

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.
Recently my email brought two items on the same day which, when I put them together, seemed like a strong message for Independence Day.

I Have a Dream...
What if - I thought - after 9/11 we had decided to revenge ourselves not on Afghanis and Iraqis who had done us no harm, but on Saudi Arabia, from which country the 9/11 attackers actually hailed? What if -- assuming you don't buy the "capture the terrorists" justification for the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq -- we had decided to choose a different tool than war to defend our energy supply?
We could have spent some portion of the difference between the 2001 military budget of approximately $350 billion annually and today's military budget of $700+ billion on developing a domestic green energy supply. It could have amounted to hundreds of billions a year and still left us with a larger military budget than the next 5 military big spenders put together (and remember: none of those big spenders are our enemies). It could have funded a Manhattan Project-style, trillion-dollar effort to attain energy independence. By today, it is likely that we would have achieved our goal, or at least have made great strides toward doing so.
We could have eliminated the waste from our entire national energy budget through intensified conservation efforts. We could have embarked on a nationally subsidized crash program of building and developing solar, wind, wave and biomass energy sources. We could have begun the transition to electric vehicles, while investing in high-speed trains and converting much of our freight from fossil-fueled trucks back to rail. We could have localized commerce, food production and labor, saving many jobs as well as energy. A trillion bucks can go a long way if spent anywhere but on the military.
We might have sacrificed our ability to conduct 3 wars at once, but after all, most of us don't support those wars anyway and besides, since they are being fought mostly to assure our access to oil, we would no longer need them.
What We Got Instead
As it is, we've got a British firm coming to Pennsylvania to make big bucks by competing with homegrown energy conservation specialists for the conservation market, which they believe is a huge growth opportunity. "The United States was a nearly untouched market with 120 million homes, most of them very energy-inefficient -- it was a massive opportunity," said the company's commercial director.
So who won and who lost? The winners were the military contractors who cleaned up on the wars and war prep. The losers? The rest of us. Oh, a few of us got jobs for military contractors, but as many of our other jobs as possible were shipped abroad where the labor was cheaper. Now we're ten years further along and we're looking at worsening climate change while the money to address it was squandered on a military that uses more energy than any other outfit in the world.
We got a military that spends about as much as all the other militaries on the planet put together. The worst problem with that is that "if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." If you've put most of your marbles in the military bucket, every problem appears to call for a military response. While other countries are busily trying to get ahead in the global marketplace, addressing the world's pressing environmental problems, finding jobs for their people and providing their citizens with universal health care, we have only one solution for everything - a war on something: drugs, terror, poverty, etc. - and none of these wars is going any better than the ones in the Middle East.
What to Do?
If you do these things, you will be:
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Recently my email brought two items on the same day which, when I put them together, seemed like a strong message for Independence Day.

I Have a Dream...
What if - I thought - after 9/11 we had decided to revenge ourselves not on Afghanis and Iraqis who had done us no harm, but on Saudi Arabia, from which country the 9/11 attackers actually hailed? What if -- assuming you don't buy the "capture the terrorists" justification for the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq -- we had decided to choose a different tool than war to defend our energy supply?
We could have spent some portion of the difference between the 2001 military budget of approximately $350 billion annually and today's military budget of $700+ billion on developing a domestic green energy supply. It could have amounted to hundreds of billions a year and still left us with a larger military budget than the next 5 military big spenders put together (and remember: none of those big spenders are our enemies). It could have funded a Manhattan Project-style, trillion-dollar effort to attain energy independence. By today, it is likely that we would have achieved our goal, or at least have made great strides toward doing so.
We could have eliminated the waste from our entire national energy budget through intensified conservation efforts. We could have embarked on a nationally subsidized crash program of building and developing solar, wind, wave and biomass energy sources. We could have begun the transition to electric vehicles, while investing in high-speed trains and converting much of our freight from fossil-fueled trucks back to rail. We could have localized commerce, food production and labor, saving many jobs as well as energy. A trillion bucks can go a long way if spent anywhere but on the military.
We might have sacrificed our ability to conduct 3 wars at once, but after all, most of us don't support those wars anyway and besides, since they are being fought mostly to assure our access to oil, we would no longer need them.
What We Got Instead
As it is, we've got a British firm coming to Pennsylvania to make big bucks by competing with homegrown energy conservation specialists for the conservation market, which they believe is a huge growth opportunity. "The United States was a nearly untouched market with 120 million homes, most of them very energy-inefficient -- it was a massive opportunity," said the company's commercial director.
So who won and who lost? The winners were the military contractors who cleaned up on the wars and war prep. The losers? The rest of us. Oh, a few of us got jobs for military contractors, but as many of our other jobs as possible were shipped abroad where the labor was cheaper. Now we're ten years further along and we're looking at worsening climate change while the money to address it was squandered on a military that uses more energy than any other outfit in the world.
We got a military that spends about as much as all the other militaries on the planet put together. The worst problem with that is that "if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." If you've put most of your marbles in the military bucket, every problem appears to call for a military response. While other countries are busily trying to get ahead in the global marketplace, addressing the world's pressing environmental problems, finding jobs for their people and providing their citizens with universal health care, we have only one solution for everything - a war on something: drugs, terror, poverty, etc. - and none of these wars is going any better than the ones in the Middle East.
What to Do?
If you do these things, you will be:
Recently my email brought two items on the same day which, when I put them together, seemed like a strong message for Independence Day.

I Have a Dream...
What if - I thought - after 9/11 we had decided to revenge ourselves not on Afghanis and Iraqis who had done us no harm, but on Saudi Arabia, from which country the 9/11 attackers actually hailed? What if -- assuming you don't buy the "capture the terrorists" justification for the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq -- we had decided to choose a different tool than war to defend our energy supply?
We could have spent some portion of the difference between the 2001 military budget of approximately $350 billion annually and today's military budget of $700+ billion on developing a domestic green energy supply. It could have amounted to hundreds of billions a year and still left us with a larger military budget than the next 5 military big spenders put together (and remember: none of those big spenders are our enemies). It could have funded a Manhattan Project-style, trillion-dollar effort to attain energy independence. By today, it is likely that we would have achieved our goal, or at least have made great strides toward doing so.
We could have eliminated the waste from our entire national energy budget through intensified conservation efforts. We could have embarked on a nationally subsidized crash program of building and developing solar, wind, wave and biomass energy sources. We could have begun the transition to electric vehicles, while investing in high-speed trains and converting much of our freight from fossil-fueled trucks back to rail. We could have localized commerce, food production and labor, saving many jobs as well as energy. A trillion bucks can go a long way if spent anywhere but on the military.
We might have sacrificed our ability to conduct 3 wars at once, but after all, most of us don't support those wars anyway and besides, since they are being fought mostly to assure our access to oil, we would no longer need them.
What We Got Instead
As it is, we've got a British firm coming to Pennsylvania to make big bucks by competing with homegrown energy conservation specialists for the conservation market, which they believe is a huge growth opportunity. "The United States was a nearly untouched market with 120 million homes, most of them very energy-inefficient -- it was a massive opportunity," said the company's commercial director.
So who won and who lost? The winners were the military contractors who cleaned up on the wars and war prep. The losers? The rest of us. Oh, a few of us got jobs for military contractors, but as many of our other jobs as possible were shipped abroad where the labor was cheaper. Now we're ten years further along and we're looking at worsening climate change while the money to address it was squandered on a military that uses more energy than any other outfit in the world.
We got a military that spends about as much as all the other militaries on the planet put together. The worst problem with that is that "if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." If you've put most of your marbles in the military bucket, every problem appears to call for a military response. While other countries are busily trying to get ahead in the global marketplace, addressing the world's pressing environmental problems, finding jobs for their people and providing their citizens with universal health care, we have only one solution for everything - a war on something: drugs, terror, poverty, etc. - and none of these wars is going any better than the ones in the Middle East.
What to Do?
If you do these things, you will be: