And no religion, too

More good news:

President Obama plans to sign an executive order on Monday that protects gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees from discrimination by companies that do federal government work, fulfilling a promise to a crucial Democratic constituency, White House officials said on Friday. But the directive will not exempt religious groups, as many of them had sought.

It's that last bit in bold that's the super good news. I am so sick of religious gits attacking gay people and using their god for cover. God wants them to be cruel to gay and transgender people. It's their duty.

Screw your duty. You're just hateful loons. Kudos to Obama for not letting contractors discriminate against gays by using a religious back-door. Let's get rid of all those back doors. Hate is hate. And if your religion tells you to hate gays and transgender people, your religion is scum.

Ominous news tidbit

The Obama administration is advising local police not to disclose details about surveillance technology they are using to sweep up basic cellphone data from entire neighborhoods.

Nothing to see here. Move along. 

(No link; it's too depressing. What country is this, again?)

Skin in the game

It's disheartening that for the most part, the only people who fight discrimination are those with skin in the game. I've got two examples for you. Here's the first:

The city's historic settlement of a long-running case alleging discrimination in FDNY hiring practices will pay $98 million in back pay and benefits to minority firefighter hopefuls. 

The settlement represents the latest decision by Mayor de Blasio to change course and end a legal controversy stemming from the Bloomberg administration. 

It's great that this finally happened. But a racist mayor had to be replaced by a white guy with an African-American wife and children of color before this could happen. Skin in the game. It's not surprising that de Blasio gets it. I'm sure his son was frisked once or twice by the police. After all, he's not white.

 

And then there's this

At a White House ceremony, President Obama bestowed the Medal of Honor on the soldiers - most of them Jewish, black or Hispanic — including Pfc. Leonard Kravitz, of Brooklyn, an uncle of Grammy-winner Lenny Kravitz.

A government review concluded the soldiers — including another New Yorker, Sgt. Alfred Nietzel of Queens — were denied Medal of Honor years ago because of bias.

No white president ever took care of this oversight. But our African-American president righted the ship at the first opportunity. That it happened is great. But in both of these instances, it's easy to see the operative principle: unless they have skin in the game, they don't care. 

This makes me sick. Are people so damn craven that they're incapable of feeling empathy for anyone who doesn't look like them? Apparently the answer is yes.

Obama's worst nightmare

I couldn't help but laugh when I saw this:

Two Norwegian lawmakers say they have jointly nominated former NSA contractor Edward Snowden for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize.

Wouldn't that be the perfect irony? Both Obama and Snowden getting the Nobel Peace Prize? Of course, if Snowden won the prize, it would be the case that he actually, you know, did something to earn it. Obama, on the other hand, "earned" the prize by making speeches that he never followed up on. Which only adds to the deliciousness of the juxtaposition.

Malala's humble statement

Over at Raw Story, I learn that Malala Yousafzai said this:

In my opinion I have not done that much to win the Nobel Peace Prize,” she said.

I guess she hasn't heard about Obama.

Be still, my heart!

You wake up, you think it's going to be just another ho-hum day, and suddenly the news hits you in the head.

Popes John Paul II and John XXIII will be declared saints on April 27, 2014. 

Could anything be more exciting? Doubtful.

Francis had announced in July he would canonize two of the 20th century's most influential popes together, approving a miracle attributed to John Paul's intercession and bending Vatican rules by deciding that John XXIII didn't need one. 

Meh, miracles and rules. Who needs them? We've got saints to make.

John Paul made Jorge Mario Bergoglio — the current Pope Francis — a cardinal. Francis' immense popular appeal has also been likened to that of John XXIII, dubbed the "good pope." 

I guess the "good pope" monicker was meant to distinguish him from the many bad popes, such as (to choose a contemporary example) Benedict the Nazi. It makes me wonder what Obama would do if he could make saints of previous presidents. Who would he choose? I figure George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Who do you think Obama would anoint with the magic Sainting Scepter?

The real story is hidden behind a curtain

Well before Assad's use of chemical weapons, the Obama administration was looking for a reason to attack Syria. I'm sure they viewed Assad's slow collapse with trepidation, fearing that his formidable weapons would fall into the hands of "radicals", who would use them to attack Israel. I'll bet many on Obama's team cheered when the chemical attacks were launched. They wanted a reason to strike, and now they think they've got it.

That's why the war-mongering arguments we hear from Kerry and Obama sound ridiculous. It's because they are ridiculous. But they can't admit they wanted to destroy Assad's military capability and weaponry all along.

The most transparent administration ever is hiding its real intentions and goals. If this attack occurs, it could easily escalate into World War III.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: let's give Utah to the Israelis. After all, no one's using it. Once the entire population of Israel moves to Provost, the mid-East will settle down nicely. And there are lots of large, silly cathedrals there that the Israelis can use for temples. It's a win-win thing.

This should be interesting

Let's see. First Obama refuses to meet with Putin because Russia is harboring Edward Snowden. And now this:

MOSCOW — Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights activists said Tuesday they have been invited to meet with President Barack Obama on the sidelines of this week's Group of 20 summit in Russia. 

What will Putin do? It's all so junior high, so tit-for-tat, when you get right down to it. Will Putin view Obama's meeting with gay reps as "propaganda" and arrest him? That would be fun. On the other hand, will Putin punish the gay reps afterward? I wouldn't like to see that happen.

But seriously, the whole thing is like a cartoon. The Russian president with a fixation on personal manliness goes after the gays. And the American president who promised the most transparent administration in history goes after whistleblowers with demonic vengeance. (And after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, tries to start World War III -- to prove his manliness.)

These are cartoon times, for sure.

German writer cries out against American surveillance

I wasn't surprised to find a story in SpiegelOnline (Der Spiegel's web publication) titled: "Obama's Soft Totalitarianism: Europe Must Protect Itself from America". Indeed. It's a startling opinion piece and I simply must excerpt a whole bunch of it here. (Bolding is mine):

On Tuesday, the head of the largest and most all-encompassing surveillance system ever invented is coming for a visit. If Barack Obama is our friend, then we really don't need to be terribly worried about our enemies.

German citizens should be able to expect that their government will protect them from spying by foreign governments. But the German interior minister says instead: "We are grateful for the excellent cooperation with US secret services." Friedrich didn't even try to cover up his own incompetence on the surveillance issue. "Everything we know about it, we have learned from the media," he said. The head of the country's domestic intelligence agency, Hans-Georg Maassen, was not any more enlightened. "I didn't know anything about it," he said. And Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger was also apparently in the dark. "These reports are extremely unsettling," she said.

With all due respect: These are the people who are supposed to be protecting our rights? If it wasn't so frightening, it would be absurd.

Friedrich's quote from the weekend was particularly quaint: "I have no reason to doubt that the US respects rights and the law." Yet in a way, he is right. The problem is not the violation of certain laws. Rather, in the US the laws themselves are the problem. The NSA, in fact, didn't even overreach its own authority when it sucked up 97 billion pieces of data in one single 30-day period last March. Rather, it was acting on the orders of the entire US government, including the executive, legislative and judicial branches, the Democrats, the Republicans, the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Supreme Court. They are all in favor. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, merely shrugged her shoulders and said: "It's legal."

What, exactly, is the purpose of the National Security Agency? Security, as its name might suggest? No matter in what system or to what purpose: A monitored human being is not a free human being. And every state that systematically contravenes human rights, even in the alleged service of security, is acting criminally.

Those who believed that drone attacks in Pakistan or the camp at Guantanamo were merely regrettable events at the end of the world should stop to reflect. Those who still believed that the torture at Abu Ghraib or that the waterboarding in CIA prisons had nothing to do with them, are now changing their views. Those who thought that we are on the good side and that it is others who are stomping all over human rights are now opening their eyes. A regime is ruling in the United States today that acts in totalitarian ways when it comes to its claim to total control. Soft totalitarianism is still totalitarianism. 

A simpler approach would be to just force American firms to respect European laws. The European Commission has the ability to do that. The draft for a new data privacy directive has already been presented. It just has to be implemented. Once that happens, American secret services might still be able to walk all over European law, but if US Internet giants like Google, Apple, Microsoft and Facebook want to continue making money off of a half-billion Europeans, then they will have to abide by our laws. Under the new law, companies caught passing on data in ways not permitted are forced to pay fines. You can be sure that these companies would in turn apply pressure to their own government. The proposal envisions setting that fine at 2 percent of a company's worldwide revenues. 

That's a lot of money -- and also a language that America understands. 

Sanctions against America for its criminal surveillance policies and laws? Sounds exactly right to me. (And Dianne Feinstein is an un-American pig. This is nothing new; she has always been a pig.)

Sounds like this won't be something that Obama can sweep under the rug. Good.

Obama's schizophrenic remarks

I was going to write about the lack of sincerity in Obama's recent speeches, but Gaius Publius did it for me.

God bless Aaron Swartz

This is important. There is now a new way to blow the whistle on evildoers -- despite president Obama's KGB-style war on whistleblowers. Now you can report "sensitive" information about the overlords in complete safety. No one will ever be able to track it back to you.

And best of all, Aaron Swartz -- the activist who was coerced into suicide by the US government -- invented the way to do this. Go, Aaron!

Hat tip: Ed Brayton.

Exceptional U.S. kills children for peace

A UN committee has expressed "alarm" over reports that hundreds of children have been killed by US military forces in Afghanistan in the past five years.

This is how our Nobel Peace Prize-winning, drone-killer president stays busy when he's not giving away the farm.

In case you thought Obama was rational

I'll bet you thought Obama would ease the ban on stem cell research. Silly you. When the bill came to him, he vetoed it. After all, we don't want anyone getting well through much-needed research.

Via digby:

The president said: "We must remember that embryonic stem cells come from human embryos that are destroyed for their cells. Each of these human embryos is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value. We see that value in the children who are with us today."

"These boys and girls are not spare parts," said the President.

No, what they are is garbage, given the veto. Because that's what we do with these embryos if they aren't used for research. They're tossed in the garbage.

The president is not rational. I never thought he was.

Dimwit opens mouth. Words fall out.

Bill Donohue, NYC's resident Catholic loon, taking a page from Laurence O'Donnell, said:

"[B]ecause Obama embraces the gay agenda, he should not swear on the Bible. The point is not without merit. Given Obama’s ideology, perhaps it would make more sense for him to swear on Das Kapital."

It's a fun idea. Obviously the bible is a cesspool, so let's get rid of it. What book do you think Obama should use when being sworn in as president?

My suggestion is "Catch-22".

Still irritated

In an updated NYT/AP story about the anti-gay pastor stepping down, there's a lot that's irritating. For instance, these were "Reverend" Louie's blessed remarks when he bowed out:

The Rev. Louie Giglio of Passion City Church in Atlanta said in a statement he withdrew because it was likely that the "prayer I would offer will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration." 

"Their agenda." How sweet. He feels a pressing need to attack gays, even in his withdrawal statement. Way to go, Louie. We can see you're a true man of god.

And then there's the aggravating statement from the White House:

"We were not aware of Pastor Giglio's past comments at the time of his selection and they don't reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this inaugural," Whisenant said in a statement. 

Indeed. So what was the excuse at the first inauguration? Celebrating "the strength and diversity of our country" wasn't important at that time?

Obama faced a similar uproar in 2009, when he chose prominent pastor Rick Warren to give the inaugural benediction as an olive branch to evangelicals, who overwhelmingly vote Republican. Warren had compared gay relationships to incest and pedophilia. He had also urged congregants at his Saddleback Church in California to support the Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage on the 2008 state ballot. 

Twits.

Krugman's not happy today

[Obama] may say that he absolutely, positively won’t negotiate over the ceiling — but nothing in his past behavior makes that believable.

Indeed. The president is a wimp. He'll probably give 50 years of progress away because he can't stand firm. It's amazing and disheartening.

PS: I cut several adverbs out of this post and sent them over to Artichoke Annie. Dog knows what she'll do with them.

Is Obama waking up?

Krugman seems to think so. I hope this isn't like when Lucy holds the football for Charlie Brown.

Why cheering for Obama is obscene

I couldn't agree more with Chris Floyd's article, "Is This Child Dead Enough for You?" Everyone should read it. Obama isn't admirable; he isn't even decent. He is the drone-killing president, a nightmare from hell. Yes, he is less evil than the other guy. But that's hardly an accolade.

DUI Americans and the election

DUI (Distracted, Undisciplined, Ignorant) Americans have been handed their candidate slate for the upcoming election. Obama/Biden v. Romney/Ryan. It will be interesting to see which party DUI Americans vote for.

Will it be the evil, empty suit and his incoherent financial henchman? Or will DUI Americans stick with their Nobel Prize-winning drone-killer president? The choice is stark.

For some time, I've been saying that we reached the tipping point and danced past it. Americans are now too ignorant to vote, essentially. Will they vote for Romney/Ryan, who will destroy the New Deal and steal America's money while paying little or no attention to the overwhelming problems facing humanity (climate change, almost-empty aquifers, income inequality, timid journalism, etc.)?

Or will they stick with Obama and face four more years where he gives the farm away without getting a thing in return? Let's not forget that he's committed to cutting one trillion dollars from the federal budget in the coming years. That will mean less money for local governments in a time of great financial crisis: cuts in policing, trash collection, fire-fighting, health benefits, etc.

What will DUI Americans do at this critical juncture in time? I think it hardly matters. We've passed the tipping point and we're tumbling downhill at a breakneck pace -- and this will continue no matter who's elected. This is quite a country we've got here.

Lordy

Even as the issue of guns shifts to the forefront of the presidential campaign, the White House and the Senate's top Democrat made it clear Thursday that new gun legislation will not be on the political agenda this year. Instead, President Barack Obama intends to focus on other ways to combat gun violence — a position not unlike that of his rival, Mitt Romney.

Craven. Both of them.

Update: I see this morning's NYT editorial agrees with my assessment.