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.

Leading environmental organizations hailed today's historic decision
by Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar to provide federal
approval for Cape Wind, allowing the country's first utility-scale
offshore wind farm to move forward. The announcement signaled the
Administration's intentions to support renewable energy development off
U.S. shores, a major component of a clean energy economy and reduced
dependence on fossil fuels, the organizations said.
Today's announcement ends a nearly nine-year environmental review
process, much longer than is typical for a traditional coal power
plant. The decision clears the way for Cape Wind to begin the
permitting process and develop a 130 turbine wind farm in Nantucket
Sound, which could meet as much as 75 percent of the electricity demand
for Cape Cod and the Islands.
The Conservation Law Foundation , Mass Audubon, the Natural
Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists said
the decision will help get clean, renewable American energy up and
running, cut global warming pollution, fuel economic growth, provide
jobs, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and promote energy
independence.
"Offshore wind energy can play a major role in repowering America,
and Cape Wind shows us how it can be done," said NRDC Counsel on Air
and Energy Kit Kennedy. "We can harness the domestic energy potential
off our shores while protecting our oceans at the same time. Cape Wind
jumpstarts the American offshore wind industry and sets the stage for
the U.S. to become a leader in clean energy."
The Administration conducted a fair and open process to reach
today's decision, gathering extensive input from all interested
stakeholders, including environmental organizations, Native American
tribes, clean energy advocates, labor unions, community, business and
trade groups, public health organizations and local citizens. Cape Wind
has strong public support and demonstrated economic and environmental
benefits, and has undergone exhaustive scientific review clearing the
project of significant impacts to ocean habitats and wildlife.
"After nine years of project review and independent scientific field
research, Mass Audubon has concluded that the Cape Wind project would
not pose an ecologically significant threat to the birds and associated
marine habitat of Horseshoe Shoal and Nantucket Sound," said Laura
Johnson, president of Mass Audubon. "Renewable energy needs to grow
quickly to reduce the most severe effects associated with rapid climate
change, yet it must be done responsibly to minimize the impact on the
environment. Cape Wind meets those requirements, including extensive
monitoring of wildlife and habitat, creating a model for the nation. We
support this momentous decision by the Obama Administration, which will
position the United States to become a leader in the development of
green energy, and, if done responsibly, will benefit both people and
wildlife."
"We're already seeing changes consistent with global warming across
the Northeast, changes that are altering the fundamental character of
the region," said John Rogers, a senior energy analyst in UCS's Climate
and Energy Program. "We can still avoid the worst of climate change,
but that means seriously ramping up the nation's renewable energy use -
including offshore wind energy. The Cape Wind project approval means
we'll now have a new arrow in the nation's renewable energy quiver."
The Minerals Management Service calculated that, due to reduced need
for fossil-fuel generated power to serve the area's needs, Cape Wind
will reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) by nearly one million
tons per year, or approximately one percent of total greenhouse gas
emissions in Massachusetts from all sources. Cape Wind will play an
important role in helping Massachusetts achieve the 10 to 25 percent
reduction in emissions by 2020 required by state law.
"Today is a turning point for New England in which we can start to
turn smokestacks into wind turbines," said John Kassel, president of
Conservation Law Foundation. "It is fitting that Massachusetts, which
has no coal or oil of its own to burn, should be first in the water
with offshore wind, a carbon-free energy source which we have in
abundance. With Secretary Salazar's decision, we are ready to bring
this project to completion at last and give the nation a glimpse into
its clean energy future."
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."