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.
'If Washington DC is part of the problem, then the solution has to be grassroots activism in the form of Indivisible and similar groups,' writes Burnett.
Some of the most exciting days of my life occurred in the late 80's when I was involved in a technology startup, Cisco Systems. 29 years later I'm involved in another exciting startup, Indivisible. There are fascinating similarities between my experience at Cisco and Indivisible.
Some of the most exciting days of my life occurred in the late 80's when I was involved in a technology startup, Cisco Systems. 29 years later I'm involved in another exciting startup, Indivisible. There are fascinating similarities between my experience at Cisco and Indivisible.
I moved from IBM to Cisco. I left a secure position where I managed several hundred folks to run a ten-person engineering team. Obviously there were incentives--stock options--but the primary reason I left IBM was my belief that their perspective on technology had become obsolete.
In the eighties, IBM was by far the world's biggest Information Technology (IT) company. It had 400,000 employees and income of $70 billion. Although it had several product lines, IBM executives held tight to the belief the mainframe computer was the center of the IT universe.
I became a nonbeliever, a heretic in an social system where orthodox belief was valued and rewarded. I was convinced that there had been an irrevocable shift in the IT world and the network was now the center of the universe, the Internet. That shift didn't mean that mainframe computers would go away but that they would lose status, take a smaller role in information processing, stand along side workstations and personal computers and other intelligent devices. One might characterize the IT shift as moving from an oligarchy to a democracy.
Now, there's been a comparable shift in the political world. The cognoscenti continue to believe that Washington DC is the center of the US political universe; that everything important happens in DC, whether it's Trump's latest Tweet or congressional action on healthcare or the organization of the Democratic Party. But out here in the real world we don't agree because we think the system is broken. At the moment, that's the belief that unites Republicans and Democrats and Independents and disgusted non-voters: the system is broken and DC doesn't get it.
IBM is to DC what Cisco is to Indivisible. Cisco represented a fundamental shift from orthodoxy. Indivisible represents a similar seismic shift.
Individual Indivisible--that's a mouth full--groups are inherently decentralized. (Fun facts: there 990 Indivisible units in California; at least two in each congressional district; 10 in Berkeley.) In my area there are Indivisible units that are study groups, others that make phone calls, and mine--Indivisible Berkeley--that functions as a clearing house for direct action.
Imagine these Indivisible group as cells in a vast progressive network that includes more than 6000 Indivisible chapters plus MoveOn, OFA, Resistance.Org, 350.org as well as Sierra Club, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Immigrant rights organizations, AFSC, and on and on.
In the eighties, Cisco never took a position on which network traffic was most important; our routers didn't prioritize data from mainframes over data from work stations or whatever. We didn't prioritize data for any reason. Our job was to make sure that messages got delivered by the fastest route possible; and that devices that spoke different (network) languages could communicate across the Internet.
The new progressive network doesn't prioritize one organization or issue over another. We are united resisting Emperor Trump.
Because we are united by this resistance, plus the values of inclusivity and nonviolence, we exchange information and expertise. We're democratic with a 21st century flair.
In the eighties, when IBM reigned supreme, the technology press didn't understand that the IT world was undergoing a radical shift. They continued to glorify the dinosaurs: "They're so big and powerful! They will rule forever." Meanwhile, down on the ground, technologically advanced campuses were building local-area networks, plugging work stations into them, and linking campus to campus with the Internet. (When we did the IPO road show for Cisco, we had to explain what the Internet was to the money guys. When we added that Cisco built an essential component, the multi-protocol router, a typical question was, "Is this like the router in my home workshop?")
Now, the mainstream media doesn't understand that US politics is undergoing a radical shift. The cable TV shows continue to interview the same tired Washington faces. Meanwhile, out here in the real world we are organizing. We are talking to our members of congress--when they show up--and letting them know how feel about the ACA and the rights of undocumented aliens and so forth. In purple districts, we are registering voters and preparing for the midterm election--605 days away. We are communicating with the other cells on the network and raising money. And, professional politicians aren't involved.
In retrospect, the IT shift--that happened in the eighties--was for the best. The Internet is more flexible and affordable than the mainframe model ever was. (Even though there are problems such as hacking and pornographic websites.)
I believe the shift in US politics will also be for the best. Most of the country feels that the current system is broken and US democracy is slipping into oligarchy. If Washington DC is part of the problem, then the solution has to be grassroots activism in the form of Indivisible and similar groups.
I'm excited. Democracy is starting up.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Some of the most exciting days of my life occurred in the late 80's when I was involved in a technology startup, Cisco Systems. 29 years later I'm involved in another exciting startup, Indivisible. There are fascinating similarities between my experience at Cisco and Indivisible.
I moved from IBM to Cisco. I left a secure position where I managed several hundred folks to run a ten-person engineering team. Obviously there were incentives--stock options--but the primary reason I left IBM was my belief that their perspective on technology had become obsolete.
In the eighties, IBM was by far the world's biggest Information Technology (IT) company. It had 400,000 employees and income of $70 billion. Although it had several product lines, IBM executives held tight to the belief the mainframe computer was the center of the IT universe.
I became a nonbeliever, a heretic in an social system where orthodox belief was valued and rewarded. I was convinced that there had been an irrevocable shift in the IT world and the network was now the center of the universe, the Internet. That shift didn't mean that mainframe computers would go away but that they would lose status, take a smaller role in information processing, stand along side workstations and personal computers and other intelligent devices. One might characterize the IT shift as moving from an oligarchy to a democracy.
Now, there's been a comparable shift in the political world. The cognoscenti continue to believe that Washington DC is the center of the US political universe; that everything important happens in DC, whether it's Trump's latest Tweet or congressional action on healthcare or the organization of the Democratic Party. But out here in the real world we don't agree because we think the system is broken. At the moment, that's the belief that unites Republicans and Democrats and Independents and disgusted non-voters: the system is broken and DC doesn't get it.
IBM is to DC what Cisco is to Indivisible. Cisco represented a fundamental shift from orthodoxy. Indivisible represents a similar seismic shift.
Individual Indivisible--that's a mouth full--groups are inherently decentralized. (Fun facts: there 990 Indivisible units in California; at least two in each congressional district; 10 in Berkeley.) In my area there are Indivisible units that are study groups, others that make phone calls, and mine--Indivisible Berkeley--that functions as a clearing house for direct action.
Imagine these Indivisible group as cells in a vast progressive network that includes more than 6000 Indivisible chapters plus MoveOn, OFA, Resistance.Org, 350.org as well as Sierra Club, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Immigrant rights organizations, AFSC, and on and on.
In the eighties, Cisco never took a position on which network traffic was most important; our routers didn't prioritize data from mainframes over data from work stations or whatever. We didn't prioritize data for any reason. Our job was to make sure that messages got delivered by the fastest route possible; and that devices that spoke different (network) languages could communicate across the Internet.
The new progressive network doesn't prioritize one organization or issue over another. We are united resisting Emperor Trump.
Because we are united by this resistance, plus the values of inclusivity and nonviolence, we exchange information and expertise. We're democratic with a 21st century flair.
In the eighties, when IBM reigned supreme, the technology press didn't understand that the IT world was undergoing a radical shift. They continued to glorify the dinosaurs: "They're so big and powerful! They will rule forever." Meanwhile, down on the ground, technologically advanced campuses were building local-area networks, plugging work stations into them, and linking campus to campus with the Internet. (When we did the IPO road show for Cisco, we had to explain what the Internet was to the money guys. When we added that Cisco built an essential component, the multi-protocol router, a typical question was, "Is this like the router in my home workshop?")
Now, the mainstream media doesn't understand that US politics is undergoing a radical shift. The cable TV shows continue to interview the same tired Washington faces. Meanwhile, out here in the real world we are organizing. We are talking to our members of congress--when they show up--and letting them know how feel about the ACA and the rights of undocumented aliens and so forth. In purple districts, we are registering voters and preparing for the midterm election--605 days away. We are communicating with the other cells on the network and raising money. And, professional politicians aren't involved.
In retrospect, the IT shift--that happened in the eighties--was for the best. The Internet is more flexible and affordable than the mainframe model ever was. (Even though there are problems such as hacking and pornographic websites.)
I believe the shift in US politics will also be for the best. Most of the country feels that the current system is broken and US democracy is slipping into oligarchy. If Washington DC is part of the problem, then the solution has to be grassroots activism in the form of Indivisible and similar groups.
I'm excited. Democracy is starting up.
Some of the most exciting days of my life occurred in the late 80's when I was involved in a technology startup, Cisco Systems. 29 years later I'm involved in another exciting startup, Indivisible. There are fascinating similarities between my experience at Cisco and Indivisible.
I moved from IBM to Cisco. I left a secure position where I managed several hundred folks to run a ten-person engineering team. Obviously there were incentives--stock options--but the primary reason I left IBM was my belief that their perspective on technology had become obsolete.
In the eighties, IBM was by far the world's biggest Information Technology (IT) company. It had 400,000 employees and income of $70 billion. Although it had several product lines, IBM executives held tight to the belief the mainframe computer was the center of the IT universe.
I became a nonbeliever, a heretic in an social system where orthodox belief was valued and rewarded. I was convinced that there had been an irrevocable shift in the IT world and the network was now the center of the universe, the Internet. That shift didn't mean that mainframe computers would go away but that they would lose status, take a smaller role in information processing, stand along side workstations and personal computers and other intelligent devices. One might characterize the IT shift as moving from an oligarchy to a democracy.
Now, there's been a comparable shift in the political world. The cognoscenti continue to believe that Washington DC is the center of the US political universe; that everything important happens in DC, whether it's Trump's latest Tweet or congressional action on healthcare or the organization of the Democratic Party. But out here in the real world we don't agree because we think the system is broken. At the moment, that's the belief that unites Republicans and Democrats and Independents and disgusted non-voters: the system is broken and DC doesn't get it.
IBM is to DC what Cisco is to Indivisible. Cisco represented a fundamental shift from orthodoxy. Indivisible represents a similar seismic shift.
Individual Indivisible--that's a mouth full--groups are inherently decentralized. (Fun facts: there 990 Indivisible units in California; at least two in each congressional district; 10 in Berkeley.) In my area there are Indivisible units that are study groups, others that make phone calls, and mine--Indivisible Berkeley--that functions as a clearing house for direct action.
Imagine these Indivisible group as cells in a vast progressive network that includes more than 6000 Indivisible chapters plus MoveOn, OFA, Resistance.Org, 350.org as well as Sierra Club, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Immigrant rights organizations, AFSC, and on and on.
In the eighties, Cisco never took a position on which network traffic was most important; our routers didn't prioritize data from mainframes over data from work stations or whatever. We didn't prioritize data for any reason. Our job was to make sure that messages got delivered by the fastest route possible; and that devices that spoke different (network) languages could communicate across the Internet.
The new progressive network doesn't prioritize one organization or issue over another. We are united resisting Emperor Trump.
Because we are united by this resistance, plus the values of inclusivity and nonviolence, we exchange information and expertise. We're democratic with a 21st century flair.
In the eighties, when IBM reigned supreme, the technology press didn't understand that the IT world was undergoing a radical shift. They continued to glorify the dinosaurs: "They're so big and powerful! They will rule forever." Meanwhile, down on the ground, technologically advanced campuses were building local-area networks, plugging work stations into them, and linking campus to campus with the Internet. (When we did the IPO road show for Cisco, we had to explain what the Internet was to the money guys. When we added that Cisco built an essential component, the multi-protocol router, a typical question was, "Is this like the router in my home workshop?")
Now, the mainstream media doesn't understand that US politics is undergoing a radical shift. The cable TV shows continue to interview the same tired Washington faces. Meanwhile, out here in the real world we are organizing. We are talking to our members of congress--when they show up--and letting them know how feel about the ACA and the rights of undocumented aliens and so forth. In purple districts, we are registering voters and preparing for the midterm election--605 days away. We are communicating with the other cells on the network and raising money. And, professional politicians aren't involved.
In retrospect, the IT shift--that happened in the eighties--was for the best. The Internet is more flexible and affordable than the mainframe model ever was. (Even though there are problems such as hacking and pornographic websites.)
I believe the shift in US politics will also be for the best. Most of the country feels that the current system is broken and US democracy is slipping into oligarchy. If Washington DC is part of the problem, then the solution has to be grassroots activism in the form of Indivisible and similar groups.
I'm excited. Democracy is starting up.
Even right-wing Brazilian politicians are condemning Trump's actions as "an unacceptable attempt at foreign interference."
U.S. President Donald Trump is facing international condemnation for his decision to level sanctions against Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes in a bid to punish him for overseeing the criminal trial of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a longtime Trump ally.
The Guardian reported on Wednesday that Brazilian political leaders are not backing down in the face of Trump's economic warfare, which includes not only sanctions against Moraes but also 50% tariffs on several key Brazilian exports to the United States, including coffee and beef.
Chamber of Deputies member José Guimarães, a member of the left-wing Partido dos Trabalhadores, described Trump's actions as "a direct attack on Brazilian democracy and sovereignty" and vowed that "we will not accept foreign interference in... our justice system."
Left-wing politicians weren't the only ones to criticize the sanctions and tariffs, as right-wing Partido Novo founder João Amoêdo condemned them as "an unacceptable attempt at foreign interference in the Brazilian justice system." Eduardo Leite, the conservative governor of the state of Rio Grande do Sul, said he refused to accept "another country trying to interfere in our institutions" as Trump has done.
In justifying the sanctions and tariffs, the Trump White House said they were a measure to combat what it described as "the government of Brazil's politically motivated persecution, intimidation, harassment, censorship, and prosecution of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and thousands of his supporters."
Bolsonaro is currently on trial for undertaking an alleged coup plot to prevent the country's current president, Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva, from taking power after his victory in Brazil's 2022 presidential election.
Eduardo Bolsonaro, the son of the former president, openly celebrated Trump's punitive measures against Brazil this week, which earned him a stiff rebuke from the editorial board of Folha de São Paulo, one of Brazil's largest daily newspapers. In their piece, the Folha editors labeled Eduardo Bolsonaro an "enemy of Brazil" and said he was behaving like "a buffoon at the feet of a foreign throne" with his open lobbying of the Trump administration to punish his own country.
Elsewhere in the world, the U.K.-based magazine The Economist leveled Trump for his Brazil sanctions, which it described as an "unprecedented" assault on the country's sovereignty. The magazine also outlined the considerable evidence that the former Brazilian president took part in a coup plot, including a plan written out by Bolsonaro deputy chief of staff Mario Fernandes to assassinate or kidnap Lula and Moraes before the end of Bolsonaro's lone presidential term.
U.S. government reform advocacy group Public Citizen was also quick to condemn Trump's actions, which it described as a "shameless power grab."
"Trump's order sets a horrifying precedent that literally any domestic judicial action or democratically enacted policy set by another country could somehow justify a U.S. national emergency and bestow the president with powers far beyond what the Constitution provides," said Melinda St. Louis, global trade watch director at Public Citizen.
St. Louis also predicted that the tariffs on Brazil would soon be tossed out by courts given their capricious justifications, although she said the reputation of the U.S. would suffer "lasting damage."
"Follow the money," one critic wrote in response to the Justice Department's decision to drop an antitrust case against American Express Global Business Travel.
The U.S. Justice Department this week dropped an antitrust case against a company represented by the lobbying firm that employed Pam Bondi before her confirmation as attorney general earlier this year.
American Express Global Business Travel (Amex GBT) has paid the lobbying giant Ballard Partners hundreds of thousands of dollars this year to pressure Bondi's Justice Department on "antitrust issues," according to federal disclosures.
The DOJ's decision to drop the antitrust lawsuit, which was initially filed during the final days of the Biden administration, allows Amex GBT's acquisition of rival CWT Holdings to move forward despite concerns that the merger would harm competition in the travel management sector. Amex GBT said it was "pleased" the DOJ dropped the case ahead of trial, which was set to begin in September.
Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel for the anti-monopoly American Economic Liberties Project, called the Justice Department's move "so so so corrupt" and urged observers to "follow the money."
Amex GBT paid Ballard Partners $50,000 in the first quarter of 2025 and $150,000 in the second quarter to lobby the Justice Department. Jon Golinger, democracy advocate with Public Citizen, said last week that "the American people deserve to know whether Attorney General Bondi has been involved with her former firm's lobbying and if the red carpet is being rolled out for these clients by the Department of Justice because of her former role at Ballard."
"If Bondi has been involved with the Ballard firm's lobbying, she has likely violated the ethics pledge," Golinger added. "The American people deserve an attorney general who always puts their needs above the special interest agendas of former business associates."
Scrutiny of the Justice Department's decision to drop the Amex GBT case comes amid allegations of corruption surrounding the DOJ's merger settlement with Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks last month. It also comes days after the Justice Department fired two of its top antitrust officials.
The American Prospect's David Dayen noted Tuesday that the Justice Department's voluntary dismissal of the Amex GBT lawsuit means the case—unlike the Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper settlement—doesn't have to face a Tunney Act review.
In a statement to the Prospect, a Justice Department spokesperson denied that Bondi had any involvement in the antitrust division's decision to drop the Amex GBT case.
"The smell of corruption has gotten bad enough that they're trying to shape the information environment," Dayen wrote in response to the DOJ statement.
"The American people do not want to spend billions to starve children in Gaza," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "The Democrats are moving forward on this issue, and I look forward to Republican support in the near future."
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders' latest effort to block additional American arms sales to Israel failed again late Wednesday at the hands of every Republican senator and some Democrats.
But a majority of the Senate Democratic caucus voted in favor of Sanders-led resolutions that aimed to halt the Trump administration's sale of 1,000-pound bombs, Joint Direct Attack Munition guidance kits, and tens of thousands of assault rifles to the Israeli government.
The first resolution, S.J.Res.41, failed by a vote of 27-70, and the second, S.J.Res.34, failed by a vote of 24-73, with the effort to block the sale of assault rifles to the Israeli government garnering slightly more support than the bid to prevent the sale of bombs.
The following senators voted to block the assault rifle sale: Sanders, Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
And the following senators voted to block the sale of additional bombs: Sanders, Alsobrooks, Baldwin, Blunt Rochester, Duckworth, Durbin, Heinrich, Hirono, Kaine, Kim, King, Klobuchar, Luján, Markey, Merkley, Murphy, Murray, Schatz, Shaheen, Smith, Van Hollen, Warnock, Warren, and Welch.
Three Democratic senators—Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan—did not vote on either resolution.
"Every senator who voted to continue sending weapons today voted against the will of their constituents."
In a statement responding to the vote, Sanders said growing Democratic support for halting arms sales to the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is an indication that "the tide is turning" in the face of Israel's "horrific, immoral, and illegal war against the Palestinian people."
"The American people do not want to spend billions to starve children in Gaza," the senator said. "The Democrats are moving forward on this issue, and I look forward to Republican support in the near future."
Wednesday's votes revealed a significant increase in support for halting U.S. military support for the Israeli government compared to earlier this year, when only 14 Democratic senators backed similar Sanders-led resolutions.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who did not vote on the Sanders resolutions in April, said Wednesday that "this legislative tool is not perfect, but frankly it is time to say enough to the suffering of innocent young children and families."
"As a longtime friend and supporter of Israel, I am voting yes to send a message: The Netanyahu government cannot continue with this strategy," said Murray. "Netanyahu has prolonged this war at every turn to stay in power. We are witnessing a man-made famine in Gaza—children and families should not be dying from starvation or disease when literal tons of aid and supplies are just sitting across the border."
The Senate votes came days after the official death toll in Gaza surpassed 60,000 and a new poll showed that U.S. public support for Israel's assault on the Palestinian enclave reached a new low, with just 32% of respondents expressing approval. The Gallup survey found that support among Democratic voters has cratered, with just 8% voicing approval of the Israeli assault.
"The vast majority of Democratic voters say Israel is committing genocide, and have repeatedly demanded that their party's elected officials in Congress stop helping President Trump deliver more and more weapons to Israel with our tax dollars," Margaret DeReus, executive director of the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project, said Wednesday. "Tonight proved that an increasing number of Democrats in the Senate–more than half of the Democratic caucus–are hearing that demand."
Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, called the vote "unprecedented" and said it "shows that the dam is breaking in U.S. politics."
"Our job is to increase the pressure on every member of Congress to stop all weapons and military funding," said Miller. "For 22 months, the U.S. has enabled, funded, and armed the Israeli government's slaughter and starvation in Gaza, and still the majority of senators just voted to continue sending weapons to a military live-streaming its crimes against humanity."
"The overwhelming majority of Americans want to stop the flow of deadly weapons to the Israeli military and end U.S. complicity in its horrific genocide against Palestinians," Miller added. "Every senator who voted to continue sending weapons today voted against the will of their constituents."