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.
Government in the liberal democracies of the developed world is based on an experiment undertaken in the last half of the 18th century. That experiment theorized that the public interest could be protected under a system of laws enacted by the vote of the people's elected representatives.Under this system, people are free to do as they please as long as no law has been passed restricting their freedom. Laws are not passed restricting freedom until legal behaviour damages the public interest to the point where it makes another law necessary.
This system relies on the assumption that extensive harm cannot be done to the public interest before a law can be passed prohibiting the offensive behaviour. In the late 1700s this assumption may have been true. Today it is not. The modern corporation can legally do more damage to the public interest in one afternoon than a human being can do in a lifetime. Problems such as global warming, third world sweatshops, big companies walking out on small towns for greener pastures elsewhere and nearly five million deaths each year from tobacco, are attacks on the public interest that show government does not always have the will to make corporations stop. Indeed, by granting corporate charters, governments in some sense authorize these attacks rather than making them cease.
If big corporations can keep government from fulfilling its purpose, we should understand why and then change one or the other--either give government more power to deal with corporations than it needs to deal with people or make the corporation more respectful of the public interest. Changing the corporation is the better choice.
The liberal democracy was designed more than 100 years before the creation of the modern corporation. It was not designed to govern large institutions dedicated to the pursuit of self-interest. This is why government has so much trouble governing corporations today.
Although companies only act through their people--directors, officers and employees--these people must obey a rule which government sets down for all corporations. That rule makes profit the corporation's only goal.
Many say this causes companies to put greed above the public interest, but this analysis only polarizes. What really happens is really more subtle than that. A company goes into a particular business and finds itself successful. Eventually, a huge amount of shareholders' money is invested in the business--sometimes billions of dollars. Then, a hidden adverse side effect of the company's products or operations is discovered.
The law provides that corporate personnel must react to this discovery in a way that protects the financial interests of the company. To do this, a number of strategies are employed to frustrate calls to make their behaviour illegal. The first of these strategies is usually denial. Eventually, however, the truth comes out and corporate personnel must employ other measures to protect their company's assets. Usually these measures include trying to keep government from passing laws that would restrict the company's ability to carry on business as usual.
It should come as no surprise that modern corporations are highly successful at this. The environment, human rights, the public health and safety and the welfare of our communities are all elements of the public interest that government should be able protect. Today, liberal democracies in all parts of the world are continually frustrated in fulfilling this purpose by a small minority of large corporations which make money through means that harm the public interest.
It is no secret how this happens. Companies use their right to free speech to lobby and finance the election campaigns of politicians. They threaten job loss and economic ruin if they are forced by new laws to change their ways. They crank up their public relations machines to entice people to vote against each other and the public interest. Their task is made easier in today's globalized world where jobs in one state or country often create damage in another.
The inconvenient truth is that a system of government of the people, by the people and for the people is well down the road to becoming a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. Ask yourself these question "do you believe governments can protect the public interest from today's big corporations or not? Do governments control companies or do companies control government?"
Some despair that nothing can be done. But Al Gore makes a good point, there is a long way between denial of the problem and despair that it cannot be solved.
A system of government designed to protect both the public interest and freedom cannot cope with powerful institutions dedicated to the furtherance of their own interests. We shouldn't expect it to do what it was never designed to. However, rather than deny or despair, we should recognize another not so inconvenient truth--profits and protection of the public interest need not be mutually exclusive.
The rules establishing corporations can be changed. Profit should remain the goal, but its pursuit should not come at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public health and safety or the welfare of our communities. Making this change will give people at work the flexibility to respect the public interest that today is missing. When it is made, the modern corporation will be more compatible with our system of government and the public interest under a lot less threat.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Government in the liberal democracies of the developed world is based on an experiment undertaken in the last half of the 18th century. That experiment theorized that the public interest could be protected under a system of laws enacted by the vote of the people's elected representatives.Under this system, people are free to do as they please as long as no law has been passed restricting their freedom. Laws are not passed restricting freedom until legal behaviour damages the public interest to the point where it makes another law necessary.
This system relies on the assumption that extensive harm cannot be done to the public interest before a law can be passed prohibiting the offensive behaviour. In the late 1700s this assumption may have been true. Today it is not. The modern corporation can legally do more damage to the public interest in one afternoon than a human being can do in a lifetime. Problems such as global warming, third world sweatshops, big companies walking out on small towns for greener pastures elsewhere and nearly five million deaths each year from tobacco, are attacks on the public interest that show government does not always have the will to make corporations stop. Indeed, by granting corporate charters, governments in some sense authorize these attacks rather than making them cease.
If big corporations can keep government from fulfilling its purpose, we should understand why and then change one or the other--either give government more power to deal with corporations than it needs to deal with people or make the corporation more respectful of the public interest. Changing the corporation is the better choice.
The liberal democracy was designed more than 100 years before the creation of the modern corporation. It was not designed to govern large institutions dedicated to the pursuit of self-interest. This is why government has so much trouble governing corporations today.
Although companies only act through their people--directors, officers and employees--these people must obey a rule which government sets down for all corporations. That rule makes profit the corporation's only goal.
Many say this causes companies to put greed above the public interest, but this analysis only polarizes. What really happens is really more subtle than that. A company goes into a particular business and finds itself successful. Eventually, a huge amount of shareholders' money is invested in the business--sometimes billions of dollars. Then, a hidden adverse side effect of the company's products or operations is discovered.
The law provides that corporate personnel must react to this discovery in a way that protects the financial interests of the company. To do this, a number of strategies are employed to frustrate calls to make their behaviour illegal. The first of these strategies is usually denial. Eventually, however, the truth comes out and corporate personnel must employ other measures to protect their company's assets. Usually these measures include trying to keep government from passing laws that would restrict the company's ability to carry on business as usual.
It should come as no surprise that modern corporations are highly successful at this. The environment, human rights, the public health and safety and the welfare of our communities are all elements of the public interest that government should be able protect. Today, liberal democracies in all parts of the world are continually frustrated in fulfilling this purpose by a small minority of large corporations which make money through means that harm the public interest.
It is no secret how this happens. Companies use their right to free speech to lobby and finance the election campaigns of politicians. They threaten job loss and economic ruin if they are forced by new laws to change their ways. They crank up their public relations machines to entice people to vote against each other and the public interest. Their task is made easier in today's globalized world where jobs in one state or country often create damage in another.
The inconvenient truth is that a system of government of the people, by the people and for the people is well down the road to becoming a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. Ask yourself these question "do you believe governments can protect the public interest from today's big corporations or not? Do governments control companies or do companies control government?"
Some despair that nothing can be done. But Al Gore makes a good point, there is a long way between denial of the problem and despair that it cannot be solved.
A system of government designed to protect both the public interest and freedom cannot cope with powerful institutions dedicated to the furtherance of their own interests. We shouldn't expect it to do what it was never designed to. However, rather than deny or despair, we should recognize another not so inconvenient truth--profits and protection of the public interest need not be mutually exclusive.
The rules establishing corporations can be changed. Profit should remain the goal, but its pursuit should not come at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public health and safety or the welfare of our communities. Making this change will give people at work the flexibility to respect the public interest that today is missing. When it is made, the modern corporation will be more compatible with our system of government and the public interest under a lot less threat.
Government in the liberal democracies of the developed world is based on an experiment undertaken in the last half of the 18th century. That experiment theorized that the public interest could be protected under a system of laws enacted by the vote of the people's elected representatives.Under this system, people are free to do as they please as long as no law has been passed restricting their freedom. Laws are not passed restricting freedom until legal behaviour damages the public interest to the point where it makes another law necessary.
This system relies on the assumption that extensive harm cannot be done to the public interest before a law can be passed prohibiting the offensive behaviour. In the late 1700s this assumption may have been true. Today it is not. The modern corporation can legally do more damage to the public interest in one afternoon than a human being can do in a lifetime. Problems such as global warming, third world sweatshops, big companies walking out on small towns for greener pastures elsewhere and nearly five million deaths each year from tobacco, are attacks on the public interest that show government does not always have the will to make corporations stop. Indeed, by granting corporate charters, governments in some sense authorize these attacks rather than making them cease.
If big corporations can keep government from fulfilling its purpose, we should understand why and then change one or the other--either give government more power to deal with corporations than it needs to deal with people or make the corporation more respectful of the public interest. Changing the corporation is the better choice.
The liberal democracy was designed more than 100 years before the creation of the modern corporation. It was not designed to govern large institutions dedicated to the pursuit of self-interest. This is why government has so much trouble governing corporations today.
Although companies only act through their people--directors, officers and employees--these people must obey a rule which government sets down for all corporations. That rule makes profit the corporation's only goal.
Many say this causes companies to put greed above the public interest, but this analysis only polarizes. What really happens is really more subtle than that. A company goes into a particular business and finds itself successful. Eventually, a huge amount of shareholders' money is invested in the business--sometimes billions of dollars. Then, a hidden adverse side effect of the company's products or operations is discovered.
The law provides that corporate personnel must react to this discovery in a way that protects the financial interests of the company. To do this, a number of strategies are employed to frustrate calls to make their behaviour illegal. The first of these strategies is usually denial. Eventually, however, the truth comes out and corporate personnel must employ other measures to protect their company's assets. Usually these measures include trying to keep government from passing laws that would restrict the company's ability to carry on business as usual.
It should come as no surprise that modern corporations are highly successful at this. The environment, human rights, the public health and safety and the welfare of our communities are all elements of the public interest that government should be able protect. Today, liberal democracies in all parts of the world are continually frustrated in fulfilling this purpose by a small minority of large corporations which make money through means that harm the public interest.
It is no secret how this happens. Companies use their right to free speech to lobby and finance the election campaigns of politicians. They threaten job loss and economic ruin if they are forced by new laws to change their ways. They crank up their public relations machines to entice people to vote against each other and the public interest. Their task is made easier in today's globalized world where jobs in one state or country often create damage in another.
The inconvenient truth is that a system of government of the people, by the people and for the people is well down the road to becoming a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. Ask yourself these question "do you believe governments can protect the public interest from today's big corporations or not? Do governments control companies or do companies control government?"
Some despair that nothing can be done. But Al Gore makes a good point, there is a long way between denial of the problem and despair that it cannot be solved.
A system of government designed to protect both the public interest and freedom cannot cope with powerful institutions dedicated to the furtherance of their own interests. We shouldn't expect it to do what it was never designed to. However, rather than deny or despair, we should recognize another not so inconvenient truth--profits and protection of the public interest need not be mutually exclusive.
The rules establishing corporations can be changed. Profit should remain the goal, but its pursuit should not come at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public health and safety or the welfare of our communities. Making this change will give people at work the flexibility to respect the public interest that today is missing. When it is made, the modern corporation will be more compatible with our system of government and the public interest under a lot less threat.
"President Trump's deal to take a $400 million luxury jet from a foreign government deserves full public scrutiny—not a stiff-arm from the Department of Justice," said the head of one watchdog group.
With preparations to refit a Qatari jet to be used as Air Force One "underway," a press freedom group sued the U.S. Department of Justice in federal court on Monday for failing to release the DOJ memorandum about the legality of President Donald Trump accepting the $400 million "flying palace."
The Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), represented by nonpartisan watchdog American Oversight, filed the lawsuit seeking the memo, which was reportedly approved by the Office of Legal Counsel and signed by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who previously lobbied on behalf of the Qatari government.
FPF had submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the memo on May 15, and the DOJ told the group that fulfilling it would take over 600 days.
"How many flights could Trump have taken on his new plane in the same amount of time it would have taken the DOJ to release this one document?"
"It shouldn't take 620 days to release a single, time-sensitive document," said Lauren Harper, FPF's Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy, in a Monday statement. "How many flights could Trump have taken on his new plane in the same amount of time it would have taken the DOJ to release this one document?"
The complaint—filed in the District of Columbia—notes that the airplane is set to be donated to Trump's private presidential library foundation after his second term. Harper said that "the government's inability to administer FOIA makes it too easy for agencies to keep secrets, and nonexistent disclosure rules around donations to presidential libraries provide easy cover for bad actors and potential corruption."
It's not just FPF sounding the alarm about the aircraft. The complaint points out that "a number of stakeholders, including ethics experts and several GOP lawmakers, have questioned the propriety and legality of the move, including whether acceptance of the plane would violate the U.S. Constitution's foreign emoluments clause... which prohibits a president from receiving gifts or benefits from foreign governments without the consent of Congress."
Some opponents of the "comically corrupt" so-called gift stressed that it came after the Trump Organization, the Saudi partner DarGlobal, and a company owned by the Qatari government reached a deal to build a luxury golf resort in Qatar.
Despite some initial GOP criticism of the president taking the aircraft, just hours after the Trump administration formally accepted the jet in May, U.S. Senate Republicans thwarted an attempt by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to pass by unanimous consent legislation intended to prevent a foreign plane from serving as Air Force One.
"Although President Trump characterized the deal as a smart business decision, remarking that it would be 'stupid' not to accept 'a free, very expensive airplane,' experts have noted that it will be costly to retrofit the jet for use as Air Force One, with estimatesranging from less than $400 million to more than $1 billion," the complaint states.
As The New York Times reported Sunday:
Officially, and conveniently, the price tag has been classified. But even by Washington standards, where "black budgets" are often used as an excuse to avoid revealing the cost of outdated spy satellites and lavish end-of-year parties, the techniques being used to hide the cost of Mr. Trump's pet project are inventive.
Which may explain why no one wants to discuss a mysterious, $934 million transfer of funds from one of the Pentagon's most over-budget, out-of-control projects—the modernization of America's aging, ground-based nuclear missiles...
Air Force officials privately concede that they are paying for renovations of the Qatari Air Force One with the transfer from another the massively-over-budget, behind-schedule program, called the Sentinel.
Preparations to refit the plane "are underway, and floor plans or schematics have been seen by senior U.S. officials," according to Monday reporting by CBS News. One unnamed budget official who spoke to the outlet also "believes the money to pay for upgrades will come from the Sentinel program."
Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight, said Monday that "President Trump's deal to take a $400 million luxury jet from a foreign government deserves full public scrutiny—not a stiff-arm from the Department of Justice."
"This is precisely the kind of corrupt arrangement that public records laws are designed to expose," Chukwu added. "The DOJ cannot sit on its hands and expect the American people to wait years for the truth while serious questions about corruption, self-dealing, and foreign influence go unanswered."
The complaint highlights that "Bondi's decision not to recuse herself from this matter, despite her links to the Qatari government, adds to a growing body of questionable ethical practices that have arisen during her short tenure as attorney general."
It also emphasizes that "the Qatari jet is just one in a list of current and prospective extravagant donations to President Trump's presidential library foundation that has raised significant questions about the use of private foundation donations to improperly influence government policy."
"Notably, ABC News and Paramount each agreed to resolve cases President Trump filed against the media entities by paying multimillion-dollar settlements to the Trump presidential library foundation, with Paramount's $16 million agreed payout coming at the same time it sought government approval for a planned merger with Skydance," the filing details. "On July 24, the Federal Communications Commission announced its approval of the $8 billion merger."
"The Trump regime just handed Christian nationalists a loaded weapon: your federal workplace," said one critic.
The Trump administration issued a memo Monday allowing federal employees to proselytize in the workplace, a move welcomed by many conservatives but denounced by proponents of the separation of church and state.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) memo "provides clear guidance to ensure federal employees may express their religious beliefs through prayer, personal items, group gatherings, and conversations without fear of discrimination or retaliation."
"Employees must be allowed to engage in private religious expression in work areas to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious private expression," the memo states.
Federal workers "should be permitted to display and use items used for religious purposes or icons of a religiously significant nature, including but not limited to bibles, artwork, jewelry, posters displaying religious messages, and other indicia of religion (such as crosses, crucifixes, and mezuzahs) on their desks, on their person, and in their assigned workspaces," the document continues.
"Employees may engage in conversations regarding religious topics with fellow employees, including attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views, provided that such efforts are not harassing in nature," OPM said—without elaborating on what constitutes harassment.
"These shocking changes essentially permit workplace evangelizing."
"Employees may also encourage their coworkers to participate in religious expressions of faith, such as prayer, to the same extent that they would be permitted to encourage coworkers participate in other personal activities," the memo adds.
OPM Director Scott Kupor said in a statement that "federal employees should never have to choose between their faith and their career."
"This guidance ensures the federal workplace is not just compliant with the law but welcoming to Americans of all faiths," Kupor added. "Under President [Donald] Trump's leadership, we are restoring constitutional freedoms and making government a place where people of faith are respected, not sidelined."
The OPM memo was widely applauded by conservative social media users—although some were dismayed that the new rules also apply to Muslims.
Critics, however, blasted what the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) called "a gift to evangelicals and the myth of 'anti-Christian bias.'"
FFRF co-president Laurie Gaylor said that "these shocking changes essentially permit workplace evangelizing, but worse still, allow supervisors to evangelize underlings and federal workers to proselytize the public they serve."
"This is the implementation of Christian nationalism in our federal government," Gaylor added.
The Secular Coalition for America denounced the memo as "another effort to grant privileges to certain religions while ignoring nonreligious people's rights."
Monday's memo follows another issued by Kupor on July 16 that encouraged federal agencies to take a "generous approach" to evaluating government employees who request telework and other flexibilities due to their religious beliefs.
The OPM directives follow the U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 Groff v. DeJoy ruling, in which the court's right-wing majority declared that Article VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business."
The new memo also comes on the heels of three religion-based executive orders issued by Trump during his second term. One order established a White House Faith Office tasked with ensuring religious organizations have a voice in the federal government. Another seeks to "eradicate" what Trump claims is the "anti-Christian weaponization of government." Yet another created a Religious Liberty Commission meant to promote and protect religious freedom.
Awda Hathaleen was described as "a teacher and an activist who struggled courageously for his people."
A Palestinian peace activist has been fatally shot by a notorious Israeli settler who was once the subject of sanctions that were lifted this year by U.S. President Donald Trump.
In June, Awda Hathaleen—an English teacher, activist, and former soccer player from the occupied West Bank—was detained alongside his cousin Eid at the airport in San Francisco, where they were about to embark on an interfaith speaking tour organized by the California-based Kehilla Community Synagogue.
Ben Linder, co-chair of the Silicon Valley chapter of J Street and the organizer of Eid and Awda's first scheduled speaking engagement told Middle East Eye that he'd known the two cousins for 10 years, describing them as "true nonviolent peace activists" who "came here on an interfaith peace-promoting mission."
Without explanation from U.S. authorities, they were deported and returned to their village of Umm al-Khair in the South Hebron Hills.
On Monday afternoon, the activist group Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) reported on social media that Awda Hathaleen had been killed after Israeli settlers attacked his village and that a relative of his was also severely injured:
Activists working with Awda report that Israeli settlers invaded Umm al-Kheir with a bulldozer to destroy what little remains of the Palestinian village. As Awda and his family tried to defend their homes and land, a settler opened fire—both aiming directly and shooting indiscriminately. Awda was shot in the chest and later died from his injuries after being taken by an Israeli ambulance. His death was the result of brutal settler violence.
Later, when Awda's relative Ahmad al-Hathaleen tried to block the bulldozer, the settler driving it ran him over. Ahmad is now being treated in a nearby hospital.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz later confirmed these events, adding:
An eyewitness reported that the entry of Israeli settlers into Palestinian private lands, riding an excavator, caused a commotion, and the vehicle subsequently struck a resident named Ahmad Hathaleen. "People lost their minds, and the children threw stones," he said.
A friend and fellow activist, Mohammad Hureini, posted the video of the attack online. The settler who fired the gun has been identified by Haaretz as Yinon Levi, who has previously been hit—along with other settlers—with sanctions by former U.S. President Joe Biden's administration and other governments over his past harassment of Palestinians in the West Bank.
As the Biden State Department wrote at the time:
Levi consistently leads a group of settlers who attack Palestinians, set fire to their fields, destroy their property, and threaten them with further harm if they do not leave their homes.
The sanctions were later lifted by U.S. President Donald Trump. However, they'd already been rendered virtually ineffective after the intervention of far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who has expressed a desire to ethnically cleanse Gaza and the West Bank of Palestinians to make way for Jewish settlements.
Brooklyn-based journalist Jasper Nathaniel, who has covered other cases of settler violence for Zeteo described Levi as "a known terrorist who's been protected by the Israeli government for years," adding that, "One of the only good things Biden did for Palestine was sanction him."
Violence by Israeli settlers in the illegally-occupied West Bank has risen sharply since the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas and the subsequent 21-month military campaign by Israel in Gaza.
Nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed by settlers during that time. More than 6,400 have been forcibly displaced following the demolition of their homes by Israel, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
The killing of Awda Hathaleen—who had a wife and three young children—has been met with outpourings of grief and anger from his fellow peace activists in the United States, Israel, and Palestine.
Issa Amro, the Hebron-based co-founder of the grassroots group Youth Against Settlements, described Awda as a "beloved hero."
"Awda stood with dignity and courage against oppression," Amro said. "His loss is a deep wound to our hearts and our struggle for justice."
Israeli journalist and filmmaker Yuval Abraham, who last year directed the Oscar-winning documentary No Other Land about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, described Awda Hathaleen as "a remarkable activist," and thanked him for helping his team shoot the film in Masafer Yatta.
"To know Awda Hathaleen is to love him," said the post from JVP announcing his death. "Awda has always been a pillar amongst his family, his village and the wider international community of activists who had the pleasure to meet Awda."
Israeli-American peace activist Mattan Berner-Kadish wrote: "May his memory be a revolution. I will remember him smiling, laughing, dreaming of a better future for his children. We must make it so."