SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

* indicates required
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Aiden Clark, who was killed in a car accident
Further

Speaking of Moral Bankruptcy

The same night a competent woman eviscerated a fear-mongering, angry old man yelling at clouds - most notably when he hollered "THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS!" - the admirable father of 11-year-old Aiden Clark, a "caring soul" killed last year in a car accident involving a Haitian immigrant, appeared before his city commission to demand the old man and his "reprehensible" cohorts stop using his son's name and death for racist political gain. On their "vomiting hate," he said, "This needs to stop now."

In the aftermath of the madness that was likely our only presidential debate, fact-checkers who should have been on site in real time for it to have any value whatsoever popped up, better late than never, to document the stunning lies spewing from a "vile, florid, stupid," "staggeringly dishonest" carnival barker who obviously - per the campaign sign "Harris For President, Obviously" - should never have been up there, or visible anywhere in the public domain ever, for us to suffer through. As usual, princely among the truth-tellers was the intrepid Daniel Dale, who while barely taking a breath reeled off a four-minute litany of at least 33 lies ranging from "massive exaggerations" to "total fictions"; Harris had one misrepresentation. Still and all, Trump claimed improbable victory while whining about unfair moderators: "Everything I said was debunked, but my stuff was right." Right.

With no audience and few scrambled brain cells left, the clear consensus was that Trump sounded like a loser and jester who thinks the Taliban leader is some dude named Abdul (not). Responses ranged from a faux report on post-birth abortion - "Woman right now killing a baby in his 78th year" - to Four Seasons Total Landscaping mock announcing, "While we are not a hotel, we are a concept of a hotel" - to variations on, "If someone said this stuff interviewing for a job at Applebee's, they'd call police." After he saw a racist AI image posted by ImmigrantSlaughter1488, many cited what became an inadvertent riff on Bill Hader's famous Stefon: "This debate has everything - dog eating, baby killing, transgender operations on illegal aliens in prisons." Trump's imagined Day in the Life of an immigrant: "Wake up in jail, get your transgender operation, for breakfast, dog, take over Seattle, for dinner, cat."

The night of the debate, in sober, searing contrast, one victim of his racist rhetoric stepped up to reject it. On the morning of Aug. 22, 2023, the first day of school in Springfield, Ohio, 11-year-old Aiden Clark was killed when a min-van driven by Haitian immigrant Hermanio Joseph struck the school bus Aiden was riding in. Both vehicles went off the road, and the bus rolled over. Nearly half the 52 students on the bus were sent to hospitals; Aiden was the only fatality. On Tuesday night, almost exactly a year later, Aiden's father Nathan appeared before the Springfield City Commission to urge GOP ghouls to stop using his family tragedy to score political points against immigrants. "I wish my son Aiden (was) killed by a 60-year-old white man," he began. "I bet you never thought anyone would ever say something so blunt. But (then) the incessant group of hate-spewing people would leave us alone."

Standing with Aiden's often-tearful mom Danielle - both parents are schoolteachers - Clark zeroed in on the "reprehensible" racists "using Aiden as a political tool." Leading off with, "Speaking of morally bankrupt," he specifically name-checked Trump, Vance, Texas Rep. Chip Roy and Ohio Senate GOP nominee Bernie Moreno. "The last thing that we need is to have the worst day of our lives violently and constantly shoved in our faces," he said. "And that’s not good enough for them. They take it one step further. They make it seem as though our wonderful Aiden appreciates your hate. That we should follow their hate. And look what you’ve done to us. We have to get up here and beg them to stop." Last year, Clark had said "one of the worst feelings in the world" was not being able to protect his son. Now, he said, "Even worse, we can’t even protect his memory when he’s gone.""

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Unsurprisingly, it was vile Vance who kicked off this racist madness, part of a GOP anti-immigrant assault that, thanks to their lack of any actual policies, has become an ugly mainstay of the campaign. Weeks ago, Vance cited "reports"- see bonkers post from random troll ImmigrantSlaughter1488 - that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, most of them legal, were abducting and eating people's pets. Vance also threw in the claim they were causing a rise in TB and HIV cases, because, you know, black people. When the claims were mocked by observers and denied by city officials, he doubled down, then conceded the rumors "may or may not be true," then mindlessly fought back, snarling, "Do you know what isconfirmed? That a child was murdered by a Haitian migrant who had no right to be here." (The father of said child, pointedly: "My son, Aiden Clark, was not murdered. He was accidentally killed."

Trump, who's never met a racist trope he didn't like, has naturally latched onto the lies. “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs!” he screeched at the debate out of nowhere, as Harris smirked and rolled her eyes. "The people that came in, they’re eating the cats! They’re eating the pets of the people that live there! And this is what’s happening in our country. And it’s a shame." In truth, there are many things that are a shame: That this bozo is up there spouting racist gobbledegook, that he unfathomably keeps going lower and weirder, that what he's attempting to use for his own loathsome purposes is a human tragedy affecting and possibly endangering already vulnerable, traumatized and marginalized people. Hermanio Joseph had an Ohio ID and temporary protected legal status; he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and vehicular homicide, and will serve up to 13 years in prison.

Most devastatingly are the other victims: An inquisitive boy who loved growing vegetables with his father, studying other countries and cultures, playing "old-school” board games, doing word searches by flashlight in bed, playing outdoor sports inside, chasing his dog Daisy Mae, and snuggling "with anyone." Of the tragedy, said a father with more heart, wisdom and humanity than an entire political party, "Don't spin this towards hate. In order to live like Aiden, you need (to) accept everyone, choose to shine (and) be the inspiration." "They have spoken in my son’s name and used his death for political gain," he said. "This needs to stop now. They can vomit all the hate they want (about immigrants, the border, eating "fluffy" pets). However, they are not allowed nor have they ever been allowed to mention Aiden Clark from Springfield, Ohio. I will listen to them one more time, to hear their apologies."

SEE ALL
an RWE power station
News

Report Details Wave of Lawsuits Targeting Climate Crimes of Big Oil

An increasing number of climate lawsuits filed against fossil fuel companies in the last decade could put a dent in the business model of large fossil fuel companies, according to a report released Thursday.

The 16-page report—titled Big Oil in Court and co-created by Oil Change International and Zero Carbon Analytics—documents dozens of cases worldwide, mostly since 2015, when the Paris agreement was signed. Many of the cases center on climate damages, misleading advertising about fossil fuels, or failure to reduce emissions in line with legal agreements. Over half of the cases have been filed in the United States, with a majority of others in Western Europe.

"The growing number of lawsuits against fossil fuel corporations underlines how their historic and continued role in driving and profiting from climate change is catching up to them," David Tong, an industry campaign manager at Oil Change International, an advocacy group, said in a statement.

"The wave of lawsuits against Big Oil could lead to serious impacts on their bottom line, a disincentive for investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, a reduction in corporate value, and a challenge to their social license to continue harming communities around the world," Tong added.

Last year saw 14 climate cases targeted at Big Oil filed worldwide, a record. A database cited in the report that dates to 2005 records 86 total cases, the vast majority having been file since 2015. Forty of the cases are still pending.

The most common type of climate-focused case has been for damages, with 30 filed just since 2017—prior to that year, only three had been filed. Dozens of U.S. states and cities have filed such cases, though none has yet reached a trial. The damages case in the U.S. that's the furthest along, City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco et al., has faced extraordinary legal and political pushback from the industry, which is seeking to have it dismissed.

One of the most prominent damages cases outside the U.S. features Saúl Luciano Lliuya, a Peruvian farmer who sued energy giant RWE in German court in 2015 for having a partial role in the melting of a glacier in the Andes. He seeks reimbursement for the flood protection infrastructure that he and 50,000 other residents had to erect. Lawyers and judges traveled from Germany to Peru in 2022 to assess Luciano Lliuya's claims. The case is ongoing.

In the statement accompanying Thursday's report, Lliuya said:

Taking on carbon majors in court can be daunting. But the fear of losing your home and everything you’ve worked for due to the reckless actions of fossil fuel companies is even greater. For those of us directly impacted by the climate crisis, the courts offer a glimmer of hope. People like me are in court because our livelihoods are at serious risk and we are asking judges to hold the fossil fuel companies responsible.

The second most common type of climate case against Big Oil has focused on misleading advertising. Of the nine cases of this type that have reached a conclusion, Big Oil won only one case; in each of the others, the companies retracted their claims or were ruled against. The United Kingdom's Advertising Standard Authority found Shell's low-carbon claims to be misleading in separate cases in 2020 and 2023, for example.

There have also been a number of cases seeking to force fossil fuel companies to adhere to legally mandated climate targets. The most prominent outcome from these cases was a landmark ruling against Shell by a Dutch court in 2021, which found that the company must cut emissions by 45% by 2030; the seminal ruling, which was based on emissions limits set in the Paris agreement, pertains to emissions that come from Shell's fossil fuel products, and not just the company's direct business activities.

The report's analysis doesn't include climate lawsuits targeted at governments or at companies involved in other areas of the fossil fuel supply chain.

In response to the report, Michael Gerrard, the faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, toldThe Guardian that there have been a "formidable number of cases" but "none of them have broken through" except those dealing with advertising.

SEE ALL
Former President Donald Trump
News

Germany Corrects Trump on Energy Policy—'PS: We Also Don't Eat Cats and Dogs'

The German foreign ministry on Wednesday issued a rejoinder to Republican nominee Donald Trump's debate claim that Germany had reverted back to a "normal" energy policy after, as he implied, failing to transition away from fossil fuels.

Near the end of the televised presidential debate, Trump addressed Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, saying:

"You believe in things that the American people don't believe in. You believe in things like we're not going to frack. We're not going to take fossil fuel. We're not going to do, things that are going to make this country strong, whether you like it or not. Germany tried that and within one year they were back to building normal energy plants."

The Germans replied forcefully and included a snarky reference to Trump's baseless claim, made earlier in the debate, that immigrants were eating Americans' pets.

"Like it or not: Germany’s energy system is fully operational, with more than 50% renewables," the German foreign ministry, which is led by Annalena Baerbock of the country's green party as part of a coalition arrangement, wrote on social media. "And we are shutting down—not building—coal and nuclear plants. Coal will be off the grid by 2038 at the latest. PS: We also don't eat cats and dogs."

"The former president is not famous for his grasp of the finer details of European energy policy," Bernd Radowitz wrote Wednesday in Recharge, a trade news publication.

Radowitz and other commentators took Trump's "normal" to mean fossil fuel-driven energy production.

"As usual with Trump, it takes some patience to interpret his incoherent line of argument, but what most U.S. viewers and potential voters likely understood from this statement is that Germany tried to ditch fossil fuels, but within a year had to give that up. The assumption here is also that Trump by 'normal energy plants' meant fossil-fired generation."

Germany has since 2010 undertaken an Energiewiende aimed at drawing down on fossil fuel use and nuclear-powered energy and ramping up renewables. The transition plan hit a rough patch in 2022 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia had supplied more than half of Germany's natural gas, as well as some of its oil and coal. German authorities turned some nuclear plants back on, added more coal consumption into the energy mix, and imported more natural gas from elsewhere, drawing criticism from climate campaigners.

However, those changes were meant to be temporary and Germany has since made progress on implementing its green transition plans. In March, the government declared itself on target to reach its 2030 climate goals. Over 60% of the country's electricity was powered by renewables in the first half of this year, a marked increase from 2022.

The foreign ministry's social media post had been viewed by over 1 million people as of Wednesday morning. It was not entirely clear why the ministry raised Trump's pet remarks, which were seemingly aimed at immigrants of color from low-income countries. Trump's claim, which The New York Timescalled "false and outlandish," was based on a rumor that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating pets for sustenance. Trump's running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), had spread the racist rumors on Monday.

As president, Trump had a scratchy relationship with Germany, which he frequently criticized for its export surplus to the U.S. and its lack of defense spending. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, of the center-left Social Democratic Party, made remarks in July that indicated that he hoped Harris would win the election. Scholz, who's held office since 2021, had last year endorsed President Joe Biden for reelection, speaking in unusually direct terms about the U.S. race.

SEE ALL
Nathan Clark, accompanied by his wife Danielle, spoke at a Springfield City Commission meeting in Springfield, Ohio
News

Grieving Father Tells 'Morally Bankrupt' GOP to Stop Exploiting Son's Death to Foment Hate

A day after the Trump campaign saw fit to spread baseless lies about Haitian immigrants in the city of Springfield, Ohio, a grieving father with a deep connection to the bigoted viral stories was forced to speak out.

Springfield resident Nathan Clark spoke at the City Commission meeting that was held shortly before former President Donald Trump faced Vice President Kamala Harris in Tuesday's debate.

Clark was there to speak on behalf of his son, Aiden, who was tragically killed in August 2023 when a man who had moved to Springfield after immigrating to the U.S. from Haiti accidentally drove into the school bus the boy was riding, sending it into a ditch.

On Monday, without notifying the family in advance or receiving their permission, the Trump campaign posted a photo of Aiden and blamed Harris for his death.

"Using Aiden as a political tool is, to say the least, reprehensible for any political purpose," Clark said Tuesday, adding that politicians who have spoken about his son while attacking immigrants are "morally bankrupt."

"They have spoken my son's name and used his death for political gain," he said.

The child's death was also mentioned by Vance on Monday in a lengthy post on the social media platform X, in which he repeated unverified rumors about Haitian immigrants in Springfield abducting residents' pets and eating them.

"It's possible, of course, that all of these rumors will turn out to be false," said the senator, before adding that "a child was murdered by a Haitian migrant who had no right to be here," and explicitly blaming immigrants for rising rates of communicable diseases like tuberculosis and HIV—claims that health authorities have said are false.

On Tuesday, Clark took Vance to task—along with Republican Senate candidate Bernie Moreno, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), and Trump—for using his son's name for political gain in their attacks on migrants.

The spiraling rumors, he said, had left him wishing that a "60-year-old white man" had caused his son's death.

"If that guy killed my 11-year-old son, the incessant group of hate spewing people would leave us alone," said Clark. "The last thing that we need is to have the worst day of our lives violently and constantly shoved in our faces. Even that's not good enough for them. They take it one step further. They make it seem as though our wonderful Aiden appreciates your hate, that we should follow their hate. And look what you've done to us. We have to get up here and beg them to stop."

Soon after Clark spoke out, Trump once again spread the lie about migrants eating pets in Springfield—which authorities in the city have said are false—at the presidential debate.

Clark suggested that he can't stop Republican politicians who "vomit all the hate they want" about immigration and "untrue claims about fluffy pets being ravaged and eaten by community members."

"However, they are not allowed, nor have they ever been allowed, to mention Aiden Clark from Springfield, Ohio," he said.

"In order to live like Aiden, you need to accept everyone, choose to shine, make the difference, lead the way and be the inspiration," Clark continued. "Did you know that he researched different cultures to better appreciate and understand people that he interacted with? Did you know that one of the worst feelings in the world is to not be able to protect your child? Even worse, we can't even protect his memory when he's gone."

"Please stop the hate," he said. "I said to Aiden that I would try to make a difference in his honor. This is it. Live like Aiden."

SEE ALL
Student arrested at UCSC encampment.
News

Pro-Palestine Students, Faculty Sue UC Santa Cruz Over 'Unconstitutional' Ban

Students and staff at the University of California, Santa Cruz launched a lawsuit against the school on Monday for barring them from campus without due process after they were arrested at a pro-Palestinian protest in the spring.

The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation of Northern California, the Center for Protest Law & Litigation, and civil rights attorney Thomas Seabaugh, is demanding that the University "cease summarily banishing" people who exerciser their First Amendment rights as the new academic year beings.

"The bans were incredibly punitive and profoundly unfair," Rachel Lederman, senior counsel with the Center for Protest Law & Litigation, said in a statement. "They went into effect on the spot, instantly cutting students and faculty off from classes, jobs, and other school resources, such as meal plans and healthcare. On-campus residents were rendered homeless. Academic performance suffered."

"It's time to hold UCSC accountable for its illegal use of Section 626.4 campus bans against students and faculty as a tool of censorship."

One impacted student was Elio Ellutzi, a plaintiff and undergraduate who was not only made homeless and cut off from their campus job, they were forced to the miss a pre-scheduled doctor's appointment and delay treatment until the fall.

"It was terrible to miss that appointment and be cut off from my home, the library, and my notes," Ellutzi said. "This all happened during final exams and, even though I had been on the honor roll for the last two quarters, I struggled to complete my coursework and my grades really suffered."

Fellow plaintiff and UCSC undergraduate Laaila Irshad also suffered academically.

"I was a resident assistant living and working in campus housing, so the ban was devastating," Laaila said. "I failed my school courses as I could not access my computer, attend classes, or complete assignments."

The bans were issued to more than 100 students and faculty members who were arrested on the night of May 30, when the university called in more than 100 police officers to clear the school's Palestine solidarity encampment.

Everyone arrested that night was banned from campus under section 626.4 of California's Penal Code, which allows a university to withdraw its consent for an individual's presence on campus for up to two weeks. However, in order for a university to make use of the code, it must first either hold a hearing or decide that an individual poses "a substantial and material threat." Neither criteria were met in the case of those arrested in May, in violation of both state and federal law.

Chessie Thacher, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said the bans were "unconstitutional and overbroad, depriving students and faculty of their due process rights."

The lawsuit explained further:

The campus police, acting under defendants' direction, handed out identical one-page Section 626.4 notices to arrestees. The officers handed out so many of these form notices en masse that they eventually ran out of paper and resorted to verbally informing students and faculty of the ban. Some people were also purportedly banned without getting either written or verbal notice. No hearing or opportunity to be heard was provided before any of these bans went into effect. No individualized findings were made about how, post-arrest, "the continued presence" on campus of each summarily banned person presented "a substantial and material threat of significant injury to persons or property."

The notices were also handed out after an arrest experience that was harrowing in and of itself, according to first-hand testimony from plaintiffs.

Christine Hong, a professor of critical race and ethnic studies, said she had gone to the encampment on May 30 to support her students:

When I arrived, I saw a line of officers advancing in militarized formation, moving forward, then stopping, and waiting before continuing their slow march down to the base of campus until they were just two to three feet in front of the line of students. From that point forward, they repeatedly attacked us in waves of violence. The police used their batons to force us so tightly into each other that some protesters were dry heaving from the batons being thrust violently into their organs. When students tried to move the batons away from their stomachs, they were ordered to stay still and bear the pain. The person next to me was later hospitalized for their injuries. In what appeared to be their efforts to pluck off protesters for arrest, officers in full riot gear were unrestrained in their violence, including grabbing people by the neck. One person sustained injuries so severe that they suffered neurological damage and now walks using a cane.

Once arrested, both Hong and Irshad described spending time in police vans with their hands tightly zip-tied and no chance to access facilities.

Irshad recalled:

I was arrested at 6:00 am, while other protesters remained on-site into the morning, still without basic necessities. We were then handcuffed tightly with zip ties and loaded into vans, where static radio blared at deafening volumes. When we pleaded for relief, the volume was increased, and when I asked to use the restroom, I was met with scorn and laughter. It was a shock to be treated so cruelly simply for exercising my right to protest.

The lawsuit stated that it was filed "to vindicate the fundamental democratic and constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly, and due process against overreach by university authorities."

"It's time to hold UCSC accountable for its illegal use of Section 626.4 campus bans against students and faculty as a tool of censorship," Seabaugh said in a statement. "Our clients did not engage in conduct that posed a threat of significant injury to anyone or anything. Banning them on the spot was not just heavy-handed, it was unconstitutional and a violation of basic democratic rights and academic freedoms. We're suing to ensure that in the coming school year, UCSC officials comply with the law and respect the constitutional limits on their power to ban students and faculty from campus."

SEE ALL
Russian President Vladimir Putin
News

Putin Warns of 'Direct' War as US Mulls Letting Ukraine Use Long-Range Western Missiles

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that if the United States and the United Kingdom allow Ukraine to strike deep inside Russia with Western missiles, "it will mean nothing less than the direct involvement of NATO countries."

"This is not a question of allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not. It is a question of deciding whether or not NATO countries are directly involved in a military conflict," Putin told Russian state TV. "This will be their direct participation, and this, of course, will significantly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict."

Putin's remarks came amid reports that U.S. President Joe Biden appears poised to let Ukraine use long-range missiles against Russia, signaling a perilous new phase in a deadly war that has dragged on for two and a half years since Russia's invasion in February 2022.

According toThe New York Times, "President Biden appears on the verge of clearing the way for Ukraine to launch long-range Western weapons deep inside Russian territory, as long as it doesn't use arms provided by the United States."

"The issue, which has long been debated in the administration, is coming to a head on Friday with the first official visit to the White House by Britain's new prime minister, Keir Starmer," the Times reported Thursday. "Britain has already signaled to the United States that it is eager to let Ukraine use its 'Storm Shadow' long-range missiles to strike at Russian military targets far from the Ukrainian border. But it wants explicit permission from Mr. Biden in order to demonstrate a coordinated strategy with the United States and France, which makes a similar missile."

Ahead of the decision, the Pentagon pointed to Iran's alleged transfer of ballistic missiles to Russia as further reason to bolster Ukraine's military capabilities. A spokesperson for Iran's foreign ministry said in response that "the publication of false and misleading reports about the transfer of Iranian weapons to some countries is simply ugly propaganda to conceal the large illegal arms support of the United States and some Western countries for the genocide in Gaza."

Ukraine, which has received roughly $55.7 billion in military assistance from the U.S. since February 2022, has already launched repeated drone attacks deep inside Russia, but Western permission for Kyiv to use long-range missiles could be a dire escalation.

As Politiconoted, Moscow could retaliate against a long-range missile strike on Russia by hitting "a target inside NATO, such as the critical weapons supply hub in the Polish city of Rzeszów." Such an exchange could result in direct conflict between the nuclear-armed powers.

"Military experts argue any guidelines agreed for the British weapons at the two-hour summit in Washington could also then pave the way for the Ukrainians to fire U.S.-supplied ATACMS—a tactical ballistic missile system—at airfields and army bases deep inside Russia," the outlet observed.

The potential intensification and spread of the war comes as the prospect of a diplomatic resolution appears nonexistent, at least in the near term.

Aída Chávez, communications director and policy adviser at Just Foreign Policy, wrote for The Intercept earlier this week that members of the U.S. Congressional Progressive Caucus were "pilloried" over an October 2022 letter urging Biden to "make vigorous diplomatic efforts in support of a negotiated settlement and ceasefire, engage in direct talks with Russia, explore prospects for a new European security arrangement acceptable to all parties that will allow for a sovereign and independent Ukraine, and, in coordination with our Ukrainian partners, seek a rapid end to the conflict and reiterate this goal as America's chief priority."

Today, Chávez wrote, the progressives who signed the letter—which was ultimately withdrawn by the CPC leadership—"look more prescient than ever."

"Since the ill-fated letter, the war has ground on—with devastating results for the people of Ukraine," Chávez continued. "Ukraine is not in a position to win the war, nor does it have a stronger bargaining position in talks than it did in late 2022 when the CPC letter came out."

SEE ALL