The indefinite detention clauses ( section 1021 and 1022) in the legislation are a direct attack upon the civil rights of all Americans and are in essence in breech of the US Constitution.  The detention closes represent yet another step taken towards an erosion of the freedoms which are the very foundation of American society. The detention sections of the NDAA give the Executive branch wide and unchecked powers to detain, via the US military, any person “who was part of/ or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”

The law is ill defined and opened to interpretations. The provisions also target anyone who commits a belligerent act against the US or its coalition allies and aid enemy forces, under the “law of war without trial, until the end of the hostilities”. The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, or the transfer to “any foreign country, or any other foreign entity.” The NDAA, if applied, would make legal the “rendition” program run in secret by the CIA during the Bush administration.

After signing the NDAA, President Obama made the clarification that his administration “will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” However, the only provision from which US citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals  accused of being members from al-Qaeda and other “terrorist” groups, military detention is mandatory. For US citizens it is optional. There is no exemption for US citizens from presidential power of detention, either by the military  or by civilian agencies such as the CIA, DHS or FBI, only from the requirement of military detention.

Civil rights organization such as the ACLU are vehemently opposed to the NDAA. In their view “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this or future presidents to militarily detain people captured from any battlefield.” The call for action by this coalition of activists concerned by freedom and civil liberties is “No more left, no more right, time to unite. Stand and fight”.

Joseph Snook, from Wake Up America Southern Oregon is one of the organizers of Monday’s protest. He made the following statement:” A group of conservatives, Libertarians, and Tea Party activists by the name of Wake Up America Southern Oregon is proud to unite with the Southern Oregon Occupy Movement to take a bold stand against the NDAA. Further, it is time that “We the People”, all of us unite!”

Emery Way from Occupy Ashland stated: “Occupy Ashland is standing with libertarians, progressives, conservatives and the Tea Party alike to speak out against the attack against our civil rights which is the NDAA. In times such as these, when the injustices of a system and a government become too large to ignore, it is vital that we stand together not as members of a political party but as fellow citizens and human beings to defend our precious freedoms.”

Indeed bills like the NDAA,  in combination with the Patriot Act, are “legal” slippery slopes giving the executive branch the legal tools to potentially impose  martial law and  crack down on political dissent in a similar repressive fashion than the one used in fascist states. Let’s hope that this type of protest and action-uniting citizens across the political spectrum- to defend basic civil rights enshrined in the US Constitution become the rule and not the exception.

Editor’s Note: All photographs by Justin Norman.

In the past thirty six hours, several stories have emerged to highlight a growing problem that threatens the continued effectiveness, and perhaps the very existence, of the Occupy movement.  Left-wing politicos have come out against radical tactics such as those of the Black Bloc.  Establishment activists involved in Occupy seek to end the actual occupations recently raided by police in favor of more traditional, less radical models. And, President Obama has decided that accepting Super-PAC money for his campaign machine is now acceptable.

That last reference may seem disconnected, but, once you understand the dynamic that has been developing within the Occupy movement, you will see how the possibility exists that Super-PAC money could find its way into supporting a kinder, gentler, more establishment friendly Occupy movement.

There has been a struggle within Occupy for the control of the leaderless, horizontally organized movement.  Professional activists, equipped with the resources of the establishment that employs them, offered structure to the chaotic beginnings of this fledgling populous uprising.  Everything from tents and sleeping bags to organizational structure, General Assembly facilitation, Internet platforms, and targets for the populous anger of Occupiers was readily provided by well-connected insiders.

This was not an insidious conspiracy perpetrated by evil people.  Many professional activists firmly believe that they are doing the right thing.  Many of them are doing very good things.  Unfortunately, for all their good intentions, many of them are a part of the very establishment that the Occupy movement is protesting, and the good work they do actually serves to legitimize that system.

These professional activists did not come with a malicious intent to co-opt and destroy Occupy.  Not all of them, anyway.  Some may have been seeking only to serve their resume, or their pay-check, but others came with sincere intent to do good.  This does not, however, change the fact that the establishment that they are a part of, and that they bring into the Occupy movement, is a serious danger.

The leaderless nature of Occupy left an unintentional vacuum that these organized and structured activists filled.  Now, almost five months later, the movement is starting to look more like the lame attempts of the past than the agent of courageous and radical change it promised. Except perhaps Oakland. The problem gets compounded when these establishment activists not only monopolize the agenda and choose the targets of the populous movement, but dictate its strategy and tactics as well.  After decades of campaigns that have failed to move the political dial in any direction other than against the 99%, professional arrogance still drives them to insist that they should play a leading role.

Occupy Wall Street’s on-line discussions have worried over how to solve the problem of ‘disruptive outsiders’ for the ‘connected insiders.’  Many of those that actually occupied the public spaces were referred to as if unworthy, bothersome, and too full of dissent and challenges to a preordained agenda to associate with the pompous authors of these missives whose words made them seem more intent on earning their place in society as the next generation of bleeding heart Liberals, sipping their lattes, dreaming of limousines.

Seemingly towards that same end, OccupyDC has instituted an ironically controlling model of facilitation and consensus building that uses strict process to tightly control the groups deliberations and limit any dissension, thus allowing little resistance to proposed agenda items.  Similar problems exist in most of the major city occupations.  The General Assemblies in many cities experienced near, if not outright mutinies because of these controlling tactics only to, all too often, fall victim to the same problems once again.  The Occupy movement seems to have its own internal 1%, and, in this microcosm, success will only come when the 99% finds emancipation here as well.

As a result, in America, a populous uprising in solidarity with the 99% around the globe is rapidly becoming the play-thing of privileged white kids, in one of the worlds most privileged countries, using the Occupy movement to further their career goals and/or narrow its focus to domestic, and even partisan issues.  What started out as our best last chance for revolutionary change, true emancipation, and a sustainable future, is devolving into just another vehicle for doing good deeds for the unwashed masses while leaving the system that enslaves them intact.  Their rhetoric says “empower all,” but their underlying methods ensure that they maintain control.

Occupy, or at least that portion of it that has come under the spell of the establishment, seems to have forgotten its end game.  Five months ago, protesters occupied public spaces across the country in order to take their democracy back from the 1% that purchased it.  Now, they have declarations that include every social issue imaginable, and are so long that you can forget why you came there before you get half way through them.  Rather than stay on point and emancipate themselves from the appropriating class that lords over them so that they can reclaim their democracy and deal with these issues, they’ve been tricked into bringing all the issues in with them.  And… it’s about to get a whole lot worse.

After the past weeks rash of police raids, leveling the last and longest standing occupations in the country, establishment activists are pushing to forget about occupying the public spaces and focus on issue related goals.  This will divide the movement and bring it completely inside the establishment activist structure.  Rather than take to the streets and fight as a united 99% against the 1%, as part of a GLOBAL movement, occupiers are being asked to choose among the many existing domestic social campaigns and work for reform within the current establishment that wants to capitalize in the Occupy brand.  Good programs, but not what Occupy, and the global movement it claims to be part of, represents.

Last month I wrote a post about an employee of the Democratic Party campaign machine within Occupy DC.    The post focused on an employee of NGP VAN (the consulting firm that runs the Democratic campaigning machine), who was very active within OccupyDc, and hosted a meeting at Change.org headquarters in Washington, DC, to discuss ‘coalition building’ between ‘like-minded’ organizations and the Occupy movement across America.  I was immediately attacked by establishment activists and those within Occupy DC that see them as friends.  I was summarily removed from all OccupyDC listservs and committees that I sat on, targeted with a barrage of obscenities, and threatened with physical removal if I returned to McPherson Square.

This was not done through the General Assembly.  Nor by the Spokes Council.  Neither was it done by the majority of those that actually occupied McPherson Square.  It was not the result of any restorative justice meeting or due process of any sort.  It was the arbitrary actions of the establishment activists that were enraged by my exposee’, and some others that they’ve convinced to do their bidding, who decided that they alone could grant themselves the power to do such things.  Apparently the 1% within Occupy will cling to its power as firmly, and act no less unjustly to protect their interests, as the global 1%.

With Obama’s announcement that he will now be accepting Super-PAC money, the result of the coalitions proposed in this meeting and vehemently defended by establishment activists and their naive, unwitting accomplices could very easily result in these monies filtering down to the Occupy movement.  The organizations that want to ‘build coalitions’ with Occupy are part of the Democratic Party Machine.  Their efforts and programs to support Democratic Party candidates could, and very likely would, receive funding from these super-PACs. Money raised as a direct result of the Citizens United decision could end up funding, or being used to support, the movement that should be back in the streets and public spaces fighting against it.  This is pathetic.  Where did things go wrong?

Co-option does not come like the police executing a raid.  It doesn’t twist your arm and push you into obviously compromising positions. It comes as a helpful friend, and a trusted ally.  It often comes offering needed support, material sustenance, guidance, and promises of more. Sometimes it even comes without realizing that what it intends is co-option.  You only realize that you’re in a compromised position after the damage is done.

Many of the establishment activists can honestly be described as good people trying to do things that they believe will bring improvement to the lives of many.  That doesn’t change that they are part of the establishment that the Occupy movement is supposed to be fighting against and that the improvements they offer do nothing to change the status quo or crush the power of the ruling class.   All those that offer such support are not necessarily doing so with ulterior motives, either.  Occupy is wading into deep waters, full of dolphins and sharks, and they’re wearing Lady Gaga’s meat bikini.  They need to be careful who they’re swimming with.

Not all establishment activists are necessarily a threat.  There is a big difference between activists that have been working to feed and shelter the homeless, fight for living wages and safe work places, or protect women from domestic violence, and political  ‘activists’ whose only goal is to elect a candidate deemed acceptable by a corporate owned political party.  There’s the real danger… and that’s where the deep pockets wanting to help – and ‘build coalitions with Occupy’ – are coming from.

Oakland, with its long history of direct action activism, and relative lack of establishment politicos and partisan ‘activists’, has avoided the domestication that is plaguing the Occupy movement across the country.  They’ve become the ‘wild-child’ of the Occupy movement and perhaps its only hope for a future.  They’re also scaring the living shit out of those that want a kinder, gentler Occupy movement to see them through this election year.  Occupy can, and should, learn a lot from Oakland.  Those that hold power will not give it up without a fight.  They will not be shamed into submission.

Even Gandhi’s non-violent civil disobedience was active, not passive.  Gandhi did not comply with the police, or the military.  He did not retreat.  He did not back down.  Gandhi was a shrewd strategist.  The Black Bloc only breaks windows and other material objects that symbolize the wealth of the 1% and the oppression of the rest of us.  This is not violence.   Gandhi had more in common with the Black Bloc than with obedient protesters who comply with police and watch their encampments razed right in front of them, as if it were a spectator sport, while they whine for the loss of the rights and freedoms for which they’re unwilling to take a stand.

Establishment activists, that have elevated themselves to positions of authority, have put so much emphasis on protesting with only the appearance of defiance that many protesters  have forgotten why they are protesting in the first place.  The problem has become so extreme that when I’ve asked some what their goal is, many protesters responded with “to protest peacefully.”  They’ve allowed their singular goal of emancipation from rule by the appropriating class to become so convoluted that they’ve forgotten it.  They’ve allowed a tactic imposed by those that work within the establishment to become the goal.

Being arrested as one of those protesters ‘willing to be arrested’ during a protest has become a strange ritual.  First, it is not a tactic, it is a statement, and often a statement that only serves the ego of the arrested through the retelling.  A real statement might be doing something meaningful for which you really might risk arrest, and a great tactic would be to avoid that arrest so that you can do it again.

Peaceful civil disobedience is a very strong tactic, but it is not the only one.  Rather than fight within the movement for a singular tactic against a myriad of goals, the movement should be working towards a myriad of tactics against a singular goal.  The Black Bloc, Anonymous, establishment social service advocates, the rank and file along with the entire army of workers, and peacefully civil-DISOBEDIENT occupiers should be working in concert to destabilize the system that enslaves them all, not fighting against each other about whose tactic is more correct, or more valid, while accepting money and support – even indirectly – from the establishment they purportedly seek to depose.

• Peaceful protesters sleeping in the parks will not make the bankers and politicians run out of their offices, apologize, recommit to democracy, and return all of their ill-gotten gains.

• A groundswell of activism within domestic social services alone will not destabilize the status quo.

• The rank and file, and workers in general, have been suffering decline for over thirty years and urgently need to join their efforts in solidarity with more diverse and radical tactics against the corporate juggernaut seeking to wipe them out altogether.

• While an assault on the digital records of all financial and capital holdings of the 1% would have an impact,  without physical support it will result in little more than a glitch in the system, even if it’s a serious glitch.

• And, although warriors in the street may provide fodder for corporate media while they work to both weaken and expose an oppressive police state that serves the 1%, those with the means to support, articulate, and contextualize their struggles should do precisely that.

Occupy is in danger of being redefined, divided, and domesticated as part of the establishment that provoked its genesis.  Through naivety, and a gross misunderstanding of the enemy it faces, it’s in jeopardy of being purchased by the same corporate dollars used to deny the emancipation it craves.  This cannot be allowed.

If there is a coalition to be explored, it is between Occupy, Black Bloc, Anonymous, non-partisan social activists, all workers of the country including the rank and file, and the many others who make up the 99%, without establishment strings attached, that can bring a diversity of tactics to a singular goal.  Not the other way around.  Right now, some within Occupy are building bridges with the establishment and walls between the 99%.   This tactic to destroy Occupy must be stopped.   The 99%, in all its forms, with all its diversity of tactics, must come together and focus on a singular goal against the establishment that supports the 1%, rather than be divided against each other and dispersed among a myriad of goals by that establishment.

But should the Mayor of Stepford wrap up the nomination, don’t expect to see a lot of elephants dancing in the streets. Watch Romney’s performance at the debates, on the stump or TV and its easy to see why there’s an enthusiasm deficit among Republican voters. To borrow Gertrude Stein’s assessment of Oakland, California: there is no ‘there’ there.

But Romney’s formidable lack of conviction and his stiff, occasionally scolding game show host demeanor are nothing compared to all the unanswered questions about his personal wealth, corporate raider pedigree and that prickly matter of elusive tax returns.

What exactly is Mitt Romney hiding? And how long can he hide it? I was struck by his facile audacity when MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell asked him about publicizing his tax returns last week. He swatted the suggestion away like a pesky fly in his campaign ointment. “It’s not required,” he said. Then, when pressed again, said if elected, “I’ll consider releasing them.” Really? We all know such an aristocratic whiff wouldn’t be ignored for long.

And now we’re starting to learn– what many of us have long suspected– Romney’s not paying his fair share.

Hiding assets and dodging the tax burden may be emblematic of Romney’s corrupt hypocrisy. Check out the trailer of the short Romney doc produced by Winning Our Future, a Super Pac supporting Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich who bitterly promised to fight on after a disappointing fourth place Iowa finish ( fueled largely by the Romney Super PAC ad campaign against him), has softened his direct approach. A little. He served nary a solid hard ball against Romney in Saturday night’s debate (taking heavier jabs at Santorum and Ron Paul), but came out with a stronger swing on Sunday. Newt called Romney out on both his “weak moderation” and “pious baloney,” the latter referring to Romney’s insistence that he is the only non-politician running.

Whether the nasty Newt plays hardball in South Carolina and beyond or not may not matter. The damage has been done. And he ( or his surrogates; always fun to watch them dodge and weave around any actual responsibility) just handed the Dems great campaign ammo.

Of course, I hope Gingrich, Santorum and Paul stick it out for the long haul. Keep Willard spending his Monopoly money, wear down what reputation he has left, and keep the political junkies amused. Hey, Kim Kardashian can get re-married and divorced again before this one is all over. It’s the best Reality TV show going.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

Of all the contenders in the GOP line up, Mitt Romney is getting the most support from the Republican establishment – Senator McCain today- and has strong support from big businesses. The real problem for Mitt Romney-in the likely case that, ultimately, it will be a contest between Obama and Romney in November-will be the evasive Christian conservative voting block. For conservative voters Romney is too “liberal” on “value” issues, but the real sticking point is, of course Romney’s “Mormon church problem”. Romney’s “Mormon problem” is likely to keep Evangelist voters from casting their votes for him in his likely contest with President Obama.

American politic is usually a spectacle, a meaningless ego driven charade, a circus similar to a poorly scripted  TV reality show, but meanwhile, the real decisions are made behind closed doors by non-elected players. American citizens have never been more dissatisfied with politicians, and rightly feel that an overwhelming majority of politicians, Democrats and Republicans combined, are more concerned about maintaining the status quo of their oligarchy than serving the interests of the people. This is precisely why a candidate like Ron Paul could be the wild card in this election. Ron Paul is a  political odd ball vocal about what he thinks and sticking to it.

Will Ron Paul Run as a 3rd Party Candidate?

It is almost certain that President Obama will be reelected for a second term, by easily defeating Mitt Romney. But Ron Paul could be the game changer if he becomes the leading figure of a 3rd party coalition ticket. Paul’s  pro-legalization of marijuana, anti-war and anti-US interventionism  positions are getting him support from the left. It is not a coincidence that Ron Paul’s campaign supporters were canvasing Occupy camps across the country. Paul is in many regards a “blast from the past” within the Republican party. From his stand on going back to the gold standard, his non-interventionist position, and his concern about privacy and liberty, Paul is one of the exceptions in the American political landscape.

If Ron Paul decides to run as a third party candidate, with a Libertarian undertone, he is likely to win votes from both Republican and Democrat registered voters. Many Democrats on the left are dissatisfied with President Obama, and could end up voting for Paul in a three way contest between Obama, Romney and Paul. In order for Ron Paul to become a credible national challenger, he will have to explore soon a run as an independent 3rd party candidate. If Paul makes this decision, his most critical decision will be then to pick a running mate. Needless to say, the decision which would get a Paul candidacy a lot more traction would be to pick someone with credibility on the real left such as Representative Kucinich, Senator Sanders or Alan Grayson.

Even so the United States is usually described as a two parties political system, it has been in the reality of policies, both foreign and domestic, a one party system, with minute nuances between Democrats and Republicans, for the past 30 years. In this uniform political landscape, there are really only two worthwhile exceptions which do not belong to what has morphed a democracy into an oligarchy/plutocracy: Senator Sanders and Representative Ron Paul. Ron Paul is tracking remarkably well in the GOP primaries, but even so his campaign is actively trying to tap into a potential Occupy voting block, he is unlikely to get any real momentum going in his attempt.

Some view the Occupy movement, both in the United States and Europe, as “vague and lacking focus, despite good intentions”. Indeed the scope of the Occupy movement is wide in its critics of neoliberalism, war, inequality, corporate controlled globalization, and concentration of wealth. But the wide scope of Occupy shouldn’t be confused with a lack of focus. The Occupy movements is a “big tent” encompassing a lot of causes, but the essence of it is rather simple. Ideologically Occupy can be defined as an anti-neoliberalism and anti-corporatism movement fighting for the rights and interests of the 99 percent.

But Occupy can not be simply reduced as a movement debating ideologies. Instead, the Occupy movement is about redefining moral and ethical principles. Philosophically and morally it is a fight for equality and social justice against oppression. The Occupy movement is not trying to re-invent the wheel either. Occupy gets its core direction from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which fundamental principle is non-discrimination. Human beings, where ever they are, shouldn’t have they rights denied based on class, race, gender, disability and religion.

Occupy is about leveling the global playing field in human affairs to give the many real say and power over the few. Occupy is about defining a real democracy where the long forgotten and mainly never applied  motto of the French revolution “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” would be implemented and not just mere lip service and make believe. Occupy is about challenging the failed world order of corporatism and neoliberalism. For the Occupy movement, we are all Egyptians, and we are all the 99 percent fighting to define a better world without oppression, war, famine, inequality and gross mismanagement of our collective resources.

By Ron Steinman

Death is the operative concept that defines the United States Congress, how it works and, frankly, how lately it mostly seems to fail.  It is almost as if it wants to fail. Failure is better than softening one’s ideology. We rarely hear that something emerges from Congress that we can describe as healthy.  Congress invokes death. Once something arrives in Congress, its life is very short, despite what may seem to be endless debate. What it was originally will not survive the machinations of partisan politics. All we hear from Congress is that something died. A bill dies. A congressional committee fails, yet again, and thus the work it did, if it did any real work, dies. Ideas die all the time in Congress. Lately, that is the case more than ever. In this season of giving, without sounding naive, it is fair to ask of our duly elected officials for something that is life affirming instead of leaving us with the sour taste of death. Think, too, that because nothing lives for long, especially in our Congress, death lies in wait for the right moment to pounce. That could be in the election of 2012.

We the people who dutifully send men and women to Congress to do our bidding are the ones who suffer because those who enter the hallowed halls of our nation’s governing body are deaf to reality. Living mostly inside the Washington Beltway, and even though the representatives return home periodically to so-call recharge their batteries, the pull of isolation that the Beltway provides easily wins. This is about that messy governing body that is fouling our lives in Washington.

It is also about a phrase that galls, one that politicians of all stripes frequently use and one you hear all the time – the American people. I am tired of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell continuously invoking the American people as the excuse they use for their failed policies. Every chance they get, and the Washington press corps obliges them at every opportunity by repeating what they say as if by rote and not thought, they intone that “The American people” want this, that, or something else, but rarely do these rag dolls in Washington who represent us understand what the American people really want. Take some time and ask me and other people like me what I think. In return, we might summon a scorched earth policy against those who sit in comfortable offices in the nation’s capital. Life these days in America is about putting food on the table. It is about paying the rent and paying off the mortgage. It is about keeping your children healthy, putting clothing on their backs, and getting them an education. It is about the freedom to choose and not suffer because what you choose may be different from what someone else chooses. Life in America should be about what is necessary, not what is often faulty immobile ideology.

Members of both houses of Congress refuse to understand that they face extinction because they are ineffective and useless. Sure, the Tea Party revolt threw the Congress off course because the Republican majority in the House thought that new rump wing actually made sense. All the Tea Party did was throw a spanner into the works by applying that code phrase, the American people as its operating mantra. It did not work. Most of the latest opinion polls have Congress coming in around 7 percent favorable. That means that as much as 93 percent of the people polled believe that Congress is doing a terrible job. And they are right. You would think that because the real American people are speaking to the pollsters in such negative ways, that members of Congress would react and try to raise their favorability ratings, even if only by a few points. That is not the case. Members of Congress live in the land of the deaf.

Because we the people, collectively and individually elect these officials, they believe they know what is best for the country. They are obviously wrong. It is clear, though, that our elected officials, especially those on the right would rather see the country go up in flames for their failed ideology than find a way to solve its problems.

Allowing people to sleep better at night is not how the far right thinks. Fanatical belief is destructive to any cause. These officials, who are as blind as they are deaf, do not understand that real people voted them into office.  Real people can and will vote them out. I do not think that even the thought of losing his or her seat will make a currently elected official move or change a position he/she believes in. I wonder how much more arrogant our elected officials can be? Are we so immature that we assume that those who represent us are aware of who they really are and to whom they owe their current position? Is there anything that Congress can do to show the people they understand their pain? Without self-awareness, I guess not.

Editor’s Note: All photographs by Glyn Lowe.

By Ron Steinman

Once again into the breach. Readers may consider this is about the Republican Party at its worse. They would be right. If you are a true believer of that persuasion, stop reading now.

By my count, the event will be the 12th official Republican candidate for president debate. The date: November 22, 2011. The time: 8PM ET on CNN. The venue: DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C. The sponsors: CNN, The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. I discount a Cain-Gingrich debate earlier in the year and the upcoming Thanksgiving Family Forum at a church in Des Moines, Iowa that the organizers will stream on Citizen Link. Seriously, it will be the 12th debate in what is certainly one of the longer running, duller than dishwater reality shows on TV with the end in sight only when the first primary takes place next January. It cannot come too soon.

Why do we watch? Mostly, I think, because we wait for a brain freeze, a stupid remark, a dreadful mistake. I do not watch seeking enlightenment. I wonder who does.

When I watch the Republican candidates standing in front of the TV cameras, I wonder what makes them believe they have what it takes to become president of the United States, especially during these economic dog days. Can any of the candidates I am watching on my small screen become our next president? I think not. From whatever angle onstage we might view them, be it close-up, long shot, pan right or pan left, they still look alike, unmistakably alike except for the lone woman, Michele Bachman. The men wear dark suits and mostly dark ties. Not one has any flair or style. They stand as if propped up by a rod running up his or her spine. But that is okay. Too much style will get in the way of substance.

It is painful to watch how uncomfortable these pretenders to the crown look standing in a row waiting for a question. Not everyone gets the same number of questions. It seems that the candidates with the higher poll numbers, at least on that given day, get the most questions. So, as not to seem distant from the proceedings they are part of, some of the participants dutifully look or gaze intently with glassine eyes at the respondent.  If we are lucky we will see some emotion. We might see a smile, or occasionally a smirk. We rarely see even a modicum of intelligence in an answer. But if we were seeking intelligence, we would not waste our time watching yet another Republican debate. Unfortunately, cosmetics are, and always will be a part of any political debate. Recall Richard Nixon’s sweat-gleaming upper lip.

It is impossible to ignore the superficiality of what the candidates say and how they say it as we watch them struggle to say something brilliant. In an attempt to seek some memorable answers, the professional interlocutors pose their questions and the candidates begin to answer, albeit in short debate regulation spurts. They try to say something important or something unforgettable and to make what they say appear unrehearsed as they search for applause and votes. More often than not a forgettable gaffe will come back to haunt them, as well it should.

Because faithful Republicans appear to be the ones regularly polled, it seems that the mistakes the candidates make and our knowledge of their past lives count for little in how the electorate perceives and accepts them. I do not believe that anything the participants say will make a difference in getting them elected to the White House. But what they say on TV or how they say it, we hope, could get them sent off the island, or, if not, it might lower their standing in the polls. Then we will probably forget they ever existed as candidates and in a reflective moment, we might wonder where they went, off fishing, perhaps, or hunting. Maybe they will be working for a lobbyist. The only consistent tone of the debate will be the candidates’ steady attacks on President Obama, as if what each candidate says is part of a conspiracy to topple the president. Conspiracy or not, the Republican candidates do not need an excuse to assail Democrats. As debaters, it is their only consistency.

However you think, watch the coming debate at your own peril. Do not say I did not warn you.

By Ron Steinman

In November, the Supreme Court will hear arguments that some legal experts are calling the most important Fourth Amendment case in years. It involves the use by police who placed an unauthorized GPS device on a suspect’s car to track said suspect’s movements. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizure of our  “persons, houses, papers and effects.” The clear question before the Supreme Court is “ do citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy as they move along public streets and highways.” Do not be too sure that the law will be on the side of the innocent. Interpretation is everything. For some judges, because of the ubiquity of new GPS technology, that fundamental constitutional idea in the Fourth Amendment, so direct and appealingly simple, at least on the surface, and well before the onslaught of recent technology may cut deeply into what remains of our privacy.

Once again, our right to be anonymous is under attack. Other judges may not care how some use the GPS, as long as law enforcement has another tool that will help put criminals in jail. For years, some conservatives have been trying to upend the Fourth Amendment. It is one of the few areas where the strict constitutionalists are willing and ready to make changes. Now technology may finally do it.

Everyone knows what GPS means. If not, you should. It is that remarkable device implanted in cars, boats, trains, what have you, that tracks your every move when you are on the move. If you are lost, GPS finds you and points you in the direction where you want to go. Called Global Positioning System, its best definition calls it “an accurate worldwide navigational and surveying facility based ion the reception of signals from an array of orbiting satellites in space.” It provides location and time information in all weather conditions. That is a mouthful. Law enforcement and who knows who else, especially with brilliant hackers everywhere, is using GPS to track the movements of what we have to believe are criminals and their associates. Are lawn mowers, snow blowers and baby strollers future candidates for GPS? You may think that is beside the point. It is not. It is exactly on point. A smart, determined operative can place a GPS anywhere. Now attaching a GPS to a vehicle of any kind, however, is legally questionable, especially as a warrant is rarely used. If GPS surveillance is to become the norm as it is in some states, at the very least we as citizens deserve to have the law observed. Another question is how long will the surveillance last? Is it for a few hours, a few days, weeks, months? Privacy is again under attack. George Orwell’s 1984 is a few years late, but it is already here.

Recently I wrote about how cookies – what a wonderfully benign word – on the Internet capture more about our lives than we know or than we should want to give away. The world of commerce loves cookies. The possible abuse of the information they gather is beyond question. I wrote about algorithms whose creators bestow on them what appears to be minds of their own. Their originators use the neat excuse of an algorithm’s complexity to absolve them of any responsibility once these instruments are let loose in the innards of the Web, where no one can see what they are doing to an unsuspecting public. Now we are about to experience another move into the world of future technology that is changing our lives and could affect who we are, and how we go about our business. The world of the GPS is creeping quietly, but effectively, into our daily life. It is dangerous to privacy when using such a device is secretive and done in ways to protect the originator, not the citizen.

There are already too many people and institutions that know more about me than I want anyone to know. Attaching a GPS device to my car or person, my bike or my child’s stroller, means that whoever manipulated the device to track me instead of giving me directions to my destination is on their way to cracking my personal DNA. One might say it is generational, that millennials, already the users and abusers of social media, care less about privacy than I do. That might be right. We inhabit different spheres of life. We will never meet and agree that an individual’s privacy is sacrosanct. I only ask that those of another generation respect who I am and allow me to protect my secrets as harmless to others and me as I know they are. At least to me. But I think that is a wish denied.

Take the GPS battle one step further. There are chips implanted in pets to help find them if they are lost. There are chips implanted in wild animals for scientific research. Parents and educators are discussing placing chips in children to track them if the child gets lost or worse, is kidnapped. So far, mass implants are not in the offing. Who is to say they will not be in the future. Attaching an unwanted GPS device to a car, a boat, bikes, trains or planes is potentially a harbinger of things to come.

I am not an expert on the Constitution. I try instead to deal in common sense. How much of ourselves are we willing to give away for the sake of commerce and law enforcement? Though the Supreme Court will decide if applying a GPS device to the personal property of a person, or to the person him or herself is a violation of the Constitution as originally written. I believe it violates my rights and if asked, I am sure most people would agree. But I cannot be sure of even that.

Every day there is one more attack on what some consider the right to be left alone. As we move deeper and more swiftly into a world dominated by expertise that is beyond normal understanding, our right to be left alone is eroding while we watch helplessly, unable to do anything about it. I feel mugged by technology that I cannot control. By all odds, the assault on who we are will never end as long as the idea of creating something new dominates how a technical innovator without moral scruples thinks. Be assured, there will always be a new piece of software that will enable those who want to know everything about us to discover out inner lives by flicking a switch. My hope is that we will not go down without a fight. That fight is only beginning. Once the door is open, it may be impossible to close it. That is the reason that the protectors of our rights are pushing to deny the police, and thus anyone, the right to track all our movements with GPS or any other technology.

Editor’s Note: Ron Steinman is executive editor and a columnist for The Digital Journalist and The Digital Filmmaker. An award-winning producer for NBC news and NBC’s Today Show. He served as bureau chief in Saigon during the Vietnam war, and later as bureau chief in Hong Kong and London. At ABC News Productions, he produced documentaries for A&E, TLC, the History Chanel and Discovery. He is currently an independent documentary producer, director and writer through his company Douglas/Steinman Productions. He is the author of eight books, including “Inside Television’s First War: A Saigon Journal”, that details how NBC news covered the war in Vietnam. He is also a frequent contributor to News Junkie Post.

Herman Cain’s ability to nutshell America’s cultural quagmire with catchy one-liners that belittle the less fortunate and baffle honest commentators, has made him the GOP’s flavor of the month. His meteoric rise up the Republican polls, of course, is aided by Mitt Romney’s ability to flip flop with an alacrity that would make John Kerry blush. Toss in that worn out Texas boot lodged in Rick Perry’s throat, Michele Bachmann and the rest of the slow-go fringies and Cain seems like a fresh alternative. That there really is no “there there” is hardly a liability when it comes to campaigning for the nomination from a party that prides itself on a lack of intellectual heft. So what if the pizza mogul turned motivational speaker can turn what seems like a two for one pizza deal into a vague economic plan that even its creator can’t easily articulate?

Cain is just as shaky on social issues. Take abortion. He’s flat out against it. Thinks “life begins at conception.” Yet, if a woman is raped and chooses to have an abortion,”That’s her choice.” In the same Fox News interview he gets testy when John Stossel ( not exactly a purveyor of liberal gotcha journalism) calls him on the inconsistency.

Some Republicans and Indies fancy Cain’s straight talk, though like Perry, the flubs are bound to catch up to him. Others think he’s the right guy because while he babbles conservative drivel, he’s also an outsider. Well, if you call a record as a DC lobbyist and palling around with corrupt corporate power brokers like the Koch brothers being an outsider.

None of this matters, of course, unless the Repubs take him seriously enough to give him the nod. Such a long shot would be delicious. Watching Obama eat him up on the first question of the first debate will be the Must See TV event of 2012. Listening to Rush Limbaugh’s head explode at the mere thought of two black men vying for the top spot would be icing on that unlikely political cake.

In the meantime, Cain is buying his own books with campaign money and then re-selling them. Out Palining that half term quitter chick from Alaska. And if all else fails, he’s got the Godfather Pizza empire to fall back on.

I’ll make a deal with you, Herman. You can score that coveted Fox News gig; I won’t watch, of course. But I’ll take you up on that two pizzas for $9.99.
Now that’s an offer we can’t refuse.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

With the rise of the ultra right in our politics and the emergence of The Tea Party as its bedfellow, I cannot help but think that, lately, we in the United States are on the verge of the apocalypse. Do not think for a minute that the Tea Party represents anything new about the far right. It is only an ugly manifestation of people who care more for theory than the people who are the nation. If those in these movements get their way, modern America will end and those in need will forever experience isolation.

America is in a downward swing because a few loud voices stifle any discussion about a viable state, and thus the necessary growth and safety that enhance everyone’s lives. Here, for example, with help from the Center for American Progress, is a list of only some of what we will lose if the far right gets what it wants.

Never forget, the people who want to change how America takes care of its own consider themselves strict Constitutionalists. I am no expert, but I would bet the house that if the Founders returned today they would state quite clearly that the Constitution is a living thing and that for the sake of how America evolves, it, too, must evolve and change with the times. This is the list. Read it and weep because if the far right gets what it wants, America will never be the same again.

•Social Security and Medicare

•Medicaid, children’s health insurance and other health care programs

•All federal education programs

•All federal antipoverty programs

•Federal disaster relief

•Federal food safety inspections and other food safety programs

•Child labor laws, the minimum wage, overtime, and any other labor protections

•Federal civil rights law

Look what Republicans in Congress are trying to do with disaster aid. They want to tie the money Congress gives to victims of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and all manner of natural disasters to deficit reduction, as if reducing the deficit will solve all of our problems.

The potential loss of the help those programs provide to people should be enough to get your blood boiling. It has always been the way of the government to gladly provide funds for those victims who cannot help themselves by giving aid in time of need. Now, Republicans want to provide aide only if the government reduces money used elsewhere before they help the distressed- people in often-dire need.

Republicans have apparently lost any conscience they once might have had. I never believed in compassionate conservatism, at one time an interesting buzz-phrase from the recent George W. Bush era, but even if it existed in  small part, it is clearly now dead. It is obvious the Republicans in the Congress and their passionate constituency care little for their fellow man.

They are true believers, if not grand opportunists. I will give them that. But, what they are not, are people devoted to the betterment of man.

If Republicans and the far right get their way, I fear for the future of this country. I fear for my grown children and my 5-year old grandson because they and he will suffer the most. Especially the 5-yearold because he is innocent, a pawn in the hands of the unfeeling conservative crowd that has put the fear of change in people. It is a fear that is well out of proportion to reality, but, unfortunately, it is real and dangerous.  And, entirely possible if the right wing gets its way.

In Cormac McCarthy’s dystopian novel, ‘The Road‘, he describes a barren world that is the result of an unspeakable catastrophe. Into this landscape McCarthy places a father and his young son as they travel endlessly, seemingly without hope, through a mostly dead world in the post-apocalyptic world in which they live.

McCarthy writes of the father;

“He walked out in the gray light and stood and he saw for a brief moment the absolute truth of the world. The cold relentless circling of the intestate earth. Darkness implacable. The blind dogs of the sun in their running. The crushing black vacuum of the universe. And somewhere two hunted animals trembling like groundfoxes in their cover. Borrowed time and borrowed world and borrowed eyes which to sorrow it.”

That is the life for the pair until the end of the story when hope seems possible. As the father lay dying, he has this short conversation with his son in his effort to make sure the boy carries on their mission of survival.

“You have to carry the fire.”

“I don’t know how to.”

“Yes you do.”

“Is it real ? The fire?”

“Yes it is.”

“Where is it? I don’t know where it is.”

“Yes you do. It’s inside you. It was always there. I can see it.”

The father dies and the son embarks upon another life, with another family, also struggling to survive.

McCarthy’s desire is, I believe, that the son will experience a future that is less bleak than what he knew when his father was alive. Not perfect, but less miserable. Perhaps. Perhaps McCarthy sees a decent future where no one else does.  Perhaps, though I doubt it.

When the story ends, at least on paper, it is not final. The message from ‘The Road’ is that perhaps there is something beyond the world they have been traveling through, despite it being a world that is barely alive. But we will never really know.

There are no guarantees the future will be better than the path the father and his son had been traveling. The future remains bleak. As today in a climate of high unemployment, crooked bankers, selfish politicians and no evidence that politicians want to help anyone but themselves, there is no evidence life will be better beyond the horizon. If we as a people succumb to the Tea Party and the increasingly narrow minded, power hungry conservative politicians, the end in all its bleakness will surely prevail.

We cannot allow that to happen. For starters, we should require the people who want to take everything from people who have too little to live with anyway to read McCarthy’s unyielding vision and perhaps wonder about the survival of humanity, especially in these times that continue to be desperate for so many.

Editor’s Note:   Ron Steinman is executive editor and a columnist for The Digital Journalist and The Digital Filmmaker. An award-winning producer for NBC News and NBC’s Today Show, he served as bureau chief in Saigon during the Vietnam war, and later as bureau chief in Hong Kong and London. At ABC News Productions, he produced documentaries for A&E, TLC, the History Channel and Discovery. He is currently an independent documentary producer, director and writer through his company Douglas/Steinman Productions. He is the author of eight books, including “Inside Television First War: A Saigon Journal”, that details how NBC News covered the war in Vietnam.