

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.

Virginia Cleaveland, Stand.earth, media@stand.earth
Aisha Dukule, Friends of the Earth, adukule@foe.org
More than 50,000 people have signed a petition led by environmental advocacy organizations Stand.earth and Friends of the Earth US calling for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to extend its no-sail order for cruise ships, due to the risk that resumed operations would pose to public health and the environment. The organizations submitted the petition signed by just over 28,400 supporters from Stand.earth and 23,400 from Friends of the Earth US to the CDC on Monday, September 21, 2020, which is the closing date for the federal agency's comment period on whether cruise lines can safely operate in the COVID-19 era.
Over the weekend, the cruise industry caught wind of the organizing efforts by advocacy organizations and community groups, with Royal Caribbean CEO Michael Bayley posting on his Facebook page urging cruise fans to submit comments after an "anti-cruise group has lobbied their supporters to comment."
"For decades, the foreign-owned cruise industry has put its bottom line before the health of people and the planet. Its recent failure to cease operations when it was clear that its vessels posed a serious risk to public health contributed to the spread of the COVID-19 virus around the world, and placed an enormous burden on the CDC and the Coast Guard to respond to onboard outbreaks. As recent outbreaks on board Norwegian Cruise Line vessels demonstrate, there is no such thing as safe cruising during a pandemic," said Kendra Ulrich, Shipping Campaigns Director at Stand.earth.
"The cruise industry has known for years that viruses spread easily on board their ships, just as they know how much pollution they generate. As long as the cruise industry refuses to implement changes needed to protect its passengers, our environment, and local communities, the industry should not restart cruising," said Marcie Keever, Oceans & Vessels Program Director at Friends of the Earth US.
A cohort of environmental nonprofits and community organizations also submitted a 12-page technical letter to the CDC outlining multiple concerns regarding cruise ships and COVID-19. Read the letter here.
The letter is signed by advocacy organizations and community groups Stand.earth, Friends of the Earth US, Pacific Environment, International Cruise Victims, Global Cruise Activist Network, reEarth (Bahamas), Seattle Cruise Control (Washington), Alliance for Responsible Tourism (Maine), Charleston Communities for Cruise Control (South Carolina), and Protect our Future (Cayman Islands). Their concerns include:
In addition to submitting the technical letter and petition, Stand.earth also organized 2,039 of its supporters to submit comments to the CDC encouraging an extension of the no-sail order.
"Our small town of Hoonah, Alaska, has no respirators, and is only a small clinic, staffed with elders, mothers with infants, and grandmothers. If an emergency arises and we are in need of a hospital or critical care, we have to take a helicopter or an emergency plane ride out of the village, IF the weather allows. ... If a cruise ship came into our town and potentially had COVID-19, our town of 800 would suffer just like our Alaska Native people did when westward expansion reached Alaska, dying of diseases and illnesses in which they had no cure, and were never exposed to because of the remoteness. I demand that the CDC extends its no sail order until after this pandemic because cruise ships are a vector for disease, not only COVID-19, but many other illnesses," wrote Rebekah Sawers, an Alaskan Native Yupik living with her family in Hoonah, Alaska.
Hoonah is a largely Tlingit community located near Glacier Bay National Park, where in 2018 Carnival Corporation's Holland America Line committed a felony when it illegally dumped untreated greywater and failed to report it to the Coast Guard.
"Until the pandemic is actually under control, traveling via cruise ship will be extremely hazardous. The people on the ship -- staff and customers alike -- will be at severe risk. ... As a retired Public Health Nurse, I am encouraging the strictest measures to protect us all rather than encourage the spread of this virus," wrote another commenter.
"Cruise ships are already hazardous to the environment and need tighter regulations. They pollute everywhere they sail. Sailing in the midst of a pandemic is not responsible behavior. It is the behavior of greedy people who worship money," wrote another commenter.
"Dead people make lousy customers," wrote another commenter.
As of 12:00 p.m. PT Monday, September 21, only 3,584 of the 10,539 comments submitted were approved and posted on the CDC's comment portal. There appears to be a lag between when the CDC receives and posts comments -- in some cases up to two weeks -- so it is unknown how many additional comments the CDC will publish after the deadline.
Stand.earth (formerly ForestEthics) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with offices in Canada and the United States that is known for its groundbreaking research and successful corporate and citizens engagement campaigns to create new policies and industry standards in protecting forests, advocating the rights of indigenous peoples, and protecting the climate. Visit us at
"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."