JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Republicanism is Dead: How Today’s Global Challenges Invalidate Current Republican Politics.
Brief #24 – Elections and Politics
By Adrian Cole
Many people on the Left have for decades considered Republican politics anathema. But as the twenty-first century advances into ever-more perilous territory, Republicans are clinging to political and ideological stances which simply defy common sense, logic, reality and efficacy. Bearing in mind the existential nature of the problems facing the country and the world, it is clear that the foundational pillars of today’s Republican party are all premised on untenable positions, false assumptions, bad science and ill-faith, and will, if pursued, lead us all into further crisis.
No One is Safe From the Data Brokerage Industry
Brief #22 – Technology
By Scout Burchill
While you may not be familiar with the shadowy world of the data brokerage industry, there’s a good chance that it knows a lot about you. Data brokers are the unsavory middlemen in our rampant, unregulated surveillance economy. In short, they collect, purchase and aggregate our personal data from the smartphone applications we use and then refine, re-package and sell it for profit. A recent scandal involving the outing of a closeted Catholic priest validates critics’ worst fears about this predatory industry: no one is safe.
Post-Election Investigations Could Yield Criminal Charges for Trump
Brief #23 – Elections and Politics
By Zack Huffman
Despite the 2020 election results decisively showing a majority of Americans wanted Donald Trump out of office, the former president showed that he was not willing to go down without a fight. And now he may face criminal charges for his post-election shenanigans.
Federal Task Force Needed To Attack Roots of Public Despair
Brief #22 – Social Justice
By Katelyn Lewis
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has become a stellar example of how ill-fitted U.S. policy is toward addressing the root causes of despair in society, a Brookings Institution policy analysis suggests, with most policies providing reactive solutions and further impairing economic recovery.
A Coup or a Necessary Reset in Tunisia?
Brief #126 – Foreign Policy
By Avery Roe
On July 25, 2021, President Kais Saied of Tunisia fired the country’s Prime Minister and suspended Parliament in what he called an emergency situation, giving him total power. Article 80 of the Tunisian Constitution allows the President to take any actions necessary in the event of imminent danger to the country in consultation with the prime minister and parliament.
While President Saied did not consult with others in the government, there has been debate on whether or not his actions otherwise fall inside the law. He has promised to appoint a new government within 30 days. In the weeks since he acted, there has been considerable debate as to what happened and what will come next as the country remains in limbo.
Who is Spreading Misinformation About Covid Vaccines?
Brief #123 – Health and Gender
By S Bhimji
While the internet has been a good thing, it also has one major negative; it has allowed everyone with a keyboard to become an author and publish whatever they want. Misinformation and fallacies permeate every single topic on the internet but none more so than the Covid vaccines.
Critical Race Theory Debate Rages On
Brief #58 – Education Policy
By Lynn Waldsmith
As millions of K-12 students head back to school in the coming weeks, many conservative lawmakers and anxious parents continue to rail against what they see as the dangers of teaching critical race theory, or CRT, in the classroom. But the reality is that myths and misinformation about CRT are based in fear and being perpetuated as a political tool.
Will This Summer’s Extreme Weather Affect the World’s Resolve to Tackle Climate Change?
Brief #123 – Environmental Policy
By Adrian Cole
COP 26 is the latest climate gathering in a process which began with the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The United Nations Framework Convention (UNFCCC), established then, is comprised of 200 members who commit to meeting annually in a Conference of the Parties (COP). This year the UK will host, and has the presidency. The meeting has been billed as the “last, best chance” to deal with climate change. What are its goals?
Why is There No Covid Vaccine for Children?
Brief #122 – Health and Gender Policy
By S Bhimji
For much of 2021, only the adult population has been getting vaccinated in the USA but children have not been a priority. Now that schools are about to open, people are asking why children have not been vaccinated.
In the USA, the plans were to only vaccinate the children in the later stages of the vaccine roll-out. As of yet no vaccine has been approved for use in children under the age of 12.
Power for Power’s Sake: The Motto of the Modern Republican Party
U.S. RESIST NEWS BLOG POST
Power for Power’s Sake: The Motto of the Modern Republican Party
By Sean Gray
May 10, 2021
The Republican Party is disdainful of democracy. In 2021 it has become an authoritarian personality cult led by disgraced former President Donald Trump.. It’s members have embraced blatant electoral untruths and stoked cultural wars in a a cynical political game. 30 state legislatures are controlled by the GOP. Voter suppression and cracking down on dissent are on the docket in many of them.
Stolen elections and burning cities received a disproportional amount of election coverage in the last few years. Neither represented an accurate portrayal of the 2020 election or the widespread well founded Black Lives Matter Protests. Nevertheless, as spurred on by Trump, the GOP and their chums in conservative media have spent a fair amount of time inciting their base over election fraud and antifa terrorists. The phony hysteria sounding these issues serves as a pernicious pretext to cripple democratic institutions. Self-governance and freedom to assemble and criticize said government is a bedrock of a free society. Those tenets are under assault in Republican-led state houses.
70% of Republican voters believe last year’s presidential was illegitimate. They have no reason to. The election was certified by Governors in all 50 states and was been acknowledged as secure by the FBI, DHS, election experts and prolific Trump stooge, William Barr. But, Donald Trump predictably cried foul upon his electoral defeat and had his claims echoed repeatedly by blind loyalists.
Expansions of mail-in and early voting contributed to a 2020 record election turnout, which did not sit well the GOP. Hence the real impetus behind the groundswell of bills (over 300 in 47 states) that would restrict access to the ballot box. Georgia, Arizona and Texas are the greatest violators, in terms of multitude of proposals. The first two are formerly reliably red states. Each went for Biden in 2020, and their Senate contests were won by Democrats. Texas has grown purple in recent years, resulting in closely contested races in the last three election cycles.
Restricting access to voting under the guise of election integrity has proven a popular countermeasure. Georgia’s recent election bill throws needless hurdles aimed primarily at voters who may vote against Republicans. Drop boxes that contributed to a record turnout in 2020 will be severely limited. The amount of time to request an absentee ballot has been cut in half. It is now unlawful to provide food or water to voters waiting in line, even in deliberately long lines in the sweltering Georgia sun.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger came under intense fire for his unwillingness to accede to Donald Trump’s request to alter the vote count. A new more willing Secretary of State may find that more doable in the future as the bill also allows the state to wrest control from county election officials they deem to be ‘’performing poorly.” If the motivation for this provision seems nebulous, the bill is from the same side of the state legislature that peddled Trump’s Big Lie and attempted to call an emergency session to award the state’s electoral votes to the ex-president.
Florida Governor Ron Desantis had previously hailed the security of his state’s 2020 election. Curious then, that he recently felt compelled to sign into law a bill to ‘’increase election integrity’’. The Sunshine state’s bill features many similar provisions as that of their northern neighbor. It also doubles the amount of work necessary to receive a mail-in ballot, prohibits anyone from dropping off more than one ballot and imposes limits on the times of day in which drop-boxes may be used.
Addressing violent protests is another pressing bit of business for Republican legislatures at the state level. It needn’t be. The Armed Conflict and Event Data project studies violent confrontations in war zones and domestic protest all over the world. Between May 4th and August 22nd it identified 2,400 demonstrations associated with Black Lives Matter in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder. 220, less than 10% resulted in violence (defined as clashes between protestors and police officers). Additionally the group found the majority of the clashes were conditioned upon escalatory tactics of local, state, and federal law enforcement. Similar conclusions were drawn from a study by Princeton University.
Vandalism and looting were an unfortunate byproduct of the demonstrations, as they are bound to be in any mass gathering, particularly one inspired by a racially charged cultural issue. But, a slim majority of demonstrators exceeded the freedoms afforded them by the first amendment. That last summer’s protests were mostly peaceful isn’t some misguided liberal talking point, the numbers bear it out.
Still measures in many Republican led states address the constitutional right of Americans to peacefully protest. Florida is again at the forefront of the suppression of freedoms. On the day closing argument began in Derek Chauvin’s trial began, Gov. DeSantis signed into law H.B. 1. which takes targeted aim at dissent.. While some of the more draconian provisions of its original incarnations have been repealed, it still serves to dissuade one who might take to the street from doing so. Vague language provides law enforcement great latitude in determining who is a demonstrator and who is a rioter. Those considered to be rioters can be held without bail until such time as a court date is available. The hypothetical ‘’rioter’’ in question need not even commit an offense, but may be arrested as a result of their association with others. The no-bail and guilt-by association provisions serve no other purpose that to deter dissent in violation of the first amendment. It enhances to a felony level any criminal offense committed during the loosely defined ‘’riot’’.
The bill also makes municipalities liable for damages incurred to property during demonstrations, thereby incentivizing police to intervene in disturbances unnecessarily. This, said DeSantis, was in response to ‘’local governments telling police to stand down while cities burned.’’ A blatant untruth, like the overwhelming majority of right-wing messaging on the BLM protests. And now it is codified into law.
On the subject of stoking culture wars, the bill originally included immunity for drivers who drive through protestors (reminiscent of Charlottesville), but was subsequently altered to only include some ambiguous civil protections. However governors in Oklahoma and Tennessee saw fit to sign these same regulations into law in the context of similar legislation.
Power for power’s sake is the objective of the modern GOP leaders . In lieu of any legitimate policy aspirations, it is their intent to inflame grievances, spread falsehoods, and limit the ability to vote and right to protest by those who would oppose them.
Is Change on the Horizon for Gig Workers?
Brief # 115 Economic Policy
Is Change on the Horizon for Gig Workers?
By Lily Lady Cook
May 8, 2021
Summary: U.S. Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh told Reuters in an exclusive interview at the end of April that he supports reclassifying certain gig workers as employees. In 2017, approximately 34% of the workforce in the US were independent contractors, and even more supplement their income with freelance work. These types of jobs can allow for greater flexibility and independence with regards to hours and variety of work. Yet the tradeoffs can be disproportionate: there’s often less job security, no employee-provided health or retirement benefits, and more expensive taxes.
With the rise of apps such as Uber and Lyft, many more Americans work full-time in the gig economy. The gig worker is a crucial asset for the CEOs of Silicon Valley, many of whom have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. In fact, Uber’s 2019 IPO prospectus to the Securities and Exchange Commission—available to peruse in its entirety here—states in no uncertain terms that if “we are required to classify Drivers as employees….we would incur significant additional expenses” such as “minimum wage, overtime, and meal and rest period requirements….employee benefits, social security contributions, taxes, and penalties,” all of which would contribute to an “adverse effect” to “our business and financial condition.”
Secretary of Labor Walsh’s comments had an immediate effect on shares in Uber, Lyft, Doordash and Grubhub. After Walsh’s interview was made public, Uber shares took a 6% hit, and Lyft was down close to 10%. It remains to be seen whether these comments will instigate new legislation at the federal or state level.
Analysis: The vast swaths of unemployed gig workers at the onset of the pandemic highlighted the insufficiency of American fiscal safety nets. While Congress’s decision to extend unemployment benefit eligibility to many freelancers was a necessary measure, provisions from private companies are still imperative. The current model of expanded Pandemic Unemployment Assistance will not last forever, and infrastructure to support gig workers in the longer term should be set in motion before the next crisis.
New legislation to reclassify gig workers as employees will not be an easy battle. Last fall, Proposition 22 overturned a previous bill and resulted in looser mandates for employee classification in California. Among the authors of Prop 22 were the California-based Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash, which cost an estimated $200 million in lobbying. This appears to be a big expense at first glance, but it is nothing compared to what analysts estimated it would cost per year for Uber and Lyft to make their drivers employees.
Still, there’s reason to think that Walsh’s comments are more than just empty rhetoric, and that even industry titans might soon be forced to make adjustments. On May 5th, the Biden administration blocked a Trump-era rule from January that eased companies’ ability to classify their workers as independent contractors. If more actions like these accumulate, the state of labor relations in America could shift in favor of more benefits for gig workers.
Engagement Resources:
https://www.gigworkerscollective.org/covid-19-resources: An extensive list of resources for gig workers experiencing hardship because of COVID-19. Donations can be made to assist with food, rent, utility and medical expenses.
https://act.gigworkersrising.org/protect_gig_workers_covid19: A petition to ask California politicians and labor agencies to increase benefits for gig workers, including paid time off for those with COVID-19.
Attorney General Merrick Garland Brings Back DOJ Consent Decrees As A Tool For Police Reform
Policy Summary: On April 16, 2021 new U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum titled “Civil Settlement Agreements and Consent Decrees With State and Local Governmental Entities.”
The memo was comprised of four points. First, the new memo rescinded a November 2018 memo that imposed restrictions on the traditional use of consent decrees against state and local law enforcement entities. That November 2018 memo was issued by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Second, the new memo instructs that settlement agreements and consent decrees would return to the traditional process of approval that had been in place prior to Attorney General Sessions November 2018 memo. Third, the use of consent decrees again must lay out specifically what the violations are, what remedies are being proposed and how the remedies will address the violations. And lastly, the memo instructs that if monitors are brought in to help oversee the proposed consent decree that the monitors are independent, highly qualified and free of conflicts of interest. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: When Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued the November 2018 memorandum limiting the use of consent decrees against state and local police departments it was seen as a move to limit the federal government from interfering with how state and local police departments are run. During Sessions’ confirmation hearing for Attorney General he stated that he was concerned with the effectiveness of consent decrees and thought that they were used to punish an entire department for the actions of one bad apple. The problem with Sessions statements was that they were incorrect. Under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Department of Justice is permitted to review the patterns and practices of a law enforcement agency. This is the statutory authorization for DOJ to initiate a civil lawsuit against a state or local police department. But an investigation is only opened if there is a “pattern or practice” of misconduct in the police department. DOJ does not get involved for one incident or “one bad apple” as Mr. Sessions called it. A department must have a pattern or multiple incidents of questionable policing techniques. This would then allow DOJ to come into the picture and suggest and monitor improvements to the department.
Police departments have to enforce all laws – local, state and federal – but this law allows DOJ to help local law enforcement improve their policing techniques. DOJ will inform the department that it will initiate a civil lawsuit to investigate the questionable techniques that have led to so many incidents. Most law enforcement departments, in order to avoid a public lawsuit, will cooperate and come to an agreement with what they need to do to improve (a consent decree is similar to a settlement agreement in a regular civil case – coming to an agreement without having a trial). A court will handle oversight on whether progress is being made. Some local law enforcement departments didn’t like someone always looking over their shoulder and so Jeff Sessions tried to help them out by limiting how long a court can oversee a consent decree by adding an expiration date for oversight. Attorney General Garland reversed that by eliminating expiration dates on court oversight of consent decrees and said courts will continue to monitor with enforcement powers until the court is satisfied that improvements are working.
Since every situation is different not all consent decrees are the same but are tailored to resolve the findings made by DOJ to further prevent the pattern or practice of misconduct that led to the unacceptable policing techniques. As an example, the consent decree between the City of Baltimore and DOJ addressed the policing techniques that plagued Baltimore in the years preceding 2017 and gave a roadmap as to what needed to be done to improve the Baltimore police department. Each consent decree that a law enforcement department has entered into with DOJ is enforceable by a court and can continue until a court is satisfied that meaningful improvement has been made. The involvement of DOJ and a federal district court ensures that a neutral third party will oversee the efforts of improving policing techniques instead of leaving it to local officials who may not be as eager to push forward needed reforms.
Former Attorney General Sessions November 2018 memorandum was a disappointment because it removed a proven tool to hold police departments accountable for multiple misconduct incidents. But with now Attorney General Merrick Garland’s recission of the November 2018 memorandum DOJ is now going to get back in their tool kit a proven method to implement change in police departments. According to the Washington Post, a report suggests that the use of consent decrees to hold police departments accountable helped improve those departments. And a report from Police One, a pro – law enforcement website, suggests that courts and other public figures are happy with the progress consent decrees have brought to their departments. The use of settlement agreements and consent decrees have proven their worth and have brought much needed improvements to troubled police departments when utilized. Attorney General Garland’s move to resurrect their use comes at an important and pivotal time when local police departments are under close scrutiny because of questionable policing techniques against minority communities. Bringing them back for the DOJ to use just might be what is needed to support the movement for police reform now in 2021. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
Department of Justice (DOJ) – infopage on DOJ’s consent decree work with local and state law enforcement agencies.
Institute For Criminal Justice Training Reform – non – profit group advocating for new and better police training standards and methods.
ProPublica – website’s 2020 report on how consent decrees have been used to implement policing technique reforms.
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.
The Many Important US Foreign Policy Questions Raised by Alexei Navalny
Brief # 109 Foreign Policy
The Many Important US Foreign Policy Questions Raised by Alexei Navalny
By Will Solomon
May 4,2021
Summary:
The saga of Alexei Navalny continues to play out in Russia. Navalny, the dissident anti-corruption activist, was jailed on January 17, after returning to Russia from Germany, and ultimately sentenced to over two and a half years in prison. He was in Germany recuperating from what appears to be an attempting poisoning by the Russian government.
Navalny is a popular and controversial figure in Russia and is increasingly well-known abroad. For the last several years, his profile and stature have grown in Russia, as he’s become the most prominent anti-Putin voice in the country. His movement largely centers on “anti-corruption,” and his exposes—like this recent one on Putin’s apparent luxury retreat on the Black Sea coast—are extremely popular in Russia. He’s also become a heroic figure in the West for his strident opposition to Putin.
Now imprisoned, and until recently on a hunger strike in likely poor prison conditions, as his organization is shut down—Navalny remains a focal point for opposition to Putin, while in a precarious position himself.
Analysis:
Navalny’s position as focal point for opposition to Putin over the last several years is unique. With this in mind, it’s important to consider his background and program, which obviously both have bearing if he is to serve as an alternative to Putin—and for Westerners to better understand him.
First, Navalny’s political posture has ostensibly evolved, but he has in the past been associated with xenophobic and racist Russian nationalist movements. While he appears to have partially distanced himself from aspects of this past, he still remains nationalistic in some aspect of his orientation.
This might be claimed as opportunistic; perhaps Navalny hoped, or hopes, to build as wide a coalition as possible in opposition to the regime. But that’s not exactly encouraging, if the main alternative to Putin can only do so by demagogically whipping up or endorsing anti-immigrant sentiment. While there is considerable debate over how much his views have evolved, this should not be blithely dismissed.
Same for his policy program: it basically doesn’t exist. While Navalny has become known as an anti-corruption crusader, he has not articulated much of an alternative policy program to the Putin regime, so much as opposed that regime’s corruption. That corruption is brazen, and important to expose—but corruption exists in many forms, and is rampant throughout Russia. This vagueness in orientation also somewhat downplays the brutal history of neoliberalism in Russia, and the devastating, Western-backed privatization that destroyed the country in the 1990s—leading to a precipitous drop in life expectancy in that country, among other disasters—a rapaciousness to which Putin’s regime is very much a reaction, and result.
This said, it is important to recognize that Navalny’s popularity demonstrates widespread discontent with the Putin regime, at least among some sectors—and again among some sectors, a presumed desire for a more democratic Russia.
Ultimately, this raises perhaps the most important question for Americans: how should the United States respond? The US government has largely been supportive of Navalny’s efforts and has criticized his recent treatment; the Biden administration notably declared that his death in prison would merit serious consequences. While recovering in Germany, Navalny met with Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has also expressed support.
But Western states should tread carefully, for several reasons. First, it would be dishonest to deny that American and Western support is not opportunistic. To the extent Navalny has “pro-Western” policies, they are perhaps seen as favorable to Western corporations who wish to further access Russian markets. But again, Putin’s presidency and Russia today are in many ways a reaction to the dramatic liberalization of the Russian economy in the 1990s; US meddling typically does no favors, and the brazenness of it in the 90s (see this Time Magazine cover advertising American support for Yeltsin’s reelection campaign in 1996) was widely seen as exploitative and cruel—and ultimately probably harmful for American interests and international cooperation.
Second, the conception of “human rights” as weaponized for purposes of international diplomacy rings increasingly hollow. It is not a stretch to say that the horrific problems of domestic policing in the United States render human rights criticisms of Navalny’s treatment somewhat hypocritical. This should not necessarily mean that the US and Western countries shouldn’t raise human rights issues. But it does suggest that the ineffective means of redressing or reforming these problems in the United States—coupled with support for regimes that are equivalently or more repressive than Putin’s, like Israel’s occupation in Palestine, or the Gulf monarchies—means that American criticisms will appear increasingly vacuous until applied consistently.
Finally—while a more democratic Russia (like a more democratic United States, frankly) is desirable, the Biden administration must be careful to deal with the current Russian regime on urgent, contemporary issues: climate change, nuclear proliferation, the conflict in Ukraine. As such: Navalny shouldn’t be abandoned, and he is an important figure, and the development of his movement ought to be closely monitored by the US. A universally-applied rubric of human rights is a good thing. But we must be conscientious of the cynical way in which support for human rights is weaponized internationally, particularly with regards to Russia—and we must be conscious of the need for sober diplomacy in a world as volatile as the present one.
Resources:
https://quincyinst.org — “The Quincy Institute is an action-oriented think tank that will lay the foundation for a new foreign policy centered on diplomatic engagement and military restraint. The current moment presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring together like-minded progressives and conservatives and set U.S. foreign policy on a sensible and humane footing.”
https://www.democracynow.org — “Democracy Now! produces a daily, global, independent news hour hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan González. Our reporting includes breaking daily news headlines and in-depth interviews with people on the front lines of the world’s most pressing issues.”
https://thebulletin.org — “At our core, the Bulletin is a media organization, publishing a free-access website and a bimonthly magazine. But we are much more. The Bulletin’s website, iconic Doomsday Clock, and regular events help advance actionable ideas at a time when technology is outpacing our ability to control it. The Bulletin focuses on three main areas: nuclear risk, climate change, and disruptive technologies. What connects these topics is a driving belief that because humans created them, we can control them.”
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 4: Ending Violence Against Women
Brief # 105: Health and Gender Policy
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 4: Ending Violence Against Women
By Erin McNemar
May 3, 2021
Policy
President Joe Biden has stated that ending violence against women has been a priority for him throughout his career. During the 1990s, Biden pushed for legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act to empower and protect women who had become the victims of violence. Since then, he has worked to continue strengthening and renewing that act. In The Biden Agenda for Women policy, Biden has pledged he will continue to build upon VAWA and provide better support for survivors.
Analysis
With the pandemic causing people to stay home, the issue of violence against women is growing. In a report from the National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice, results showed an 8 percent uptick in reports of domestic violence. Beginning with the VAMA, Biden plans to reauthorize the act. Additionally, he will work to keep firearms out of the hands of abusers by closing the “boyfriend loophole” and the “stalker loophole.” These loopholes refer to the gap in American federal and state gun laws that allow known stalkers and dating abusers access to guns.This past March, the House voted to do exactly that. The legislation will next be voted upon in the Senate.
There are other ways Biden is hoping to update and expand the act. One is by including more culturally-specific services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and dating violence. These services will help survivors from racial and ethnic minority communities get the help they need. Additionally, Biden has highlighted the importance of increasing accountability of offenders, especially when their actions impact the most vulnerable. Other groups that Biden wants to expand protections for in VAMA are women of color, Alaska Native and American Indian women, young children, LGBTQ+ individuals, transgender women, older women, women with disabilities and women in the military.
Biden’s plan also includes expanding rights and protections for survivors of domestic violence. This includes expanding the safety-net for survivors by making it easier for them to get housing, cash assistance or whatever else they need. Additionally, Biden wants to empower and protect young women who could be in vulnerable situations. By increasing education and restoring Title IX guidance, Biden hopes to lower rates of violence against women among the younger population.
In his plan, Biden also points out that there is a lot we can do for immigrant women. According to Biden, one of the first steps we can take is to repeal state laws that impact immigrant women who are victims domestic violence of sexual assault. This includes ensuring asylum laws for those who are fleeing persecution and increasing visas for domestic violence survivors.
Biden states that there is even more we can do to help protect women. He outlines the importance of confronting online harassment, ending the rape kit backlog and changing the culture that supports violence against women.
Engagement Resources
- Read President Joe Biden’s Agenda for Women Plan.
- See how women have been impacted during Covid-19.
- Learn about the VAWA the House just passed.
- Reach out to your senators and representatives to take action!
To keep up to date on the latest health & gender policy news, SUBSCRIBE HERE!
Police Use of Deadly Force : Something Must Be Done
Brief # 14 Social Justice
Police Use of Deadly Force : Something Must Be Done
By Erika Shannon
May 1, 2021
The police use of deadly force in America is a plague; the Washington Post reports that cops kill around 1,000 people per year, a number that has remained steady since 2015. There is an even bigger problem with the police use of deadly force – they disproportionally target black Americans in deadly force incidents, and this issue is unfortunately nothing new.
The numbers are alarming in cities across America. If we take a look at Minneapolis, where ex-police officer Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd, Minneapolis Police use force against black people seven times more than against white people. Since 2015, there were 11,5000 instances of force documented in Minneapolis; at least 6,650 of those instances involved black people. While white people make up 60% of the population in Minneapolis, force was only used against them 2,750 times. These numbers are similar to the rest of the country, where black Americans are twice as likely to be killed by police as white Americans. The Washington Post reports that police will kill 36 out of a million black Americans, while police will only kill 15 out of a million white Americans. The statistics are troubling, considering that black Americans only make up 13% of the population, yet account for so many instances of police-involved deadly force.
Over the past several years, stories of police killing unarmed individuals have skyrocketed. This especially rings true in the black community, where many of the deadly force incidents are shocking and uncalled for. We often see the police shooting at people who are running away and no longer pose a threat to the officers, which sounds backwards. Police are supposed to apprehend suspects, not slaughter them, and use deadly force only in self-defense, to prevent a serious offense against a person, to prevent the theft or use of nuclear devices/material, or to prevent a person escaping when they have committed one of the aforementioned reasons. Far too often, we see the police using deadly force when a suspect is merely running from the police. Examples of this include Daunte Wright in Minnesota, Jacob Blake in Wisconsin, Walter Scott in South Carolina, David Jones in Pennsylvania, and countless others. While Jacob Blake did not succumb to his injuries, he is paralyzed; the other men mentioned all perished.
It is very clear that something has to change when it comes to policing. Some cities like Chicago have already proposed revising their foot-pursuit policies within their police departments.On a national level, Congress has proposed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act in an effort to reform policing in America. The overall goals of the bill are to help increase accountability for law enforcement misconduct, improve transparency within police departments, and eliminate discriminatory policing practices. The bill will create a national registry, called the National Police Misconduct Registry, to collect data on complaints and records of police misconduct. There will also be a framework established to prohibit racial profiling by police at the federal, state, and local levels, as well as an effort to limit the unnecessary use of force and restrict the use of no-knock warrants, chokeholds, and carotid holds.
The bill also facilitates federal enforcement of constitutional violations by state and local law enforcement; it does so by lowering the criminal intent standard to convict a law enforcement officer for misconduct in a federal prosecution, limiting qualified immunity as a defense to liability in a private civil action against a law enforcement officer, and authorizing the Department of Justice to issue subpoenas in investigations of police departments with a pattern or practice of discrimination. These three main points of the House bill are geared at punishing officers for using excessive deadly force or using it where it may not have been necessary in the first place. Lastly, the proposed legislation would direct the Department of Justice to create uniform accreditation standards for law enforcement agencies and require law enforcement officers to complete training on racial profiling, implicit bias, and the duty to intervene when another officer uses excessive force.
The newest version of the bill was introduced in late February, and passed the house in early March. While it is still not law yet, it is a promising move that could help reform policing in America. While police departments are run locally, federal funds are allocated to many of the 18,000 police departments across America. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act may not result in immediate change even if it does end up clearing Congress and is signed by President Biden; however, there will be the implication that police departments must make efforts to comply or else they may lose some of their federal funding.
We need accountability for police in America, and federal legislation may be the spark that is needed to foster change at a local level. If no changes are made, the big problems that already exists will eventually spiral even more out of control.. When the numbers are broken down, police in the U.S. kill an average of three men per day. This is a problem, and those who do not believe it is a problem are in denial of what is right there in front of their eyes: police in America have deviated from their job description of “protecting life and property” and moved into a new territory that includes shooting and killing black Americans who are running from them.
ENGAGEMENT RESOURCES
- Visit the Police Violence Report to see a map of 2020 police-involved killings.
- To view the FBI’s National Use-Of-Force Data Collection, visit their webpage.
Will Biden’s Bold Climate Plan See Its Way Through the Political Storms?
Brief # 113, Environment
Author: Todd J. Broadman
Title: Will Biden’s Bold Climate Plan See Its Way Through the Political Storms?
May 4. 2021
POLICY
The world is in need of a climate action plan; the U.S. under President Biden is proposing one. At its core, the proposed plan is a set of policies that shift or transition energy from fossil fuels to renewable sources. The glaring challenge to this shift though, is current and future projections for energy demand. Americans are accustomed to the luxury of 24-7 access to energy at the touch of a button. As the Biden plan points to, solar and wind power are the go-to sustainable energy sources. Electricity though, accounts for only a quarter of CO2 emissions – carbon-intensive manufacturing, agriculture, and transportation demands comprise the vast majority. Biden’s plan subscribes to Bill Gates’s “Show me a problem, and I’ll look for technology to fix it,” approach. Others, particularly in Europe, place more emphasis on ‘degrowth’ as the direction the developed world ought to be heading.
Biden recognizes that any plan must be global in scale; he convened global leaders for a climate summit on Earth Day to discuss commitments and targets. Biden committed to what appears to be an ambitious new U.S. target for cutting climate pollution – 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030. Another Biden commitment, global in scope, is his campaign pledge to safeguard tropical forests with a promise of $20 billion to protect the Amazon rainforest.
What has been dubbed the White House “climate all-star team” is a reflection of Biden’s intent to follow up commitment with action. Gina McCarthy, former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is the “climate czarina”; Michael Regan, who was a state environment leader, is EPA chief; former Secretary of State John Kerry, one of the original architects of the Paris Agreement, is Biden’s Special Presidential Envoy for Climate. Biden’s allies in the legislature include Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Andy Levin who have introduced a green procurement that would fund purchases of sustainable American-made products. They, along with the larger Progressive Caucus, introduced the Build Green Act: a $500 billion investment over the next decade to modernize infrastructure and transition the country to electric public vehicles and rail.
This same coalition, which includes Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland, introduced the THRIVE Act, a $10 trillion proposal on infrastructure spending. Environmental and citizen stakeholder groups influencing these proposals include the Working Families Party, the Sunrise Movement, the NAACP, and the Sierra Club.
While grassroots environmental activism has helped inform Biden’s climate plan, industry lobbyists, most notably energy conglomerates, agriculture oligopolies, and Wall Street have and will continue to weigh heavily in what actual legislation gets passed. The recent tide of history bears this out: between 2013 and 2019, the most destructive agribusiness companies were backed to the tune of $44 billion by over 300 investment firms, banks, and pension funds across the globe. The question remains: will the Biden administration demand transparency and accountability over how industry behaves? Can he stand up to industry? For his climate plan to gain any traction at all, it cannot rely upon voluntary policies and commitments. As many critics have already pointed to, if Biden can’t get banks and asset managers to stop underwriting fossil-fuel companies and destructive supply chains, he won’t stand a chance.
Another important consideration: should the Democrats lose the House in the 2022 midterms, they may have nothing but the next 18 months to formalize actions. Even if Biden is reelected in 2024, his climate plan will need the cooperation of Congress and the courts. The reality is that both branches have prominent members who are outspoken in not wanting to reduce fossil fuel use or submit to international agreements. Gaining agreements from other industrial nations to scale back their overall energy usage considerably, if the U.S. will not serve as an example, will not transpire.
ANALYSIS
The connection between national carbon targets and actual national emissions is anything but clear. If the Paris agreement is the benchmark, what we have are pledges of escalating targets without the domestic policies needed to reach them. Biden’s voluntary pledge doesn’t necessitate a policy process; there is no penalty for not meeting the target. The same is true for the other signatories. Every five years there is an international “stock take,” wherein countries report their progress. Not a single country today has a loophole-free, legally enforceable, economy-wide, declining cap on carbon. Biden has an opportunity to lead.
Some activists argue that Biden should be establishing a reduction target in the range of 70 percent reduction by 2030 – this, given US’s relative contribution as the world’s largest CO2 emitter. Key to meeting any target is addressing the role played by the American financial sector in fueling deforestation. Keeping forests standing could provide more than one-third of the total CO2 reductions needed to keep global heating below 2°C by 2030. The US’s insatiable consumption of wood and mineral-based commodities drive forest destruction, and that devastation is centered on the critical ecosystems of the Amazon, Congo Basin and Papua New Guinea.
Biden is taking action. At his request, Congress is preparing to overturn Trump’s weakening on methane pollution, reestablishing the states’ ability to have stricter air pollution rules, and reversing Trump’s actions on drilling on public lands. On average, Biden is overturning one rule a day. The president endorsed a $2 trillion green infrastructure plan. His $2.7 trillion American Jobs Plan proposes billions for the transition to electric vehicles and cleaner electricity, along with support for less harmful manufacturing. This Jobs Plan aims to create millions of jobs. As well, Biden’s new budget requests funding for a new Office of Climate Change and Health Equity in HHS, which would “focus on decreasing effects of climate change on vulnerable populations.”
He is leaning in the right direction. Reality on the ground will depend upon a clear, enforceable, well-implemented plan, and one that holds industry accountable – a tall order. And there are glaring gaps in the climate plan. Where is the hard line on fracking? Where is some policy—any policy—to curtail fossil fuel production? Will Biden move to cancel the Dakota Access and Line 3 pipelines? And the looming, cultural quandary: how will American lifestyles be supported in a world without fossil fuels?
Engagement Resources:
https://www.postcarbon.org/ leading the transition to a more resilient, equitable, and sustainable world.
https://grist.org/ dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future.
https://www.sunrisemovement.org a grassroots movement to stop climate change and create millions of good-paying jobs in the process.
https://greennewdealgroup.org/ will power a renewables revolution, create thousands of green-collar jobs across the economy and rein in the distorting and socially-destructive power of the finance sector while making more low-cost capital available for pressing priorities.
States Launch Assaults on the Rights of the Transgender Community: Part I
Brief #104 – Health & Gender
Author Taylor J Smith
Brief Title: States Launch Assaults on the Rights of the Transgender Community: Part I
May 1, 2021
More than 100 bills that threaten the rights of transgender people have been introduced across thirty-three states as we approach only the fifth month of the year. The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ advocacy organization, tracks such dangerous bills and has on record 117 bills that take aim at the transgender community, the majority targeting trans youth. This is the number of anti-trans bills since HRC began tracking anti-LGBTQ+ legislation back in the early 2000s.
These bills are attacking the trans community by restricting access to medical care, prohibiting the use of locker rooms and sports participation, banning specific curriculum, enforcing ID restrictions, and limiting other civil rights protections. All of the soon to be mentioned bills target the trans community in ways that ultimately threaten the existence and enjoyment of life of trans individuals, primarily trans youth, who are already susceptible to high rates of suicide and depression.
The Policy
As mentioned, there have been over 100 bills threatening the rights and life of the trans community in the realms of health, sports and civil rights, in this three-part series, U.S. RESIST will bring attention to some of the most controversial and/or harmful bills.
Part I : Bans on Gender-Affirming Health Care for Minors
This year, twenty-two states have introduced bills that restrict access to gender-affirming therapy and surgery to minors.
In Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, bills have been proposed that could punish parents who encourage or facilitate minors’ access to gender-affirming medical treatment, or healthcare professionals from administering such treatments.
Arkansas’s Ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth is one of the most recent bans, and currently the only one to see signed into law. Governor Asa Hutchinson, a staunch Republican, surprisingly vetoed HB 1570, erroneously called the “Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act” (SAFE Act). This comes after the SAFE Act passed both the House and Senate in March prompting widespread concern and outcry. However, just days after the Governor’s veto, it was swiftly overridden by both chambers. The bill will go into effect 90 days after the legislature adjourns in the coming weeks.
While these bills are proposed as legislation protecting children, trans advocates, LGBTQ+ groups, and researchers believe such laws will do the opposite, as gender affirming treatment is often lifesaving for gender nonconforming or transgender youth. With these bills looming, the mental health of the LGBTQ+ community, trans individuals especially, are at great risk. Research has already affirmed the notion that increasing access to gender-affirming care can reduce consistent suicidal thoughts among trans adults.
Engagement Resources:
The Human Rights Campaign: the largest LGBTQ+ advocacy group and political lobbying organization in the US.
Lambda Legal: A national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgender people.
National Center for Transgender Equality: The nation’s leading social justice advocacy organization committed to life-saving change for transgender people.
States Launch Assaults on the Rights of the Transgender Community: Part I
Brief #104 – Health & Gender
Author Taylor J Smith
Brief Title: States Launch Assaults on the Rights of the Transgender Community: Part I
May 1, 2021
More than 100 bills that threaten the rights of transgender people have been introduced across thirty-three states as we approach only the fifth month of the year. The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ advocacy organization, tracks such dangerous bills and has on record 117 bills that take aim at the transgender community, the majority targeting trans youth. This is the number of anti-trans bills since HRC began tracking anti-LGBTQ+ legislation back in the early 2000s.
These bills are attacking the trans community by restricting access to medical care, prohibiting the use of locker rooms and sports participation, banning specific curriculum, enforcing ID restrictions, and limiting other civil rights protections. All of the soon to be mentioned bills target the trans community in ways that ultimately threaten the existence and enjoyment of life of trans individuals, primarily trans youth, who are already susceptible to high rates of suicide and depression.
The Policy
As mentioned, there have been over 100 bills threatening the rights and life of the trans community in the realms of health, sports and civil rights, in this three-part series, U.S. RESIST will bring attention to some of the most controversial and/or harmful bills.
Part I : Bans on Gender-Affirming Health Care for Minors
This year, twenty-two states have introduced bills that restrict access to gender-affirming therapy and surgery to minors.
In Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, bills have been proposed that could punish parents who encourage or facilitate minors’ access to gender-affirming medical treatment, or healthcare professionals from administering such treatments.
Arkansas’s Ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth is one of the most recent bans, and currently the only one to see signed into law. Governor Asa Hutchinson, a staunch Republican, surprisingly vetoed HB 1570, erroneously called the “Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act” (SAFE Act). This comes after the SAFE Act passed both the House and Senate in March prompting widespread concern and outcry. However, just days after the Governor’s veto, it was swiftly overridden by both chambers. The bill will go into effect 90 days after the legislature adjourns in the coming weeks.
While these bills are proposed as legislation protecting children, trans advocates, LGBTQ+ groups, and researchers believe such laws will do the opposite, as gender affirming treatment is often lifesaving for gender nonconforming or transgender youth. With these bills looming, the mental health of the LGBTQ+ community, trans individuals especially, are at great risk. Research has already affirmed the notion that increasing access to gender-affirming care can reduce consistent suicidal thoughts among trans adults.
Keywords:
Healthcare, health, trans, transgender, LGBTQ, trans health, trans rights.
Engagement Resources:
The Human Rights Campaign: the largest LGBTQ+ advocacy group and political lobbying organization in the US.
Lambda Legal: A national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgender people.
National Center for Transgender Equality: The nation’s leading social justice advocacy organization committed to life-saving change for transgender people.
Show some courage! Defy your tribe!
Show some courage! Defy your tribe!
Someday the world, and maybe even your tribe, will thank you.
By Robert Wright from Robert Wright’s Nonzero Newsletter
(available on Substack)
April 26,2021
Last week LeBron James, who has 50 million Twitter followers, tweeted a picture of a policeman in Columbus, Ohio who had shot a 16-year-old Black girl to death. The tweet said, “You’re next. #Accountability.”
Coming right after the verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial, the tweet seemed to mean that this cop, like Chauvin, would be convicted of murder and imprisoned—though some took James’s message as more menacing: a threat of vigilante justice.
On either interpretation, the tweet didn’t make sense. The cop’s body cam had captured the killing, and the video told this story:
A cop responding to a 911 call arrives on the scene and sees the 16-year-old, Ma’Khia Bryant, with a knife in her hand, approaching another girl. The other girl is backed up against a parked car, with no means of escape, as Bryant draws the knife back and seems poised to stab her. The cop opens fire.
There are good questions you can ask about the cop’s conduct. Couldn’t he have fired one shot, not four? Or, instead of shooting Bryant, could he have rushed her, hoping any stabbing attempt would be ineffective and he could wrestle her to the ground before she did real damage? But if I were the girl the knife was pointed at, I probably wouldn’t be complaining about the decisions he made. In any event, he acted within standard policing guidelines, which say you can use your gun to end a lethal threat to yourself or anyone else.
During the first couple of days after the shooting, my Twitter feed, which tilts to the left, featured a number of tweets that, like James’s, condemned the cop. And it contained almost no tweets making the point I just made—that, though this was a white cop shooting a Black person, it was also a white cop shooting someone who seemed to be trying to stab a Black person.
I sensed a need for someone—like me, for example—to push against the prevailing narrative, to tweet something that might help clarify things. So what did I tweet? Nothing. Why? Because I lacked courage. I just didn’t feel up to dealing with blowback from people on Twitter who, forced to choose between evaluating your argument and attacking you, reliably opt for thermonuclear war.
I’m more and more convinced that there are lots of people like me out there. No, I don’t mean cowards. And I don’t just mean people who think there are too many misleading and inflammatory social media posts by influential people. Obviously, lots of people in red America think there are too many of those posts coming from blue America and lots of people in blue America think there are too many of those posts coming from red America.
What I mean is that there are lots of people who think there are too many of those posts coming from their own tribe—whether red or blue or some other tribe—but are afraid to speak up about it.
I say we start speaking up! Here are some reasons that, at least from my own tribal perspective, speaking up seems like a good idea.
1) If my tribe doesn’t seize the moment, the other tribe will. Ben Shapiro, formerly an editor at Breitbart and currently a right-wing troll, got tons of mileage out of a tweetcomplaining that liberals were resisting the truth about the Columbus shooting. He’d have gotten at least somewhat less mileage if liberals hadn’t in fact seemed to be resisting the truth about the Columbus shooting. When your tribe is denying something that’s obviously true because it doesn’t fit into your tribe’s standard menu of talking points, that’s often a gift to the other tribe. And it can add to the power of people in the other tribe who seize the moment. I personally don’t want to add to Ben Shapiro’s power.
2) If my tribe doesn’t seize the moment, the world will be more likely to enter a spiral of doom. You knew this was coming, right? After all, if I couldn’t connect the theme of courage to the apocalypse, why would I be writing about courage in a newsletter that is devoted to the Apocalypse Aversion Project?
You may ask: But isn’t apocalypse aversion largely about international politics—avoiding wars, building structures of international governance to tackle problems nations can’t tackle alone, and so on? Yes, but:
It’s hard to build coherent international governance on a foundation of incoherent nations. An America lacking in cohesion, divided along red-blue lines, won’t have the political will to do ambitious, politically difficult things. Such as: crafting and then participating in new forms of international cooperation designed to prevent things like pandemics, environmental calamities, and arms races in space or in bioweapons or in AI.
To get a little more granular: Doing these things will require convincing some skeptical Americans—definitely including some who are right of center—that these things make sense. And these Americans will be hard to convince if the people trying to convince them come from a tribe they hate—all the more so if one reason they hate the tribe is because it can’t be trusted to gets its facts straight (like when it accuses cops of racism or murder even when there’s no good evidence of either).
In short: standing up to your own tribe can strengthen its ability to argue persuasively for important policies, including anti-apocalypse policies.
There’s another sense in which courage can aid in the building of good international governance. It takes a little explaining, but the explanation begins with a simple, almost self-evident premise: It’s hard to build coherent international governance on a foundation of international division. Obviously, the more time nations spend at odds—whether fighting actual wars, engaging in tense standoffs, or enduring chilly relations—the less likely international cooperation is.
Now, sometimes being at odds with other nations is the only real option. If a country invades another country, or egregiously mistreats its own people, pushing back against that, sometimes forcefully, can make sense.
But in some cases we overdo the pushback, and one common reason is that we overstate the transgressions we’re pushing back against. Often the way this works is that people who are deeply invested in hostility toward a country exaggerate its transgressions, and hardly anybody has the courage to challenge the exaggeration.
The exaggeration isn’t always, or even usually, intentional. Often people who agitate against, say, Russia or China feel (like LeBron James) that they’re just telling the truth. And sometimes they are. But various cognitive biases make it quite possible that they’re wrong—that they’re unconsciously exaggerating how menacing a country is or how cruel it is to its own people. Depending on the nature of their claims and the prevailing zeitgeist, it can take courage to challenge them.
For example: During the runup to the 2003 Iraq War, it took courage to challenge the claim that Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction. And by “challenge” I don’t mean denying that he was building them—I just mean saying, “Are we really sure about this?” It’s hard to explain to people who are too young to remember those days why it wasn’t easy to ask a question like that. But the mass psychology of a moralistic rush to war is a strangely powerful thing.
Some kinds of pro-war narratives are especially hard to challenge. In the runup to the earlier war against Iraq, the Persian Gulf War of 1991, a Kuwaiti teenager testified before a congressional committee that while she was volunteering in a Kuwaiti hospital she had watched as Iraqi soldiers “took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the children to die on the cold floor.” President Bush repeated that story 10 times in the coming weeks, as support for invading Iraq grew.
Who wants to challenge a Kuwaiti teenager who tells a story like that? Who wants to be called an “apologist” for baby killers? Nobody. But it turned out she was lying. Two years later we learned that she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US and had been coached by the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton.
But that’s all in the past! And the past is where it’s easy to find examples like that. Finding them in the present is harder. One reason is that it takes courage to sound a note of skepticism about such claims in real time, when emotions are running high. So they tend not to get investigated until after they’ve done their damage.
Right now there are good examples of this—claims about bad behavior by foreign actors that may, for all we know, be exaggerated or even flat-out wrong. You can find examples having to do with the governments of Russia, China, Iran, and Syria. Want to hear about them? Sorry, I’m not feeling that courageous at the moment. But I’ll get back to some of them soon in this newsletter.
Meanwhile, I close on a note of hope: After a period of reflection, LeBron James deleted his tweet.