JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
As Cannabis is Increasingly Being Legalized, What Are Its Health Risks and Benefits?
Brief #148 – Health and Gender
By Inijah Quadri
In 36 states, medicinal marijuana is permitted, and in 14, it is lawful to consume marijuana recreationally. On the subject of legalizing marijuana, this article examines papers published in top economic, public policy, and medical publications, concentrating on the health repercussions of cannabis legalization.
Supreme Court Gerrymandering Ruling Opens Door To Potential Redistricting Problem
Brief #184 – Civil Rights
By Rodney A. Maggay
On November 4, 2021 in North Carolina the state legislature adopted a congressional map which gave the Republican Party in the state a huge advantage – it seemed likely that Republicans would win ten of the fourteen available congressional seats in the state despite total votes cast in state elections being evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.
High Profile Hostage: Free Brittney Griner and Make Some Noise About It
Brief #149 – Foreign Policy
By Randy Wyrick
American basketball superstar Brittney Griner is a political prisoner in Russia. To see her plight any other way is to fail to see it at all.
Profiles of White Supremacist Groups in America
Brief #35 – Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
The United States is attempting to heal in many ways since Donald Trump’s term as our President. One of the effects of a Trump Presidency in America was the rise in membership in many right-wing hate groups. Members of these groups took the former President’s silence on their views as silent agreement on their behavior, and ran with it.
Situation Update #5: The Ukraine Crisis
Brief #149 – Foreign Policy
By Abran C
As the Russian invasion of Ukraine enters its second week, the destruction and death toll have continued to worsen. Nearly 2 million people or 4.5% of the population, have fled Ukraine. Most refugees have made their way to neighboring countries such as Hungary, Poland, Moldova, and Slovakia.
Russia’s Bombs Target Women in Mariupol
Brief #148 – Foreign Policy
By Yelena Korshunov
My friend Maria is a New York volunteer who collects clothes, blankets, and medicines for Ukrainian hospitals. She sends it to Poland volunteers, paying for express air shipping from her own pocket. Maria was born in Mariupol. Had you ever heard about this place before the devastating war in Ukraine started? Mariupol was a beautiful green Ukrainian city on the coast of the Sea of Azov. If you travel there before February 24th, 2022, you would love this quiet nice place.
The U.S. House Select Committee Investigation of the January 6 Attack on the Capitol: Part 9
Brief #34 – Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
The investigation into the attack on our nation’s capitol last January has been underway for several months now. Countless subpoenas have been issued, to both companies and individuals, and thousands of pieces of video and photographic evidence has been submitted. The House Select Committee has been winding down a long list of people who are connected in some way to the events that transpired on and around January 6, 2021 in Washington, D.C.
The Olympic Games: Sports, Politics, or Both?
Brief #147 – Foreign Policy
By Reilly Fitzgerald
Sports and politics have always been intertwined, especially the Olympic Games (ancient or modern). The Games have had a history of many highly political moments such as the hosting of the Games in Berlin in 1936 under the Nazi regime; or the 1980 Summer Olympic Boycott against the Soviet Union; or the uproar after the 1968 Olympics Black Power salute atop the podium; and many other instances.
An Update on US GDP and the Economic Effects of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine
Brief #136 – Economic Policy
By Greg Ziegler
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (“BEA”) released the second estimate of 2021 Q4 Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) on Thursday, February 24th. The first advanced estimate was released on January 27th which showed fourth quarter growth in 2021 of 6.9% and third quarter growth in 2021 of 2.3%.
How Redistricting In Oregon and Colorado Made The Case For State Independent Redistricting Commissions
How Redistricting In Oregon and Colorado Made The Case For State Independent Redistricting Commissions
Civil Rights Policy Brief #175 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | October 6, 2021
Header photo taken from: The Washington Post
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more civil rights policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Politico
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On September 27, 2021 Oregon became the first state in the union to pass congressional and state legislative redistricting maps after the 2020 Census. Soon thereafter one of Colorado’s two independent redistricting commissions approved a state map for Colorado’s congressional state map.
After the decennial U.S. Census counts the nation’s total population and determines how many congressional representatives each state should have based on the state’s population, every state redraws the boundaries of the congressional and state legislative districts in their state. This is done to accommodate changes such as if a state gained or lost an additional representative due to population growth. However, the process of re – drawing state maps had traditionally been done by the members of the state legislature, subject to approval by the state governor. This created problems because maps were sometimes drawn and manipulated to keep a certain person or political party in power.
Lately, states have tried to counter this by using state independent redistricting commissions. In the fourteen states that use independent redistricting commissions, a set number of people are appointed to the commission with an equal number given to members of both political parties. Additional persons unaffiliated with any political party are appointed to the remaining seats on the commission. The commissions generally hold public hearings to gather info and take this into consideration when drawing the state map. A simple majority vote is needed to approve the maps which are then subject to approval by the state supreme court.
Colorado’s Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission drew Colorado’s map for congressional representatives. Oregon’s map went through the traditional route of state legislative approval and signature by the state governor.
Policy Analysis
The approval of maps by Oregon and Colorado illustrates the stark differences when a state relies on the traditional method of state legislatures drawing state maps and when a state uses a state independent redistricting commission.
The problem of having state lawmakers draw new congressional and state legislative maps for their state is that state lawmakers will often try to draw a map that favors themselves and their political party. Historically in some states maps had been drawn to such an extreme to ensure a politician will stay in power or to ensure that minority communities will be spread out so much as to dilute any voting power the community might wield. Instead of voters electing the candidate of their choice in a balanced district, state lawmakers are instead manipulating which voters will vote for them or their party to ensure they stay in power. In Oregon, state lawmakers opposed to the new maps are using this argument to try and stop the maps from going into effect. Democrats there are the majority in the state legislature and have a Democratic governor and so they were able to get the maps they wanted approved and signed by Governor Kate Brown.
However, Oregon House Minority Leader Christine Drazan, a Republican, argued the maps were heavily gerrymandered to favor Democrats and that she is considering a lawsuit in order to have a court deem the map illegal. It is uncertain if a court would see it that way but this just shows that the traditional way of having the state legislature draw a state map is untenable and too rife with conflicts of interest to continue in this manner.
Photo taken from: The New York Times
The situation with Colorado’s drawing of the state congressional map is completely opposite from what happened in Oregon. In Colorado there are two independent redistricting commissions – one to draw the congressional map and a second one to draw the Colorado state legislative map.
Here the Colorado state legislature has no input in how the maps are drawn and cannot veto a state map if it does not like it. Colorado has a twelve – member commission comprised of four Republicans, four Democrats and four unaffiliated members and they were able to approve a map by an 11 – 1 vote. And according to the Princeton Gerrymandering Project, which analyzes the fairness and partisanship of states drawing legislative state maps, they have graded Colorado’s experience with an ‘A’ and said that it “should be studied closely by other states, and by friends of redistricting” for drawing “decent maps.”
The project even noted that the partisan fairness was acceptable for not giving any advantage to either political side. This is significant because by not allowing the state legislature and governor a role in the process Colorado has been able to come up with a state map that didn’t get bogged down in accusations from one political party to another of gerrymandering. And, there have been no threats of lawsuits to have the state map invalidated. It has been a relatively smooth process as far as redistricting goes.
Photo taken from: Wikimedia
As of today only 14 states use independent redistricting commissions. But based on how Oregon and Colorado were able to come up with state maps in 2021 and what happened afterwards, it is clear that independent redistricting commissions should be the way that states redraw their legislative maps in the future. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Princeton Gerrymander Project – group doing non – partisan analysis to understand gerrymandering at the state level.
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) – a comprehensive report on how each state manages the redistricting process.
USC Sol Price School of Public Policy – academic research on independent redistricting commissions.
Russia’s Relationships with the Muslim World
Russia’s Relationships with the Muslim World
Foreign Policy Brief #134 | By: Avery Roe | October 5, 2021
Header photo taken from: The Moscow Times
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
As President Biden is reinventing American foreign policy, particularly with regards to the Muslim world, Russia has been able to further establish itself as a viable alternative for those unhappy with President Biden’s plans and stances. Russia has befriended the Taliban, particularly after their takeover of Afghanistan. Despite being on Russia’s list of terrorist and banned organizations since 2003, the Taliban has been going to Moscow for talks since 2018 and maintained friendly relations in the aftermath of the takeover. Recently the Russian state news agency has replaced the term “terrorist” with the term “radical” in its reports on the Taliban signifying Russia’s desire to work together with the Taliban, largely with the goal of regional stability in mind.
On August 24th at the International Military-Technical Forum in Moscow Russia and Saudi Arabia signed a military cooperation agreement. While the specific terms of the agreement remain unclear, the goal is to develop “joint military cooperation between the two countries” according to Saudi Deputy Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman. Given the traditionally close military ties between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this is being seen as a clear sign that the Saudis do not feel that they can fully rely on the United States, and they are willing to turn to Moscow for the support they need.
After recent talks between President Erdogan of Turkey and President Biden did not go well, Erdogan was open regarding his plans to form a closer relationship with Russia. That began last Wednesday with in-person talks between Putin and Erdogan regarding the situation in Syria. Neither party has made a detailed statement but both have indicated that the talks went well. Ties between the United States and Turkey have been tense for several years, especially in the aftermath of Turkey purchasing a Russian missile defense system two years ago. While Russia is the largest ally of the Syrian government and Turkey supports groups that have tried to unseat President Assad, troops from both sides have cooperated regarding rebel forces and in seeking a political solution.
Policy Analysis
The rest of the world continues to react to the Biden Administration’s redefining of American foreign policy in the aftermath of the Trump Administration. After such a high-profile blunder in Afghanistan, most of the Muslim world is looking to redefine how things will look moving forward, and Russia has successfully established itself as an alternative powerful ally for those who are unhappy with the United States.
The Biden Administration’s choices will inevitably alienate some while drawing others closer. The next big decision that the administration will need to make is if it is ok with the countries that they are distancing from and the exchange of who they are drawing closer to.
Photo taken from: The BBC
With the mistakes being made in Afghanistan the Administration risks alienating most of the Muslim world as countries such as Russia capitalize on the errors. While the United States needs to relate to countries on its own terms and with its own values, it is vital to maintain a relationship with the Muslim countries that have turned to Russia. Maintaining relationships with a wide variety of countries and cultures will allow the United States to maintain its security and power on the world stage.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
- https://womenforafghanwomen.org/afghanistan/- Women for Afghan Women works to empower women, children, and families to change the norms of violence and oppression.
- https://www.sams-usa.net/-The Syrian American Medical Society is a medical relief organization working on the front lines of crisis relief in Syria.
Bipartisan Outrage Over Biden Administration Rapid Deportation of Haitian Refugees
Bipartisan Outrage Over Biden Administration Rapid Deportation of Haitian Refugees
Immigration Policy Brief #130 | By: Kathryn Baron | October 6, 2021
Header photo taken from: The Daily Advent
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more immigration policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Yahoo
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
After the July 2021 assassination of the Haitian president that plunged the nation into political turmoil and exacerbated existing violence, a 7.2 earthquake and major tropical storm hit the following month, displacing and killing thousands. The Biden Administration extended an existing Temporary Protected Status for Haitians already living in the US from deportation as a result.
Additionally, more than 14,000 Haitian asylum seekers and refugees have since camped out under a bridge near the US Southern border before crossing the Rio Grande into the US. The Department of Homeland Security closed the Del Rio, Texas entry after being quickly overwhelmed by border crossings and sent an additional 400 agents to help with processing operations. Some migrants have also been transferred to other parts of the border that are less crowded. Over 3,300 of the 14,000 have already been sent to detention centers and/or removed via deportation flights. To circumvent the asylum process, Department of Homeland Security has invoked the long-existed, newly invoked under Trump Title 42 policy (public health law to effectively close the borders due to COVID-19).
Haitians represent only about 4% of migrants encountered by border agents in August (especially compared to Central Americans and Mexicans) but have steadily increased their presence since the mass exodus from Haiti to the US via Mexico in recent months. Many Haitians at the border came from Chile where they had originally gone to seek asylum during an exodus from Haiti over a decade ago. Some possibly were the victims of the Trump administration’s expulsion of Haitians who were living in the US under temporary protection status.
The Biden Administration has quickly begun deporting Haitians; there are three (3) deportation flights booked for this upcoming Sunday and beginning Monday, there will be four (4) deportation flights per day. Images of immigration personnel rounding up Haitian refugees on horseback with whips have gone viral and outraged Democrats and Republicans, for different reasons.
Policy Analysis
Democrats have expressed discontent after seeing images of border patrol agents using aggressive tactics on horseback, and Republicans state that Biden’s policies and campaign promises falsely led Haitians to believe they would get asylum (even en masse).
In 2010, after another catastrophic earthquake hit Haiti, the US granted Temporary Protected Status to Haitians living in the US, thus shielding them from deportation. This was terminated by the Trump Administration in 2017, leaving Haitians until mid-2019 to either leave or face deportation. Under international law, the US is obliged to allow asylum seekers to apply for refuge and may not send them back should there be credible fear of persecution and/or to infrastructurally devastated countries of origin.
Photo taken from: Mother Jones
The US has signed and ratified two (2) major treaties that apply here: the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (which also secures the notion of non-return, “non-refoulement”) and the 1984 Convention Against Torture. The US codified the provisions of the aforementioned treaties primarily in the 1980 US Refugee Act and it became universally acknowledged, and domestically by the Supreme Court. The 1980 Refugee Act was primarily created to codify and formally outline procedural guidelines for admission and resettlement of refugees and individuals of humanitarian concern to the US.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low-income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties of the Constitution and US laws guaranteed to all its citizens.
- Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
Can Doctors Refuse Care to Unvaccinated Patients?
Can Doctors Refuse Care to Unvaccinated Patients?
Health & Gender Policy Brief #135 | By: S Bhimji | October 4, 2021
Header photo taken from: KCRW
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gender policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Adobe Stock
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The coronavirus pandemic has created a lot of friction and unhappiness in society. Despite the continuing spread of the virus by the delta variant, a significant number of Americans are refusing to get vaccinated for a variety of reasons. And in almost every industry hundreds of workers are now asking for all kinds of exemptions.
The number of unvaccinated people has overwhelmed the emergency rooms and occupied the much-needed ICU beds for other critically ill patients as well. In fact, in many hospitals, the congestion has meant that some patients have to be transported hundreds of miles away from care, which further adds to healthcare costs.
The delta variant cases are crushing the rate of hospitalization but chiefly in areas of the county with low vaccination rates, especially the south. In fact, in many southern states, the crisis is so critical that even people with gunshots are waiting on gurneys for days.
Elective surgery for thousands of people across the nation has been canceled or delayed because of the emergent need to look after Covid patients. While the federal government continues to waver about its Covid response, some doctors have gone online and said that they will refuse care for unvaccinated patients. The question is, ‘can doctors refuse to look after unvaccinated patients?’
Policy Analysis
Can a doctor use the vaccination status of the individual to determine who receives care when resources are scarce?
Some physicians have gone online and stated they will refuse care of unvaccinated Covid patients. While this may sound bravado in the fight against Covid, there are legal and ethical repercussions to this approach.
First, there are the ethical implications of refusing medical care; the entire basis of medicine has one goal- to ‘do no more harm’ to the patient. Secondly, there is an entire demographic of people who would be considered as ‘undesirable’ or ‘unworthy of care’ but physicians have been offering them the best care since formal medicine evolved. There are people who commit violent crimes, alcoholics, domestic abusers, child killers, drug users, murderers, pedophiles, smokers, rapists, and the list is endless- and to date, no physician has denied these folks care.
So how is it justified that care cannot be provided to people who are not vaccinated against the coronavirus? We even offer life-saving liver and heart transplant surgery to prisoners.
But most important is that when an unvaccinated Covid patient visits the doctor with complaints of difficulty breathing, fever, malaise, or cough, these symptoms are not specific to Covid but could be due to pneumonia, lung cancer, lung fibrosis, emphysema, heart failure- all treatable conditions but without investigations, there is no way to know the cause of the symptoms.
Photo taken from: The New York Post – Alabama doctor refuses to treat the unvaccinated
Plus, if the patient is refused treatment and he/she goes on to die because of a missed diagnosis of a heart attack or untreated pneumonia, the physician may face a case of medical malpractice involving negligence.
The law is clear on one aspect of healthcare- no patient in an emergency can be denied care- and the repercussions for refusing care are serious both for the physician and the facility where he or she works. The consensus of health experts is that refusing care no matter how unsavory the person is runs opposite to the fundamentals of medicine.
For now, conversations about refusing to treat unvaccinated people are few and far between but anecdotal reports indicate that many physicians would like to refuse treatment to unvaccinated people if they had a choice.
But all physicians who want to venture into this ‘perilous’ healthcare with their emotions better beware- if a patient dies as a refusal of treatment, this may not only result in a medical malpractice case but the state licensing boards have the power to rescind the medical license.
As ugly as the Covid numbers sound, rather than refusing care, physicians should make an effort to educate the unvaccinated and direct their rage at the politicians for not making the right policies.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
The Physician’s Oath: Historical Perspectives
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5755201/
Medical negligence: Coverage of the profession, duties, ethics, case law, and enlightened defense – A legal perspective
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779963/
Medical Negligence
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/medical-malpractice/negligence.html
Analyzing the New Australia, U.K., U.S. (AUKUS) Security Pact
Analyzing the New Australia, U.K., U.S. (AUKUS) Security Pact
Foreign Policy Brief #133 | By: Abran C | October 5, 2021
Header photo taken from: CNN
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: United World International
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On September 16, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden, along with U.K. Prime minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime minister Scott Morrison who joined in virtually, announced the creation of a new security partnership or the AUKUS pact, between the three nations that seeks to counter China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific. AUKUS includes a plan to increase technology and military capability sharing between the nations. These three already share intelligence through the Five Eyes Alliance, which includes New Zealand and Canada, but the new pact further entrenches the ties between them. Most notably, the pact will also provide nuclear-powered submarines from the U.S. and U.K. to Australia in order to counter Chinese expansion in the region.
China has condemned the pact, calling it extremely irresponsible, and accusing the U.S. of tactics that will incite a new Cold War. Under this deal, Australia will become just the seventh nation in the world to operate nuclear-powered submarines. These subs are much faster, more difficult to detect, able to stay submerged for longer, and theoretically could be armed with nuclear weapons, far beyond what traditional submarines can do. China is unsurprisingly angered at the deal that will see more advanced U.S. aligned weaponry in its hemisphere.
France, one of the U.S. and U.K.’s oldest and closest allies, has also been incensed by the deal. By joining the pact, Australia essentially tore up a $50 billion deal it previously made to purchase 12 submarines from France. The huge monetary loss for France, coupled with being left out of the major global players realpolitik angered Paris enough to recall the French ambassadors from both Australia and the United States. This is the first time since the United States’ inception that the U.S.’s first ally has gone as far as recalling its ambassador. French Foreign Minister Le Drian expressed “total incomprehension” at the move and criticized both Australia and the U.S. “It was really a stab in the back. We built a relationship of trust with Australia, and this trust was betrayed…This is not done between allies”.
Australia’s closest neighbor, New Zealand, which has a 30-year-old ban on nuclear-powered vessels entering its water, has tried not to align itself with either the U.S. or China. Thus, the small island nation, though a member of the Five Eyes alliance with the U.S. and Australia, has said it will make no exception for Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines to enter its waters.
Policy Analysis
Though no nation was singled out during the announcement of this security pact, it’s obvious the maligned actor the pact is intending to provide security against is China. The US, which is looking to reclaim its global role after a more isolationist policy from the former president, and now not involved on the ground in Afghanistan, has shifted its attention to the region, concerned about its slipping into the sphere of China’s growing influence. London also has been seeking to make alliances and deals with other global partners now that it has left the EU.
Biden had previously stated that contrary to the Trump administration’s America first handling of strategic foreign policy, he instead plans to work with allies to counter threats and tackle global issues. Still, while attempting to bring some allies closer, the U.S. pushed away another. Paris, having felt slighted, has called the actions of the Biden administration similar to what occurred under the America First era of the previous president.
Photo taken from: Politico
The deal seeks to counter China’s growing presence in the region. China has had increasing tensions with all three nations, and Australia is very keen to counter China in any way it can. Especially after a recent trade war with China that took a toll on the Australian economy. Though China is Australia’s largest trading partner and the two economies are deeply intertwined, the oceanic nation is more closely aligned with the US.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Foreign Policy Association – The Foreign Policy Association hopes to inspire others to participate in international affairs and the foreign policy process through its balanced, nonpartisan programs and publications, the FPA encourages citizens to participate in the foreign policy process.
Council on Foreign Relations– The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, journalists, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries. Our goal is to start a conversation in this country about the need for Americans to better understand the world.
Our Chance to Avert Climate Catastrophe May Have Gone Up in Smoke
Our Chance to Avert Climate Catastrophe May Have Gone Up in Smoke
Environment Policy Brief #131 | By: Todd J. Broadman | October 5, 2021
Header photo taken from: The Independent
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Climate Central
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
80% of the world’s energy comes from coal, oil and natural gas; carbon sources which account for 89% of human-derived CO₂ emissions. These daily emissions have accumulated in the earth’s atmosphere to produce a global climate crisis; a recent U.N Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report forecasts global average temperature will rise 2.7 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. Accordingly, the U.N. Secretary General António Guterres has warned, “the world is on a catastrophic pathway.”
The U.N. report underscores the need for all the world’s CO₂ emitters to not only meet, but go beyond their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). As specified in the 2015 Paris Agreement, The U.N. is charged with calculating the total impact of these NDC plans every five yers– and 86 countries have recently submitted NDC revisions. Based upon these revisions and current promises from big emitters like China and India, the globe is on course – not for a decrease – but for a 16% CO₂ increase by 2030. China has not submitted their required NDCs to the U.N. and they are the world’s biggest emitter; their position is that they will reach net zero emissions by 2060. Some countries, most notably Brazil, Mexico and Russia, have actually revised their pledges downwards with weaker emissions targets.
The overwhelming bulk (some 80%) of the 89% of human-derived CO₂ emissions come from the G20 nations.
For the U.S.’s part, President Biden has warned, in the midst of touring areas devastated by fires and floods, that America faces a “code red” moment (echoing the language of the U.N.’s IPC report). The U.S. has pledged to cut its emissions by 50 percent to 52 percent below 2005 levels by the end of this decade. On his inauguration day, Biden signed executive orders to rejoin the Paris Agreement and to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline. As well, he directed the Department of the Interior to pause new oil and gas leases on public land. His “whole of government” approach to combating the crisis has an “all-star climate team” charging the effort.
Photo taken from: Fox Business
In spite of this encouraging rhetoric though, his administration has defended Trump-approved oil-and-gas lease grants in Wyoming, a drilling project in Alaska, and chosen not to block the Dakota Access Pipeline. 2,100 new oil and gas permits have been issued since Biden took office – setting a pace that would exceed Trump. Two days after the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its report, his administration asked that OPEC ramp up its oil production. Plans have been announced to auction off 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for drilling.
“We literally have no time to waste,” Biden said, and yet many of the clean energy initiatives in the bipartisan infrastructure bill have been removed in a compromise effort for its passage. New climate provisions have been added and time will tell if they will remain given the number of Democratic centrists pushing against them. On September 29th, Canadian oil company Enbridge announced that its Line 3 running across Minnesota, carrying oil from Alberta’s tar sands (a heavier crude that consumes more energy and generates more carbon dioxide in the refining process than lighter oil) is now “substantially complete.”
Crystal Cavalier, Biden’s campaign director for tribal engagement in North Carolina said, “Biden campaigned on helping tribes with climate justice. He’s not standing up.” In this instance, the administration chose not to revoke Enbridge’s federal permits.
Policy Analysis
To date, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C since the late 19th century. Although Britain and the EU are close, no major emitters have a climate pledge in keeping with targets. The challenge for Biden and all G20 leaders as put forth by U.N. climate chief Patricia Espinosa, is: “Leaders must engage in a frank discussion driven not just by the very legitimate desire to protect national interest, but also by the equally commanding goal of contributing to the welfare of humanity.” Biden chose to appoint John Kerry as special envoy for climate. While he attempts to gain commitments, climate activists like Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, demand an accounting: “whatever our so-called leaders are doing, they’re doing it wrong.”
Her admonitions are based upon the IPC report which concludes that even the existing pledges, if implemented as promised, will fall far short of what’s needed to limit global temperature rise to levels that would avert the worst impacts of warming.
In effect, the US and Russia who sit on half of the world’s coal, must leave 97% of it in the ground. This while Australia has pledged to keep producing and exporting coal beyond 2030. The Middle East must commit to not extracting two-thirds of their reserves – what to speak of the required moratorium on extracting carbon from under the Arctic.
Photo taken from: Bloomberg.com
Given that the Paris Agreement commitments and any associated new pledges are not enforceable, and that even major emitters are submitting numbers that are unlikely to avert temperature consequences, the “catastrophic pathway” that General António Guterres has described will likely unfold.
Complex environmental systems do not respond to politically negotiated pollution caps. The impacts from climate disasters and food shortages will continue to displace large numbers of people and accelerate species extinction. Alongside the hope for limiting climate change, governments must plan responses for an increasing pattern of more intense and larger-scale emergencies.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change.
https://climateanalytics.org/ Synthesize and advance scientific knowledge in the area of climate change and on this basis provide support and capacity building to stakeholders.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/ aims to help citizens and institutions understand how the changing climate is already affecting our lives.
The U.S. House Select Committee Investigates the January 6 Attack on the Capitol: Part 2
The U.S. House Select Committee Investigates the January 6 Attack on the Capitol: Part 2
Social Justice Policy Brief #28 | By: Erika Shannon | October 5, 2021
Header photo taken from: Head Topics
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more social justice policy briefs from the top menu
Photo taken from: Los Angeles Times
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The case that is being built against those who participated in the January 6 Capitol riots is a slow one due to the sheer number of videos, pictures, and evidence related to the events. The House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack is doing their best to piece together the truth in the most non-partisan way possible. The most recent development from the Select Committee is their move to subpoena four people from former president Donald Trump’s administration. These are the first subpoenas that the committee members have issued. The panel is attempting to piece together what Trump was doing in the days leading up to the attack, and whether or not he played a direct role in the events that transpired.
Those subpoenaed include former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and his deputy chief of staff, Dan Scavino Jr., as well as Trump’s former adviser Stephen K. Bannon and former Pentagon chief of staff, Kash Patel. The four men have until October 7 to turn over any relevant documents, and they must appear at depositions the following week. These individuals are being chosen, in part, due to their close ties with the former President. The Committee also believes these individuals had communications with the White House on or in the days leading up to the January 6 insurrection that took place.
Policy Analysis
There is evidence that Mark Meadows was in communication with organizers of the January 6 rally, including Amy Kremer of the group Women for American First. He also allegedly communicated with officials at both the state level and in the Justice Department as part of an effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. It is important to note that this is not the first time that the Select Committee has sought out White House records relating to Mark Meadows.
Daniel Scavino Jr. was subpoenaed related to a discussion he was involved in with former President Trump; they were allegedly trying to discuss how they could convince members of Congress not to certify the election for Joe Biden. There is also evidence that Scavino promoted the January 6 March for Trump on Twitter, encouraging people to “be a part of history.” He was also tweeting messages from the White House on January 6, 2021.
A key reason Kash Patel is being subpoenaed is due to the fact that he was involved with discussions among senior Pentagon officials prior to and on January 6, 2021, regarding security at the Capitol. Kash Patel has also spoke on the fact that he was talking to Mark Meadows “nonstop that day.” Just like in the case of Meadows, this is not the first time the Select Committee has sought information about the steps taken at the Pentagon regarding national security both on and after January 6, including Patel’s role and his communications with other Pentagon officials.
Photo taken from: Forbes
As for Stephen Bannon, he reportedly communicated with former President Trump on December 30, 2020, urging him to focus his efforts on January 6. Bannon also allegedly attended a gathering at the Willard Hotel on January 5, 2021, where he was part of an effort to persuade members of Congress into blocking the certification of the election results the next day. Bannon also had a podcast titled “War Room,” and on his January 5 episode he stated, “all Hell is going to break loose tomorrow.”
The reasons that these four individuals have been subpoenaed are clear, and it is likely that the Select Committee will subpoena other individuals close to Trump in the future. According to chairman Bennie Thompson, it is the committee’s job to “identify and evaluate lessons learned and to recommend corrective laws, policies, procedures rules, or regulations.”
This Brief is part of an ongoing series on the Select Committee’s investigation; further updates will be provided as the investigation continues.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
To read the official press release regarding the subpoenas, click here.
Click here to submit tips directly to the House Select Committee.
A Primer on the Debt Ceiling Crisis
A Primer on the Debt Ceiling Crisis
Economic Policy Brief #125 | By: Rosalind Gottfried | September 29, 2021
Header photo taken from: Financial Times
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more economic policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The Washington Post
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The deadline for Congress to pass a Bill to fund the government past the current fiscal year deadline of September 30th is fast approaching. The Republicans blocked a bill which would extend government spending and suspend the debt ceiling. The House passed the bill providing for government spending through December and suspending the debt ceiling through December 2022, after the mid-term elections.
Republicans unanimously refuse to support a hike in the debt ceiling. During the former administration, the debt ceiling was raised three times with bipartisan support and little public party wrangling. In fact, the debt ceiling has been raised over 80 times since 1960. The matter of raising the ceiling is urgent as even without a new Biden spending bill the US credit limit would need to be increased; 97% of the debt that precedes his administration. Many Americans will suffer if the government shuts down: 50 million seniors will not receive their social security checks, parents will not receive their monthly child credit, troops won’t get paid and myriad other expenses incurred by the federal government will be in default. The fallout can be catastrophic. The economic recovery will likely fall into recession as interest rates spike, stock prices drop, and dollars of growth and increases in employment will suffer reverses.
The long-term consequences of a shutdown surround the issue of maintaining a suitable credit rating since that is essential to the functioning of the economy; the US always has made payments on time and consequently has been able to borrow money more cheaply than other nations. If the country undergoes a change in its credit rating the result will be higher payments for everything depending on credit, ranging from mortgages, to loans, to credit card interest.
Policy Analysis
There are two ways the Senate can proceed to raise the debt limit. The House already has passed a Bill but the Senate is mired in partisan conflict and the Republicans refuse to be associated with any rise in the debt ceiling.
The Treasury Secretary and the Federal Reserve officials all support a bill rising the debt limit. Efforts to put a debt ceiling increase into the Biden spending plans have met with opposition, some of it from moderate Democrats.
There could be a stand-alone bill for the debt increase which would need only 51 Senate votes, representing 48 Democrats, two independents, and Vice President Harris as supporters.
Photo taken from: Robert Reich
Or the Senate could pass a Budget reconciliation bill which also would not require a single Republican vote though such a measure could be held up by legislators’ efforts to attach amendments to the Act, a situation which has held put the process in the past.
The bottom line, failure to pass a debt ceiling increase would cause tens of millions of Americans hardships compounding those experienced from the pandemic and, perhaps more urgently, would extend financial hardship into the future by jeopardizing our long term credit rating.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
The Lesson of Afghanistan
The Lesson of Afghanistan
Foreign Policy Brief #132 | By: Brandon Mooney | September 28, 2021
Header photo taken from: WHYY
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: ORF
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
With the U.S. military officially pulling out of Afghanistan, an almost 20-year conflict and the longest war in American history comes to an end, alongside a mandate from all those whose lives were lost and impacted to reflect upon what the war and its legacy meant. Although I am sure that the reader knows or at least has a general idea of the evolution of the War in Afghanistan, a quick summary is needed to better understand the coming analysis section and bring those who may not be as versed in the conflict up to speed.
Beginning in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City, the Bush administration insisted that the Taliban-controlled government in Afghanistan hand over Osama bin Laden and cease allowing al Qaeda operatives to train, find haven, etc. inside the country. When these demands were not met, the U.S. alongside its NATO allies rolled into Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban regime within a short spate of time. A democratic government headed by Hamid Karzai and run by domestic Afghani elites that were friendly to Western powers and had been fighting the Taliban since the mid-1990s was put into place. It would not take long before said government was dogged by accusations of corruption, nepotism, and election fraud. Meanwhile, not only did bin Laden manage to escape, but the Taliban fell back to and began to operate out of Pakistan, conducting an effective guerilla campaign against U.S. and NATO forces for the remaining years of the war.
Rather than declare the mission objective of toppling the Taliban and preventing Afghanistan from being a sanctuary for terrorists threatening U.S. security, the Bush administration would begin a decades long endeavor to build a new Afghanistan in the image of the West, with women’s rights, democratic freedoms, a modern education system, etc. being chief aims. This nation-building effort would be picked up by the Obama administration, supported by other NATO powers, and tacitly maintained by the Trump administration, before being ended under the current Biden administration.
Policy Analysis
I am not arguing that any of these aims were bad or that the Afghani people are incapable of achieving these aims. Rather, I would argue that these aims were unrealistic due to the sustained will required on the part of the West to maintain necessary manpower and funding, the lack of most Afghani elites putting the national interest first, and the sponsorship of the Taliban by Pakistan.
From the beginning, the success of nation-building in Afghanistan depended upon U.S. and foreign support, which is only achievable through continued public will and support for said spending and conflict. Yet, according to the Pew Research Center, by 2009, 43% of Americans favored withdrawing U.S. troops as soon as possible. To achieve the re-making of Afghanistan, the U.S. and NATO would have had to stay in Afghanistan for many years longer and spend much more. The simple fact is that the American public grew tired and saw little, if any, positive progress.
Photo taken from: Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project
According to the Asia Foundation, surveyed Afghanis in 2012 said that corruption had grown in the past five years, with some evidence that the millions from NGOs and donations were only increasing an already endemic issue. Positioning themselves between those in need and Afghan donors, local warlords, government officials, law enforcement, and other Afghani entities grew impossibly rich. Transparency International has regularly ranked Afghanistan among the top 10 most corrupt nations in the world. The Karzai administration was regularly accused of election fraud, nepotism, taking bribes, not prosecuting connected persons, and stuffing ballot boxes. It is apparent from the swift collapse of the Afghani government following U.S. withdrawal that it was a straw man at best.
The Pakistani government has supported the Taliban since the beginning, with their interest being the establishment of a friendly regime in Afghanistan. Human Rights Watch would accuse Pakistan of financing, training, recruiting for, giving tactical support to, and sending their own troops to the Taliban before the U.S./NATO invasion. It was even reported that during the fall of the Taliban regime, Pakistani planes were used to evacuate Taliban fighters, Pakistani operatives, and al Qaeda over the border to safety. Bin Laden would later be found living in a compound in northeast Pakistan built in 2005 and less than a mile away from the Pakistani Military Academy. I no doubt stray a bit into conspiracy at this moment, but at the very least, Pakistan had a role to play in the continued insurgency.
Photo taken from: Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Looking back on the long War in Afghanistan, I draw a few lessons for the U.S. moving forward. First, nation-building is rarely a success and requires a long-term occupation force backed by sustained public will and deep pockets. Wars and conflict are rarely so cut and dry to allow for such scenarios, and it is the height of arrogance to believe so strongly in American exceptionalism that we can overcome any obstacle. Second, democratic states without a strong judiciary, united national goals, and government officials accountable to the people are unlikely to stand for long. Once again, I would never suggest that the Afghani people are incapable of establishing a functioning judicial system or do not wish for better lives or that every official was corrupt. However, pressing Western ideals upon a people with their own or potentially fractured national identity, distinct culture, history, warring factions, and morals is challenging. As the Taliban reassert their control over Afghanistan and push back strides made in public education, women’s rights, religious freedom, etc., I do not see success or even failure. Nothing but a broken promise that was unrealistic from the start.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Taimani One – a website with foreign policy briefs from NPR’s former head correspondent in Afghanistan.
Islamic Relief USA – a non-profit working to help Afghani refugees and immigrants.
A Guide to Air Travel in the Era of Covid
A Guide to Air Travel in the Era of Covid
Health & Gender Policy Brief #134 | By: S Bhimji | September 27, 2021
Header photo taken from: Getty Images
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health & gender policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: CNN
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Ever since the Covid pandemic started in early Jan 2020, airlines had lowered airfares, removed many of the cumbersome fees, and even started to provide snacks for economy passengers. And better still, the planes were less than 20% full, and often passengers had the entire row of seats to themselves. Cheap airfares across the country were readily available 24/7.
And many people took advantage of the low airfares and the best part was that there were no lines at the TFSA checkpoints, the check-in counter, or boarding the aircraft. So has anything changed with the airl
Policy Analysis
For those expecting cheap airline travel in 2021, you are going to be disappointed. Almost every airline lost billions of dollars in revenue last year but this is going to change in 2021. Now that mass vaccination has started, Americans who have been holed up in their homes for over a year are starting to travel.
Most airlines have increased the number of flights from major cities and the dreaded TFSA checkpoints lines have started to get longer. Searches for cheap airline fares on google are at an all-time high. But unfortunately, for the most part, the low ticket prices of 2020 have gone up in every category. And while the hated baggage fees have not seen a return, it is only a matter of time.
With the acceleration of the vaccine program, the airlines are already seeing heavy bookings for the holiday season, especially within the country. And as the Covid restrictions ease, the demand for air travel has started to rise and the airlines no longer feel they need to slash airfares.
The few deals available today are slightly better than those available during the precovid era but only for those who wish to travel midweek. Despite recommendations from the CDC that Americans delay trips, the number of passengers is gradually increasing each week. The airlines have taken note of the rise in Americans who want to travel and want to make up for the lost revenue in 2020. So do not expect fares to drop anymore.
So should you start flying?
Photo taken from: iStock
Americans tend to have short memories; during the height of the Covid pandemic, thousands of flights were canceled and many people only got vouchers or coupons from the airlines instead of money. Thousands of others lost money on their hotel reservations, pre-booked wedding halls, cruises, safaris, car reservations and much more.
The tourism industry is still fragile and now many parts of the globe, including our neighbors to the north, are dealing with outbreaks of Covid variants, which appear to be harder to treat. Job security is still an issue for many people and unemployment remains high. If you plan to go outside the US, be fully aware that many countries have made quarantine mandatory, at your expense. And when you return back to the US, you will have to show proof of a negative test, even if you have been vaccinated.
The time is too early to start spending; instead, people should be saving. Plus, almost every week there are reports of rowdy and drunk passengers who refuse to abide by the airline rules, causing long delays.
For those wishing to chill out at international beach resorts, the best advice is to go somewhere local by car. And if your locality does not allow you to chill out during the hot days, invest in an AC; and if you cannot afford that, then you need to be saving money instead of flying.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Federal Aviation Administration: https://www.faa.gov/
Transport Security Administration: https://www.tsa.gov/
International Travel: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel.html