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.
Some people have fantasy football teams. I have fantasy Sunday morning talk show guest panels that are made up entirely of women. These are my picks for my fantasy panel, Syria edition.
Some people have fantasy football teams. I have fantasy Sunday morning talk show guest panels that are made up entirely of women. These are my picks for my fantasy panel, Syria edition.
As U.S. posturing on Syria has escalated, the media has trotted out old white guy after old white guy as "experts", never mind many of them are the same men who lied to us about chemical weapons in Iraq and then commenced to bomb the Iraqis with all manner of chemical weapons which left a horrifying epidemic of cancer, birth defects and death in that country and have backed U.S. policies that have contributed to the current situation in Syria and Middle East unrest in general.
I think most of us are supremely tired of listening to these guys and of a media that simply parrots the talking points of U.S. military domination.
Imagine if instead they presented a balanced view that brought in people who articulate alternative visions and oh what the heck, how about we just kick all the men out and listen to women for a change.
So for the benefit of the media, here are some voices you ought to be including as commentators in your coverage of Syria:
1. Sarah Van Gelder writes in Yes! Magazine that, "there are at least six strategies that could hold wrongdoers to account, deter war crimes of all sorts, and build peace":
2. The women's human rights organization MADRE similarly calls for the Obama Administration to:
3. The Nobel Women's Initiative (who unlike President Obama, are using their status as Nobel Peace Prize winners to promote peaceful solutions) has put out a statement that reads:
The use of chemical weapons in Syria is a crime that cannot be ignored but bombing Syria is not the answer. Military intervention in Syria can only lead to more death and destruction, and further fuel the volatile situation in the region.
We applaud the vote of the UK's Parliament against endorsing British involvement in attacks on Syria, and call upon the United States to step back from the brink of attacking yet another country in the Middle East/North Africa region. Such a move can only result in more hatred, more violence and more retaliation.
We call upon the UN Security Council to accept its responsibility to act in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria instead of the ongoing posturing of its members based on their own self-interest instead of concern about the people of Syria.
We urge the Security Council to ensure the nonviolent resolution of this crisis within the ongoing crisis of the civil war in Syria. We call upon the Security Council to refer the matter to the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC).
We also call on the International Community to urgently convene the Syria Peace Conference, known as Geneva II, and to ensure women meaningfully participate. (emphasis mine)
4. Sonali Kolhatkar of KPKF's Uprising radio program and Co-Director of the Afghan Women's Mission writes,
Students of American imperial history do not have to look too far back to see the disastrous consequences of bombing dictatorial governments. As the debate over a US military strike on Syria heats up in Congress, American antiwar activists are clear in their opposition to the push for war. And they are correct to oppose any sort of military strikes if the long arc of destructive US foreign policy is to be trusted to remain the same.
5. Medea Benjamin points out that most Americans do not support the idea of bombing Syria.
6. Amnesty International looks at the problems of sexual harassment and forced marriages faced by Syrian women refugees.
7. The Women's Media Center's Women Under Siege has run a number of pieces about women in Syria.
The U.S. media owes its audience a fair and balanced representation of the issues, not just pro-war talking points and they need to include women's voices and concerns as part of that discussion.
Postscript-As several readers have pointed out, I left out the crucial voice of Phyllis Benis.
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. |
Some people have fantasy football teams. I have fantasy Sunday morning talk show guest panels that are made up entirely of women. These are my picks for my fantasy panel, Syria edition.
As U.S. posturing on Syria has escalated, the media has trotted out old white guy after old white guy as "experts", never mind many of them are the same men who lied to us about chemical weapons in Iraq and then commenced to bomb the Iraqis with all manner of chemical weapons which left a horrifying epidemic of cancer, birth defects and death in that country and have backed U.S. policies that have contributed to the current situation in Syria and Middle East unrest in general.
I think most of us are supremely tired of listening to these guys and of a media that simply parrots the talking points of U.S. military domination.
Imagine if instead they presented a balanced view that brought in people who articulate alternative visions and oh what the heck, how about we just kick all the men out and listen to women for a change.
So for the benefit of the media, here are some voices you ought to be including as commentators in your coverage of Syria:
1. Sarah Van Gelder writes in Yes! Magazine that, "there are at least six strategies that could hold wrongdoers to account, deter war crimes of all sorts, and build peace":
2. The women's human rights organization MADRE similarly calls for the Obama Administration to:
3. The Nobel Women's Initiative (who unlike President Obama, are using their status as Nobel Peace Prize winners to promote peaceful solutions) has put out a statement that reads:
The use of chemical weapons in Syria is a crime that cannot be ignored but bombing Syria is not the answer. Military intervention in Syria can only lead to more death and destruction, and further fuel the volatile situation in the region.
We applaud the vote of the UK's Parliament against endorsing British involvement in attacks on Syria, and call upon the United States to step back from the brink of attacking yet another country in the Middle East/North Africa region. Such a move can only result in more hatred, more violence and more retaliation.
We call upon the UN Security Council to accept its responsibility to act in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria instead of the ongoing posturing of its members based on their own self-interest instead of concern about the people of Syria.
We urge the Security Council to ensure the nonviolent resolution of this crisis within the ongoing crisis of the civil war in Syria. We call upon the Security Council to refer the matter to the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC).
We also call on the International Community to urgently convene the Syria Peace Conference, known as Geneva II, and to ensure women meaningfully participate. (emphasis mine)
4. Sonali Kolhatkar of KPKF's Uprising radio program and Co-Director of the Afghan Women's Mission writes,
Students of American imperial history do not have to look too far back to see the disastrous consequences of bombing dictatorial governments. As the debate over a US military strike on Syria heats up in Congress, American antiwar activists are clear in their opposition to the push for war. And they are correct to oppose any sort of military strikes if the long arc of destructive US foreign policy is to be trusted to remain the same.
5. Medea Benjamin points out that most Americans do not support the idea of bombing Syria.
6. Amnesty International looks at the problems of sexual harassment and forced marriages faced by Syrian women refugees.
7. The Women's Media Center's Women Under Siege has run a number of pieces about women in Syria.
The U.S. media owes its audience a fair and balanced representation of the issues, not just pro-war talking points and they need to include women's voices and concerns as part of that discussion.
Postscript-As several readers have pointed out, I left out the crucial voice of Phyllis Benis.
Some people have fantasy football teams. I have fantasy Sunday morning talk show guest panels that are made up entirely of women. These are my picks for my fantasy panel, Syria edition.
As U.S. posturing on Syria has escalated, the media has trotted out old white guy after old white guy as "experts", never mind many of them are the same men who lied to us about chemical weapons in Iraq and then commenced to bomb the Iraqis with all manner of chemical weapons which left a horrifying epidemic of cancer, birth defects and death in that country and have backed U.S. policies that have contributed to the current situation in Syria and Middle East unrest in general.
I think most of us are supremely tired of listening to these guys and of a media that simply parrots the talking points of U.S. military domination.
Imagine if instead they presented a balanced view that brought in people who articulate alternative visions and oh what the heck, how about we just kick all the men out and listen to women for a change.
So for the benefit of the media, here are some voices you ought to be including as commentators in your coverage of Syria:
1. Sarah Van Gelder writes in Yes! Magazine that, "there are at least six strategies that could hold wrongdoers to account, deter war crimes of all sorts, and build peace":
2. The women's human rights organization MADRE similarly calls for the Obama Administration to:
3. The Nobel Women's Initiative (who unlike President Obama, are using their status as Nobel Peace Prize winners to promote peaceful solutions) has put out a statement that reads:
The use of chemical weapons in Syria is a crime that cannot be ignored but bombing Syria is not the answer. Military intervention in Syria can only lead to more death and destruction, and further fuel the volatile situation in the region.
We applaud the vote of the UK's Parliament against endorsing British involvement in attacks on Syria, and call upon the United States to step back from the brink of attacking yet another country in the Middle East/North Africa region. Such a move can only result in more hatred, more violence and more retaliation.
We call upon the UN Security Council to accept its responsibility to act in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria instead of the ongoing posturing of its members based on their own self-interest instead of concern about the people of Syria.
We urge the Security Council to ensure the nonviolent resolution of this crisis within the ongoing crisis of the civil war in Syria. We call upon the Security Council to refer the matter to the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC).
We also call on the International Community to urgently convene the Syria Peace Conference, known as Geneva II, and to ensure women meaningfully participate. (emphasis mine)
4. Sonali Kolhatkar of KPKF's Uprising radio program and Co-Director of the Afghan Women's Mission writes,
Students of American imperial history do not have to look too far back to see the disastrous consequences of bombing dictatorial governments. As the debate over a US military strike on Syria heats up in Congress, American antiwar activists are clear in their opposition to the push for war. And they are correct to oppose any sort of military strikes if the long arc of destructive US foreign policy is to be trusted to remain the same.
5. Medea Benjamin points out that most Americans do not support the idea of bombing Syria.
6. Amnesty International looks at the problems of sexual harassment and forced marriages faced by Syrian women refugees.
7. The Women's Media Center's Women Under Siege has run a number of pieces about women in Syria.
The U.S. media owes its audience a fair and balanced representation of the issues, not just pro-war talking points and they need to include women's voices and concerns as part of that discussion.
Postscript-As several readers have pointed out, I left out the crucial voice of Phyllis Benis.
"What angers Greenblatt is that Mamdani isn't courting HIM," said one advocate. "By winning the bulk of the young Jewish vote while condemning Israel, Mamdani is exposing how out of touch Greenblatt is."
The largest Muslim civil rights group in the U.S. on Tuesday was among those condemning the latest attacks from the Anti-Defamation League on New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, whom ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt this week accused of not reaching out to the city's Jewish population.
On CNBC Monday, Greenblatt claimed Mamdani, a Democratic state assembly member who stunned former Gov. Andrew Cuomo by winning the primary in June by nearly eight points, has not visited "a single synagogue... one Jewish neighborhood" or "any of the mainstream Jewish institutions."
A number of observers pointed to several instances in which Mamdani has visited Jewish centers and places of worship during his campaign, including attending Shabbat services in Brooklyn in February, taking part in a town hall with the Jewish Community Relations Council in May with United Jewish Appeal Federation, and attending candidate forums at Congregation B’nai Jeshurun in June.
Greenblatt later published a post about the interview on the social media platform X, saying this time that Mamdani had not visited Jewish synagogues or other communities since the primary in June—but Peter Beinart, editor-at-large of Jewish Currents, suggested the head of the ADL attacks Mamdani not for things he has or hasn't done, but because many Jewish people have embraced him as their candidate of choice.
"Of course Mamdani has visited synagogues and Jewish communities," said Beinart. "What angers Greenblatt is that Mamdani isn't courting HIM. By winning the bulk of the young Jewish vote while condemning Israel, Mamdani is exposing how out of touch Greenblatt is with many of the people he claims to represent. That's what makes Mamdani a threat."
As Common Dreams reported last month, Mamdani led Cuomo—who is running in the general election as an independent following his primary loss—by five points in a poll by Zenith Research. More than two-thirds of likely Jewish voters between the ages of 18 and 44 said they planned to vote for Mamdani, who has condemned Israel's apartheid policies and its US-backed bombardment and starvation of Palestinians in Gaza.
Beinart added that while Greenblatt may be "unaware" of Mamdani's relationship with Jewish voters, "his unawareness says nothing about reality. It says a lot about him."
In the interview, Greenblatt also doubled down on attacks that began in June regarding Mamdani's refusal to condemn the phrase "globalize the intifada," which pro-Israel groups have claimed denotes support for violent attacks by militants against Israel—but which the mayoral candidate pointed out in a podcast interview is to many people "a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights."
"Why won't he condemn 'globalize the intifada?' Because he believes it?" said Greenblatt, adding that the phrase suggests support for attacks by Palestinian militants who have "killed people simply because they were Jewish."
The Arabic word "intifada" means "struggle" or "uprising" and is associated by Palestinian rights advocates with Palestinians' fight for self-determination and freedom from Israel's occupation—which took the form of numerous non-violent protests including boycotts, labor strikes, and marches, as well as armed resistance, during the First and Second Intifadas.
Jasmine El-Gamal, a foreign policy analyst and host of the podcast "The View From Here," noted that "not one of the presenters corrected Greenblatt when he lied and said the intifada was a violent uprising that 'killed people simply because they were Jewish.'"
"The intifada was an uprising against an occupation," said El-Gamal. "Whether or not you agree with the concept of violent resistance, the fact is, Greenblatt blatantly lied and no one batted an eyelash."
Mamdani has never publicly used the phrase "globalize the intifada," and has said he would "discourage" others from doing so.
At the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), national deputy executive director Edward Ahmed Mitchell said Greenblatt's "dishonest and bigoted attacks on Assemblymember Mamdani represent the latest sign that the ADL director is an increasingly unhinged anti-Muslim bigot masquerading as a civil rights leader."
Referring to Greenblatt's refusal to condemn an apparent Nazi salute by former Trump administration adviser Elon Musk in January, Mitchell said Greenblatt "will bend over backwards to give real antisemites a pass so long as they support Israel's genocide while he goes out of the way to lie about and smear Muslim public officials if they dare to oppose Israel's genocide."
"Mr. Greenblatt's top priority is protecting the Israeli government from criticism," said Mitchell, "and no one should take his claim about American Muslim leaders seriously."
Basim Elkarra, executive director of CAIR-Action, said Greenblatt's comments "are not only misleading—they risk stoking division at a time when New Yorkers need unity."
"Subjecting Muslim elected officials to such bigotry is dishonest, dangerous, and diverts attention from substantive policy issues," said Elkarra. "We urge all public figures to condemn Jonathan Greenblatt and others who attempt to inflame bigotry against American Muslims engaged in politics."
"This MAGA loyalty test will be yet another turnoff for teachers in a state already struggling with a huge shortage," said American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten.
Teachers from California and New York seeking work in Oklahoma will be required to pass an "America First Test" designed to weed out applicants espousing "radical leftist ideology," the state's public schools chief affirmed Monday.
Oklahoma—which has a severe teacher shortage, persistently high turnover, and some of the nation's worst educational outcomes—will compel prospective public school educators from the nation's two largest "blue" states to submit to the exam in a bid to combat what Superintendent for Public Instruction Ryan Walters calls "woke indoctrination."
"As long as I am superintendent, Oklahoma classrooms will be safeguarded from the radical leftist ideology fostered in places like California and New York," Walters said in a statement Monday.
Walters told USA Today that the test is necessary to vet teachers from states where educators "are teaching things that are antithetical to our standards" and ensure they "are not coming into our classrooms and indoctrinating kids."
However, American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten warned in a statement Monday that "this MAGA loyalty test will be yet another turnoff for teachers in a state already struggling with a huge shortage."
The exam will be administered by Prager University—also known as PragerU—a right-wing nonprofit group which, despite its name, is not an academic institution and does not confer degrees.
While all of the test's 50 questions have not been made public, the ones that have been published run the gamut from insultingly basic—such as, "What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress?"—to ideologically fraught queries regarding the "biological differences between females and males."
PragerU's "educational" materials are rife with false or misleading information regarding slavery, racism, immigration, the history of fascism, and the climate emergency. Critics note that the nonprofit has received millions of dollars in funding from fossil fuel billionaires.
PragerU materials also promote creation mythology over scientific evolution and attack LGBTQ+ people, especially transgender individuals, calling lifesaving gender-affirming healthcare "barbaric" while likening its proponents to "monsters."
In one animated PragerU video, two children travel back in time to ask the genocidal explorer Christopher Columbus why he is so hated today. Columbus replies by asserting the superiority of Europeans over Indigenous "cannibals" and attempting to justify the enslavement of Native Americans by arguing that "being taken as a slave is better than being killed."
Closer to home, PragerU's curriculum aligns with so-called "white discomfort" legislation passed in Oklahoma and other Republican-controlled states that critics say prevents honest lessons on slavery, the Jim Crow and civil rights eras, and enduring systemic racism.
The law has had a chilling effect on teachers' lessons on historical topics including the 1921 Tulsa massacre, in which a white supremacist mob backed armed by city officials destroyed more than 35 city blocks of Greenwood, the "Black Wall Street," murdering hundreds of Black men, women, and children in what the US Justice Department this year called a "coordinated, military-style attack."
Responding to Oklahoma's new policy, University of Pennsylvania history professor Jonathan Zimmerman told The Associated Press that "instead of Prager simply being a resource that you can draw in an optional way, Prager has become institutionalized as part of the state system."
"There's no other way to describe it," he said, adding, "I think what we're now seeing in Oklahoma is something different, which is actually empowering Prager as a kind of gatekeeper for future teachers."
Oklahoma is not the only state incorporating PragerU materials into its curriculum. Florida, Montana, New Hampshire, and Texas have also done so to varying degrees.
Weingarten noted Walters' previous push to revise Oklahoma's curriculum standards to include baseless conspiracy theories pushed by President Donald Trump that Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election. Walters also ordered all public schools to teach the Bible, a directive temporarily blocked by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in March. The court also recently ruled against the establishment of the nation's first taxpayer-funded religious charter school.
"His priority should be educating students, but instead, it's getting Donald Trump and other MAGA politicians to notice him," Weingrarten said in her statement.
Cari Elledge, president of the Oklahoma Education Association, called the new testing requirement "a political stunt to grab attention" and a distraction "from real issues in Oklahoma."
"When political ideology plays into whether or not you can teach in any place, that might be a deterrent to quality educators attempting to get a job," she added. "We think it's intentional to make educators fearful and confused."
California Teachers' Association president David Goldberg told USA Today that "this almost seems like satire and so far removed from my research around what Oklahoma educators need and deserve."
"I can't see how this isn't some kind of hyper-political grandstanding that doesn't serve any of those needs," he added.
"Stephen Miller was a loser in college, and now we all must pay for it," remarked one critic.
Stephen Miller, the hardline immigrant-trashing adviser to US President Donald Trump, drew scorn and ridicule on Wednesday after he dismissed people protesting against the National Guard deployment in Washington, DC as elderly and ignorant "hippies."
During a visit to Union Station along with Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Miller took a shot at local residents who in recent days have demonstrated against Trump's takeover of their city's law enforcement.
"All these demonstrators that you've seen out here in recent days, all these elderly white hippies, they're not part of the city and never have been," Miller claimed. "We're gonna ignore these stupid white hippies that all need to go home and take a nap because they're all over 90 years old."
Stephen Miller: "All these demonstrators that you've seen out here in recent days, all these elderly white hippies, they're not part of the city and never have been ... we're gonna ignore these stupid white hippies that all need to go home and take a nap because they're all over… pic.twitter.com/v7Bj4pfEPW
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 20, 2025
Hundreds of people over this past weekend took part in a "Free DC" protest against the presence of the National Guard and assorted federal agents patrolling the city, and many other spontaneous protests have erupted as local residents have regularly gathered to jeer federal officials carrying out operations in their neighborhoods.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, shared a photo on Bluesky of an event that took place in the city on Tuesday, and he pointed out that people of different ages and colors can be seen protesting against the presence of the National Guard in their city.
"I don't see one 'elderly white hippie' there," he remarked. "I do see a wide variety of ages, genders, and races; DC residents united in disgust at what Miller is cheering on."
Princeton historian Kevin Kruse also slammed Miller for failing to notice the diversity of the crowds protesting against Trump's DC initiative.
"Stephen Miller is apparently so racist he can’t even *see* nonwhite people on the streets of DC protesting his goons," he commented on Bluesky. "Wait, is *that* what they meant by 'colorblind conservatism?'"
Pam Fessler, author and former correspondent for NPR, gave Miller a swift fact check in a post on X.
"Besides Miller's nastiness, he's wrong," she explained. "Guess what? A majority of DC residents, regardless of race, oppose Trump's unnecessary just-for-show federal takeover."
A poll released by The Washington Post on Wednesday backs up this point, as it found that 79% of DC residents are opposed to Trump's takeover, including 69% who register as "strongly" opposed.
Anthony Michael Kreis, a constitutional law professor at Georgia State University College of Law, speculated on Bluesky that Miller is lashing out at "hippies" to make up for his own past inadequacies.
"Stephen Miller was a loser in college, and now we all must pay for it... sincerely, someone who remembers him from school," said Kreis, who attended University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at the same time Miller was attending nearby Duke University.
Podcaster Bob Cesca, meanwhile, warned Miller to be careful in antagonizing Washington, DC residents.
"I take comfort in the idea that, for the rest of his miserable life, he'll wonder how much phlegm and/or feces has been added to his restaurant meals," he joked on X.