

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.
As the United States examines the
origins of the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, one
factor that should not be overlooked is media coverage that served to
cover up dangers rather than expose them. When President Barack Obama
declared a new push for offshore drilling (3/31/10), asserting that
"oil rigs today generally don't cause spills" (4/2/10), corporate news outlets echoed such
pollyanna sentiments:
You know, there are a lot of serious people
looking at, "Are there ways that we can do drilling and we can do
nuclear that are--that are nowhere near as risky as what they were 10 or
15 or 20 years ago?" Offshore drilling today is a lot more safer, in
many ways, environmentally, today than it was 20 years ago.
--David Gergen, CNN's Situation
Room (3/31/10)Some Americans have an opinion of offshore drilling
that was first formed decades ago with those pictures of oil on the
beaches in Santa Barbara, California. Others see it differently. They
say time and technology have changed things. They say in order to
lessen our dependence on foreign oil and keep gas prices low, we've got
to bring more of it out of the ground and from under the sea.
--Brian Williams, NBC Nightly News
(3/31/10)The technology of oil drilling has made huge
advances.... The time has come for my fellow environmentalists to
reassess their stand on offshore oil. It is not clear that the risks of
offshore oil drilling still outweigh the benefits. The risk of oil
spills in the United States is quite low.
--Eric Smith, Washington Post
op-ed (4/2/10)Some of the most ironic objections come from those
who say offshore exploration will destroy beaches and coastlines,
citing the devastating 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska as an
example. The last serious spill from a drilling accident in U.S. waters
was in 1969, off Santa Barbara, California.
--USA Today editorial (4/2/10)Since the big spill off the coast of California
about three decades ago, the big oil companies have really put a lot of
time, money and resources into making sure that their drilling is a
lot more safe and environmentally sound.
--Monica Crowley, Fox Business Happy Hour
(3/31/10)Drilling could be conducted in an environmentally
sensitive manner. We already drill in an environmentally sensitive
manner.
--Sean Hannity, Fox News' Hannity
(4/1/10)And even in terms of the environment, we're going to
consume oil one way or the other. It's safer for the planet if it's
done under our strict controls and high technology in America as
opposed to Nigeria.... We've got a ton of drilling happening every day
today in the Gulf of Mexico in a hurricane area and it's successful.
--Charles Krauthammer, WJLA's Inside
Washington (4/4/10)We had a hurricane on the Gulf Coast and there was
no oil spill. If Katrina didn't cause an oil spill with all those oil
wells in the Gulf....
--Dick Morris, Fox News' O'Reilly
Factor (3/31/10)The two main reasons oil and other fossil fuels
became environmentally incorrect in the 1970s--air pollution and risk
of oil spills--are largely obsolete. Improvements in drilling
technology have greatly reduced the risk of the kind of offshore spill
that occurred off Santa Barbara in 1969.... To fear oil spills from
offshore rigs today is analogous to fearing air travel now because of
prop plane crashes.
--Steven F. Hayward, Weekly Standard
(4/26/10)
And these messages didn't entirely disappear after
the Gulf of Mexico disaster unfolded. In its May 10 issue, Time
magazine had a small box headlined, "Offshore-Drilling Disasters:
Rare But Deadly," which listed a mere four incidents--the most recent
in 1988. But it doesn't take too much research to turn up a slew of
other incidents that raise concerns: the Unocal-owned Seacrest
drillship that capsized in 1989, killing 91 people; Phillips
Petroleum's Alexander Kielland rig that collapsed in 1980, killing 123,
and more. The list managed to overlook at least three well disasters
in the Gulf of Mexico that resulted in oil spills--two incidents off
the Louisiana coast in 1999, and the Usumacinta spill in Mexican waters
in 2007.
A previous Time.com story (4/24/10) had noted that the Minerals Management
Service, which oversees offshore drilling, reported 39 fires or
explosions in the first five months of 2009 alone; though the magazine
said the "good news" is that "most of these" did not result in death.
The website Oil Rig Disasters tallies 184 incidents,
dozens of which involved fatalities--and 73 of which occurred after
1988.
Clearly there are different ways to measure such
things, but it's hard not to feel that Time's point
was to suggest that drilling disasters are really too rare to worry
about.
Since the BP/Deepwater disaster, many news outlets
have run investigative pieces detailing the long history of negligent
oversight of the offshore drilling industry. But when the New
York Times tells readers (5/25/10) about the "enduring laxity of federal
regulation of offshore operations," one can't help but wonder why this
apparently well-known problem got so little attention before the
environmental catastrophe.
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints.
“They may have won this race, but we have changed the narrative about what kind of city Minneapolis can be,” Omar Fateh said.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey fended off a challenge from democratic socialist Omar Fateh to secure a third term by winning enough support in the second round of the city's ranked-choice voting system.
City election officials declared Frey, a Democrat, the winner Wednesday morning after tabulating second- and subsequent-choice votes. Frey won 42% of first-choice votes, followed by Fateh with 32%, former pastor DeWayne Davis with 14%, and entrepreneur Jazz Hampton with 10%.
Fateh—a Democratic state senator and son of Somali immigrants—congratulated Frey on his victory.
“They may have won this race, but we have changed the narrative about what kind of city Minneapolis can be,” he said. “Because now, truly affordable housing, workers’ rights, and public safety rooted in care are no longer side conversations; they are at the center of the narrative.”
Thank you, Minneapolis!While this wasn’t the outcome we wanted, I am incredibly grateful to every single person who supported our grassroots campaign. I’ll keep fighting alongside you to build the city we deserve. Onward.
[image or embed]
— Omar Fateh (@omarfatehmn.com) November 5, 2025 at 10:03 AM
Frey said in a statement Wednesday, “From right now through my final seconds as mayor, I will work tirelessly to make our great city a place where everyone, regardless of who you are or where you come from, can build a brilliant life in an affordable home and a safe neighborhood."
Fateh’s campaign drew comparisons with that of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, another progressive state lawmaker and democratic socialist who was bombarded with racist, Islamophobic, and xenophobic hate by prominent right-wing figures. Like Mamdani, Fateh hoped voters would focus on his record of serving his constituency in the state Legislature.
Among the dozens of bills authored by Fateh were a successful proposal to fund tuition-free public colleges and universities and tribal colleges for students from families with household incomes below $80,000, including undocumented immigrants, and another measure that exempted fentanyl test strips from being considered drug paraphernalia.
Fateh was also the chief state Senate author of a bill that would have ensured that drivers on ride-hailing applications like Uber and Lyft were paid minimum wage and received workplace protections. Although the bill was approved by both houses of the state Legislature, it was vetoed by Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Gov. Tim Walz, sparking widespread outrage among progressives.
Initially chosen over Frey by state DFL delegates, Fatah's endorsement was rescinded in August by state party officials, sparking widespread outrage from progressives including Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who condemned the "inexcusable" move, which she chalked up to "the influence of big money in our politics."
One social media user wrote that the hedge fund executive Bill Ackman "went from acting like Mamdani was going to import ISIS to extending a friendly handshake… in like six hours."
After his resounding election victory on Tuesday night, New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's most prominent billionaire antagonist immediately pivoted to kiss the ring of the man he has spent the last more than half-year portraying as an existential threat to the city and the country.
Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman poured over $1.75 million into the mayor's race with a laser focus on stopping Mamdani, whom he often ambushed with several-thousand-word screeds on his X account, which boasts nearly 2 million followers. He accused Mamdani—a staunch critic of Israel—of "amplifying hate" against Jewish New Yorkers, while suggesting that his followers (which happened to include many Jewish New Yorkers) were "terror supporters."
Meanwhile, the billionaire suggested that the democratic socialist Mamdani's "affordability" centered agenda, which includes increasing taxes on corporations and the city's wealthiest residents to fund universal childcare, free buses, and a rent freeze for stabilized units, would make the city "much more dangerous and economically unviable," in part by causing an exodus of billionaires like himself.
In turn, Mamdani often invoked Ackman's name on the campaign trail, using him as the poster boy for the cossetted New York elite that was almost uniformly arrayed against his candidacy. In one exchange, Mamdani joked that Ackman was "spending more money against me than I would even tax him."
After Mamdani's convincing victory Tuesday night, fueled in large part by his dominant performance among the city's working-class voters, Ackman surprisingly did not respond with "the longest tweet in the history of tweets" to lament the result as some predicted. Instead, he came to the mayor-elect hat in hand.
"Congrats on the win," he told Mamdani on X. "Now you have a big responsibility. If I can help NYC, just let me know what I can do."
Many were quick to point out Ackman's near-immediate 180-degree turn from prophecizing doom to offering his help to the incoming mayor.
"This guy went from acting like Mamdani was going to import ISIS to extending a friendly handshake… in like six hours," noted one social media user.
But Mamdani graciously accepted the billionaire's congratulations when asked about them on Wednesday's "Good Morning America."
"I appreciated his words,” Mamdani said. "I think what I find is that there is a needed commitment from leaders of the city to speak and work with anyone who is committed to lowering the cost of living in the city—and that’s something that I will fulfill."
As Bloomberg and Forbes noted, Ackman was just one of many on Wall Street and from the broader finance world who came to kiss the ring.
Ralph Schlosstein, a co-founder of the investment fund BlackRock, Inc., pledged to work with Mamdani despite their different politics: "I do care deeply about the city, and I’m not going anywhere, whoever the mayor is. I’m going to do whatever I can to help him be successful," he said.
Another former BlackRock executive, Mark Kronfeld, said: "Is it a dystopian, post-apocalyptic environment because Mamdani has won? No."
Crypto billionaire Mike Novogratz even credited Mamdani with "tapping into a message that’s real: that we’ve got a tale of two cities in the Dickensian sense," and asked if the incoming mayor could "address the affordability issue in creative ways without driving business out."
But while Mamdani has left the door open to business, he has made it clear that he will not allow them to commandeer his work at City Hall.
After his victory, he called on his base of largely small-dollar donors to resume their financial support for him in order to fund "a transition that can meet the moment of preparing for January 1.”
He announced that this historic all-female transition team will include at least one renowned titan of economic populism, the trust-busting former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, as well as other progressive city administrators with backgrounds in expanding the social safety net and public housing.
"I’m excited for the fact that it will be funded by the very people who brought us to this point," Mamdani said, "the working people who have been lost behind by the politics of the city."
One critic warned a Trump win “will cement a precedent that expands his power as executive in a dangerous and unprecedented way.”
As the US Supreme Court on Wednesday began hearing arguments on the sweeping powers claimed by President Donald Trump to impose tariffs on foreign goods, many critics warned that the court would create a "presidency without limits" if it ruled in his favor.
In April, Trump unveiled unprecedented tariffs on nearly every nation in the world using powers granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law passed in 1977 that allows the president to regulate international commerce during major emergencies such as wars.
Many Trump critics believe that using this law as the legal foundation of a global tariff regime is a gross abuse of the law's original intent, and are urging the Supreme Court to shut it down.
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at Stand Up America, warned that granting the president this level of authority over the taxation of imported goods would "open the door to broader abuses of power" by emboldening Trump to usurp even more authority from the US Congress.
“We’re already dangerously close to a presidency without limits," he said. "It’s time for the right-wing majority on the court to stand up for our Constitution and serve as a check on Trump’s power, starting with this case."
Josh Orton, president of progressive legal advocacy organization Demand Justice, also said that the tariff case before the Supreme Court "is about far more than an economic debate or a trade-law dispute," given its implications for the separation of powers laid out in the US Constitution.
"Trump is demanding that the court hand him raw power over the economy," said Orton. "If Trump wins here, he won’t just raise costs on American families. He will cement a precedent that expands his power as executive in a dangerous and unprecedented way—letting any president unilaterally rewrite trade law, punish certain industries, harm consumers, or leverage international allies for personal gain."
Leor Tal, campaign director at the progressive advocacy coalition Unrig Our Economy, argued that the Supreme Court wouldn't even need to hear the case on the Trump tariffs if Congress reasserted its authority given under the US Constitution to levy taxes.
“As the Supreme Court hears a case with implications for whether Americans can afford groceries, school supplies, and more, people will remember that Republicans in Congress could end these disastrous tariffs today and should have done so a long time ago," she said. “These tariffs are nothing more than a tax on working Americans, and Republicans in Congress have voted time and again to keep them in place... Republicans in Congress must act immediately to repeal Trump’s tariffs and finally put working people first."
During Wednesday's hearing on the tariffs case, conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch raised concerns about allowing the president to usurp congressional powers in perpetuity by issuing emergency declarations that Congress must then vote to revoke before it can resume its duties outlined in Article I of the US Constitution.
"So Congress, as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president," Gorsuch remarked. "It's a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives."
Sauer tried to counter this by pointing to former President Joe Biden agreeing in 2023 to sign bipartisan legislation ending the national health emergency caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Gorsuch, however, countered that this only occurred with the president's consent, and that it would otherwise take a supermajority to end a declared emergency if the president elected to veto the congressional resolution.
Gorsuch: So congress as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president.. one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives. pic.twitter.com/secLyWMX7H
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 5, 2025
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also grilled Sauer on concerns about separation of powers, and she noted that the Constitution explicitly delegates taxation powers to Congress.
"It's a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax," she said. "You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that's exactly what they are. They're generating money from American citizens, revenue."
Justice Sotomayor asks about tariffs being a kind of tax on Americans and compares President Trump's emergency tariff Executive Orders to President Biden's student loan forgiveness policy and a hypothetical climate emergency. pic.twitter.com/nD0MYgVjv3
— CSPAN (@cspan) November 5, 2025
Ahead of the Supreme Court hearing this week, Trump posted a frantic message on his Truth Social platform warning justices that his power to unilaterally impose tariffs was a matter of "life or death" for the United States.
""With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, financial and national security," he claimed. "Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us."
Meanwhile, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said on social media Wednesday that "Trump’s tariffs are sending small businesses to an early grave."
"Trade authority begins and ends with Congress," the senator added. "I’ll keep battling to rein in Trump’s tariff madness and protect small businesses, farmers, and families."