An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder

The survival of independent media depends on the support of its readers. This is a fundamental truth that underpins our commitment to providing free, accessible, and critical news to all. We have chosen to reject corporate advertising and maintain a platform that remains open to everyone, regardless of their financial means. This decision ensures that access to essential information is not restricted by economic barriers. However, it also means that our continued operation relies heavily on the generosity of individuals like you.

We are currently working toward a goal of raising $100,000 by November 1, and your contribution can make a significant difference. Your support helps us sustain our mission of delivering unbiased, in-depth reporting that holds power to account. Thank you for being an integral part of our community. Together, we can ensure that independent journalism remains a vital force in times of great need.

– Craig Brown, Co-founder

The phrase “Everyone is twelve now” has gained traction as a way to explain the current political climate, particularly within right-wing discourse. This concept suggests that many prominent figures and their supporters exhibit behavior typically associated with adolescence—impulsive, emotionally stunted, and resistant to critical thinking. The idea was popularized by Patrick Cosmos, a musician and frequent user of social media platform Bluesky, who noted that this childishness resonates deeply in today’s cultural and political landscape.

Cosmos’ observation reflects a broader trend where simplistic, often aggressive responses dominate public discourse. This includes attacks on law and decency, expressions of racism, and a tendency to resort to extreme solutions without considering their consequences. For example, some individuals advocate for drastic measures such as arresting everyone or blowing up groups they disagree with, echoing the kind of thoughtlessness one might expect from a child.

This regression into childish behavior is not merely anecdotal. It is rooted in a culture that has normalized and even celebrated such attitudes, particularly among those who feel disenfranchised or frustrated. Many argue that the rise of this mentality is partly due to the influence of the internet, which allows the most extreme voices to gain visibility and influence. As a result, these behaviors have become more entrenched, leading to a political environment where emotional outbursts and simplistic solutions are often seen as acceptable.

The former president, Donald Trump, has been cited as a catalyst for this shift. His approach to complex issues, such as illegal immigration, has been characterized by simplistic and often cruel solutions. For instance, his proposal to build a wall along the southern border was met with widespread criticism for its impracticality and potential for harm. Similarly, his actions, such as the controversial video in which he acted out dropping a planeload of shit on Americans, have been seen as emblematic of a childish and irresponsible mindset.

In this context, the notion that “Everyone is twelve now” serves as both an explanation and a critique of the current political climate. It highlights the lack of maturity and critical thinking that many people exhibit, particularly in response to complex societal challenges. This perspective underscores the importance of fostering a more thoughtful and informed public discourse, one that values reason, empathy, and responsibility over impulsivity and aggression.

As the political landscape continues to evolve, it is crucial to remain vigilant against the forces that promote ignorance, fear, and division. By supporting independent media and engaging in meaningful dialogue, we can work towards a future that values critical thinking and responsible leadership.

Former Senator Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) has sparked controversy by advocating for the construction of large AI data centers in local communities, despite concerns about their environmental and economic impacts. During a recent planning and zoning commission meeting in Chandler, Arizona, Sinema emphasized the federal government’s push to expand AI infrastructure, warning that local officials would be compelled to approve the project if they did not act quickly.

According to reports, Sinema argued that the Trump administration’s AI action plan mandates the proliferation of AI data centers across the country. She suggested that federal preemption would eventually override local decisions, leaving communities with little choice but to accept the development. This stance has drawn criticism from progressive advocates who see it as a clear alignment with corporate interests rather than a commitment to public welfare.

The construction of AI data centers has raised significant concerns among residents, who have reported increased energy consumption and disruptions to local water supplies. Studies indicate that these facilities place a heavy burden on local utilities, contributing to higher electricity bills and strained resources. In Virginia, for example, data center operations have led to billions of dollars in additional costs for households.

Critics argue that Sinema’s advocacy for these projects reflects a broader pattern of prioritizing corporate interests over community well-being. Some have called for stricter regulations to ensure that AI development does not come at the expense of local environments and economies. The debate over AI expansion highlights the need for transparent and inclusive decision-making processes that consider the long-term impacts on communities.

As the demand for AI infrastructure grows, it is essential to balance technological advancement with environmental sustainability and social responsibility. The ongoing discussions surrounding AI data centers underscore the importance of ensuring that progress does not come at the cost of public health, economic stability, and ecological integrity.

A growing number of Democratic state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for withholding emergency food assistance that could prevent millions of Americans from going hungry. The legal action targets the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for refusing to use contingency funds to continue Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits during the government shutdown.

The lawsuit argues that the USDA has a legal obligation to ensure that families relying on SNAP receive necessary aid. Despite having emergency funds available, the agency has claimed these resources are reserved for disaster situations, effectively leaving millions of vulnerable individuals without support. State officials, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, have expressed outrage over the administration’s decision, emphasizing the urgent need for food assistance.

The situation has prompted calls for immediate action, with plaintiffs requesting the court to compel the USDA to use the contingency fund to provide at least partial payments to SNAP beneficiaries. The legal battle highlights the broader implications of the government shutdown, which has disrupted critical services and left many Americans in a state of uncertainty.

As the deadline for the shutdown approaches, the pressure on the Trump administration to address these issues intensifies. The outcome of this lawsuit could set a precedent for how emergency resources are managed during periods of governmental dysfunction, with significant consequences for millions of families across the country.

A former Cook County prosecutor in Chicago has collected a tear gas canister from his own front lawn after witnessing federal agents deploy tear gas in a residential neighborhood during an immigration raid. The incident occurred in Old Irving Park, where parents and children were preparing for a Halloween parade when agents arrived and used riot control weapons.

Brian Kolp, a former prosecutor, documented the event, highlighting the alarming use of force against unarmed residents. He described seeing agents tackle a man on his property and later deploying tear gas, causing discomfort and panic among neighbors. Kolp emphasized the significance of collecting the canister as evidence, stating that it could help demonstrate the unjustified nature of the agents’ actions.

The incident has sparked widespread concern, with residents expressing frustration over the increasing frequency of such raids. Local activists and community leaders have condemned the use of tear gas, arguing that it disproportionately affects vulnerable populations and undermines trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

As the legal proceedings unfold, the case underscores the broader issue of immigration enforcement practices and the need for accountability. The use of excessive force by federal agents raises questions about the appropriateness of such tactics and the impact on civil liberties. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for how immigration enforcement is conducted and the rights of individuals affected by these operations.

The Venezuelan government has accused the United States of orchestrating a false-flag attack involving mercenaries linked to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The claim comes less than two weeks after President Donald Trump confirmed his authorization of covert CIA actions against Venezuela. According to the Venezuelan statement, security forces captured a group of mercenaries with direct ties to the CIA, suggesting that the operation was planned from waters bordering Trinidad and Tobago.

Venezuela’s accusation draws parallels to historical events such as the Battleship Maine and the Gulf of Tonkin, which were used to justify military interventions. The statement criticizes the government of Trinidad and Tobago for allegedly allowing the U.S. to use its territory as a base for military operations against Venezuela and other South American nations. The Venezuelan government has vowed to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity against any foreign threats.

The accusation follows joint military exercises between the U.S. and Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean Sea, as well as a series of deadly U.S. attacks on vessels in the southern Caribbean and Pacific Ocean. The Trump administration has deployed a significant military presence in the region, including the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group, which is stationed off the coast of Venezuela.

Venezuela’s claims highlight the long-standing tensions between the U.S. and the South American nation, which has experienced decades of U.S. interference in its affairs. The history of U.S. involvement in Venezuela includes support for authoritarian regimes and efforts to undermine democratic movements. Recent developments, including the alleged mercenary operation, underscore the ongoing geopolitical conflict between the two countries.

As the situation unfolds, the international community is closely monitoring the implications of these accusations. The dispute reflects the broader struggle for influence in the region and the complex dynamics of U.S.-Venezuela relations. The outcome of this conflict could have significant consequences for regional stability and the future of diplomatic relations between the two nations.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has suspended two federal prosecutors for referring to the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection as a “riot” carried out by a “mob.” Assistant U.S. Attorneys Carlos Valdivia and Samuel White were told they were suspended on Wednesday, shortly after filing a sentencing recommendation that described the events at the Capitol as a “riot.”

The suspension came amid ongoing efforts by the Trump administration to downplay the significance of the insurrection, which involved a violent breach of the U.S. Capitol building by supporters of then-President Donald Trump. The prosecutors’ reference to the events as a “riot” and its participants as a “mob” appears to have triggered the disciplinary action, despite the fact that the description aligns with widely documented accounts of the incident.

The DOJ has not publicly commented on the suspensions, and it remains unclear whether the decision will affect the sentencing of Taylor Taranto, the individual whose case prompted the prosecutors’ recommendations. The move has raised concerns about the independence of the justice system and the potential for political influence over legal proceedings.

The incident highlights the broader challenge of maintaining impartiality in the face of political pressures. The suspension of Valdivia and White underscores the delicate balance between legal professionalism and political allegiance, particularly in high-profile cases involving the former president. The outcome of this situation could have significant implications for the integrity of the justice system and the perception of fairness in legal proceedings.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), controlled by appointees of U.S. President Donald Trump, has voted to increase the maximum price for prison phone calls, a decision that critics argue favors telecom companies and private prison entities. The agency’s 2-1 vote overturned a Biden-era cap on the cost of prison phone calls, which was estimated to save incarcerated individuals and their families hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

The Equal Justice Initiative has highlighted the financial burden placed on families by the high cost of prison phone calls, noting that many struggle to afford the fees associated with staying connected to loved ones. The organization reported that some families go into debt or forgo basic necessities to maintain communication with incarcerated relatives, emphasizing the human impact of these charges.

The FCC’s decision has drawn sharp criticism from advocates who argue that the move prioritizes the profits of telecom companies over the well-being of families. The report notes that the high cost of prison phone calls creates a financial windfall for the private prison industry, which has invested heavily in influencing political outcomes. Critics contend that this system incentivizes prison operators to award contracts to companies that charge exorbitant fees, perpetuating a cycle of exploitation.

The FCC’s vote has further complicated the already contentious issue of prison communications, with concerns about the impact on families and the broader implications for the justice system. As the debate continues, the focus remains on finding a balance between the needs of incarcerated individuals and the financial interests of the companies that provide these services.