

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A defiant photograph isn’t “news.” It’s a symbol, an image. Which is exactly what Donald Trump is.
I want to talk about symbols, images, and fascism.
Here is Trump’s mugshot from his arraignment yesterday in Georgia. It’s a look of defiance—which I’m sure he practiced repeatedly beforehand—intended for his supporters and his Republican base to feel defiant, too.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, this is Trump’s thousand-word response to Wednesday night’s Republican debate that he declined to attend.
He is as close to America has come to a fascist leader, who doesn’t want his followers to think or analyze. He wants them only to feel.
He timed his arraignment in Georgia for yesterday so that it—and this photo—would dominate Thursday’s and Friday’s news, rather than anything or anyone emerging from the debate.
But a defiant photograph isn’t “news.” It’s a symbol, an image. Which is exactly what Donald Trump is. He has no political platform, no specific policy agenda, no new ideas, and no plan for what he’ll do if he gets a second term.
He exists as a symbol for the anger, discontent, bigotry, and vindictiveness he has unleashed in America.
He is as close to America has come to a fascist leader, who doesn’t want his followers to think or analyze. He wants them only to feel.
Trump’s lackeys fell in line, expressing the defiance Trump projected in his mug shot.
On Newsmax, Sarah Palin called for civil war.
Fox’s Laura Ingraham told viewers that Trump’s arrest was proof that government officials are trying to “take them out.”
Fox’s Sean Hannity said the Department of Justice will target Republicans “until there’s nothing left of the party.”
All brainless bile.
Last Thursday, Trump complained that Fox News “purposely show the absolutely worst pictures of me, especially the big ‘orange’ one with my chin pulled way back. They think they are getting away with something, they’re not. Just like 2016 all over again… And then they want me to debate!”
Of course he’s angry. For the man who’s all symbol and image and without substance, a photo like the following conveys a brainless buffoon. It must drive him crazy.
But Trump is not a brainless buffoon. He’s a cunning marketer, a diabolic manipulator of the public, a sly producer of his own daily reality show. His lead in the GOP’s presidential sweepstakes has grown. He will almost certainly be the Republican candidate for president next year—even if he’s in jail.
How to debate a symbol? How to take on an image? How should Biden and the Democrats, and everyone who cares deeply about this country, respond to a demagogue who obsesses over what he projects rather than what he stands for? How to deal with a fascist who doesn’t want followers to think but only to feel rage?
Expose him for who he is.
Rumors that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin could be the next ambassador to Canada have been met with a resounding "No Siree," as Canadians this week have erupted in a chorus of (hilarious) outrage.
The backlash erupted after White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Wednesday refused to rule out the appointment when questioned directly.
"We have no additional ambassador nominations or announcements to make on that front," Spicer told reporters. "I'm sure at some point we will have, soon." Canadian Prime Minister Justice Trudeau is expected to meet with U.S. Donald Trump on Monday.
Several Canadian lawmakers swiftly responded with their own thoughts on the reports.
"Well that would show how little Steve Bannon and his pal @realDonaldTrump think of Canada," Member of Parliament (MP) Charlie Angus wrote on social media. Fellow New Democrat Nathan Cullen said Palin's appointment would be "tantamount to having to deal with two Donald Trumps," according to CBC News.
"She has never been very comfortable with the truth," Cullen told reporters on Thursday. "Couldn't recognize it most mornings if it jumped up and knocked her on the head."
In a searing op-ed, Ottawa Citizen columnist Andrew Cohen argued that the appointment would not be out of the realm of possibility for Trump and warned that if appointed, the former vice presidential candidate and reality TV star "would bring her traveling carnival to Canada."
"If the Captain of Chaos wants to disrupt everything--including resetting relations with little ol' Canada--Palin would be the one to break the china," Cohen wrote. Palin, he continued, "represents the descent of politics. We see today a direct line from Palin to Trump. Politically, Trump is Palin's child."
Should she be appointed, Cohen concluded, she would remind Canada, "lest we forget, of our new life through the looking glass."
As the rumors percolated, other neighbors to the north took to Twitter to voice their opposition and to revel in the morose comedy of it all.
Notably, there is growing concern among Canadians over Trump's so-called "America First" strategy. A new survey found that the majority of citizens want Trudeau to stand up for the nation's economic interests during upcoming trade negotiations and 58 percent "would support a trade war with the U.S. if the Trump administration slapped new tariffs on Canadian exports," the Globe and Mail reported Thursday.
At the same time, there has been growing pressure on Trudeau and other Canadian lawmakers to counter Trump's travel ban by lifting its cap on refugee resettlement.
As President-elect Donald Trump began his transition to power on Thursday, early reporting has opened a window into what the nation can expect as his "cabinet of horrors," as AFP put it, takes shape.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, Ben Carson, Newt Gingrich, Florida Gov. Rick Scott, and former Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin are among the more high-profile individuals named on a shortlist of potential appointees leaked to several news outlets.
On Wednesday, BuzzFeed News published a list of 41 names suggested for 13 positions, including attorney general, secretary of state, White House chief of staff, and White House counsel.
And while some, like Christie, were unsurprising, as Salon's Brendan Gauthier wrote, "The people whose names you don't recognize are as bad or worse as those whose names you're sick of hearing."
For example, Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who is being considered to head the Department of Defense, "was fired from his post as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, which he attributed to his hawkishness," Gauthier reports.
Oil executive Forrest Lucas is favored to take over the Department of the Interior, multiple outlets have reported. "That's a position that oversees land management, national parks and wildlife reserves, and Lucas at the helm would represent a nightmare scenario for environmentalists," AFP reported.
Also being considered for that position is Palin, the former vice presidential candidate made famous for her love of hunting and frequent chants of "drill, baby, drill."
It has previously been revealed that top climate skeptic Myron Ebell, who serves as director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, is spearheading transition plans for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)--a department Trump repeatedly vowed to dismantle during his run-up to the election.
"In some cases," BuzzFeed reports, "it appears the transition team is looking to find a home for a particularly loyal ally--Ben Carson, for instance, is listed as a potential candidate to be the secretary of education and secretary of health and human services, while Sen. Jeff Sessions is listed as a possible attorney general, head of the Office of Management and Budget, or secretary of defense."
As for the heavy-hitters, former Republican House speaker Gingrich is being floated for the position of secretary of state, which AFP notes, "would have major implications for U.S. foreign policy and Washington's role in the international community."
Gingrich, who has lauded Trump's approach to foreign policy, has had his own international views described as "unpredictable," "hawkish," and "shameless."
Meanwhile, Christie and Giuliani--each with their own questionable interpretations of the law--are reportedly in competition for the role of attorney general. This particular appointment, Maurice Chammah wrote at the criminal justice-focused Marshall Project on Wednesday, is "poised to upend...[o]ne of the Obama administration's most aggressive civil rights tactics--the investigation and forced reform of local police departments."
"Under a new attorney general," Chammah wrote, "priorities could shift practically overnight. New investigations could grind to a halt, and court-ordered consent decrees could stall as career [Department of Justice] lawyers are ordered to abandon their efforts"--which would be a serious blow to the criminal justice reform movement.
The list provided to BuzzFeed is included below, but these 41 names only scratch the surface of a Trump administration. As the recently-launched transition website Greatagain.gov notes, the incoming administration is responsible for selecting candidates for "approximately 4,100 presidential appointments."
List of Potential Trump Cabinet Nominees:
Attorney General:
Secretary of Commerce:
Agriculture Secretary:
Secretary of Education:
Secretary of Energy:
Secretary of Health and Human Services:
Secretary of Homeland Security:
Secretary of the Interior:
Secretary of Defense:
Secretary of State:
Treasury Secretary:
Chief of Staff:
Director of Office of Management and Budget:
Secretary of Labor:
Veterans Affairs:
White House Counsel:
A day after the botched execution of a convicted murderer on Oklahoma's death row horrified a nation that would rather not think about legally sanctioned torture, that state's senior Republican senator was on the floor of the U.S. Senate decrying a travesty -- but not that one.
"We're here because of the hand of God," Sen. Jim Inhofe said about George Washington on the 225th anniversary of the first president's inaugural address. "Washington's leadership was grounded in God, and his leadership was God's gift."
That was Mr. Inhofe's windup pitch for what was really on his mind. "Oklahomans regularly ask me ... why we have an administration that suppresses our Judeo-Christian values while praising Islam," he said, glibly violating the commandment against bearing false witness.
"I find it sad that our nation does not have the same belief today that we had back when Washington was president," Mr. Inhofe said, conveniently overlooking the well-documented downsides of life in the early republic for blacks, Native Americans, women and religious minorities.
"We've become arrogant, inward-focused individuals. Rather than submit to God's authority, we define truth, justice and morality by what feels good at the time," Mr. Inhofe said.
Instead of protecting the church from government, as George Washington would have done, government has imposed its own version of truth on churches in President Barack Obama's Washington, according to Mr. Inhofe.
"We've got to restore that morality of our nation given to us by the founding fathers," he said without any hint of irony. When he finally got around to answering questions about the cruel and unusual death of Clayton Lockett, Mr. Inhofe defended the death penalty in his state and disagreed with those who called for a moratorium pending the results of a thorough investigation.
"The people who are concerned about how much [Lockett] suffered, they ought to think about how much [his victim] suffered, and I don't think that should change anything," Mr. Inhofe said of the 19-year-old woman the executed man raped, shot and buried alive after a robbery went wrong.
Chances are that somewhere in the deep recesses of his reptilian brain, Mr. Inhofe doesn't really believe that both Jesus and George Washington had the kind of "morality" that would've supported Oklahoma's barbarism, despite Lockett's appalling crimes. Still, he knows his constituents understand an eye-for-an-eye and aren't at all concerned about the nuances of justice, proportionality or mercy.
An exemplar of the kind of "Christian" this nation has become expert at producing, Mr. Inhofe couldn't bring himself to fake even a smidgen of compassion for Lockett, who, while still conscious during his execution, suffered in a paralyzed state for more than 40 minutes until he was finally overcome by a massive heart attack.
What would Mr. Inhofe's version of Jesus have done in the "Christian nation" he established under the quasi-priesthood of George Washington? He'd presumably be the first to insert a needle into Lockett's arm, despite being a victim of capital punishment himself.
Like his most "faithful" followers, the Jesus of Mr. Inhofe's imagination is as irony deprived as he is sadistic. We get confirmation of this American Jesus' utter contempt for morality from no less an expert on American constitutional theology than Sarah Palin, the GOP's 2008 vice presidential nominee.
At last week's National Rifle Association convention, Ms. Palin revealed to the cheering crowd how a Christian sacrament would be used to loosen the tongues of suspected Islamic terrorists under a Palin presidency.
"Oh, you can't offend them, can't make them feel uncomfortable, not even a smidgen," she said with a demonic cackle. "Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists."
Though it is the single most ignorant and heretical remark uttered by a so-called Christian politician in a generation, Ms. Palin has yet to apologize for it. In her world, Jesus' symbol of renewal and repentance lacks the American Jesus' pragmatism and terrorist-defying swagger. Her most ardent supporters are too biblically illiterate to be offended by it in any case.
A recent tweet captured the absurdity of this kind of Christianity perfectly: "If you're looking for the people who think America is a Christian nation, they're busy celebrating guns and torture."
A Christian nation where botched executions are of no moral consequence and baptism is synonymous with torturing one's enemies sounds more like hell than the "godless" alternative.
The vision of a Republican budget was presented by Rep. Paul Ryan this week and the only thing some of his colleagues on the right don't like about it is that it doesn't do enough to punish the poor and working class while it coddles the rich and insulates corporate power.
For progressives, the Ryan latest budget--like those before it--represents a clear view into the Republican mindset in which austerity economics rule and the vision of shared prosperity is eviscerated by attacks on social programs, including Medicare, higher education grants, food and poverty assistance, job training initiatives and others.
Also familiar in the pattern of budget politics, however, is that while the Ryan budget--unpopular as it is among all sections of voters--receives round coverage, the progressive alternative, as contained in the Better Off Budget presented last month, continues to be ignored in the media conversation.
According to Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Ryan budget, dubbed by its author as a "Path to Prosperity," as anything but that for most Americans.
"Affluent Americans would do quite well," under the plan, said Greenstein in a statement, "but for tens of millions of others, the Ryan plan is a path to more adversity."
According to the CBPP analysis, the Ryan budget would:
President Obama made headlines by calling Ryan's proposal a "stinkburger" on Wednesday, while Tea Party acolyte and former vice presidential GOP candidate Sarah Palin called the plan "a joke" because it didn't go far enough in eviscerating programs and slashing the budget.
But serious critics say the budget offered by Ryan should be seen for what it truly is, the Republican statement of values. And, they say, it's not pretty--especially when compared to the alternative vision represented by the recent budget proposal submitted by the Congressional Progressive Caucus last month, called the Better Off Budget.
Reporting on members of the CPC who gathered in the wake of the Ryan budget release to showcase the difference between the two approaches, the Campaign for America's Future Richard Long writes:
Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, actually in the neighboring district to Rep. Ryan and a member of the Budget Committee, said, "I think the biggest contrast (between the Better Off Budget and the Ryan Budget) is in the area of jobs, where it is almost a mirror opposite." Pocan continued, "We invest in infrastructure, we invest in research and development, we invest in the extension of Unemployment insurance, we increase the minimum wage, doing the things that stimulate the economy and get more people working, creating 8.8 million jobs. The budget we are discussing today will cost the economy 3.3 million jobs." It does this by cutting where the Better Off Budget invests.
"This budget is a pathway into poverty," said Rep. Barbara Lee, also a member of the Budget Committee "The Ryan Budget cuts all the Great Society initiatives that have lifted people out of poverty."
The Better Off Budget cuts $4.08 trillion off our deficit in ten years by asking those who can afford it to pay a little more. Some of these changes include increasing taxes on the wealthiest, capping the top tax rate at 49% for people making over $1 billion a year and a financial transactions tax, ending tax deferral on overseas profits and capping itemized deductions. Through these changes, the CPC believes it can raise more than $2 trillion over the next ten years.
"This budget distinguished itself from the Ryan Budget in many ways. This budget is about investment, this budget is about job creation, this budget is about stabilizing and enhancing Social Security, this budget is about immigration reform," said Grijalva. "The Ryan budget is [a culmination of] the failed policies of the last six years, which takes America down the same path, further jeopardizing the economy of this nation."
_______________________________________________________

It's been interesting to observe the large numbers of people who suddenly think they're experts on the ongoing crisis in Ukraine--both those on the left who blame it on Obama for intervening too much and those on the right who blame it on Obama for not intervening enough.
As someone who has spent his entire academic career analyzing and critiquing the U.S. role in the world, I have some news: While the United States has had significant impact (mostly negative in my view) in a lot of places, we are not omnipotent. There are real limits to American power, whether for good or for ill. Not everything is our responsibility.
This is certainly the case with Ukraine.
Delusions of Grandeur
On the right, you have political figures claiming that Obama's supposed "weakness" somehow emboldened Moscow to engage in aggressive moves against Crimea. Sarah Palin, for example, claims that Obama's failure to respond forcefully to Russia's bloody incursion into Georgia in 2008 made Russia's "invasion" possible, despite the fact that Obama wasn't even president then and therefore couldn't have done much.
Even some Democrats, like Delaware senator Chris Coons, claim that Obama's failure to attack Syria last fall made the United States look weak.
In reality, there seems to be little correlation between the willingness of Moscow to assert its power in areas within its traditional spheres of influence and who occupies the White House: The Soviets invaded Hungary in 1956 when Eisenhower was president; the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 when Johnson was president; the Soviets successfully pressed for martial law in Poland in 1981 when Reagan was president; the Russians attacked Georgia in 2008 when Bush was president. In each case, as much as these administrations opposed these actions, it was determined that any military or other aggressive counter-moves would likely do more harm than good. Washington cannot realistically do any more in response to Russian troops seizing Crimea in 2014 in the name of protecting Russian lives and Russian bases than Moscow could do in response to U.S. troops seizing Panama in 1989 in the name of protecting American lives and American bases.
There is an equally unrealistic view of supposed American omnipotence from some segments of the left in their claims that the United States was somehow responsible for the popular uprising that toppled the Yanukovych regime last month.
First of all, it's not true that the United States government "spent $5 billion to destabilize Ukraine," as some agitators have claimed. That figure is the total amount of money provided to the country since independence in 1991, which includes aid to pro-Western Ukrainian administrations (which the United States presumably would not have wanted to destabilize). Like most U.S. foreign aid, some of it went for good things and some for not so good things. There was also some funding through the National Endowment for Democracy and other organizations to some opposition groups that were involved in the recent insurrection, but this was in the millions of dollars, nothing remotely close to $5 billion. And this aid went primarily to centrist groups, not the far right, so claims that the United States "supported fascists" in Ukraine are without foundation.
It's also unfair to imply that such aid was somehow the cause of the uprising, thereby denying agency to the millions of Ukrainians who took to the streets in an effort to determine (for better or worse) their own future. To claim that U.S. aid was responsible for the Orange Revolution of 2005 or the more recent revolt is as ludicrous as President Reagan's claims in the 1980s that Soviet aid was responsible for the leftist revolutions in Central America.
The uprising that overthrew Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and his allied pro-Russian oligarchs was not a classic nonviolent pro-democracy uprising like those that have toppled scores of dictatorships in recent decades. Yanukovych was democratically elected, and the forces that ousted him included--though were not dominated by--armed, neo-fascist militias. At the same time, Yanukovych's rampant corruption, repression, and divide-and-rule tactics had cost him his legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of Ukrainians. The protesters were primarily liberal democrats who engaged in legitimate acts of nonviolent resistance against severe government repression, many of whom spent months in freezing temperatures in a struggle for a better Ukraine dominated by neither Russia nor the West. To label them as simply puppets of Washington is as unfair as labeling peasant revolutionaries in El Salvador as puppets of Moscow.
At the same time, given that the new government includes corrupt neo-liberal oligarchs along with representatives of the far right, it would be equally wrong to assume that the change of government represents some kind of major progressive democratic opening. And the refusal of the opposition to abide by the compromise agreement of February 21, which called for early elections and limited presidential powers, and seize power directly raises questions regarding the legitimacy of the new government. Whether for good or for ill, however, and despite whatever attempts Western powers have made to influence the outcome, the change of government is ultimately the responsibility of Ukrainians, not the Obama administration.
While the United States and the European Union no doubt want to lure Ukraine in a pro-Western direction and the Russians even more desperately want Ukraine to stay within their orbit, Ukrainians themselves--given the country's centuries of subjugation--are strongly nationalistic and do not want to be under the control of Russia or the West. With a population of 45 million and significant agricultural and industrial capacity, they are not a country that would passively accept foreign domination.
Just as U.S. military action in the greater Middle East in the name of protecting Americans from Islamist extremism has ended up largely encouraging Islamist extremism, Russia's actions in the name of protecting Russians from right-wing Ukrainian ultra-nationalists will likely only encourage that tendency as well. The United States, therefore, needs to avoid any actions that could encourage dangerous ultra-nationalist tendencies among either Russians or Ukrainians. Polls show most Russians are at best ambivalent about the Kremlin's moves in Ukraine. Provocative actions by the United States would more likely solidify support for Russian president Vladimir Putin's illegitimate actions.
One factor that may have partly motivated Russian moves in Ukraine could have been talk by U.S. officials of incorporating Ukraine in the NATO alliance, a move which--given the history of foreign invaders conquering Russia through the Ukraine--would be completely unacceptable to the Kremlin. However, Russia's moves in Crimea may make such a scenario more likely rather than less likely. To ease such tensions, even such hawks as former U.S. National Security Advisers Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski acknowledge the limits of American power in such a situation and have proposed a compromise whereby Ukraine, like Finland during the Cold War, would be prohibited from joining any formal military alliance, and the Russian-speaking areas would be granted a degree of autonomy. Should President Obama consider such a compromise, however, he would almost certainly be attacked not only by Republicans but by hawkish Democrats as well. Indeed, Obama's former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in comparing Putin to Adolph Hitler, has contributed to a political climate making the Obama administration's ability to accept such a compromise all the more difficult.
U.S. Leadership
Thousands of Russian troops have fanned out from Russian bases in Crimea and, under Russian control, the Crimean parliament--dominated by ethnic Russians--has unilaterally declared independence and called for a snap referendum to reincorporate the peninsula into Russia. This is a clear violation of the 1994 Budapest Treaty--signed by Russia, Ukraine, the United States, France, Great Britain, and China--guaranteeing, in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal inherited from the Soviet Union, the country's territorial integrity and security assurances against threats or use of force.
As a result, there does need to be a strong international response to Russia's aggrandizement. Unfortunately, the United States is hardly in a position to take leadership on the matter.
For example, Secretary of State John Kerry has chastised Putin's actions in Crimea on the grounds that "You just don't invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests," adding that Russia's actions constituted a "direct, overt violation of international law." While this is certainly a valid statement in itself, it's ironic coming from a man who so vigorously supported the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq on the phony pretext that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction." Indeed, while Obama, to his credit, opposed the Iraq War, the fact that he appointed so many supporters of that illegal invasion and occupation to major foreign policy positions in his administration has severely weakened the United States' ability to assume leadership in challenging the Kremlin on its own unilateral excesses.
Similarly, in 2004, Kerry, Joe Biden, and other members of Congress who later became key Obama administration officials unconditionally endorsed then-Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's plan to incorporate large sections of the occupied West Bank into Israel, a proposal denounced by international legal authorities worldwide as an illegal annexation. This makes it very difficult for the Obama administration to be taken seriously when it denounces the illegality of the proposed referendum to have Crimea incorporated into Russia.
There is also the fact that the Obama administration appears willing to accept Morocco's illegal takeover of occupied Western Sahara (under the autocratic monarchy's dubious "autonomy" proposal) in defiance of international law, a landmark 1975 World Court decision, and a series of UN resolutions. While illegitimate, the Russians are at least willing offer the people of Crimea a choice in a referendum. By contrast, the United States has effectively abandoned the United Nations' insistence that there be a referendum in occupied Western Sahara, apparently in the recognition that the vast majority of Western Saharans would vote for independence.
In short, given the history of U.S. support for its allies' land grabs and its own history of illegal invasions, this leaves the United States with little credibility to take leadership in this crisis. This in no way justifies or minimizes the seriousness of Russia's aggression, of course. However, it underscores the fact that international leadership is not just a matter of being "tough." It means being willing to abide by and defend the same international legal norms for yourself and your allies as you demand of your adversaries. Until there is such a change in policies, there is little the United States can do.

That's what Police Chief Richard Biehl of Dayton, Ohio told the Washington Post while referring to the people of his city as he supported new aerial surveillance technology that would allow his officers to "track every vehicle and person across an area the size of a small city, for several hours at a time."
Focused on the work of Persistent Surveillance Systems--a Dayton-based company that is already providing aerial surveillance for large events, like political rallies and sporting events--the Post's reporting reveals that even as "Americans have grown increasingly comfortable with traditional surveillance cameras, a new, far more powerful generation is being quietly deployed."
For its part, Persistent Surveillance bills itself as a "full-service, wide area surveillance provider" that sells its capabilities to law enforcement agencies, border patrol, and others private firms. According to the company's website, their signature "Hawkeye II" surveillance system "is similar to a live version of Google-Earth--only with a TiVo-like capability" and provides:
Wide-Area Surveillance Sensors and Services that enable continuous, second-by-second video monitoring of a city-sized area. Because of the very high-resolution nature of PSS's sensors (up to 200 megapixels), vehicle and pedestrian activity can be tracked over a 16 square-mile area. If an event-of-interest happens within this area (a murder, for example), users can rewind the event to identify the perpetrator's place-of-origin, meeting locations, accomplices, driving routes, and final destination.

Already, the cameras have been flown above major public events such as the Ohio political rally where Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) named Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008, McNutt said. They've been flown above Baltimore; Philadelphia; Compton, Calif.; and Dayton in demonstrations for police. They've also been used for traffic impact studies, for security at NASCAR races and at the request of a Mexican politician.
Predictably, those in favor of the hovering surveillance technology, like Police Chief Biehl and the company's president Ryan McNutt, say the whole purpose of the 'unblinking eye-in-the-sky' is to solve crimes or prevent them from happening. And as McNutt explained, he envisions his companies technology not just attached to small planes, as they are now, but to ones with longer and wider ranges as well. He also thinks fixed surveillance units could "protect" large areas, boasting to the Post that "a single camera mounted atop the Washington Monument [...] could deter crime all around the [Natioanal] Mall."
But privacy advocates contend this is just another creepy development in the evolution of the 'Big Brother' society that George Orwell warned about and the National Security Agency has helped turn into a global enterprise.
"There are an infinite number of surveillance technologies that would help solve crimes . . . but there are reasons that we don't do those things, or shouldn't be doing those things," said Joel Pruce, a University of Dayton postdoctoral fellow in human rights who opposed the use of the surveillance aircraft in Ohio supported by Biehl.
And Jay Stanley, a privacy expert with the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Post: "If you turn your country into a totalitarian surveillance state, there's always some wrongdoing you can prevent. The balance struck in our Constitution tilts toward liberty, and I think we should keep that value."
____________________________________________

Over the weekend, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), the architect of the Republican effort to shut down the federal government, spoke at a Washington, D.C. rally, hosted by activists who were angry that the nation's memorials had been closed as part of the government shutdown. Sarah Palin also addressed the crowd.
Soon after Cruz spoke, and after Palin handed out small American flags, organizers turned to Freedom Watch founder Larry Klayman. Best known in recent years for his evangelical pursuit of birtherism and all half-baked conspiracies related to the debunked claim that Barack Obama wasn't born in America and that he's an undercover Muslim, Klayman told cheering activists in Washington that the president "bows down to Allah." He announced that Obama's "not the president of 'we the people, he's a president of his people," and that Obama needed to "put the Quran down."
The Obama's-a-foreigner ugliness fermented by Klayman was soon showcased after shutdown protesters marched to the White House where, according to the conservative Washington Times, the crowd numbered "about 200," including curious onlookers. Outside the White House gates, one conservative protester waved a Confederate flag, and when local police arrived to secure the area they were greeted with calls of "brown shirts," while one demonstrator commented the scene "looks like something out of Kenya."
Note also that the recently failed right-wing truck rally in D.C. was organized by a proud online birther, and that attendees to the far-right Value Voters Summit in Washington over the weekend were invited to hear addresses by birther exhibitionists Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi.
If anyone's surprised that a proud and unapologetic birther (in 2013!) was front-and-center at a right-wing anti-Obama rally this week, or that the birther charade plays a central role in government shutdown activism, then they haven't being paying close enough attention to the conservative movement in America.
And that includes most members of the Beltway press corps.
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow recently addressed the birther issue and stressed the importance of it in terms of understanding today's radical Republicans in the House:
MADDOW: They have a different sense of what is normal. They have a different sense of what counts as reasonable politics in America -- and failing to appreciate that, means that we fail to develop reasonably accurate expectations for their behavior. And that has become really important.
That failure to appreciate helps explain why the shutdown to defund a three-year-old health care law remains so perplexing to most outside observers. Viewed through the prism of traditional partisan politics, it doesn't make any sense. It's a shutdown about nothing. It's a shutdown devoid of content or purpose. (Defunding was never a realistic outcome.) It's certainly a shutdown that was executed without any clear goals by Republicans, or anything that even resembled an endgame strategy.
The extraordinary shutdown maneuver, based upon unprecedented demands, only begins to make sense when the truly extremist nature of the GOP'S activist base is taken into account. It's a rabid base where blowing through the nation's debt ceiling, and plunging the global economy into chaos, is considered a justifiable consequence to brinkmanship. Yet at the same time, it's a group where loud voices claim Obama can be impeached for defaulting on the national debt -- and for raising the debt limit.
And it's a base that still clings to the dark fantasy that Obama's an African-born impostor who's ineligible to be president or to command the U.S. military. And yes, Republican members of Congress still push that nonsense; House Republicans who fueled the futile shutdown. (i.e. "There's no question President Obama's hiding something on his citizenship.")
Amidst the avalanche of news coverage and commentary about the shutdown, the birther strain that runs through important parts of the Republican Party remains essentially off limits for Beltway reporters and pundits. That's a mistake. I'm not suggesting it's the dominant story of the day or that it requires constant attention. (Or that birtherism afflicts Senate Republicans.) But it remains a pivotal flash point that provides crucial context for trying to understand the completely unprecedented nature of the current crisis and the mindset fostering it.
The media's birther blind spot is part of the larger press problem in its failure to grasp, and accurately detail, the truly radical nature of the procedural sabotage that Republicans are engaging in; the plotted chaos and dysfunction that's being employed in hopes of halting Obama's second term. (A second term that couldn't be stopped at the ballot box.)
Based on the current coverage, it seems the press is still busy covering the last major government shutdown. Meaning, the press is still using the same newsroom blueprint from 1996 and asking those dated questions about fractured relations between Democrats and Republicans. They're still asking what it will take to get a "deal" done and why can't the two sides just hammer out budgets cuts? (After all, both sides are to blame.)
But very little of that applies to what's been unfolding in recent weeks.
How can you compare the previous government shutdown to today's fiasco when key, powerful players involved in the GOP shutdown movement think the president was born in Kenya, or at least have deep suspicions? And this is after Obama presented his long-form birth certificate.
* Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa): "The Iowa Congressman noted that his staff had investigated the matter and found birth announcements in the two Hawaii newspapers the week after Obama's birth. However, King went on to float the absurd notion that his parents 'might've announced that by telegram from Kenya.'"
*Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC): ""2012 is the time we're going to send Mr. Obama home to Kenya or wherever it is,' Meadows said to applause at a June 9 tea party rally. 'We're going to do it!'"
*Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL): He "told supporters he would back a bill to investigate the authenticity of President Barack Obama's birth certificate."
*Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas): "One of the things I always questioned was the documentation of the president, whether that was fraudulent," he explained."
*Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) : "Let's go back and revisit some of these things because Americans have questions about not only the IRS scandal but also about the president's validity."
* Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas): "I think unfortunately the horse is already out of the barn on this, on the whole birth certificate issue."
*Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC): "There's no question President Obama's hiding something on his citizenship."
*Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO): "I have doubts that it is really his real birth certificate."
Answer: You can't compare the two shutdowns.
The truth is Republicans have always bristled at birther coverage (they know it makes them look bad), and have counted it as a liberal media 'gotcha.' In response, the press has largely backed off the topic, to the point where when Sarah Palin delivered a keynote address at a Tea Party conference, and when shared the podium in 2010 with a birther who received a standing ovation for presenting his cockamamie 'evidence' of a Kenya conspiracy, the press politely ignored Palin's associations with the wing nuts.
It's time for the press to stop being polite and start telling the truth about today's GOP.
Crossposted at Media Matters for America.
BILL MOYERS: And now to the people who refuse to let democracy work. The people who hate government so much they've shut it down. Unable to abide by the results of democracy when they don't win, they turned on it.
BILL MOYERS: And now to the people who refuse to let democracy work. The people who hate government so much they've shut it down. Unable to abide by the results of democracy when they don't win, they turned on it.

So we should be clear on this, Obamacare, as it's known, is deeply flawed. Big subsidies to the health insurance industry. A bonanza for lobbyists. No public option. And as The New York Times reported this week, "Millions of Poor Are Left Uncovered by Health Law." Largely because states controlled by Republicans refuse to expand Medicaid.
As far as our bought and paid for legislative process goes, Obama's initiative made it through the sausage factory. Yet even after both the House and Senate approved it, the president signed it, and the Supreme Court upheld it, the Republicans keep insisting on calling the law a "bill," thumbing their noses and refusing to accept that it is enacted legislation.
Now they're fighting to prevent it from being implemented. Here was their order of the day on Thursday from the popular right wing blog RedState.com:
"Congressmen, this is about shutting down Obamacare. Democrats keep talking about our refusal to compromise. They don't realize our compromise is defunding Obamacare. We actually want to repeal it. This is it. Our endgame is to leave the whole thing shut down until the President defunds Obamacare. And if he does not defund Obamacare, we leave the whole thing shut down."
Once upon a time when I was a young man working on Capitol Hill, it was commonplace that when a bill became law, everybody was unhappy with it. But you didn't bring down the government just because it wasn't perfect. You argue and fight and vote and then, due process having been at least raggedly served, on to the next fight.
That was a long time ago. Long before the Tea Party minority, armed with huge sums of secret money from rich donors, sucked the last bit of soul from the Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln. They became delusional. Then rabid. Like this:
SENATOR STEVE KING: If Obamacare is ever implemented and enforced, we will never recover from it. It is an unconstitutional takings of God-given American liberty.
BILL MOYERS: That's false, of course. Just like those right-wing talking points that keep grinding through the propaganda mills of Fox News:
AINSLEY EARHARDT on Fox and Friends: Thanks to Obamacare, doctors will be forced to ask patients about their sex life, even if it has nothing to do with the medical treatment that they are seeking at the time.
BILL MOYERS: Not true.
MICHELLE MALKIN on Fox and Friends: That healthcare plan puts a discount on the lives of elderly people and would result in the redistribution of health away from the elderly and the infirm to other special favored interests and patients.
BILL MOYERS: Again, not true. Nor is this, from the multi-millionaire fabulist Rush Limbaugh:
RUSH LIMBAUGH from the Rush Limbaugh Show: What we now have is the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. Obamacare is just a massive tax increase, that all it is.
BILL MOYERS: That's just a tiny sample of the lies and misinformation perpetrated by the right with the song and dance compliance of its richly paid mouthpieces. Sarah Palin set the bar for truth at about ankle height with those fictitious "death panels" that she still insists will decide our rendezvous with the Grim Reaper.
SARAH PALIN on Cashin' In: Of course there are death panels in there, but the important thing to remember is that's just one aspect of this atrocious, unaffordable, cumbersome, burdensome, evil policy of Obama's and that is Obamacare.
BILL MOYERS: Despite what they say, Obamacare is only one of their targets. Before they will allow the government to reopen, they demand employers be enabled to deny birth control coverage to female employees. They demand Obama cave on the Keystone pipeline. They demand the watchdogs over corporate pollution be muzzled, and the big, bad regulators of Wall Street sent home. Their ransom list goes on and on. The debt ceiling is next. They would have the government default on its obligations and responsibilities.
When the president refused to buckle to their extortion, they threw their tantrum. Like the die-hards of the racist South a century and a half ago, who would destroy the Union before giving up their slaves, so would these people burn the place down, sink the ship of state, and sow economic chaos to get their way. This says it all, they even shuttered the Statue of Liberty.
Watching all this from London, the noted commentator Martin Wolf, of the capitalist friendly Financial Times, says "America flirts with self-destruction."
This man is the biggest flirt of all, Newt Gingrich. It was Newt Gingrich who twenty years ago spearheaded the right-wing's virulent crusade against the norms of democratic government. As Speaker of the House he twice brought about shutdowns of the federal government once, believe it or not, because he felt snubbed after riding on Air Force One with President Clinton and had to leave by the backdoor.
It was also Newt Gingrich, speaker Gingrich, who was caught lying to congressional investigators looking into charges of his ethical wrongdoing. His colleagues voted overwhelmingly, 395 to 28, to reprimand him. Pressure from his own party then prompted him to resign.
Yet even after his flame out, even after his recent bizarre race for the presidency bankrolled with money from admiring oligarchs, even after new allegations about his secret fundraising for right-wing candidates, Gingrich remains the darling of a fawning amnesic media.
NEWT GINGRICH on Crossfire: I'm Newt Gingrich on the right.
BILL MOYERS: On CNN.com the other day he issued a call to arms to his fellow bomb-throwers, "...don't cave on shutdown."
At least let's name this for what it is, sabotage of the democratic process. Secession by another means. And let's be clear about where such reckless ambition leads. As surely as night must follow day, the alternative to democracy is worse.
Imagine a political party that keeps government from helping people, because that might lead people to support government. Imagine a political party that hurts parts of the country because those parts tend to not vote the way they want.

This Is Who They Are Now
At RedState today the featured post is titled, Defund Or Be Challenged. It calls on Republicans to demand that Obamacare be defunded - killed - or they will shut down the governemnt. It says pass a budget that defunds Obamacare and if the Senate won't take it up or the President vetoes it, shut down the government rather than pass a reasonable budget.
If you say, "So what?" and ask, "Who is RedState" then you are making the same mistake that many in the Democratic establishment have been making for decades. Asking "Who is Rush Limbaugh / Glenn Beck / Sean Hannity / Sarah Palin / Ann Coulter / etc." or saying that what they say doesn't matter is a mistake. This is who they are now. This is who the Republican Party is now. It is RedState, Limbaugh, Coulter, Drudge Report, etc. It is not Bob Dole or John McCain or even Ronald Reagan. It is not Ronald Reagan playing poker with Tip O'Neill.
Ronald Reagan would be primaried out as a "RINO" in today's Republican Party.
If you don't get it yet, let this sink in: Mitch McConnell is being primaried for being "a big government guy" and too "progressive" and working with Democrats. Mitch McConnell!
This is who the Republicans are now. RedState, Limbaugh, Coulter ... this is who they are now.
Obamacare Helps People - So They Want It Killed
Obamacare, for all its policy and political flaws, makes our health care system far better than the corrupt and dysfunctional system we have now. (I think Medicare-For-All is the right approach and would have high public support.) People with "preexisting conditions" will finally be able to get insurance. Subsidies will help people afford private insurance. The expansion of Medicaid will help millions receive health care.
The Republicans want it killed, period, and are willing to sabotage everything to get that. They want this because it will help people and therefore will be popular. They offer no alternative plan and do not care about all of these people who will be helped. In fact, they complain that so many new people will have access to health care that it could cause a shortage of doctors!
They want the health care act killed because it helps people, which they fear could lead people to support Democrats and government in general.
They mean it. They are willing to shut down the government unless their demands are met. They are about sabotaging the program and sabotaging all of government to make that happen.
Is that a strong statement? Remember that they were willing to refuse to raise the credit limit and destroy the credit rating of the country - and destroy the world's economy unless their demands were met. Remember that they have actually shut down government to get what they want.
This is who they are now.
Norm Ornstein
Norm Ornstein has an important piece at The Atlantic today, The Unprecedented, Contemptible GOP Quest to Sabotage Obamacare. In it he compares how Republicans are opposing Obamacare with they way Democrats responded to the passage of Bush's Medicare drug plan. Please read these next two paragraphs,
The clear comparison is the Medicare prescription-drug plan. When it passed Congress in 2003, Democrats had many reasons to be furious. The initial partnership between President Bush and Senator Edward Kennedy had resulted in an admirably bipartisan bill - it passed the Senate with 74 votes. Republicans then pulled a bait and switch, taking out all of the provisions that Kennedy had put in to bring along Senate Democrats, jamming the resulting bill through the House in a three-hour late-night vote marathon that blatantly violated House rules and included something close to outright bribery on the House floor, and then passing the bill through the Senate with just 54 votes - while along the way excluding the duly elected conferees, Tom Daschle (the Democratic leader!) and Jay Rockefeller, from the conference-committee deliberations.
The implementation of that bill was a huge challenge, and had many rocky moments. It required educating millions of seniors, most not computer-literate, about the often complicated choices they had to create or change their prescription coverage. Imagine if Democrats had gone all out to block or disrupt the implementation - using filibusters to deny funding, sending threatening letters to companies or outside interests who mobilized to educate Medicare recipients, putting on major campaigns to convince seniors that this was a plot to deny them Medicare, comparing it to the ill-fated Medicare reform plan that passed in 1989 and, after a revolt by seniors, was repealed the next year.
Dems could have taken down the Republican Party over this, but instead they let seniors get the prescriptions, at least as far as this program went. Compare to the way Republicans are trying to sabotage the new health care plan:
For three years, Republicans in the Senate refused to confirm anybody to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the post that McClellan had held in 2003-04 - in order to damage the possibility of a smooth rollout of the health reform plan. Guerrilla efforts to cut off funding, dozens of votes to repeal, abusive comments by leaders, attempts to discourage states from participating in Medicaid expansion or crafting exchanges, threatening letters to associations that might publicize the availability of insurance on exchanges, and now a new set of threats - to have a government shutdown, or to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, unless the president agrees to stop all funding for implementation of the plan.
This is who they are. It is time to recognize just who and what we are dealing with.
Other Sabotage
For President Obama's entire first term Republicans obstructed every effort to boost the economy. They blocked badly-needed additional stimulus. They blocked infrastructure projects because they would employ people. They blocked the Bring Jobs Home Act. They blocked everything. Then they campaigned by saying the economy isn't better, so vote for them.
Republicans are now sabotaging the new immigration bill. The reason? They say that Hispanics who get citizenship might vote for Democrats.
Republicans have been opposing statehood for D.C. for the same reason - the people there might vote for Democrats.
Republicans in the old slave states, newly unleashed by the Supreme Court, are working furiously to get minorities, senior, students and other who might vote for Democrats off the voting rolls. They are repealing early voting because black churches organize voter drives. They are passing extremely restrictive voter-ID laws specifically excluding the kinds of ID that minorities are more likely to hold.
This is who they are now.
Hold Them Accountable
They have to be held accountable.
The answer is not to threaten to withhold your vote when you don't get everything you want. The answer is for all of us - every single alienated, ignored, disillusioned citizen - to promise to always vote. Then the people you would actually want to vote for will have some assurance they can win, and take the risk of running, even if they can't raise a poop-load of corporate cash.