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.
Those of us who have been waiting impatiently for Obama to shed his apparent cocoon of compromise, caution and cowardice finally got a hint last week that a real leader may yet emerge and spread his wings at the White House.
But, there are public policy issues more important than gay marriage, issues where there is no margin for error and no time to waste, issues where the clock is not only ticking but nearing the end of its prelude to catastrophe. The survival of mankind is just such an issue. I'm talking of course about "the climate crisis"--what the coniving Republican strategist Frank Luntz convinced the media to start calling "climate change" in 2003 because polling showed that it sounded less ominous than "global warming."
With the President having shown some mettle on gay rights, we must now convince him that he must bring that courage to bear on the greatest threat that mankind has ever faced. Pragmatists, please don't respond with: "The public doesn't want to hear it." "It's not in the top ten of voters' concerns." "He can't win the election talking about it." Molding oneself for the sole purpose of electability is not leadership, it's pandering, something for which his opponent, Mr. Romney, is widely regarded as breaking the world record, whose only core political belief is that he deserves to be President. There has never been a more noble opportunity for a President to contrast himself from, and elevate himself above a soulless pandering opponent than President Obama has now.
Nor has there ever been a more critical time in world history for courage and leadership from an American president. Considering the most enduring impact on the greatest number of people, JFK's cuban missile crisis, Lincoln's Civil War, FDR's dragging America into World War II to save Europe,Truman's dropping of the "bomb" and Bush's criminal invasion of Iraq will all pale in comparison to what is done or not done about the climate crisis. Calling this a looming civilization ending apocalypse isn't idle speculation, hyperbole, or science fiction. It's biology, math, physics and chemistry--the same science upon which modern civilization was built.
That there is very little being done so far is an indictment of the arrogance, selfish greed and lack of empathy on the part of Republicans, some of whom may actually not know better. If so it is a willful, if not deliberate ignorance. It is an indictment of the cowardice of Democrats most of whom know better, but are not willing to risk their political careers to save anyone but themselves. History will indict every American president since and including Bill Clinton. With each passing year and each passing election cycle the culpability increases. Liberals will find this a bitter pill to swallow, but if Obama gets re-elected and does not seriously take up the climate crisis banner, he will be blamed more than George W. Bush. Bush had plenty of evidence compelling him to act and did not. Obama had even more evidence and more urgency to act and so far has not.
Yes, Obama has nibbled at the edges; raising vehicle fuel efficiency standards and instructing the EPA to reign in coal power plant CO2 emissions. But this is not a problem manageable by Neville Chamberlain-like appeasement of the fossil fuel industry's hegemony. American presidents have waged actual war against empires, fascism, communism, terrorism, and slavery. They have waged rhetorical war against poverty, drugs and cancer. Conservatives have cried foul about trumped up wars on Christmas and religion, and liberals have equated conservatives authoritarianism with a war against women. But for the most important war of all time--a War on CO2--troops are not being mobilized, arms are not being raised, and rallying cries are no where to be heard. The silence is deafening.
Media coverage of the likely end of civilization has plummeted and is now 70-90% less than two years ago. Snooki gets more media attention. Worse still most of the coverage is of climate denier politicians. On the Sunday talk shows no scientists have been interviewed in the last three years. Of 839 questions asked by the media in the recent Republican presidential debates, two were about the climate crisis. All of the Republican presidential candidates were climate deniers, with the meaningless exception of a wishy washy Jon Huntsman.
President Obama, the media won't talk about it if you don't. If you stand by and hold the coats of the fossil fuel empire while they turn this planet into Mordor, no other good deed you have ever done will compensate even in small measure for that failure. We know you believe in science and understand the magnitude of the problem. We know you comprehend that the window for preserving a livable planet is rapidly closing. We will not avert this disaster without a leader determined to do so. You have the opportunity to be either the most important leader in the history of the world, or ultimately held in greater contempt than George W. Bush. Which will it be?
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. |
Those of us who have been waiting impatiently for Obama to shed his apparent cocoon of compromise, caution and cowardice finally got a hint last week that a real leader may yet emerge and spread his wings at the White House.
But, there are public policy issues more important than gay marriage, issues where there is no margin for error and no time to waste, issues where the clock is not only ticking but nearing the end of its prelude to catastrophe. The survival of mankind is just such an issue. I'm talking of course about "the climate crisis"--what the coniving Republican strategist Frank Luntz convinced the media to start calling "climate change" in 2003 because polling showed that it sounded less ominous than "global warming."
With the President having shown some mettle on gay rights, we must now convince him that he must bring that courage to bear on the greatest threat that mankind has ever faced. Pragmatists, please don't respond with: "The public doesn't want to hear it." "It's not in the top ten of voters' concerns." "He can't win the election talking about it." Molding oneself for the sole purpose of electability is not leadership, it's pandering, something for which his opponent, Mr. Romney, is widely regarded as breaking the world record, whose only core political belief is that he deserves to be President. There has never been a more noble opportunity for a President to contrast himself from, and elevate himself above a soulless pandering opponent than President Obama has now.
Nor has there ever been a more critical time in world history for courage and leadership from an American president. Considering the most enduring impact on the greatest number of people, JFK's cuban missile crisis, Lincoln's Civil War, FDR's dragging America into World War II to save Europe,Truman's dropping of the "bomb" and Bush's criminal invasion of Iraq will all pale in comparison to what is done or not done about the climate crisis. Calling this a looming civilization ending apocalypse isn't idle speculation, hyperbole, or science fiction. It's biology, math, physics and chemistry--the same science upon which modern civilization was built.
That there is very little being done so far is an indictment of the arrogance, selfish greed and lack of empathy on the part of Republicans, some of whom may actually not know better. If so it is a willful, if not deliberate ignorance. It is an indictment of the cowardice of Democrats most of whom know better, but are not willing to risk their political careers to save anyone but themselves. History will indict every American president since and including Bill Clinton. With each passing year and each passing election cycle the culpability increases. Liberals will find this a bitter pill to swallow, but if Obama gets re-elected and does not seriously take up the climate crisis banner, he will be blamed more than George W. Bush. Bush had plenty of evidence compelling him to act and did not. Obama had even more evidence and more urgency to act and so far has not.
Yes, Obama has nibbled at the edges; raising vehicle fuel efficiency standards and instructing the EPA to reign in coal power plant CO2 emissions. But this is not a problem manageable by Neville Chamberlain-like appeasement of the fossil fuel industry's hegemony. American presidents have waged actual war against empires, fascism, communism, terrorism, and slavery. They have waged rhetorical war against poverty, drugs and cancer. Conservatives have cried foul about trumped up wars on Christmas and religion, and liberals have equated conservatives authoritarianism with a war against women. But for the most important war of all time--a War on CO2--troops are not being mobilized, arms are not being raised, and rallying cries are no where to be heard. The silence is deafening.
Media coverage of the likely end of civilization has plummeted and is now 70-90% less than two years ago. Snooki gets more media attention. Worse still most of the coverage is of climate denier politicians. On the Sunday talk shows no scientists have been interviewed in the last three years. Of 839 questions asked by the media in the recent Republican presidential debates, two were about the climate crisis. All of the Republican presidential candidates were climate deniers, with the meaningless exception of a wishy washy Jon Huntsman.
President Obama, the media won't talk about it if you don't. If you stand by and hold the coats of the fossil fuel empire while they turn this planet into Mordor, no other good deed you have ever done will compensate even in small measure for that failure. We know you believe in science and understand the magnitude of the problem. We know you comprehend that the window for preserving a livable planet is rapidly closing. We will not avert this disaster without a leader determined to do so. You have the opportunity to be either the most important leader in the history of the world, or ultimately held in greater contempt than George W. Bush. Which will it be?
Those of us who have been waiting impatiently for Obama to shed his apparent cocoon of compromise, caution and cowardice finally got a hint last week that a real leader may yet emerge and spread his wings at the White House.
But, there are public policy issues more important than gay marriage, issues where there is no margin for error and no time to waste, issues where the clock is not only ticking but nearing the end of its prelude to catastrophe. The survival of mankind is just such an issue. I'm talking of course about "the climate crisis"--what the coniving Republican strategist Frank Luntz convinced the media to start calling "climate change" in 2003 because polling showed that it sounded less ominous than "global warming."
With the President having shown some mettle on gay rights, we must now convince him that he must bring that courage to bear on the greatest threat that mankind has ever faced. Pragmatists, please don't respond with: "The public doesn't want to hear it." "It's not in the top ten of voters' concerns." "He can't win the election talking about it." Molding oneself for the sole purpose of electability is not leadership, it's pandering, something for which his opponent, Mr. Romney, is widely regarded as breaking the world record, whose only core political belief is that he deserves to be President. There has never been a more noble opportunity for a President to contrast himself from, and elevate himself above a soulless pandering opponent than President Obama has now.
Nor has there ever been a more critical time in world history for courage and leadership from an American president. Considering the most enduring impact on the greatest number of people, JFK's cuban missile crisis, Lincoln's Civil War, FDR's dragging America into World War II to save Europe,Truman's dropping of the "bomb" and Bush's criminal invasion of Iraq will all pale in comparison to what is done or not done about the climate crisis. Calling this a looming civilization ending apocalypse isn't idle speculation, hyperbole, or science fiction. It's biology, math, physics and chemistry--the same science upon which modern civilization was built.
That there is very little being done so far is an indictment of the arrogance, selfish greed and lack of empathy on the part of Republicans, some of whom may actually not know better. If so it is a willful, if not deliberate ignorance. It is an indictment of the cowardice of Democrats most of whom know better, but are not willing to risk their political careers to save anyone but themselves. History will indict every American president since and including Bill Clinton. With each passing year and each passing election cycle the culpability increases. Liberals will find this a bitter pill to swallow, but if Obama gets re-elected and does not seriously take up the climate crisis banner, he will be blamed more than George W. Bush. Bush had plenty of evidence compelling him to act and did not. Obama had even more evidence and more urgency to act and so far has not.
Yes, Obama has nibbled at the edges; raising vehicle fuel efficiency standards and instructing the EPA to reign in coal power plant CO2 emissions. But this is not a problem manageable by Neville Chamberlain-like appeasement of the fossil fuel industry's hegemony. American presidents have waged actual war against empires, fascism, communism, terrorism, and slavery. They have waged rhetorical war against poverty, drugs and cancer. Conservatives have cried foul about trumped up wars on Christmas and religion, and liberals have equated conservatives authoritarianism with a war against women. But for the most important war of all time--a War on CO2--troops are not being mobilized, arms are not being raised, and rallying cries are no where to be heard. The silence is deafening.
Media coverage of the likely end of civilization has plummeted and is now 70-90% less than two years ago. Snooki gets more media attention. Worse still most of the coverage is of climate denier politicians. On the Sunday talk shows no scientists have been interviewed in the last three years. Of 839 questions asked by the media in the recent Republican presidential debates, two were about the climate crisis. All of the Republican presidential candidates were climate deniers, with the meaningless exception of a wishy washy Jon Huntsman.
President Obama, the media won't talk about it if you don't. If you stand by and hold the coats of the fossil fuel empire while they turn this planet into Mordor, no other good deed you have ever done will compensate even in small measure for that failure. We know you believe in science and understand the magnitude of the problem. We know you comprehend that the window for preserving a livable planet is rapidly closing. We will not avert this disaster without a leader determined to do so. You have the opportunity to be either the most important leader in the history of the world, or ultimately held in greater contempt than George W. Bush. Which will it be?
Judge Rossie Alston Jr. ruled the plaintiffs had failed to prove the groups provided "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
A federal judge appointed in 2019 by US President Donald Trump has dismissed a lawsuit filed against pro-Palestinian organizations that alleged they were fronts for the terrorist organization Hamas.
In a ruling issued on Friday, Judge Rossie Alston Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the plaintiffs who filed the case against the pro-Palestine groups had not sufficiently demonstrated a clear link between the groups and Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
The plaintiffs in the case—consisting of seven Americans and two Israelis—were all victims of the Hamas attack that killed an estimated 1,200 people, including more than 700 Israeli civilians.
They alleged that the pro-Palestinian groups—including National Students for Justice in Palestine, WESPAC Foundation, and Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation—provided material support to Hamas that directly led to injuries they suffered as a result of the October 7 attack.
This alleged support for Hamas, the plaintiffs argued, violated both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
However, after examining all the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, Alston found they had not proven their claim that the organizations in question provide "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
Specifically, Alston said that the claims made by the plaintiffs "are all very general and conclusory and do not specifically relate to the injuries" that they suffered in the Hamas attack.
"Although plaintiffs conclude that defendants have aided and abetted Hamas by providing it with 'material support despite knowledge of Hamas' terrorist activity both before, during, and after its October 7 terrorist attack,' plaintiffs do not allege that any planning, preparation, funding, or execution of the October 7, 2023 attack or any violations of international law by Hamas occurred in the United States," Alston emphasized. "None of the direct attackers are alleged to be citizens of the United States."
Alston was unconvinced by the plaintiffs' claims that the pro-Palestinian organizations "act as Hamas' public relations division, recruiting domestic foot soldiers to disseminate Hamas’s propaganda," and he similarly dismissed them as "vague and conclusory."
He then said that the plaintiffs did not establish that these "public relations" activities purportedly done on behalf of Hamas had "aided and abetted Hamas in carrying out the specific October 7, 2023 attack (or subsequent or continuing Hamas violations) that caused the Israeli Plaintiffs' injuries."
Alston concluded by dismissing the plaintiffs' case without prejudice, meaning they are free to file an amended lawsuit against the plaintiffs within 30 days of the judge's ruling.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump," wrote one critic.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday morning tried to put his best spin on a Friday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that yielded neither a cease-fire agreement nor a comprehensive peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.
Writing on his Truth Social page, the president took a victory lap over the summit despite coming home completely empty-handed when he flew back from Alaska on Friday night.
"A great and very successful day in Alaska!" Trump began. "The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he was fine with not obtaining a cease-fire agreement, even though he said just days before that he'd impose "severe consequences" on Russia if it did not agree to one.
"It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Cease-fire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said. "President Zelenskyy will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved."
While Trump did his best to put a happy face on the summit, many critics contended it was nothing short of a debacle for the US president.
Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser argued that the entire summit with Putin was a "self-own of embarrassing proportions," given that he literally rolled out the red carpet for his Russian counterpart and did not achieve any success in bringing the war to a close.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump, and still more time on the clock to prosecute his war against the 'brotherly' Ukrainian people, as he had the chutzpah to call them during his remarks in Alaska," she wrote. "The most enduring images from Anchorage, it seems, will be its grotesque displays of bonhomie between the dictator and his longtime American admirer."
She also noted that Trump appeared to shift the entire burden of ending the war onto Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and he even said after the Putin summit that "it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done."
This led Glasser to comment that "if there's one unwavering Law of Trump, this is it: Whatever happens, it is never, ever, his fault."
Glasser wasn't the only critic to offer a scathing assessment of the summit. The Economist blasted Trump in an editorial about the meeting, which it labeled a "gift" to Putin. The magazine also contrasted the way that Trump treated Putin during his visit to American soil with the way that he treated Zelenskyy during an Oval Office meeting earlier this year.
"The honors for Mr. Putin were in sharp contrast to the public humiliation that Mr. Trump and his advisers inflicted on Mr. Zelenskyy during his first visit to the White House earlier this year," they wrote. "Since then relations with Ukraine have improved, but Mr. Trump has often been quick to blame it for being invaded; and he has proved strangely indulgent with Mr. Putin."
Michael McFaul, an American ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, was struck by just how much effort went into holding a summit that accomplished nothing.
"Summits usually have deliverables," he told The Atlantic. "This meeting had none... I hope that they made some progress towards next steps in the peace process. But there is no evidence of that yet."
Mamdani won the House minority leader's district by double digits in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, prompting one critic to ask, "Do those voters not matter?"
Zohran Mamdani is the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, but Democratic U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—whose district Mamdani won by double digits—is still refusing to endorse him, "blue-no-matter-who" mantra be damned.
Criticism of Jeffries (D-N.Y.) mounted Friday after he sidestepped questions about whether he agreed with the democratic socialist Mamdani's proposed policies—including a rent freeze, universal public transportation, and free supermarkets—during an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box" earlier this week.
"He's going to have to demonstrate to a broader electorate—including in many of the neighborhoods that I represent in Brooklyn—that his ideas can actually be put into reality," Jeffries said in comments that drew praise from scandal-ridden incumbent Democratic Mayor Eric Adams, who opted to run independently. Another Democrat, disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, is also running on his own.
"Shit like this does more to undermine faith in the institution of the Democratic Party than anything Mamdani might ever say or do," Amanda Litman, co-founder and executive director of Run For Something—a political action group that recruits young, diverse progressives to run for down-ballot offices—said on social media in response to Jeffries' refusal to endorse Mamdani.
"He won the primary! Handily!!" Litman added. "Does that electorate not count? Do those voters not matter?"
Writer and professor Roxane Gay noted on Bluesky that "Jeffries is an establishment Democrat. He will always work for the establishment. He is not a disruptor or innovator or individual thinker. Within that framework, his gutless behavior toward Mamdani or any progressive candidate makes a lot of sense."
City College of New York professor Angus Johnston said on the social network Bluesky that "even if Jeffries does eventually endorse Mamdani, the only response available to Mamdani next year if someone asks him whether he's endorsing Jeffries is three seconds of incredulous laughter."
Jeffries has repeatedly refused to endorse Mamdani, a staunch supporter of Palestinian liberation and vocal opponent of Israel's genocidal annihilation of Gaza. The minority leader—whose all-time top campaign donor is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, according to AIPAC Tracker—has especially criticized Mamdani's use of the phrase "globalize the intifada," a call for universal justice and liberation.
Mamdani's stance doesn't seem to have harmed his support among New York's Jewish voters, who according to recent polling prefer him over any other mayoral candidate by a double-digit margin.