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.
People maintain social distancing while standing in line to enter a Trader Joe's as the coronavirus pandemic continues on March 25, 2020 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images)
Are you (un)settling in to this brave new reality yet? Beyond hopeful signs of unity, there's a looming sense that we've only just glimpsed how bad things might get in this pandemic crisis. The adjustments in many of our lives to totalized online sociality (quarantinis, anyone?), teleworking (if we're fortunate to have that option), and nesting activities (paralleling claustrophobic and/or conflictual experiences) is coupled with the realization of escalating illness and the exposure of endemic inequalities in society.
Medically, the experts are warning that we're still only partway along on the upward slope of the viral curve, with the peak (staggered across a cascade of shifting hotspots) remaining at least weeks away. Politically, the vacuity of federal guidance leaves a patchwork of uneven responses, and invites more authoritarian interventions if conditions worsen. The call to help "flatten the curve" isn't a panacea, but mainly a way to allow our already-imperfect healthcare system to catch up to the spike in critical cases.
"Whatever we make of this extraordinary time intellectually, there's a kind of suppressed emotional terror that one can discern between the lines (and perhaps in our own quiet moments)."
All the while, it feels like the pendulum of emotional processing swings from being too alarmist to not alarmist enough. At times it's almost too easy to slip into a privileged routine of Zooming into work, puttering around the immediate vicinity and cleaning out neglected spaces of accumulation, living local with a limited (carbon) footprint, catching up with old friends and getting to know colleagues in new ways, and more (insert your own litany here). Life somehow tries to normalize, no matter the baseline.
Moments of crisis can help clarify what's truly important in our lives, amplifying a sense of gratitude for things that previously seemed trivial or even tedious, and prompting us to reach out to people who have mattered to us along the way. Crises illuminate our dependency on one another, and on remote chains of production and distribution--but also highlight a resiliency and capacity to live within limits. Perhaps some of these (re)discoveries will remain once the acute crisis abates and societies attempt to reset.
Yet other changes may linger in our lives as well, and they may not be those grounded in gratitude, solidarity, sustainability, and resilience. The social fabric is changing in real-time, redefining how we do business and, in the process, affirming the hegemony of technology in our lives. It's not only that everyone who has access is using it without hesitation right now (mooting preexisting questions about privacy, veracity, etc.), but also the ways that surveillance tools have been deployed to track the virus.
Just to highlight a few notable examples that are worth bookmarking before they might soon take hold more broadly: Russia has used a mass facial recognition network; South Korea has used robust location tracking and proximity tools; Israel has used vast personal data for mapping movements; and China has required tracking apps for its opaque risk coding system. While the ability to deploy these techniques in a crisis is remarkable, the implications of maintaining these systems after the fact are worth considering.
On the other side of the ledger, there's been a marked upsurge of commentary about how societal responses to the virus have yielded environmental gains--either directly as people rely less on carbon-producing methods of transportation and conveyance, or indirectly by noting the parallels between coronavirus and climate change (an unseen threat, potentially existential in nature) and surmising that if nothing else this unwelcomed moment has demonstrated a pervasive ability to embrace radical change.
Still, whatever we make of this extraordinary time intellectually, there's a kind of suppressed emotional terror that one can discern between the lines (and perhaps in our own quiet moments). We watch with bated breath as the escalating infection and mortality counts come in, and the plummeting financial reports scroll by in the crawl. There's no bailout for the anxiety and anguish attendant to an imposed journey through uncharted waters--only the insistence of momentum, one precious breath at a time.
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Are you (un)settling in to this brave new reality yet? Beyond hopeful signs of unity, there's a looming sense that we've only just glimpsed how bad things might get in this pandemic crisis. The adjustments in many of our lives to totalized online sociality (quarantinis, anyone?), teleworking (if we're fortunate to have that option), and nesting activities (paralleling claustrophobic and/or conflictual experiences) is coupled with the realization of escalating illness and the exposure of endemic inequalities in society.
Medically, the experts are warning that we're still only partway along on the upward slope of the viral curve, with the peak (staggered across a cascade of shifting hotspots) remaining at least weeks away. Politically, the vacuity of federal guidance leaves a patchwork of uneven responses, and invites more authoritarian interventions if conditions worsen. The call to help "flatten the curve" isn't a panacea, but mainly a way to allow our already-imperfect healthcare system to catch up to the spike in critical cases.
"Whatever we make of this extraordinary time intellectually, there's a kind of suppressed emotional terror that one can discern between the lines (and perhaps in our own quiet moments)."
All the while, it feels like the pendulum of emotional processing swings from being too alarmist to not alarmist enough. At times it's almost too easy to slip into a privileged routine of Zooming into work, puttering around the immediate vicinity and cleaning out neglected spaces of accumulation, living local with a limited (carbon) footprint, catching up with old friends and getting to know colleagues in new ways, and more (insert your own litany here). Life somehow tries to normalize, no matter the baseline.
Moments of crisis can help clarify what's truly important in our lives, amplifying a sense of gratitude for things that previously seemed trivial or even tedious, and prompting us to reach out to people who have mattered to us along the way. Crises illuminate our dependency on one another, and on remote chains of production and distribution--but also highlight a resiliency and capacity to live within limits. Perhaps some of these (re)discoveries will remain once the acute crisis abates and societies attempt to reset.
Yet other changes may linger in our lives as well, and they may not be those grounded in gratitude, solidarity, sustainability, and resilience. The social fabric is changing in real-time, redefining how we do business and, in the process, affirming the hegemony of technology in our lives. It's not only that everyone who has access is using it without hesitation right now (mooting preexisting questions about privacy, veracity, etc.), but also the ways that surveillance tools have been deployed to track the virus.
Just to highlight a few notable examples that are worth bookmarking before they might soon take hold more broadly: Russia has used a mass facial recognition network; South Korea has used robust location tracking and proximity tools; Israel has used vast personal data for mapping movements; and China has required tracking apps for its opaque risk coding system. While the ability to deploy these techniques in a crisis is remarkable, the implications of maintaining these systems after the fact are worth considering.
On the other side of the ledger, there's been a marked upsurge of commentary about how societal responses to the virus have yielded environmental gains--either directly as people rely less on carbon-producing methods of transportation and conveyance, or indirectly by noting the parallels between coronavirus and climate change (an unseen threat, potentially existential in nature) and surmising that if nothing else this unwelcomed moment has demonstrated a pervasive ability to embrace radical change.
Still, whatever we make of this extraordinary time intellectually, there's a kind of suppressed emotional terror that one can discern between the lines (and perhaps in our own quiet moments). We watch with bated breath as the escalating infection and mortality counts come in, and the plummeting financial reports scroll by in the crawl. There's no bailout for the anxiety and anguish attendant to an imposed journey through uncharted waters--only the insistence of momentum, one precious breath at a time.
Are you (un)settling in to this brave new reality yet? Beyond hopeful signs of unity, there's a looming sense that we've only just glimpsed how bad things might get in this pandemic crisis. The adjustments in many of our lives to totalized online sociality (quarantinis, anyone?), teleworking (if we're fortunate to have that option), and nesting activities (paralleling claustrophobic and/or conflictual experiences) is coupled with the realization of escalating illness and the exposure of endemic inequalities in society.
Medically, the experts are warning that we're still only partway along on the upward slope of the viral curve, with the peak (staggered across a cascade of shifting hotspots) remaining at least weeks away. Politically, the vacuity of federal guidance leaves a patchwork of uneven responses, and invites more authoritarian interventions if conditions worsen. The call to help "flatten the curve" isn't a panacea, but mainly a way to allow our already-imperfect healthcare system to catch up to the spike in critical cases.
"Whatever we make of this extraordinary time intellectually, there's a kind of suppressed emotional terror that one can discern between the lines (and perhaps in our own quiet moments)."
All the while, it feels like the pendulum of emotional processing swings from being too alarmist to not alarmist enough. At times it's almost too easy to slip into a privileged routine of Zooming into work, puttering around the immediate vicinity and cleaning out neglected spaces of accumulation, living local with a limited (carbon) footprint, catching up with old friends and getting to know colleagues in new ways, and more (insert your own litany here). Life somehow tries to normalize, no matter the baseline.
Moments of crisis can help clarify what's truly important in our lives, amplifying a sense of gratitude for things that previously seemed trivial or even tedious, and prompting us to reach out to people who have mattered to us along the way. Crises illuminate our dependency on one another, and on remote chains of production and distribution--but also highlight a resiliency and capacity to live within limits. Perhaps some of these (re)discoveries will remain once the acute crisis abates and societies attempt to reset.
Yet other changes may linger in our lives as well, and they may not be those grounded in gratitude, solidarity, sustainability, and resilience. The social fabric is changing in real-time, redefining how we do business and, in the process, affirming the hegemony of technology in our lives. It's not only that everyone who has access is using it without hesitation right now (mooting preexisting questions about privacy, veracity, etc.), but also the ways that surveillance tools have been deployed to track the virus.
Just to highlight a few notable examples that are worth bookmarking before they might soon take hold more broadly: Russia has used a mass facial recognition network; South Korea has used robust location tracking and proximity tools; Israel has used vast personal data for mapping movements; and China has required tracking apps for its opaque risk coding system. While the ability to deploy these techniques in a crisis is remarkable, the implications of maintaining these systems after the fact are worth considering.
On the other side of the ledger, there's been a marked upsurge of commentary about how societal responses to the virus have yielded environmental gains--either directly as people rely less on carbon-producing methods of transportation and conveyance, or indirectly by noting the parallels between coronavirus and climate change (an unseen threat, potentially existential in nature) and surmising that if nothing else this unwelcomed moment has demonstrated a pervasive ability to embrace radical change.
Still, whatever we make of this extraordinary time intellectually, there's a kind of suppressed emotional terror that one can discern between the lines (and perhaps in our own quiet moments). We watch with bated breath as the escalating infection and mortality counts come in, and the plummeting financial reports scroll by in the crawl. There's no bailout for the anxiety and anguish attendant to an imposed journey through uncharted waters--only the insistence of momentum, one precious breath at a time.
Attorney General Josh Kaul accused the world's richest person and top Trump adviser of "a blatant attempt to violate" Wisconsin's election bribery law.
Democratic Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit Friday seeking to stop Elon Musk—the world's richest person and a senior adviser to President Donald Trump—from handing out $1 million checks to voters this weekend in an apparent blatant violation of bribery law meant to swing next Tuesday's crucial state Supreme Court election.
"Wisconsin law forbids anyone from offering or promising to give anything of value to an elector in order to induce the elector to go to the polls, vote or refrain from voting, or vote for a particular person," the lawsuit notes. "Musk's announcement of his intention to pay $1 million to two Wisconsin electors who attend his event on Sunday night, specifically conditioned on their having voted in the upcoming April 3, 2025, Wisconsin Supreme Court election, is a blatant attempt to violate Wis. Stat. § 12.11. This must not happen."
On Thursday, Musk announced on his X social media site that he will "give a talk" at an undisclosed location in Wisconsin, and that "entrance is limited to those who have signed the petition in opposition to activist judges."
"I will also hand over checks for a million dollars to two people to be spokesmen for the petition," the Tesla and SpaceX CEO and de facto head of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency wrote.
As Common Dreams reported earlier last week, Musk's super political action committee, America PAC, is offering registered Wisconsin voters $100 to sign a petition stating that they reject "the actions of activist judges who impose their own views" and demand "a judiciary that respects its role—interpreting, not legislating."
The cash awards—which critics have decried as bribery—are part of a multimillion dollar effort by Musk and affiliated super PACs to boost Judge Brad Schimel of Waukesha County, the Trump-backed, right-wing state Supreme Court candidate locked in a tight race with Dane County Judge Susan Crawford.
Left-leaning justices are clinging to a 4-3 advantage on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Crawford and Schimel are vying to fill the seat now occupied by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, a liberal who is not running for another 10-year term. Control of the state's highest court will likely impact a wide range of issues, from abortion to labor rights to voter suppression.
Musk has openly admitted why he's spending millions of dollars on the race: It "will decide how congressional districts are drawn." That's what he said while hosting Schimel and U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) for a discussion on X last weekend.
"In my opinion that's the most important thing, which is a big deal given that the congressional majority is so razor-thin," Musk argued. "It could cause the House to switch to Democrat if that redrawing takes place."
Crawford campaign spokesperson Derrick Honeyman issued a statement Friday calling Musk's planned cash giveaway a "last-minute desperate distraction."
"Wisconsinites don't want a billionaire like Musk telling them who to vote for," Honeyman added, "and on Tuesday, voters should reject Musk's lackey Brad Schimel."
Greenlanders are giving the administration of President Donald Trump—who renewed threats to take the Danish territory—the cold shoulder.
U.S. Vice President JD Vance, Second Lady Usha Vance, and two top Trump administration officials traveled to Greenland on Friday on an itinerary that was markedly curtailed from its original plans due to Greenlanders' frosty reception amid President Donald Trump's ongoing threats to take the Arctic island from NATO ally Denmark—even by armed force if deemed necessary.
Vance visited Pituffik Space Base—a U.S. Space Force installation on the northwestern coast of Greenland about 930 miles (1,500 km) north of the capital, Nuuk—with his wife, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, and Energy Secretary Chris Wright.
The vice president's wife originally planned on a more interactive and cultural itinerary, including attending a dogsled race. However, Greenland's leftist government said earlier this week that is had "not extended any invitations for any visits, neither private nor official."
Compounding the Trump administration's embarrassment, U.S. representatives reportedly came up empty handed after canvassing door to door in Nuuk in an effort to drum up support for the visit. The administration denies this ever happened.
And so the Trump officials' audience was limited to U.S. troops stationed at Pituffik. After arriving at the base, the vice president told troops in the mess hall he was surprised to find the snow- and ice-covered Arctic island is "cold as shit."
"Nobody told me!" he added.
Vice President JD Vance and Second Lady Usha Vance visited a U.S. Space Force base in Greenland Friday. Vance is expected to receive briefings on Arctic security and address US service members.
Read more: https://t.co/1OIkkT3VnD pic.twitter.com/lbXeObJTgq
— Newsweek (@Newsweek) March 28, 2025
Getting down to more serious business, Vance said: "Our message to Denmark is very simple—you have not done a good job by the people of Greenland. You have under-invested in the people of Greenland and you have under-invested in the security architecture of this incredible, beautiful land mass."
Addressing Arctic geopolitics, Vance argued that "we can't just bury our head in the sand—or in Greenland, bury our head in the snow—and pretend that the Chinese are not interested in this very large land mass. We know that they are."
"The president said we have to have Greenland, and I think that we do have to be more serious about the security of Greenland," Vance continued. "We respect the self-determination of the people of Greenland, but my argument to them is: I think that you'd be a lot better coming under the United States' security umbrella than you have been under Denmark's security umbrella. Because what Denmark's security umbrella has meant is effectively they've passed it all off to brave Americans and hoped that we would pick up the tab."
This follows remarks earlier this week from Vance, who said during a Fox News interview that Denmark, which faithfully sent troops to fight in both Afghanistan and Iraq—43 of whom died, the highest per capita casualty rate of the alliance—is "not being a good ally" to the United States.
Asked by reporters on Friday if the U.S. would ever conquer Greenland by military force, Vance said he didn't think that would be necessary.
However, just a day earlier, Trump—who on Friday posted a video highlighting defense cooperation between the U.S. and Greenland—said his administration will "go as far as we have to go" to acquire the island, which he claimed the United States needs "for national security and international security."
It was far from the first time that Trump—who has also threatened to take over parts or all of countries including Panama and even Canada—vowed to annex Greenland, and other administration officials have repeated the president's threats.
"It's oil and gas. It's our national security. It's critical minerals," Waltz said in January, explaining why Trump wants Greenland.
The U.S. has long been interested in Greenland, and while the close relationship between the United States and Denmark has been mostly mutually beneficial, it has sometimes come at the expense of Greenland's people, environment, and wildlife.
Such was the case when a U.S. Air Force B-52 bomber laden with four thermonuclear warheads crashed into the sea ice of Wolstenholme Fjord in 1968. The accident caused widespread radioactive contamination, and the nuclear fuel components of one of the bombs remain unrecovered to this day.
Elected officials from across Greenland and Denmark's political spectrum expressed alarm over the Trump administration's actions.
Outgoing Greenland Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede earlier this week
called Vance's trip "highly aggressive" and said that it "can in no way be characterized as a harmless visit."
"Because what is the security advisor doing in Greenland?" Egede asked. "The only purpose is to show a demonstration of power to us, and the signal is not to be misunderstood."
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke called Vance's remarks on Friday "a bit inappropriate," adding that maybe the Trump administration "should look at yourself in the mirror too."
"When the vice president.. creates an image that the only way Greenland can be protected is by coming under the American umbrella, so you can say that Greenland is already there," Løkke elaborated. "They are part of the common security umbrella that we created together with the Americans after the end of World War II called NATO."
"We have always looked at America like the nice big brother to help you out and now it's like the big brother is bullying you."
Ordinary Greenlanders and Danish residents of the island were not happy about the Trump delegation's visit.
Anders Laursen, who owns a local water taxi company, told NBC News that "we have always looked at America like the nice big brother to help you out and now it's like the big brother is bullying you."
Nuuk resident Marie Olsen said of Vance, "I think he's a big child who wants it all."
In the Danish capital Copenhagen, hundreds of people rallied Friday against the U.S. delegation's visit to Greenland. One protester decried what she called the U.S. administration's "mafia methods."
"I hope American law firms—Paul Weiss and Skadden—are proud of the cowardice they are instilling and inspiring among the legal profession," wrote one former state senator.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom on Friday became the latest white-shoe law firm to acquiesce to the Trump administration as the White House ramps up attacks on the legal profession. The news prompted a wave of outrage at the law firm, which was accused of being "pathetic."
The firm has agreed to provide at least $100 million in pro bono legal services to the federal government during his administration "and beyond," according to a Truth Social post from U.S. President Donald Trump. Also, the "firm will not engage in illegal" diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) "discrimination and preferences," according to the post, which also noted that the firm proactively reached out to the administration about an agreement.
Speaking at the White House on Friday, Trump called the deal "essentially a settlement," according to Reuters.
"Pathetic when the richest and most powerful lawyers in America won't stand up for the profession that made them rich and powerful," wrote U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) on X on Friday, reacting to earlier reporting that the firm was in discussions with the White House over a deal.
Author and commentator Wajahat Ali wrote that the move was "shameful" on Bluesky on Friday. "Pathetic and selfish," wrote Pod Save America podcast co-host Jon Favreau.
Former New York state Sen. Alessandra Biaggi (D-34) wrote: "I hope American law firms—Paul Weiss and Skadden—are proud of the cowardice they are instilling and inspiring among the legal profession."
The news comes on the heels of news that another top law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, last week brokered a deal with the White House in order to spare the firm from an executive order that suspended security clearances for lawyers and staff.
As part of that deal, the firm will dedicate $40 million in pro bono legal services during Trump's administration "to support the administration's initiatives."
Meanwhile, also last week, Trump issued a memo directing U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to "seek sanctions" against firms and lawyers that, according to him, "engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States."
With the agreement, Skadden Arps has likely avoided joining a list of elite law firms that have been singled out via executive order from Trump, targeting them with various punishments. Three of the firms that have been targeted with an executive order, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie, have sued the Trump administration in response.
Last week, prior to the deal between Skadden Arps and the Trump administration and in response to the deal struck between the White House and Paul Weiss, an associate at Skadden Arps sent an all-staff email saying she would resign if the firm did not do more to stand up to Trump.
"This is not what I saw for my career or for my evening, but Paul Weiss' decision to cave to the Trump administration on DEI, representation, and staffing has forced my hand," she wrote. "We do not have time. It is either now or never, and if it's never, I will not continue to work here."