

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.

Austin Robert Davis, 350Vermont, austin@350vt.org, (802) 370-0408
During today's State of the State Address, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin called on the state's pension funds to divest the $4.02 billion portfolio from coal, as well as from the infamous fossil fuel corporation ExxonMobil.
During today's State of the State Address, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin called on the state's pension funds to divest the $4.02 billion portfolio from coal, as well as from the infamous fossil fuel corporation ExxonMobil.
"Our small state must partner with California, which manages hundreds of billions of dollars of state funds, and divest Vermont of coal. Let's remember Vermont is downwind of the coal fired plants to our West; we're the tailpipe to their dirty energy choices," said Governor Shumlin. "Their pollution sickens our children, creates acid rain, dumps mercury on our forests and in our lakes and increases greenhouse gas emissions. I ask that you send me a divestiture bill just like California's. While you're doing that, Governor Brown and I will invite other Governors to join us in what should be a national effort."
Shumlin also specifically targeted ExxonMobil for divestment.
"While we await the California study on oil, Vermont should not wait to rid ourselves of ExxonMobil stock," said the Governor. "It has been clearly documented that since the 1980's, ExxonMobil's own scientists have long known about the dangers of global warming, and chose to conceal that from the public. At the same time that they were building their oil rigs taller to account for rising sea levels, they were funding front groups of scientists to deny climate change is real. This is a page right out of Big Tobacco, which for decades denied the health risks of their product as they were killing people. Owning ExxonMobil stock is not a business Vermont should be in."
350.org co-founder Bill McKibben responded by congratulating the Governor for his leadership on the issue, "It's great that Vermont may join states like California in divesting from coal -- and even better that Governor Shumlin has taken the lead by saying no government should be invested in Exxon, as perhaps the greatest scandal in corporate history begins to unfold. Today is a great win for the thousands of Vermonters who have joined this fight, and it will give us new vigor to keep pushing on many fronts!"
The call to divest from Exxon is particularly significant following a series of investigative reports revealing that as early as the 1970s, Exxon not only knew about the effect of burning fossil fuels on the climate, but also that the company spent millions in sowing doubt and confusion around its own research among the public and world governments. Reporters recently uncovered that Exxon's oil industry peers also knew about these climate dangers and lied about them for decades, potentially opening them up for prosecution or additional regulations.
Now, momentum is growing to prosecute Exxon for their climate lies. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has launched an investigation to uncover all Exxon knew about climate change. Last October, over 60 prominent indigenous peoples, social, and environmental organizations released a call for the Department of Justice Attorney General Loretta Lynch to launch an investigation. Organizers across the country are urging their state Attorney Generals to launch similar investigations.
Governor Shumlin's push for Vermont to also divest from coal is part of a growing wave of divestment commitments worldwide as the case for action grows ever stronger. During the UN climate talks in December, it was announced that over 500 institutions representing more than $3.4 trillion in assets under management have committed to some level of divestment. Coal in particular has felt the pinch, as stocks have plummeted and many companies have filed for bankruptcy. There has been growing momentum for full divestment, as well, as renewable energy has gained cost efficiency over fossil fuels and Fossil Free Indexes have outperformed conventional markets. Leaders from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to World Bank President Jim Kim have commended the divestment movement for the impact it has having on the economic and political discussion about how to address the climate crisis.
The case for divestment is particularly strong in Vermont, a state that prides itself on green leadership, as well as sound accounting. In fact, not divesting may have hurt State funds since calls for action began. In November, 350Vermont and Corporate Knights found that the state pension fund lost more than $77 million in reduced returns over the past three years because of fossil fuel investments.
"The Vermont Chapter of the Sierra Club is glad to hear Governor Peter Shumlin acknowledge the need to divest from fossil fuels. In light of the Paris Climate talks it is quite evident that fossil fuel investments are volatile and there are real questions about the fiduciary responsibility of continuing to invest in them," said Robb Kidd, VT Chapter of the Sierra Club Conservation Program Manager. "Vermont can lead by refocusing investments that align with the Vermont's clean energy goals while protecting public pensions."
Campaigners believe that today's announcement will provide significant momentum for Vermont's pension funds to divest from all fossil fuels, as well as set a precedent for other states, such as New York, to follow suit.
"It is gratifying to hear Governor Shumlin's support for fossil fuel divestment. Fossil fuel investments in the state pension funds have substantially hurt returns over the past couple of years and continue to constitute a real risk for pension beneficiaries and Vermont taxpayers," said Eric Becker, CFA, Chief Investment Officer, Clean Yield Asset Management. "Getting on a path to full divestment in the coming years will be a great step forward for Vermont and for the climate."
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
The journalist confronted newly installed executive editor Nick Bilton over the recent firings of two reporters and two top executives.
Veteran "60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelley took aim at the qualifications and intentions of CBS News' right-wing editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, on Monday at an explosive staff meeting that was meant to introduce employees of the 57-year-old news show to its newly appointed executive producer days after several journalists were fired in what Pelley referred to as "Black Thursday."
Weiss, a former New York Times opinion columnist who first gained notoriety for campaigning against pro-Palestinian professors at Columbia University and went on to rail against "woke" progressives and "cancel culture," appointed tech journalist Nick Bilton to lead the program last week after firing two executives and two top correspondents.
Bilton opened the meeting by reading some prepared remarks, but Pelley quickly cut in to tell the new producer that he had "many questions" about the dismissals of reporters Cecilia Vega and Sharyn Alfonsi, executive producer Tanya Simon, and executive editor Draggan Mihailovich.
"I guess you wandered in expecting to read a statement off?" Pelley asked Bilton, his voice reportedly "shaking in anger" at times. "What was wrong with Sharyn Alfonsi?"
Alfonsi and Vega won a prestigious journalism award for a story on President Donald Trump's deal with El Salvador to send immigrants to the country's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), the abuse detainees have suffered there, and the fact that many of those deported to the prison have not been convicted of crimes and have been falsely accused of being members of violent gangs.
The story was pulled from the air last December after Weiss complained that it hadn't covered the Trump administration's perspective, garnering accusations of censorship, and eventually aired with some editing.
Pelley suggested on Monday that such decisions revealed Weiss' intentions for the broadcast as a whole.
“She’s murdering ’60 Minutes.’ She does not love this place. She was brought in to kill it—and she’s doing exactly that,” Pelley told Bilton. “She has no qualifications for her job; you have slender qualifications for this job."
"The changes that she’s made at the ‘Evening News’ have been catastrophic," he added, "so why should we expect that any of this is going to be any better?”
'CBS Evening News' has had declining viewership, "often below 4 million viewers a night," according to NPR, with the broadcast "flagging" since Weiss installed Tony Dokoupil as anchor.
Media critics have warned that Weiss appears to be "running the Trump playbook" at CBS, as Sophia Tesfaye wrote at Salon last week: "Take an institution that still commands public trust, install loyalists with no relevant experience in positions of authority, fire the people who push back, dress the whole operation in the language of reform—fairness, innovation, a new direction—and you dare anyone to prove that what you’re really doing is building a protection racket."
Weiss took the helm of CBS after parent company Paramount's merger with Skydance, owned by the son of tech billionaire and Trump backer Larry Ellison.
Charles Forelle, the managing editor of CBS News and a close associate of Weiss, repeatedly attempted to steer Monday's meeting away from Pelley's criticism of Bilton and the new direction "60 Minutes" appears to be taking, saying at one point that Pelley's line of questioning was "not actually productive."
"It's working for me," replied Pelley.
After Pelley said the network's leadership had been "cruel" in firing veteran journalists from the show, Forelle accused him of being "rude."
"I'm not being rude," he shot back. "You know what was rude? Black Thursday. That was the absolute definition of rudeness. Telling Tanya Simon she had to be out of here at 5:00. Sending Draggon Mihailovich to HR to get fired, because no one could look him in the eye. Not talking about Sharyn Alfonsi's contract. Not talking about Cecilia Vega's contract. Just calling them up and telling them they were fired. That's rude."
"This is a conversation," Pelley added. "That is rude, and you were part of that."
Alfonsi's contract with "60 Minutes" was not renewed; Vega was dismissed despite her contract not being up until 2027. The two journalists spoke out about their firings, with Alfonsi saying, "Journalists willing to challenge authority are being pushed aside in favor of those who will not."
Vega said that "in recent months, my producing teams and I have experienced efforts to insert political bias into our stories."
"60 Minutes" employees applauded Pelley on Monday after Bilton left the meeting, and observers praised the veteran journalist for defending the show and the work of its staffers.
"Scott Pelley told the truth today," said Marc Elias, founder of Democracy Docket. "We need independent media the right wing can't buy."
"If Trump and Republicans are truly abandoning this corrupt scheme, they should have zero problem banning it in law," said US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
President Donald Trump is reportedly dropping his effort to get Congress to sign off on creating a $1.8 billion slush fund for political allies amid furious public backlash.
A source described as a senior Trump administration official told Axios on Monday that the fund is "dead for now" after two federal judges last week weighed in against it, with one blocking any funds from being dispersed.
One source told Axios that the fund—which was set up to pay out allies who were allegedly unfairly prosecuted during former President Joe Biden's tenure, including potentially hundreds of rioters who violently stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021—had "become a distraction" that was threatening the president's broader legislative agenda.
"The president believes government was weaponized against people—it wasn't just him," the source claimed. "But this isn't the time and vehicle for it."
According to NOTUS politics reporter Reese Gorman, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) "helped convince" Trump to drop the fund for now during a conversation on Monday.
"The fund received significant backlash from Hill Republicans," reported Gorman, "and a number of House Republicans were looking for ways to stop this fund from happening."
The decision to drop the fund came as Democratic lawmakers have been lining legislation and amendments to derail it.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on Monday that his caucus wasn't satisfied just with killing the current Trump slush fund, but wanted to bar him from trying to create another one in the future.
"If Trump and Republicans are truly abandoning this corrupt scheme, they should have zero problem banning it in law," Schumer wrote in a social media post. "This week, Senate Democrats will push legislation to ban this slush fund and ensure no president can ever do this again. Trump’s word is nowhere near enough."
Schumer's comments were echoed by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who also cast doubt on whether Trump had truly dropped his scheme.
"I don’t trust Trump’s word, and neither do the American people," wrote Coons. "I'm looking forward to working with my Senate Democratic colleagues to permanently ban this slush fund. If Republicans in Congress are as opposed to this fund as they claim, they should have no problem joining us."
The press office of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential candidate who last week proposed a 100% tax on any California residents who received money from the Trump fund, celebrated its apparent demise.
"Days after Gavin Newsom challenged Trump’s J6 criminal slush fund and proposed a 100% tax on profits, Axios reports Trump pulled the plug," the press office wrote. "Bullies fold when you hit back!"
Sens. Elisa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) on Monday introduced a new bill called the "Drain the Slush Fund Act," which would bar taxpayer money from being paid to the "president, his associates, individuals convicted of crimes, or those involved in the January 6, 2021 insurrection."
In announcing the legislation, Slotkin said the fund was the latest example of Trump using the government "as a piggy bank for himself and his allies."
"This so-called... anti-weaponization fund is an unprecedented misuse of taxpayer money, and it must be stopped," said Slotkin. "Our bill does just that. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are crying out for the president to focus on the economy and lowering their costs."
In the House of Representatives, Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) teamed with Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) introduced similar legislation aimed at blocking the fund.
"Congress must call out what we know is morally wrong," Suozzi wrote in a social media post announcing the legislation. "The checks and balances of our democracy and the will of the American public hold us accountable to that standard."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, said that the reported decision to drop the fund was good news, but warned against overlooking other toxic policies being pushed by the president and his GOP allies in a new budget reconciliation package.
"As important as taking out this disgusting policy is," said Gilbert, "we must not let it be an excuse to green light the massive increases to [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] funding embedded in the reconciliation bill."
Legal advocacy group Democracy Forward, which has filed lawsuits aimed at blocking the fund's implementation, said it would continue pressing its case until it was sure that the president's plan was truly dead.
"Until the administration fully abandons the scheme, it's beyond dispute that it will not recur, and our clients’ harm is remedied, we will be in court challenging it," said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward. "We look forward to the government’s response to the courts and to our filings, and to prevailing on behalf of our clients."
A coalition of anti-war groups said Rep. Rashida Tlaib's resolution "is the only legislative tool that can force a vote and thus every member of Congress to take a position about this war on the record."
As Israel's deepening invasion of Lebanon threatens to derail peace talks between the US and Iran, American lawmakers are facing pressure to pass a war powers resolution to limit US involvement this week.
In recent days, despite a ceasefire agreement in April, Israel has ordered the forced evacuation of hundreds of thousands more Lebanese civilians from their homes in the country's south, and declared all areas south of the Zahrani River a combat zone.
In what Defense Minister Israel Katz has described as a continuation of its "Gaza model," the Israel Defense Forces have systematically razed dozens of villages across southern Lebanon.
US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who introduced the war powers resolution in April, said, "This must stop."
"Our country should not be assisting or supporting indiscriminate bombings and forced displacement anywhere, including Lebanon," Tlaib said on social media Monday, responding to a report that the death toll had climbed above 3,400 since Israel launched its assault on Lebanon in March. "We must pass the Lebanon war powers resolution this week."
The brief resolution would require the US to end unauthorized military cooperation with Israel within seven days of being passed, which proponents said may also limit the ability of the US military to share intelligence and coordinate targets with Israel.
Tlaib and other progressives like Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) initially pushed for the resolution to be brought to a House vote during the week of May 18, but it was kicked until after lawmakers returned from recess.
In the meantime, several cosponsors have signed onto the resolution, bringing the total up to 17. They include Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) and Rep. André Carson (D-Ind.), who serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
War powers votes can be introduced by any member of Congress and do not need the support of the Republican Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson (La.).
A coalition of anti-war groups led by Just Foreign Policy organized a letter-writing campaign to tell members of Congress to support the resolution. The groups say supporters have sent nearly 24,000 letters to Congress so far.
"Israel's invasion of Lebanon has killed more than 3,000 people since March 2nd, displaced over 1.2 million—a fifth of the country's entire population—and caused over $14 billion in destruction. Hospitals bombed. Entire villages erased," they said. "Rashida Tlaib’s resolution... is the only legislative tool that can force a vote and thus every member of Congress to take a position about this war on the record."
Spokespeople for the Democrats on the House Foreign Relations Committee did not respond when asked by Common Dreams whether members planned on supporting Tlaib's resolution.
Israel has been accused of ramping up its attacks on Lebanon as a means of sabotaging peace talks between the US and Iran. Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, wrote on social media Monday that “the ceasefire between Iran and the US is unequivocally a ceasefire on all fronts, including in Lebanon."
It was reported by Iran's Tasnim News Agency on Monday that Tehran was backing away from talks with President Donald Trump in response to Israel's escalation in Lebanon. The country's foreign ministry said the US “bears direct responsibility both for the violations of the ceasefire against Iran and for the violations committed by the Zionist regime against Lebanon.”
However, after phone calls with a Hezbollah intermediary and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said on Truth Social that “talks were continuing at a rapid pace,” and “there will be no Troops going to Beirut, and any Troops that are on their way have already been turned back.”
Netanyahu responded to the reports by saying that he planned to launch more attacks against Lebanon's densely populated capital if Hezbollah did not stop attacking Israel, and that Israel would "continue operating in southern Lebanon as planned."