

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.
Jeremy Varon, Jvaron@aol.com, 732-979-3119
Matt Daloisio, daloisio@earthlink.net, 201-264-4424
President Barack Obama conceded yesterday
that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba will not close
within the one year mandated by the Executive Order he signed on
January 22, 2009. This is a disappointment but not a surprise.
For months, the administration has been sending signals that it
over-reached in its timetable. The given reasons for the delay are
likewise familiar: that the Bush administration left a legal mess,
requiring painstaking work to determine the ideal means for handling
the remaining detainees; that it has been hard to find countries to
admit detainees who cannot be resettled in their countries of origin
due to fears of ill-treatment; and that unanticipated domestic
resistance to Guantanamo's closure, much of it fueled by
fear-mongering and partisan politics, has slowed the process. These
impediments, while real wrenches in the grinding wheels of policy,
cannot excuse the moral and constitutional disaster that Guantanamo's
continuing operation represents.
Since coming to office, the Obama administration has presented
Guantanamo as an administrative problem, a cause of embarrassment, and
a foreign policy liability. It has never faced Guantanamo for what it
truly is: a grave injustice which the United States is duty bound, by
the best of its traditions and basic standards of fairness and
decency, to immediately set right.
"Justice Delayed is Justice Denied" -- the great maxim of the Civil
Rights Movement that made Barack Obama's political ascent possible --
has been forgotten. Martin Luther King Jr.'s talk of "The Fierce
Urgency of Now," repeatedly invoked by President Obama to push ahead
with domestic reforms, has been replaced, for the Guantanamo detainees
and anyone who cares about the rule of law, with "the fickle hope of
eventually" and "the self-serving pledge of maybe."
All the while, the Obama administration proclaims its intent to put
U.S. policies and practices in accordance with our laws and values.
Yet the United States continues to detain dozens of men at Guantanamo
who have been cleared for release. In the case of the remaining
Uighurs, the administration has advanced the Orwellian conclusion that
they are no longer prisoners -- they just have nowhere to go, and must
therefore remain on the dusty gulag.
Echoing the policies of Bush, Obama proposes the indefinite detention,
without charge or trial, of detainees against whom no case has been
built or from whom "evidence" was obtained through torture. The Obama
Justice Department repeatedly invokes the "state secrets" defense to
beat back legal efforts of those kidnapped and tortured to receive
acknowledgment of their injury and compensation for it. And it has
steadfastly refused to investigate and, if warranted, prosecute those
who designed and ordered torture policies, choosing instead a limited
inquiry into the most egregious cases of "unauthorized" detainee
abuse.
Finally, it has allowed obsessive attention with the truly dangerous
men in U.S. detention -- such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other Al
Qaeda leaders -- to obscure the fact the great majority of detainees
held at Guantanamo have been falsely imprisoned.
How is it tolerable within the framework of American laws and values
to hold for even one day longer men who, innocent of any crime, have
been stolen from their families, tortured, and dehumanized?
How is it tolerable to knowingly imprison innocent men while failing
to indict officials who -- a preponderance of public evidence suggests
-- are guilty of heinous political crimes and violations of human
rights? How can the rule of law be restored when U.S. laws are not
even enforced?
And how can the wreckage of the past be cleared when the key monument
of that wreckage, the detention facility at Guantanamo, remains
intact.
The Obama administration will continue to face enormous hostility --
much of it paranoid, opportunistic, and vicious -- to even its
inadequate efforts to undo the worst of the Bush era policies. Those
efforts must be supported, for the real good they will bring and to
beat back domestic forces ready to plunge the United States into a new
nightmare of lawlessness and wanton cruelty in the name of "national
security."
But the administration must also be held to its words and promises.
Its failures cannot be masked with rationalizations and false
deference to the constraints of partisan bickering and legal
complexities. The inability to fulfill the mandate of the Executive
Order to close Guantanamo within a year is just such a failure, making
still more urgent the demand for true justice.
Witness Against Torture is a grassroots movement that came into being in December 2005 when 24 activists walked to Guantanamo to visit the prisoners and condemn torture policies. Since then, it has engaged in public education, community outreach, and non-violent direct action. For the first 100 days of the Obama administration, the group held a daily vigil at the White House, encouraging the new President to uphold his commitments to shut down Guantanamo.
Data released by the University of Michigan and Gallup this week showed US consumer sentiment cratering even as stock markets hit record highs.
Multiple polls and surveys released in recent days have shown US consumer sentiment cratering—and all the while, the US stock market keeps hitting record highs.
The Kobeissi Letter, a financial newsletter, posted a graphic Saturday that matched consumer sentiment as measured by the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers with the performance of the S&P 500 stock index over a 30-year span.
The graphic shows that, up until around 2020, consumer sentiment matched stock market performance closely, although there was a large divergence between the two leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, where stocks briefly outperformed consumer sentiment before crashing downward as the housing bubble burst.
But throughout the last six years, the graphic shows, the S&P 500 has produced an almost continuous upward surge even as consumer sentiment spirals downward.
Absolutely incredible:
Over the last 6 years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952.
We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history. https://t.co/XGMR6DfuNc pic.twitter.com/2w7cRvn7ok
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) May 23, 2026
"Absolutely incredible," commented Kobeissi Letter. "Over the last six years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952. We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history."
Kobeissi Letter produced the graphic one day after the University of Michigan's latest survey found consumer sentiment hitting the lowest level on record.
Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, observed that "the cost of living continues to be a first-order concern, with 57% of consumers spontaneously mentioning that high prices were eroding their personal finances, up from 50% last month."
On the same day, Gallup published new data showing that Americans' economic confidence has fallen to its lowest level since October 2022, with just 16% of Americans rating the economy as excellent or good, and nearly half describing it as poor.
Axios reported on Saturday that even Republicans have been growing sour on the US economy, citing a recent poll from The Associated Press showing GOP approval of President Donald Trump on the economy to be at around 60%, down from 80% just three months ago.
"The growing GOP gloom could hardly come at a worse time for Trump and the party," Axios noted, "less than six months out from a midterm election that's likely to turn on the economy."
The gap between overall consumer sentiment and stock market performance also lines up with recent consumer spending trends. Data published by The Financial Times earlier this year showed that the top 10% of earners in the US now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, while the bottom 80% of earners now account for less than 40% of all consumer spending.
A February report from TD Economics economist Ksenia Bushmeneva noted that “the economic divide between America’s households at the top of the income spectrum and everyone else continued to widen last year,” as “upper-income households benefited from the still-robust wage growth, strong gains in equity markets, and better access to consumer credit.”
"Private equity is destroying our favorite baseball team, stripping them for parts," Democratic US Senate candidate Platner said in an ad that aired on the New England Sports Network.
Maine Democratic US Senate candidate Graham Platner on Saturday said that a campaign ad that aired during a Boston Red Sox game was "taken down" after it took aim at the team's ownership.
The ad in question features Platner discussing the role that private equity firms play in the US economy, including sports teams.
"Private equity is destroying our favorite baseball team, stripping them for parts," Platner says at the start of the ad. "Private equity is buying up our homes, our sports, and our lives. I will reverse the private equity curse."
Private equity is taking our homes. It's taking our hospitals. It's taking beloved local businesses and stripping them for parts.
And now private equity is running the Red Sox into the ground.
Our new ad ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/w7LapElpdA
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) May 22, 2026
Platner concludes the ad by saying that he approves this message "because I miss Mookie Betts," the star player whom the Red Sox traded to the Los Angeles Dodgers in 2020 in a deal that was widely decried by local fans as a salary dump.
According to Platner, his campaign began airing the ad Friday on the New England Sports Network (NESN), the cable TV station owned partially by Fenway Sports Group, the conglomerate that owns the Red Sox.
However, he said that "midway through the game the ad was taken down" by NESN, after which the Red Sox proceeded to blow a 4-0 lead, losing to the Minnesota Twins by a final score of 8-6.
Platner, an oyster farmer and upstart candidate who has never before held political office, became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for the 2026 US Senate race in Maine last month after his top rival, Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills, dropped out of the race.
In recent weeks, Platner has pivoted to challenging incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has held the seat since 1996 and is now running for her sixth term in office.
The policy change means "we could have families separated for months or years," said one expert.
Critics are slamming the Trump administration for implementing a new rule that foreigners who apply for green cards must do so from abroad.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Friday announced that foreigners currently in the US who want to establish permanent legal residency must first return to their countries of origin to apply for a green card.
This announcement broke with decades of US immigration policy, which made it possible for immigrants in the US to obtain green cards without having to leave the country.
Doug Rand, a former senior advisor at USCIS under President Joe Biden, said in an interview with The Associated Press that "the goal of this policy is very explicit," which is to block a path to citizenship "for as many people as possible."
Sarah Pierce, a former USCIS policy analyst, told The New York Times that the rule change could have particularly dire consequences to foreigners who are married to US citizens and will now have to apply for permanent residency from overseas.
"Our consular processing system through which they would have to apply is already overburdened," Pierce explained. "So that means we could have families separated for months or years."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, similarly noted that the new policy "could force people to leave their jobs, homes, and families for weeks or months, all at their own expense" just to stay in a country where they have already established roots.
Reichlin-Melnick said that the full scope of the policy isn't yet clear because there are several unknown details about how broadly it will be applied, but added that "in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of immigrants now have to worry about upending their lives to get a legal status that they are entitled to under our laws."
Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim argued that the new policy rips the mask off Trump administration claims that they aren't opposed to all immigration, they simply want to reduce undocumented immigration.
"The talking point that we do want legal immigration, we just want people to get in line and follow the rules, is BS," Grim commented. "This is an attempt to blow up the line, blow up the rules, and make it insanely difficult to immigrate legally."
Rep. Chuy García (D-Ill.) echoed Grim's comments by pointing out that the new policy shows the Trump administration's disdain for immigration overall.
"This new policy will force thousands of LEGAL immigrants, including spouses of US citizens, to leave their homes, families, and jobs for weeks or even months to get their green card outside the US," said García. "This is an absurd and cruel policy."
Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, condemned the new policy for targeting "students, scientists, entrepreneurs, spouses of US citizens, and other individuals following legal immigration processes."
"Aspiring lawful permanent residents are valued members of our communities, workforce, and economy," Espaillat emphasized. "I will continue fighting to protect the rights of aspiring green card holders and immigrant families."