of race as it is usually framed today, and that's what has changed since the 1960's, and that is a great deal of the problem.

It is not about justice inclusively for all anymore as in the 1960's, it is about self-serving deliberately excluding all but oneself and one's group regardless of collateral injustice to oppressed others. You can argue about how righteous that is all you want, but it won't motivate people to join your cause (not more than a small number anyway).

I also don't feel any need to address the wrongs of the past. It's the wrongs of today that matter. Just as adults can't go back and get what they feel they missed in childhood, so it is just as unrealistic to bring up wrongs that were done 200, 300, or 400 years ago. Those people are gone, and only a small percentage engaged in slavery anyway (as my ancestors did not). Plus, the people who were wronged by it are dead, not those living today. What we can do today is have a level playing field and an effective safety net, with the same access to everyone. Some may disagree, but that is my point of view and a lot of whites agree with me. As a matter of fact, it's what's known as the American way, because it's what our system of government is intended to be. I'm just trying to be informative as a white person on this issue, I've been told that is what's wanted, so we'll see if that's true.

The best car ever made in my book

was the 1983 Datsun 280ZX Turbo 2+2 T-top automatic, the last year of the original body type, which was beautiful, fast, fun to drive, tough, and surprisingly practical.

I bought mine new, white with red leather and suede interior, and had it for 28 years. I had it rebuilt once and would've done it again if I could've afforded it.

No new car is nearly that cool, or ever will be again. I don't like the new Z's though, or any of the rounded-looking new models. I don't see the point of an intentionally ugly car, and I really hate the ones with almost no visibility out the rear window, as most seem to be now.

Pentecostal churches are the most right wing.

Because those are the churches where the right wing political framework was originally set up as a base of operations (also the pentecostal doctrine provides a perfect "Trojan horse" vehicle for propagandizing people). It fanned out from there, with people from the pentecostal churches deliberately infiltrating the non-pentecostal churches of all denominations including Catholic (only they use the term "charismatic", same thing).

Pentecostals call non-pentecostal churches "dead", so look for a nice dead church, with no "Holy Spirit" activity: no speaking in tongues, etc. The very traditional churches like the Brethren for instance or Church of the Nazarene are usually good bets. Forget the big churches, they're always Pentecostal or influenced by them. Some of the traditional Lutheran ones are often good too, it just depends on where you are. Call up the pastor and ask if it's a "spirit filled" congregation. If they say yes, it's probably very right wing. The right wing/pentecostal churches are also, unsurprisingly, very anti-rational -- they're into mysticism, not reason.

Hope you find a good one.

p.s. If interested in the background of all this since @1980 when its current form got underway, check out the writing of Frank Schaeffer Jr., for one. His father, Francis Schaeffer was the main "philosopher" of the right-wing church movement, and foundational writer of its ideology. Frank Jr. realized how wrong it was as an adult and defected, and knows quite a bit about it, naturally, to write about. His autobiography is titled Crazy for God: How I Grew Up As One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back (2007). Don't know if he still does, but he used to write essays sometimes for HuffPo too.