SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

* indicates required
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Cheney during a 2012 interview
Further

To the Long Hopeful Query, Is He Dead Yet? Yes.

Variously dubbed Darth Vader, the Prince of Darkness and "one of the most evil people to exist in modern history," Dick Cheney, the lying, blood-stained architect of America's calamitous War on Terror, brutal torture program and an Imperial Presidency that today still afflicts us has died "after a lifetime of people wishing he had died sooner" - and in a prison cell. The consensus on a war criminal who faced no punishment and expressed no remorse: "No hell is hot enough or eternal enough."

The long-awaited death of Cheney, at 84, resists all but the most groveling and dissonant of the hagiographies that often greet the demise of contentious figures; in Cheney's case, much like Kissinger's, schadenfreude rules the day. After years of harsh mock headlines - "Cheney Is Still Undead" - and a website that daily asked, and answered, "Is Cheney Dead Yet?", the actual death of an American supervillain instrumental in creating an iniquitous, ineffective, indefensible, deeply sadistic torture and rendition regime that "destroyed any shred of humanity the U.S. could ever lay claim to" was met with caustic dispatches like, "Dick Cheney No Longer Still Undead" and, from The Nation, "His Works Completed, Dick Cheney, Mass Murderer of Iraqis and American Democracy, Dies."

They note today's MAGA, and alas the rest of us, "walk a path paved by the most powerful vice president in US history," a reminder Cheney's crimes belong not in the past but in the hateful, largely untethered presidential here and now. In light of his "long, putrescent career," notes one account, "let us remember who Richard Bruce Cheney really was." Born in 1941, growing up in Wyoming, Cheney had an inauspicious youth - flunked out of Yale twice, racked up two drunk-driving arrests - so "who knew he'd one day turn his life around to grow up to be a war criminal?" Despite his zeal for enabling the killing of brown people around the world from an office in D.C., he got five deferments in the Vietnam War; he later vaguely said, “I had other priorities in the ’60s than military service."

Parlaying connections among the neo-cons, he was elected to the House in 1978; he served five terms, during which he voted against a Department of Education, a Martin Luther King holiday, Head Start, and freeing Nelson Mandela while supporting apartheid. After years of rising through the GOP ranks as "one of the most belligerent politicians of our lifetime," he became the insipid George Bush's right-hand man, savoring playing the “evil genius in the corner that nobody ever sees come out of his hole" while working to make Bush as legally untouchable as possible. Espousing the Unitary Executive Theory - an unencumbered presidency controlling all aspects of the executive branch - he helped shape the 2000-2008 Bush-Cheney administration, one of the worst in American history.

Sept. 11 "happened on his watch," notes one account. "Everything that came afterward - Afghanistan, Iraq, torture, surveillance, toxic patriotism - was overcompensation for his own initial failure." It was also a chance to achieve his longtime goal of amassing in the White House the might of U.S. war-making - which he thought showcased American power, not "weakness, avarice, futility and manic resource extraction." Thus did he forge, with the help of Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, oil-greedy corporate powers, a complicit CIA, the invasion and occupation of Iraq - concocting ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda, inventing weapons of mass destruction, attacking critics for their "pernicious falsehoods" - that ranks as "one of the worst strategic decisions in U.S. history."

And, of course, one of the most brutal. Official estimates say the so-called War on Terror killed between 897,000 and 929,000 people, mostly civilians; those numbers are widely recognized as far too low, with totals likely reaching beyond a million. Among the victims were myriad thousands of "ghost detainees" disappeared to other countries in extra-judicial renderings - in handcuffs, blindfolds, diapers - to be tortured. They were beaten, cut, raped, waterboarded, set upon by dogs, burned, electrocuted, restrained in excruciating positions, put into coffins, threatened with execution, power drills, "rectal rehydration," the killing of their families. Later, confronted in a Senate hearing with a 6,000-page report documenting the horrors, Cheney dismissed it as "a crock" and "hooey."

All the shameless lies, the endless hubris, the crimes, screams, bodies, blood, the millions he made at Halliburton in exchange - for all that, Cheney never faced any legal or even political accountability. He never expressed even a sliver of doubt or regret. In a 2008 interview, asked about the fact that two-thirds of Americans said the war wasn't worth fighting, he responded, "So?" "So? You don't care American people think?" he's asked. "No," he said. "You cannot be blown off course by fluctuations in the public opinion polls.” At other times, he insisted, "I'd do it again in a minute," "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective," and on a torture program that repeatedly proved to generate no documented, actionable information, "It worked. It absolutely did work."

Cheney had five heart attacks and underwent at least 7 heart procedures before finally dying of pneumonia and cardiac and vascular disease, "killed by a coalition of the diseases willing to invade him." In 2012, he got a heart transplant, becoming "the only human capable of using another person's heart without caring who it previously belonged to." In an interview about the gift, he proved "an even bigger monster" than previously thought by declaring, "It's my new heart, it's not someone else's old heart." He conceded many people "generically thank donors...but I don't spend time wondering who had it, what they’d done, what kind of person." When Cheney accidentally shot a 78-year-old lawyer friend in the face in a 2006 hunting accident, the victim felt obliged to apologize for blocking his shot.


In the end, ironies abound in his life and death. He reportedly voted in the last election for Kamala Harris, arguing, "In our nation’s 246-year history, there has never been an individual who was a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump," even though he was long deemed that threat and Trump committed the same crimes as Bush - lying to steal an election. He died on a day he helped facilitate that 25 years ago, and lived to see another president turn the same bloated executive powers against his own daughter. "Cheney never expected to be displaced by what he empowered," notes The Nation of the Bush/Cheney history of violence and deceit. "He surely did not expect to die on a day when New Yorkers are poised to elect a Muslim socialist mayor in a repudiation of his legacy."

All in all, "History's verdict has been merciless on the 'father' of the Iraq invasion and the excesses of the war on terror." The jokes are bitter. It's time for the The Onion's Cheney Library in "a vast, dark, sulfurous cave" with its millions of legal documents justifying torture, noxious fumes, endless surveillance, Hall of Obfuscation, Pit of Yellowcake Uranium, Quagmire Wing, interactive waterboarding for kids, sprawling security state and exhibits representing "the huge part he played in destabilizing the Middle East for generations to come." Some report the Cheney family hasn't decided how to handle his remains, but may award Halliburton "a no-bid contract" for clean-up; his daughters, struggling with their loss, have taken to calling it "enhanced death."

Others are outright celebrating. "I woke up today feeling kinda shitty, knowing I needed to go to the gym but not wanting to," wrote one. "Then I saw the headline that Dick Cheney was dead, and suddenly everything was great. All my aches and pains disappeared. I was so happy! I wanted to run up to strangers at the gym and see if they'd celebrate Cheney's death with me! I didn't know I had this much schadenfreude in me." One announced, "The man who if Kubrick had a time machine could have been the inspiration for Dr. Strangelove has harvested his last organ." One vowed, "AND NOW WE DANCE." But Islamic scholar Omar Suleiman, summoning all those lost and grieving and ravaged, spoke to the dark heart of the deceased: “May the 1 million murdered souls of Iraq haunt you for eternity.”

SEE ALL
california data center
News

Report Details How 'Gas-Fed AI Boom' Set to Blow Up US Climate Goals

Experts around the world have expressed a wide range of concerns about rapidly advancing artificial intelligence, particularly its impact on the planet, and a report released Wednesday details how fossil fuel-powered data centers for the AI industry in the United States are "threatening to sabotage the country's already faltering climate goals."

President Donald Trump "is determined to feed the voracious AI vortex with more dirty fossil fuels that harm the whole world," said Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and co-author of the report, Data Crunch: How the AI Boom Threatens to Entrench Fossil Fuels and Compromise Climate Goals.

"This report shows how the US is about to set off an explosion of dirty data center emissions, entrenching more fossil fuels when we need their rapid phaseout," she continued. "We need meaningful guardrails at every level to ward off this huge threat to our air, water, and climate—and guard against energy price spikes for consumers."

Specifically, the report shows that "the projected AI surge, set to be powered primarily by fracked gas, could account for 10% of the economy-wide emissions and 44% of the power sector emissions allowable to meet the US 2035 climate target, or nationally determined contribution (NDC)."

"Feeding data centers with fossil fuels is taking the climate crisis we have now and blowing it up like the Incredible Hulk."

"Because of expected fossil fuel-reliant AI data center growth," the report warns, "all other electricity-consuming sectors would need to increase their carbon emissions cuts by 60% to keep pace with the US 2035 NDC."

NDCs are countries' commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions as part of the Paris Agreement, which the US president ditched, again, after returning to office early this year, having campaigned on promises to "drill, baby, drill." In preparation for COP30—the United Nations climate summit in Brazil next month that the Trump administration does not plan to attend—the UN announced Tuesday that governments' latest NDCs are, overall, dramatically inadequate to meet the Paris goals.

In addition to attacking the limited climate progress that the United States made under his predecessor, Trump is pushing for unfettered AI development—which will require several new unpopular, power-sucking data centers. Polling published last week by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago found that 71% of US adults are somewhat, very, or extremely concerned about the environmental impacts of AI.

(Image: The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research)

Already, "the US disproportionately holds the planet's highest concentration of data centers and is the greatest contributor of AI climate pollution," the CBD report points out. "Without significant changes, US data center expansion is completely incompatible with the 2035 US climate goal, jeopardizing the world's chances of avoiding the worst consequences of climate change and staying within the Paris Agreement target of 1.5°C of global warming."

As John Fleming, a report co-author and scientist at CBD's Climate Law Institute, put it, "Feeding data centers with fossil fuels is taking the climate crisis we have now and blowing it up like the Incredible Hulk."

"A gas-fed AI boom is going to hurdle us past any chance of keeping to our climate goal or maintaining a safe and healthy future for our planet," he added. "To the extent that data center buildout is needed at all, it should be powered only by clean, renewable energy."

(Image: Center for Biological Diversity)

The report highlights that "if the projected AI surge were instead powered fully by renewables, it would account for only 4% of the power sector emissions and a negligible amount of the economy-wide emissions allowable to meet the United States' 2035 climate target."

"Guardrails are needed at global and national levels to curb data centers' immense climate emissions," the report stresses, "including adoption of a public interest framework on permitting decisions and requiring onsite and distributed renewable energy and storage for power generation."

SEE ALL
Activists March Across Brooklyn Bridge Demanding Funding For Excluded Workers In NY State Budget
News

Report Offers Easy Path for States to Make Tax Code Fairer by Targeting the Rich

Taxing the passive proceeds of extreme wealth—including capital gains and stock dividends—is an easy way for states to generate billions of dollars in revenue, reduce inequality, and boost fairness in tax systems, according to a report published Thursday.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) report shows how state-level wealth proceeds taxes of just 4% on profits generated by means including capital gains, dividends, and passive business income could raise more than $45 billion a year in revenue nationwide, while an enhanced version of such a levy would generate $57 billion annually.

According to the report, approximately three-quarters of such revenue would come from households with annual incomes exceeding $1 million—and only 4.4% of US taxpayers would owe anything at all.

Wealth inequality gets worse when working households pay more in taxes than wealthy owners.States have a simple way to address this problem and raise much-needed revenue.It's well past time for a Wealth Proceeds Tax.

[image or embed]
— ITEP (@itep.org) October 30, 2025 at 10:44 AM

Other key findings of the report include:

  • A state wealth proceeds tax would help correct an imbalance in which most of the income generated by passive wealth currently faces effective federal tax rates roughly 40% lower than wages and salaries;
  • A wealth proceeds tax is easy to implement—states can piggyback on federal filings, minimizing administrative costs for both taxpayers and state revenue agencies; and
  • For a successful example of a wealth proceeds tax, look to Minnesota.

In 2023, Minnesota became the first state to enact a law piggybacking a wealth proceeds tax on the federal net investment income tax (NIIT), a levy on certain earnings from high-income individuals, estates, and trusts. Minnesota's 1% tax only applies to such wealth exceeding $1 million and is expected to raise more than $60 million in revenue in 2026.

Other states, while not having a wealth proceeds tax, apply higher levies on certain types of proceeds. Massachusetts, for example, imposes a short-term capital gains that is 3.5% higher than the ordinary state income tax rate, while Maryland enacted a 2% levy on short- and long-term capital gains for households earning more than $350,000 annually.

“States have an untapped opportunity to tax extremely wealthy families," ITEP senior analyst and report co-author Sarah Austin said in a statement. “The federal government already defines what counts as wealth-derived income, so states can easily adapt that framework to make their tax codes fairer and more robust.”

The report's other author, ITEP research director Carl Davis, said: "For too long, our tax systems have favored wealth over work. State wealth proceeds taxes would take a major step toward correcting that imbalance.”

SEE ALL
Election Day Sweep for Dems Just Predictable Blue State Wins? Local, State Races Tell Different Story
News

Election Day Sweep for Dems Just Predictable Blue State Wins? Local, State Races Tell Different Story

Leading Republicans such as US House Speaker Mike Johnson and right-wing media outlets like Fox News are trying to downplay Democrats' sweeping victories in key elections held on Tuesday, even though many of the party's victories came in areas that are not traditional Democratic strongholds.

Speaking in Washington, DC on Wednesday morning, Johnson dismissed the Democratic wins as entirely predictable given the recent voting histories of New York, New Jersey, and Virginia.

"There's no surprises," Johnson said. "What happened last night was blue states and blue cities voted blue. We all saw that coming. And no one should read too much into last night's election results. Off-year elections are not indicative of what's to come, that's what history teaches us."

But despite Johnson's claims, Democrats on Tuesday also won major victories in two southern states that supported President Donald Trump in the 2024 general election.

As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Democrats Peter Hubbard and Alicia Johnson ousted incumbent Republicans serving on Georgia's Public Service Commission, which is responsible for regulating utility prices in the state.

According to The New York Times, this will mark the first time that any Democrat has served on the commission since 2007, and it came after the commission signed off on six rate increases for the state's largest electricity provider over the past two years.

The Times also reported that Georgia Republicans are worried that the twin losses in Public Service Commission are an ill omen for next year's elections, when the GOP will seek to oust Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) and maintain its hold on the governor's mansion.

In an interview with Politico, one Republican strategist said that the Democrats' wins in Georgia showed the challenges facing the GOP in getting low-propensity Trump voters to the polls in elections where he is not on the ballot.

"The one thing that would worry me, besides making sure you hold the House, is looking at how Democrats were able to fire up their base in some of these local elections in Georgia," they said.

In Mississippi, meanwhile, Democrats broke the GOP's supermajority in the state Senate for the first time in over a decade by flipping three seats. According to Mississippi Free Press, losing the Senate supermajority will make it significantly harder for the Mississippi Republicans to "override a governor’s veto, propose constitutional amendments, and execute certain procedural actions."

While Democrats in the state celebrated the wins, Mississippi Democratic Party Chairman Cheikh Taylor warned that it could be undone if the US Supreme Court strikes down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that has historically been used to create of majority-minority districts to ensure Black voters in southern states have proper representation.

"Last night's victory proves that Mississippi is no longer a foregone conclusion—we are a battleground state," Taylor said. "But this win was only possible because the Voting Rights Act ensures fair representation. If the Supreme Court dismantles these protections, we risk silencing the very voices that made last night’s historic outcome possible. As voters continue to reject Trump's agenda in 2026 and 2027, we must protect the fundamental right that makes change possible: The right to vote."

While the wins in Georgia and Mississippi were impressive on their own, data analyst G. Elliott Morris found that shifts toward Democrats weren't confined to any individual state or city, but were incredibly broad.

Writing on his Substack page, Morris revealed that "almost every single county" in Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Georgia in this week's elections moved toward Democrats compared to how they voted in 2024.

"What we saw last night was a directional shift toward Democrats in 99.8% of counties that held partisan elections," Morris explained. "With few exceptions, voters everywhere moved to the left from 2024 to 2025."

What's more, Morris found that the shift toward Democrats wasn't simply the result of having lower turnout elections, which typically are beneficial to the party out of power.

"Average turnout in [New Jersey and Virginia] was close to 80% of 2024 levels, which is impressive for an off-off-year election—and the swing to Democrats there was still 7-8 points," he explained. "So I wouldn’t dismiss the results of last night just because low-turnout-propensity voters stayed home. There's evidence of both persuasion and turnout effects in last night’s contests."

David Smith, the Guardian Washington, DC bureau chief, writes in his analysis of election day that "the results were in part a referendum on Trump, whose approval rating has never been lower," and he added that the president was displaying stark political vulnerabilities just one year into his second term.

"His authoritarian grandstanding is a show of weakness rather than strength," he wrote. "From ICE raids and tariffs to his $300 million White House ballroom, his presidency is deeply unpopular. Are you better off than you were a year ago? Voters said no."

Even still, warned Smith, it's important that Democratic leaders don't mistake anger at Trump for glowing enthusiasm for their work atop the party, which remains at historic lows.The results on Tuesday were "never going to solve the riddle" of which direction the Democrats should head, he wrote, with both "progressives and moderates" provided "fodder to make a case" for their respective approach to politics.

For progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who spoke to MSNBC from New York at Mamdani's victory party, the Democrats need to understand that the party "does not have one face," but that everyone who wants to defeat Trump and the fascist Republicans "all understand the assignment" before them.

“Our assignment everywhere is to send the strongest fighters for the working class wherever possible," she said. "In some places, like Virginia, for the gubernatorial seat, that’s going to look like Abigail Spanberger. In New York City, unequivocally it is Zohran Mamdani.”

SEE ALL
Immigration Agents Cause Chaos In Chicago Suburb as New Report Documents 'Pattern of Extreme Brutality'
News

Immigration Agents Cause Chaos In Chicago Suburb as New Report Documents 'Pattern of Extreme Brutality'

Officials in Evanston, Illinois are accusing federal immigration officials of "deliberately causing chaos" in their city during a Friday operation that led to angry protests from local residents.

As reported by Fox 32 Chicago, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss and other local leaders held a news conference on Friday afternoon to denounce actions earlier in the day by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials.

"Our message for ICE is simple: Get the hell out of Evanston," Biss said during the conference.

In a social media post ahead of the press conference, Biss, who is currently a candidate for US Senate, described the agents' actions as "monstrous" and vowed that he would "continue to track the movement of federal agents in and around Evanston and ensure that the Evanston Police Department is responding in the appropriate fashion."

As of this writing, it is unclear how the incident involving the immigration officials in Evanston began, although witness Jose Marin told local publication Evanston Now that agents on Friday morning had deliberately caused a car crash in the area near the Chute Elementary School, and then proceeded to detain the vehicle's passengers.

Videos taken after the crash posted by Chicago Tribune investigative reporter Gregory Royal Pratt and by Evanston Now reporter Matthew Eadie show several people in the area angrily confronting law enforcement officials as they were in the process of detaining the passengers.


The operation in Evanston came on the same day that Bellingcat published a report documenting what has been described as "a pattern of extreme brutality" being carried out by immigration enforcement officials in Illinois.

Specifically, the publication examined social media videos of immigration enforcement actions taken between October 9 to October 27, and found "multiple examples of force and riot control weapons being used" in apparent violation of a judge's temporary restraining order that banned such weapons except in cases where federal officers are in immediate danger.

"In total, we found seven [instances] that appeared to show the use of riot control weapons when there was seemingly no apparent immediate threat by protesters and no audible warnings given," Bellingcat reported. "Nineteen showed use of force, such as tackling people to the ground when they were not visibly resisting. Another seven showed agents ordering or threatening people to leave public places. Some of the events identified showed incidents that appeared to fall into more than one of these categories."

SEE ALL
A demonstrator protests US military attacks
News

Khanna Warns Any Trump Attack on Venezuela Would Be 'Blatantly Unconstitutional'

US Rep. Ro Khanna on Friday demanded urgent congressional action to avert "another endless, regime-change war" amid reports that President Donald Trump is weighing military strikes inside Venezuela.

Such strikes, warned Khanna (D-Calif.), would be "blatantly unconstitutional."

"The United States Congress must speak up and stop this," Khanna said in a video posted to social media. "No president, according to the Constitution, has the authority to strike another country without Congress' approval. And the American people have voted against regime change and endless wars."

Watch:

Khanna's remarks came in response to reporting by the Miami Herald and the Wall Street Journal on internal Trump administration discussions regarding possible airstrike targets inside Venezuela.

The Herald reported early Friday that the administration "has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment." The Journal, in a story published Thursday, was more reserved, reporting that the administration "has identified targets in Venezuela that include military facilities used to smuggle drugs," but adding that "the president hasn't made a final decision on ordering land strikes."

Citing unnamed US officials familiar with the matter, the Journal reported that "the targets would send a clear message to Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro that it is time to step down."

Following the reports, the White House denied that Trump has finalized plans for a military strike on Venezuela. Trump himself told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday that he has not made a final decision, signaling his belief he has the authority to do so if he chooses.

Last week, the president said publicly that land strikes are "going to be next" following his illegal, deadly strikes on boats in waters off Central and South America.

Trump has said he would not seek approval from Congress before attacking Venezuela directly.

"The American people oppose being dragged into yet another endless war, this time in Venezuela, and our constitutional order demands deliberation by the U.S. Congress—period."

A potentially imminent, unauthorized US attack on Venezuela and the administration's accelerating military buildup in the Caribbean have thus far drawn vocal opposition from just a fraction of the lawmakers on Capitol Hill, currently embroiled in a shutdown fight.

Just three senators—Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)—are listed as official backers of a resolution aimed at preventing Trump from attacking Venezuela without congressional authorization. Other senators, including Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), have spoken out against Trump's belligerence toward Venezuela.

"Trump is illegally threatening war with Venezuela—after killing more than 50 people in unauthorized strikes at sea," Sanders wrote in a social media post on Friday. "The Constitution is clear: Only Congress can declare war. Congress must defend the law and end Trump's militarism."

Dylan Williams, vice president of government affairs at the Center for International Policy, wrote Friday that "most Americans oppose overthrowing Venezuela's leaders by force—and an even larger majority oppose invading."

"Call your senators and tell them to vote for S.J.Res.90 to block Trump's unauthorized use of military force," Williams added. "The Capitol switchboard can connect you to your senators' offices at 202-224-3121."

A similar resolution led by Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) in the US House has just over 30 cosponsors.

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) announced his support for the House resolution on Thursday, saying in a statement that "Trump does not have the legal authority to launch military strikes inside Venezuela without a specific authorization by Congress."

"I am deeply troubled by reports that suggest this administration believes otherwise," said Neguse. "Any unilateral directive to send Americans into war is not only reckless, but illegal and an affront to the House of Representatives' powers under Article I of our Constitution."

"The American people oppose being dragged into yet another endless war, this time in Venezuela, and our constitutional order demands deliberation by the U.S. Congress—period," Neguse added.

SEE ALL