subscription in protest.

Really, seriously.

Reminds me of kids on a school yard.

So sayeth commondreams.com. Amen.

Why not? In 1938 Time named Adolf Hitler man of the year, named Josef Stalin for 1939 AND 1942, Nikita Khruschev in 1957, Ayatollah Khomeni in 1979 and his co-conspirator Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1983 (he shared the award in 1983 with Yuri Andropov). Given Time's history of naming destructive anti-Americans as man of the year in the past, Snowden would fit in nicely.

your agenda quite clearly.

I did not ever suggest that Time magazine supports "America haters". The "Man of the Year" award is based on the person who has the most impact, not on who is most popular or likeable. I was simply pointing out that since Time has in the past named people whose agenda included the destruction of the United States, it would not be inappropriate to name another one.

influential in the world. Obviously there were years in which Hitler was the single most influential person that year. No doubt there were years in which Stalin was the single most influential person that year. Pope Francis and Edward Snowden both have quite likely during the past year influenced the global public debate of ideas the most of anyone in the world. If liberal western democracy does survive- it will owe a great debt of gratitude to Edward Snowden who for whatever reason and whatever motive forced open a debate that would have been ignored if he had not done what had done.

It never ceases to amaze me how those with Obama Derangement Syndrome are willing to defend anything and anyone, including a man who committed treason and put the lives of millions of Americans at risk just for kicks, so long as they can use it to criticize their own President. Edward Snowden belongs in front of a firing squad, and defending him is little better.

a firing squad. I have defended President Obama on most things and have no interest in any frivolous attacks.- But I join such traitors as Jimmy Carter, former Vice President Al Gore former Ambassador Joe Wilson and a whole slew of former CIA and NSA agents in sounding the alarm about this growing threat to our freedom. I don't even consider this matter an issue of partisan politics. It is an issue of patriotism and an issue of defending liberty. However there is no doubt that 90% of those on this site who are disparaging those who have exposed the gargantuan surveillance state would be singing the praises of Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald if there was a Republican in the White House - This on only shows that their so-called liberalism is as fake and phony as their patriotism.

"It is not excessive to believe this growing, gargantuan, secret complex now represents the greatest threat to our freedom in the new twenty-first century." - former U.S. Senator Gary Hart




[div class="excerpt"The NSA's metastasised intelligence-industrial complex is ripe for abuse

Where oversight and accountability have failed, Snowden's leaks have opened up a vital public debate on our rights and privacy

by Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 23 June 2013 13.00 BST


Let's be absolutely clear about the news that the NSA collects massive amounts of information on US citizens – from emails, to telephone calls, to videos, under the Prism program and other Fisa court orders: this story has nothing to do with Edward Snowden. As interesting as his flight to Hong Kong might be, the pole-dancing girlfriend, and interviews from undisclosed locations, his fate is just a sideshow to the essential issues of national security versus constitutional guarantees of privacy, which his disclosures have surfaced in sharp relief.

Snowden will be hunted relentlessly and, when finally found, with glee, brought back to the US in handcuffs and severely punished. (If Private Bradley Manning's obscene conditions while incarcerated are any indication, it won't be pleasant for Snowden either, even while awaiting trial.) Snowden has already been the object of scorn and derision from the Washington establishment and mainstream media, but, once again, the focus is misplaced on the transiently shiny object. The relevant issue should be: what exactly is the US government doing in the people's name to "keep us safe" from terrorists?

We are now dealing with a vast intelligence-industrial complex that is largely unaccountable to its citizens. This alarming, unchecked growth of the intelligence sector and the increasingly heavy reliance on subcontractors to carry out core intelligence tasks – now estimated to account for approximately 60% of the intelligence budget – have intensified since the 9/11 attacks and what was, arguably, our regrettable over-reaction to them.

Today, the intelligence sector is so immense that no one person can manage, or even comprehend, its reach. When an operation in the field goes south, who would we prefer to try and correct the damage: a government employee whose loyalty belongs to his country (despite a modest salary), or the subcontractor who wants to ensure that his much fatter paycheck keeps coming? - Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/23/nsa-intelligence-industrial-complex-abuse

LOL you aren't standing up for "western democracy". You're standing up for the idea that even if a black man achieves more in the office of the President of the United States than any of his predecessors, he must be opposed and demonized no matter what for the simple reason that if we actually acknowledge that a person with black skin is capable of being the transcendant figure of his generation we must reject any actual progress that he accomplishes lest black Americans get the idea that "all men are created equal", as a famous damned commie liberal said about 237 and a half years ago.

Get a f*cking clue if it's possible. The NSA is no more "threatening our democracy" than is EZ Pass. What IS threatening our democracy are people who are willing to oppose and obstruct ANY progress, no matter how many people who aren't members of the 1% it might actually HELP, just because they don't want someone who they still, 150 years after the lost a war on the subject, consider to be a piece of property rather than a human being to put them to shame with his wisdom, his intelligence, his compassion, and his expertise in dealing with the problems that are generally caused by people like you in the first place.

HE'S BLACK. HE WON. TWICE. GET THE F*CK OVER IT ALREADY.

and usually defend him on most things now, In fact I made a sizeable donation to his campaign in late 2007 well before the primary season even began and earnestly supported him during the 2008 primaries long before he had the nomination locked up.

Reality really sucks, doesn't it?

him of course in 2012. On most issues I support him currently. I donated both time and money during all of his races. If these NSA revelations had come out during a Republican Administration I would have even been more vehement in joining former President Carter, former Vice President Al Gore and the entire international human rights community in calling for more restraints.

I totally agree. People like that one who can't see past the color of the President's skin have no place in a rational discussion, and when they try to call themselves "patriots" while devoting their energies to destroying everything this nation stands for, that only makes it worse. What next, a posthumous pardon for the Rosenbergs? Should we put Benedict Arnold on Mount Rushmore?

I actually did have almost front row seats at the first inauguration. I was on the front lawn in the seating.

I'm glad Obama is President and not a Republican. And what Snowden did was very important.

"Obama Derangement Syndrome," "belongs in front of a firing squad," accusing posters here of only possibly having racist motives, "did it just for kicks." What other tactics you got? You want to lecture me about reality? I'll let you in on a clue: Not everything is about Barack Obama.

you are a racist. Criticism is like a RACISM METER. You're pegging the needle over here. Stop it!

As laid out in the Fourth Amendment. Turning it into a racist issue does nothing to help your argument. It's completely off the subject.

Obama presides over an NSA that is spying, wholesale, on Americans, and just about every other human being on the planet. GET OVER IT. He did it. He continues to defend it, and he's culpable.

Is it okay to spy on Americans, and everyone else, simply because you're black? I think not.

Excuse me, but we are Democrats. We are not going to follow, blindly, anyone who is sending our rights over a freaking cliff. Snowden let us know that we, and just about everyone else on the planet, was being spied on by our government. I think he deserves a medal for that. He surely didn't commit treason. Quite the opposite, in fact--he stook up for liberty and blew the whistle on those who were violating our rights.

If those rights mean nothing to you, you go ahead and stand up for those who are quite willing to take them away from you. I, for one, will stand for Snowden.

I think the Bill O'Reilly show has a missing script writer.

Obviously Snowden did not literally sit down one day and say "How can I destroy the United States of America", but he DID sit down one day and say "How can I cause as much harm to the interests of the United States of America as possible". There is absolutely nothing admirable about a traitor who betrayed his own nation's interests just to get 15 minutes of fame and a nice cozy apartment in the former Soviet Union.

Snowden provided documents that finally creates standing to challenge the worst abuses under the Patriot Act.

The workings of a court which is permitted to authorize the secret collection of data, carries out its proceedings in secret, and effectively answers to no one, is an abomination which should be exposed to the light of day. Doing so represents not the destruction of America, but standing up for its ideals.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether it was a good thing to do - but the charge that anyone who supports the disclosure of these documents hates America, or is a racist, is beyond ludicrous.

No one here is criticizing Obama because they're racist. They are criticizing him because he is presiding over, and defending, an agency that is spying, wholesale, on the American people. There is nothing that Snowden has said or done that would lead anyone to believe that he sat down one day and asked himself how he could hurt the United States. No evidence of that, except in your own mind. He's a whistleblower; deal with it.

Snowden uncovered a program that could and if allowed to continue probably will lead to a dictatorship in the US. I wouldn't want to say as yet whether or not Snowden is a hero, but he is one of several people who were involved in the NSA surveillance program and who tried to warn the American people about it.

Snowden is the first to present the evidence. Our opinion of Snowden is the litmus test of our loyalty to our Constitution.

Those who believe that Snowden did the right thing, believe in and value our Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers clause. Those who don't should find another country in which personal rights and privacy are not important and which breaking all the rules just because you have power and can is viewed as "the law."

One cannot claim to value the Constitution and condone the NSA's surveillance program. It's logically impossible. The two are completely incompatible.

With all due respect, it's hard to take seriously the statement: "Snowden uncovered a program that could and if allowed to continue probably will lead to a dictatorship in the US." Tell me, how does data gathering for the purpose of thwarting attempts by international terrorists to cause violence and mass killings in the United States, even if they do also happen to find out that you sent three texts about baseball during the month of September or some equally earth shattering information, equate to "dictatorship"? In my humble opinion, this is no more intrusive than the fact that I have to walk through a metal detector every time I enter a courthouse, or that my license plate is scanned every time I cross the George Washington bridge. Amazon.com and Facebook and for all we know this very site all know as much about your personal goings on as the NSA does. How are you affected in any way? How have you been prevented from doing anything you otherwise would do?

You know, we all tolerate - grumble, but tolerate nonetheless - the fact that our bodies are scanned and our personal belongings are examined before we can get on an airplane. We would prefer not to have to go through that, but we consider the goal of preventing the plane from being blown up or flown into a building worth the minor and transitory and ultimately harmless intrusion in our privacy. Why is the goal of preventing the country from being blown up less worthy of our cooperation?

As for the Constitution, it is the fundamental responsibility of the United States Goverment to "secure domestic tranquility" and to "provide for the common defence". In plain language, it is the Government's primary job to keep us safe. Believing that what Snowden did was proper or in any way in line with the Constitution is naive. In fact, to paraphrase you, one cannot claim to value the Constitution and condone anything that Mr. Snowden has done. The Constitution provides that treason consists of "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Exposing the covert intelligence activities of this government for all the world to see, apparently in coordination with the Russian Government, may not qualify as "levying war" against us, but it is square on target of the other two. IF there was illegal activity going on, there were other methods for Mr. Snowden to get his concerns heard. He had superiors in his company to report to, or he could even have gone to his Senator or even the cop in the local precinct and told them what was going on without letting the Chinese, the Syrians, Al Qaeda, the Russians, the North Koreans and every other faction that hates the United States get their hands on classified and sensitive material that could affect our interests across the globe.

(edited for grammar)

probable cause. The NSA should formally get subpoenas before obtaining lists of our e-mails or reading our mail. What it is doing in sucking up vast amounts of data is very different from the case in the late 70s in which a pen register was obtained in a very specific case in which there was reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the person to whom the pen register belonged.

Sweeping up vast numbers of pen registers impinges on Americans' specifically guaranteed constitutional right to freedom of association, as well as to freedoms of religion and speech.

NSA could obtain limited information on specific targets of investigation for terrorism. They are now collecting such vast amounts of data that they missed the Boston Marathon bombers.

In fact, if the NSA is merely attempting to protect Americans against terrorists, why in the world did it place data about Angela Merkel's personal phone paid for by her political party under surveillance? Why did it put activities of Belgians under surveillance?

The claimed purposes of the NSA's surveillance activities are inconsistent with the some of the targets of their surveillance.

Our Constitution provided for a separation of powers by three branches of government. The NSA is part of the executive branch. It is acquiring personal information (pen registers) about members of the other branches (Congress and the Courts) and thus obtaining the ability to blackmail or frighten and thus control the members of the other two branches. If this situation is not yet reality, it will become reality in a crisis or when a person becomes president who is willing to abuse power.

And so, the NSA's surveillance is inconsistent with our Constitution and must be brought under control if we are to continue to have constitutional government.

We have no First Amendment right to free speech or freedom of the press if the NSA is looking over our shoulders, possibly reading some or all of our e-mails.

We have always faced dangers to our security. We have never needed surveillance of the kind the NSA is now practicing to provide that security. What we need is solidarity and a sense of being one nation with equal rights and opportunity. That is what will make us united and secure.

The NSA program is likely to lead to disunity and to increase the disparity of opportunity in our country. It must be ended. Surveillance can be used but in a very measured way and only when absolutely justified and needed for the individual situation.

They have what amounts to a dossier on every American. Is that okay with you?

You really, really need to inform yourself about this crap that Snowden exposed intelligence "in coordination with the Russian Government." It has been debunked. Everything that he exposed was carefully vetted so as not to injure our interests, except the fact that the NSA is slurping up information on you, me and everyone else on the planet, and what's worse, they are storing it!

That fact, right there, ought to give you pause. They have lied to the American people, and to the world. They have taken a simple word, like "collecting" and changed the very definition of it, to hide the fact that they are storing information on you and me, and everyone else. They have lied to our Congress. They are sharing information that they gathered, without a warrant, with other law enforcement agencies.

This means that they are already using information that they've gathered on Americans, against them. Not to impede terrorism, but to lock them up; throwing away their due process rights, in the meantime. Is that okay with you?

These are not the mechanisms of democracy and justice. These are the mechanisms of tyranny, and if you can't see that, you need to seriously question your own motives. Whose side are you on?

another "The Constitution is just a piece of paper, recycle it and I could use it to wipe my butt" poster on DU.

Yep, it's getting old.

You're the one defending treason. How is it that Right Wing Nut Jobs always try to talk about the Constitution, yet not ONE of you appears to have ever read it? And I remind you that it was War Criminal George W. Bush who was the one who said "Don't bother me with the Constitution. It's just a Goddamned piece of paper."

Happy wiping.

Oh wait, never mind

but I see you have already been slapped around quite a bit. No sense in my jumping on, no one would see the mark it left anyway.

Come on now, do you really equate Snowden to Hitler or Stalin? Really? How many thousands of people has he ordered to their deaths? Geeze! Tone down the rhetoric so it at least has a passing resemblance to reality, OK?

I dont understand how someone claiming to be a DEmocrat can disparage whistle-blowers in favor of authoritarian rule. Or is this part of The Third Way?

Whose side are you on in this class war?

Or die. Your choice.

Amy Goodman called Edward Snowden a "patriot". But disregard. Pay no attention to her. Whoever she is. In fact I heard she said something that was unflattering about President Obama once. I don't know about you but I get all my information from anonymous posters on DU.

some live in a denial world where they want so badly there authoritarian daddies to protect them. Or they think that they will be reworded for their loyalty to the uber-lords.

What is amazing is that some here will bad mouth Republicans and conservatives but when Pres Obama appoints them, suddenly they are golden. The same spy programs and the same spy leaders that were in place during the hated Bush years, are still in place under Pres Obama. But now, to some, it's ok. These lost souls are typical authoritarians. Just like on the school yard, they will follow the current bully.

This is what should have happened. And whether I were Catholic or not, I think I'd agree. Score one for "the least of these"!!!!!

I would have put the pope second, but it's all good (he got runner up).

Starship Cmdr. Alexander was the obvious choice, it's a crime he didn't win.

Actually it's not really. His picture should be in the dictionary, next to High Crimes. That not being the case, is in itself is a misnomer.

And yet so far.

I doubt if Snowden cares a whole lot about who the Time Warner corporation chooses as their person of the year. For that matter I doubt if the Pope gives a shit either.

If they were really interested in choosing someone that's had the most impact on the world they should've picked the Koch bros. But then they would've had to explain why and that would mean honest journalism and you're not going to get any of that out of Time Warner, CNN, etc...

on a man that brought daylight to a dark America. I understand the term 'ignorance is bliss' and it fits you (and other so called 'progressives') to a 't'. Edward Snowden deserves the Medal of Freedom and the Nobel Peace Prize.
Obama, Clapper and Alexander lie and you apparently defend that.

You really think he did all he did to become Time's Person of the Year?

Maybe he's perfectly happy with being Guardian Person of the Year. Maybe he doesn't give a shit.

Good try Capt. Oblivious.

I'm guessing poor widdle you is disappointed Snowjob didn't get the nod. BTW Pres Obama has already gotten it twice, cupcake.

Many Presidents win it twice - they actually effect world events. How do you figure snowden (BTW - I just saw on another site that Greenwald is trashing the pick also) deserves it more?

another poster who was mocking the non-snowden pick - if I was wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. But I'm not wrong.

You would have not been incorrect.

You know who else won the award twice?

Josef Stalin.

Hitler

"OMG, the Pope is actually sending the same message as Jesus. Can't somebody make him STFU?"

- Evang-o-Republicons, Inc. (R)

Brainpans, bedpans, with that bunch there's really not much difference.

Love your exploding head graphic!

Last edited Wed Dec 11, 2013, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

I think it should have been Edward Snowden. I am not saying I agree with him, but he affected the world, for the good or the bad, most. Snowden's actions threw international relations for a loop. Leaders of countries did not meet as a result of his actions. The leader of Brazil cancelled her trip to the United States after learning about the spying scandal. Relations between countries became at least a little tense. President Obama cancelled a meeting with Russian President Putin. Their later meeting was probably much worse than it would have been if Snowden was not being allowed to stay in Russia. Snowden's actions caused at least a mini rift between the United State and the leader of Germany.

I think Time Magazine would have taken a risk by naming Edward Snowden as the person of the year in that some people would have had a problem with someone who arguably endangered American national Security being put on the cover of the magazine and named person of the year. However, it seems Edward Snowden most closely matched the criteria for person of the year. Whether or not you agree with his actions he had a major impact on just about the entire world.

Considering that Time has previously named Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin (twice), Nikita Khruschev, Ayatolla Khomeni and Yuri Andropov as man of the year, naming one more person determined to attack and cause harm to the United States wouldn't be that big a surprise.

Nixon - 1971

Nixon and Kissinger - 1972

Reagan - 1980

Both George Bushes - 1990 - the double whammy

Newt Gingrich - 1995

W again in 2000 and 2004

I didn't really want to get into those nominations because any time it's pointed out that both Reagan and Bush Sr. actually committed treason against the United States and that Bush Jr. is a convicted war criminal who's afraid to go to half the countries in the world for fear of arrest the conservatives get a little testy LOL. But I agree.

Just to clarify, though, the 1990 award was to Bush Sr. alone. In 1990 all Junior was doing was running the Texas Rangers into the ground. Also, Reagan won a second time in 1983, though he had to share that one with that other lover of freedom and liberty, Yuri Andropov.

The only 'harm' Edward Snowden did was to this president's reputation for claiming/promising/lying about the 'most transparent government ever' and then doubles down on Bush's corrupt practices (droning, dossier collecting, indefinite detention, Guantanamo Bay, assassinating U.S. citizenry (with NO due process), colluding with the Telco's to invade your privacy etc etc.).
I'm so sick and tired of 'democrat' cheerleaders trying to defend the indefensible. You sound exactly like Dubya's Dummies.

Hahaha.... The Right Wing ignorance never ceases to amaze. This IS the most transparent government since at least 1832, and far from "doubling down" on the Bush Administration's crimes, THIS Administration has (a) ENDED the illegal torture of detainees (b) ENDED the practice of international rendition (c) NOT tapped the phone calls of American citizens, (d) obtained WARRANTS for every piece of information they have gathered, and, though I know this won't matter to someone like you - KEPT AMERICAN SOIL SAFE. There is NOTHING this administration has done that comes within a mile of the illegality and corruption of the Bush Administration. Just as people like you take a moving and inspiring speech by the President of the United States commemorating the death of a legendary world leader and ignore it in favor of arguing all day about shaking hands with a world leader or making up complete lies about a "selfie" taken by the Dutch Prime Minister, this NSA "major scandal" is nothing more than Right Wingers creating more faux outrage to try to distract from their endless obstructionist bullsh*t. I know it doesn't matter to you, but I PREFER that my country not be bombed by international terrorists. I LIKE that we have an administration that actually GIVES a damn about keeping this nation safe instead of spending all its time trying to come up with justifications for starting a war that there was no justification for starting, even to the extent of letting three thousand Americans die on September 11 just so the attack could be blamed on a country that not only had nothing to do with the attack but that Bush KNEW had nothing to do with the attack.

With all the hatred you people have for everything this nation stands for, would you PLEASE secede already???????

Obama has turned down the most FOIA requests of any administration before him and he has the most transparent government? Who do you think you're kidding?

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/#r/segment/obama-foia-requests/512d498c2b8c2a7d6800015f

And, in case it has escaped your attention, some of the posters you are talking to, the ones that you're calling right wingers? They've been here much, much longer than you have, and if they were right wingers, they wouldn't have lasted very long.

This measure of a president is not only whether this country remains safe from attack, but whether our liberties remain safe from attack. Obama and his NSA has attacked those liberties from within. Then, they lied about it, and they've admitted lying about it.

And, by the way, it's not good form to call those who disagree with you right wingers.

causing security concerns, but it needed to be done. Our government LIED to us! They denied they were doing it. It is not ok for our government to lie to us and say it is for our own good.
I will say that they did not throw the pick away with the new Pope though. I hope he lives a long, long time!

The meetings cancelled - whether Obama's and Putin's and Brazil's were more for show than for anything else. The relationship with Brazil was cold before Snowden and stayed that way afterward. Obama/Kerry are trying to move Latin American relationships, but nothing has really changed. Only a real change in ACTIONS will likely change the overall relationships.

As to Russia, before Snowden, the Russian "reset" had already failed. You might note that since then Russia and the US worked very closely on the new Iran initiative and with getting chemical weapons out of Syria. What those two actions suggest is that - with Lavrov and Kerry - the two countries can work well together when the interests of the two countries are aligned.

However, as can be seen by the Middle East, the Ukraine and Moldovo, there is still a war for sphere of influence between them. This is NOT caused by the former head of the KGB being shocked the US spied on the world!

but this one deserves the "person of the year" because he states and hopefully believes what a lot of progressive believes and I commend him for speaking up against the "hateful" others of his religion.

Maybe next year!

and I'm not hoping for that!

It seems like it's always somebody high profile

years 2006 and 2011.

is a nice person and a very hard worker, why do you think he should be man of the year?

OK - that makes sense. I'm thinking this Pope shaking things up at the Vatican just may effect a few more people.

the work done by sanitation, nurses, teachers, cops, firefighters and all those who make my life easier because they do their jobs. I still think the Pope (I think there are over a billion Catholics) effects more people.

except, maybe in your neighborhood. It doesn't have to be good influence either. It can be bad influence. It has to be the most influence.

Some fascinating googling. One year, it was the American Soldier. Another time, it was the American Middle Class and The Protestor. They had the Whistleblower once and one year, it wasn't even a person, it was The Endangered Earth. I would have liked to have seen a Rosie the Riveter. She would have epitomized the revolutionary entrance of women entering the workforce during WWII that continued on afterward and changed the face of women in the labor pool and the emerging women's rights movement. There's an American Woman entry for 1975, but it's hardly more than an atta girl honoring the overachievers.

The Person of the Year was YOU. The magazine cover had a mirror on it.

By putting the Pope on the cover, you have 80 million (in the U.S.) potential customers who might be influenced to buy the magazine. I could trip over Edward Snowden and not know who he was without some written reference. It's pure economics.

Given the reforms in the Catholic Church, he was an obvious choice. Obama has won it twice. Putin is a homophobic neanderthal who has given refuge to a person who has stolen national secrets. Miley acts like she's on drugs. There's four names crossed off. Assad and Cruz are insane. Edith Winsor would have been the only other one I would have chosen.

of the Year.
On the Catholicism & Orthodox Christianity group.
No prize, though, unless they let me put another DUer on Ignore (as necessary)

public debate. However, Pope Francis has the potential of having an equal or even larger influence on public debate.

He could offer Snowden sanctuary in the Vatican.

All the "trickle downers" and those that want to stick vaginal probes into women and deny LGBT persons equality and respect will be furious.

Not that the Pope has come out as pro-choice or an advocate for LGBT equality but he has commented the Church cannot just be about these social issues.

He clearly recognizes that in the big scheme of things, the number of abortions and the number of LGBT persons worldwide, despite their "sins", are less widespread than poverty, hunger and general destitution of millions if not billions of people.

Excellent post, Swede Atlanta! Take THAT, trickle-downers! The Pope says you're more like just plain DOWNERS.

True this, as well:
Not that the Pope has come out as pro-choice or an advocate for LGBT equality but he has commented the Church cannot just be about these social issues.

And true, too, he hasn't done a thing about bringing women up to full equality as leaders in the Church, even while we're more than half of the population and talent pool worldwide. But with the present economic idiocy overruling everything since the rise of the Great Satan (I mean reagan), the horrendous imbalance in pay and financial standing, and the tiny but lopsidedly over-represented demographic of the rich getting richer while the ranks of the poor (MOST of them women - and women with children) explodes across the globe, seems to me the choice of this pope was inevitable. And I for one salute it. It's what I was expecting, frankly. Apologies and sympathies to Snowden and those who believe he's now been robbed. Well, maybe so. But overall, I just don't think he's a stronger choice than this Pope is.

How long has it been since we've had a Pope who seriously pushed on behalf of the poor, everywhere? JP2 didn't do it. Benny the Rat, with his fancy red Prada shoes CERTAINLY didn't do it. We didn't have enough time with JP1 to know where he would have stood on this, but Paul the Sixth was nowhere on it either. John the 23rd was FAR more enlightened, but a singleminded focus on the poor wasn't his sole concern, either. My husband, who isn't Catholic, just observed that this Pope is the first in a long time who's really urging Christians to act like CHRISTIANS (must be the Jesuit in him, maybe, since I think he's the first Jesuit to be elected Pope?). 'Cause if you say you follow Christ, you better be on the side of the poor. If you really and truly believe in Him and want to take it out all the way, as I understood His teachings, you were actually better off BEING poor. Remember what He told the rich young man? Paraphrasing - "sell all your worldly goods and follow Me." You fit through the eye of the celestial needle a lot easier that way.

This is another big Fuck-You to the one percent. And I like that A LOT. That's the Message of the Year. Of the New Century, if you ask me!

people. Hopefully, he keeps up with his current message.