JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Capitol Riot Prosecution Updates
Brief #24 – Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
On January 6th of this year, several hundred people, attempting to disrupt the counting of electoral votes, breached the United States Capitol Building. The frenzy was caught on camera, Congressmen were whisked away, and some people even lost their lives. This insurrection itself was planned and executed by far-right white supremacist hate groups who could not live with the fact that former President Donald Trump lost the election to Joe Biden. The Department of Justice lists over 600 individuals who have been arrested and charged.
What Happens When It’s Too Hot To Work?
Brief #124 – Environment Policy
By Katelyn Lewis
Around 32 million people in the United States’ workforce are risking their health for their jobs on hot summer days – a scenario likely to increase dramatically by mid-century if there is slow or no action to reduce global emissions, a new analysis finds.
A Case for Getting Rid of the Filibuster
Brief #26 – Elections and Politics
By Ryan Campbell
The filibuster is a political procedure in the US Senate (as well as other governmental bodies) where a Senator or Senators may speak for as long as they want on any topic that they choose (i.e. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) once filibustered by reading from Green Eggs and Ham). This will allow the party (or individual) to essentially run out the clock and deny the party moving in favor of the legislation an opportunity to ever have said legislation voted on. This can only be broken if 60 senators vote for “cloture,” or a motion to bring debate to an end.
Prospects for the Biden Agenda
Brief #25 – Elections and Politics
By William Bourque
In this series, U.S. RESIST NEWS Reporter William Bourque examines the feasibility of implementing the different components of President Biden’s ambitious policy agenda. In Part 2 of the series we examine prospects for passage of Biden proposals in the areas of infrastructure and immigration.
Mexico Sues U.S. Gun Manufactures Over Illegal Trafficking
Brief #23 – Social Justice
By Zack Huffman
The government of Mexico is taking several US. gun companies to federal court, claiming that they have negligently allowed illegal gun trafficking to flood Mexico with firearms.
The lawsuit lists seven Massachusetts-based gun manufactures as well as a wholesale firearm distributor as defendants, and demands millions of dollars in reparations, and for the defendant companies to implement a strong monitoring system to track trafficked guns.
Alarming Reports Regarding Poor Conditions of Detained Migrant Children in Biden Administration Emergency Shelters
Brief #127 – Immigration Policy
By Kathryn Baron
As of early August 2021, nearly a third of migrant children detained in government custody are being held in emergency shelters. Migrant teens are housed in long trailers with little space for recreation, and some reports allege they have to wash their clothes in bathroom sinks and occasionally endure bouts of food poisoning.
Congress Focuses on the Security of Judges in the Wake of Brutal Attack
Brief #170 – Civil Rights
By Rodney A. Maggay
On July 16, 2021 both of New Jersey’s Senators – Bob Menendez and Cory Booker – introduced The Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2021 in the U.S. Senate. Four additional Senators co – sponsored the bill – Dick Durbin (D-IL), Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Kennedy (R-LA). A companion bill was simultaneously introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ).
Trouble in Haiti Part 1: The Assassination of President Moise
Brief #125 – Foreign Policy
By Erin Mayer
The assassination of President Jovenel Moïse of Haiti has rocked an island already rife with violence and turmoil. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield was forced to flee the island early after gunfire erupted at Moïse’s funeral. How the island fares after this ongoing turmoil is still unclear and the U.S. has vowed to not assist.
The Politics of Mask Mandates
Brief # 124 – Health & Gender Policy
By S Bhimji
Almost every month over the past year, healthcare experts have been offering different views on the wearing of masks in public places and schools. The subject has become very controversial and now permeates the political arena. In July of this year, most schools had plans for reopening but now with the rapid spread of the delta variant, schools have had to readjust their plans.
Will the Governor be Recalled?
California Dispatch
A new U.S. RESIST NEWS blog post on the policies and p0liticas in America’s most populated and economically productive state.
# 1 Will the Governor be Recalled?
By Patrick Dwrire
May 15,2021
The vote for the recall of Gavin Newsom as the governor of California is now a political certainty, with a Special Recall Election to be scheduled later this year. If a simple majority of voters decide Newsom should be removed from office, then the highest vote –getter on the ballot, even if less than 50 percent of the total number of votes cast becomes the next governor of California. If the 2003 recall election in California is any kind of historic guide, scores of colorful candidates from all walks of life can to be expected to get qualified for the ballot.
More than 1.7 million registered voters signed petitions to recall Governor Newsom, signatures recently verified as valid by election officials, exceeding the number required to trigger the election by more than 200,000 signatures. The number of required signatures is specified by law to be no fewer than 12 per cent of the total number of votes cast in the last election for the office that is targeted by the recall. The 1.7 million signatures represent about 13.8 per cent of 2018 electorate.
According to most Newsom supporters commenting on the recall, those 13.8 per cent of voters who signed the petitions basically signed up the balance of 86.2 per cent of California voters for a three ring political circus that promises all manner of sideshows and carnival barkers across the state for the next several months. According to estimates reported in the Los Angeles Times, this political circus could cost California tax payers as much as $400 million.
A carnival atmosphere was recently released into the media-stream by John Cox, a multi-millionaire real estate investor who lost in a landslide to Newsom in the 2018 governor’s race, but is running again in the hope Newsom is recalled. Cox rented the services of a tame, 1,000 pound Kodiak bear named Tag for his campaign mascot. Cox filmed a commercial with Tag lumbering alongside him, saying “Gavin’s mismanagement of California is inexcusable. We need big beastly changes in Sacramento. I’ll make ’em.” Cox also had Tag available live to kick off his “Meet the Beast” campaign tour in Sacramento.
Couple this with the May 5th soft ball interview of Caitlyn Jenner, the Olympic athlete-turned-media darling transsexual spokesperson -turned Republican candidate for governor, by Fox news host Sean Hannity, and It’s hard not to notice the reality show contestant aesthetic of spectacle.
“Learn more about the people behind this,” Newsom urged state firefighters at a May 4th press conference with California Professional Firefighters union officials in attendance, who are strong Newsom supporters. “Why is the Republican National Committee behind this? Why is Newt Gingrich behind this? Why is there a whole [TV] network putting their energy and attention to covering this? Is it because they have the backs of Californians? Take a look at their agenda and contrast that with ours. I think the majority of Californians support our agenda.”
The cost of this recall election seems to be the price of hyper-partisan politics. California Republicans find themselves in a clear and diminishing minority in both houses of the state legislature as well as in the overall electorate, with only 24 per cent of voters registered as Republican statewide.
Can a 12 or 13 or 14 per cent minority of voters be the tail that wags dog of the entire state. Especially when that minority receives a good deal of funding from outside the state, and gets plenty of attention from national conservative media. The result is a highly charged atmosphere of a recall vote for a Democratic governor who was quite popular for his first two years or so in office, before the COVID pandemic, before the wildfires, and before Trump lost the election.
Although subsequently trying to walk back some of his remarks, California Democratic Party chairperson Rusty Hicks was blunt in his initial assessment of the certification of signatures for the recall, saying, “This recall effort, which realty ought to be called ‘the California coup,’ is being led by right-wing conspiracy theorists, white nationalists, anti-vaxxers and groups who encourage violence on our democratic institutions.”
After trouncing Republican candidate John Cox with just shy of 62 percent of the vote in the 2018 governor’s race, in which Cox ran with then-President Trump’s endorsement, Newsom’s popularity has no doubt diminished. This can be attributed to a very difficult year of stop and start pandemic shut-downs, disastrous wildfires, a major meltdown in the State’s unemployment payment system in the face of spiking demand during the shutdowns, the state getting successfully scammed into sending unemployment checks to inmates, and Newsom’s widely publicized hypocrisy of ignoring his own Covid restrictions at a high-priced dinner party with a lobbyist at a five-star gourmet restaurant in Napa.
But has dissatisfaction with Newsom’s performance risen to the level that a majority of voters will vote to remove him from office, and then suffer the paralysis that is likely to ensue for a year because. No matter what the result of the recall, either Newsom or his replacement will need to begin running for re-election soon after the recall vote in anticipation of the 2022 election.
This is the question to be answered by the voters in this special election expected in the fall, in which Republican organizers are obviously hoping, again with history a guide, that off-year special elections typically have a much smaller and more conservative voter turn-out than regular elections.
But for most California political observers and campaign consultants, a successful recall of Newsom seems doubtful in this deeply blue state that voted 63.48 percent for Biden/Harris only six months ago; a state in which even most Independent voters seem to have a deep aversion to Trumpism. But the possibility for a recall exists, and history shows the politics of resentment toward a sitting governor can run strong in California.
Several opinion writers and California electoral historians have pointed out that Gavin Newsom in 2021 is no Gray Davis in 2003, who was never exceedingly popular and was beleaguered by Enron-produced energy shortages. Nor is Caitlyn Jenner or John Cox for anywhere close to an Arnold Schwarzenegger in their ability to unite disparate voting groups and present a viable alternative to the governor getting recalled.
According to a March survey by the non-partisan Public Policy Institute of California, only 40 percent of likely voters said they would vote yes on removing Newsom, while 56 percent would vote no, with five percent unsure. Responses break heavily along party lines, with fully 79 per cent of Republicans supporting the recall, while 42 per cent of Independents and only 15 per cent of Democrats say they would vote to recall Newsom.
Patrick Dwire is a freelance writer living in Santa Cruz, CA . He can be reached at paddyd385@gmail.com.
Ransomware on the Uptick: A Clear and Present Danger
Brief #45 – Technology
By Charles A. Rubin
Ransomware on the Uptick: A Clear and Present Danger
May 14,2021
Policy Summary
The Colonial Pipeline Company, which describes itself as “the largest refined products pipeline in the United States” transporting gas and jet fuel through a pipeline system spanning 5,500 miles between Texas and New Jersey reported on Friday May 7 that it was the victim of a ransomware cybersecurity attack. The company assured the public that the attack had only affected its information technology systems and not its operation capacity but, as a precaution, it was proactively taking certain systems offline to contain the threat. The action temporarily halted all pipeline operations effectively cutting supplies to much of the Eastern seaboard.
The incident is only the latest attack that have been occurring with alarming frequency and have targeted hospitals, local governments and businesses large and small. The cybersecurity firm Kaspersky estimates that by the end of 2021 a business will be targeted by a ransomware attack every 11 seconds causing up to $20 billion in damage. This does not factor in any ransom payments.
Law enforcement, government and business seem powerless to stop it.
Analysis
Ransomware attacks are those which use malware to encrypt the data and files of targets either on individual computers or on a company’s servers. The attacks are difficult to detect and repel because they are multi-layered. The vast majority of successful ransomware attacks start with reusable passwords being obtained through phishing and email trickery. An additional attack vector are innocuous attachments like invoices or other documents that an unsuspecting user opens that starts the chain of intrusion. Unpublished operating system flaws are then exploited. More recently, unsecure/unpatched remote access methods put in place during the pandemic have enabled more direct attacks.
What is important to note, is that ransomware is now a lucrative industry that knows no border and is hidden in the shadows. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and National Security Agency (NSA) have identified the groups behind many of these attacks but they are a long way from shutting them down or apprehending their masterminds.
While some organizations choose to pay ransomware demands, it is generally not recommended as there is no guarantee that access to infected systems will be restored and by paying up, victims further incentivize these forms of cyberattack. Many companies don’t disclose ransomware attacks or, if they do, won’t reveal the attackers’ demands.
The government’s response has been tepid at best. The recommended strategy has been mitigation – requiring frequent password changes, using strong and unique passwords, enabling multi-factor authentication, segmenting systems so that one system infected cannot infect others, keeping operating systems up-to-date, deploying anti-malware software. This is all good advice but not enough.
Throughout this crisis it became clear that the energy sector, in particular, is privately not publicly controlled, meaning that this attack on our infrastructure put private companies as the first line of defense from, seemingly, foreign adversaries. Yet, these same companies have exposed their systems on a very public internet. Since it is clear the internet cannot be policed, it is imperative that critical infrastructure be disconnected or certainly operate under more strict guidelines.
Our interconnectedness has enabled many to weather the pandemic but it has made us even more vulnerable. We desperately need law enforcement to intervene and for national governments to cooperate to identify and punish countries that sanction this activity within their borders.
Engagement Resources
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and FBI Joint Statement on the Colonial Pipeline Attack
- The Institute for Security and Technology has a Comprehensive Attack Plan for Ransomware
- The Bank Policy Institute (BPI) is a nonpartisan public policy, research and advocacy group, representing the nation’s leading banks – Read their Ransomware: A Resource Guide
- Mitre Corporation maintains federally funded R&D centers and public-private partnerships to tackle challenges to public safety, stability, and security.
Forever Chemicals May Not Last That Long
Forever Chemicals May Not Last That Long
Shannon Q. Elliott
Thursday, May 10, 2021
“But I suspect most people across the United States are still unfamiliar with PFAS and don’ t realize the exposure that occurs. I’m going to continue doing what I can elevating that awareness.”- Robert Bilott
Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) and Perfluorooctanoic (PFOS), are not only impossible to pronounce, they are toxic chemicals that wreak havoc on all living and breathing beings. According to Scientific American, of the more than 9,000 known PFAS compounds, 600 are currently used in the U.S.
The chemicals are referred to as “forever chemicals” because the bonds that bind them into compounds fail to decompose. Overtime they build up in organ systems, causing cancer, autoimmune disorders, and unexplained deformities. Teflon, non-stick, BPA, insulation, perfumes, certain carpets, plastic shower curtains are all examples of products we have been exposed to at one point or another that are potentially loaded with PFAS/PFOS. The Environmental Working
Group lists a brief report on PFAS here and reports that 99% of Americans have PFAS/PFOS chemicals manifesting in their blood streams. If that statistic isn’t alarming enough, The EPA has been unconcerned regulating how industries dispose of the discharge of PFAS/PFOS.
They have failed to address or suggest a federal standard for dumping via the Clean Water Act (CWA) or The Clean Air Act (CAA), until now. Corporations, DuPont and 3M are responsible for the introduction of Teflon into the mass markets. Teflon possesses a man-made chemical called Perfluorooctanoic Acid (C8), which is linked to testicular cancer, kidney cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, pregnancy-induced hypertension and high cholesterol. Its reign began in the 1940s when it was was marketed to the American family as an innovative way to prepare family meals; the cookware was a must have with its long lifespan and easy maintenance. It was alleged that the chemical companies were aware of the effects of c8, and intentionally disposed of them via local waterways, which in turn heavily contaminated natural resources.
Robert Bilott, the infamous lawyer who became DuPont’s arch-nemesis began investigating the corporation in 1999. In a visit to Parkersburg, West Virginia; he met with Wilbur Tennant, a farmer whose land had been polluted by DuPont. The sudden death of livestock, and family health issues on the farm, began to shape what would become a class action law suit against the Delaware based company. In 2017, it was reported that an Ohio court found in favor of the plaintiffs of Leach v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. & Related Cases awarding $671 million-dollars in damages. Tennant v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (1998-2001) was settled for an undisclosed amount.
The EPA got on board a short time after the Dupont court case. The agency issued an advisory on Teflon and Scotchgard; 2/5000 potentially deadly PFAS chemicals. Almost twenty years later in January of 2019, legislation regulating PFAS was introduced to the House of Representatives. The language of the bill directed the EPA to act accordingly and begin to regulate chemicals in groundwater, air, and navigable waters protected under the CWA and CAA. The PFAS Action Act of 2019 was rejected by a then republican ruled senate. The perception was that the 2019 senate class, would prioritize infrastructure over the environment, at the request of ex-president Trump. Outraged at the decision, Peter Defazio (D) Oregon was quoted as stating “The Trump administration is known for encouraging pollution and removing regulations,”.
Presently, The PFAS Action Act of 2021 has been re-introduced by Deb Dingle (D-MI) and Fred Upton (R-MI) and proposes creating a national standard for PFAS chemicals in drinking water. The Act will strictly limit and regulate industry discharge and provide $200 million annually to water treatment facilities and utilities to aid with clean-up. Oddly enough Republicans are coming out of the woodwork to endorse the proposed regulations. Corey Gardner (R-CO), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), and Marco Rubio (R- FL) are supportive of an injunction that would work toward banning these chemicals and protecting their communities from another health crisis.
While the federal government meanders over how to best defend Americans from the effects of PFAS/PFOS; states have managed to adjudicate appropriate laws within their jurisdiction. Bill 1200 In California proposed by Phil Ting (D), would prohibit selling/offering products that contain PFAS/PFOS in the wrapping or packaging. The suggestion is to source plant-based options for packaging, which would limit exposure and aid in the fight against plastics. He hopes that by 2024, manufacturers will need to be transparent in the terminology they use to in the packaging of products. Following their lead is Maine, New York, and Washington who all aim to install similar protections by 2022.
Biden’s Administration adamantly states that regulating these substances is a high priority. It’s an about-face from Trump’s lackadaisical approach to any environmental amendments. Many environmental and health-related organizations also endorse greater governmental regulation of PFAS/PFOS forever chemicals.
Finally…. a chance for the U.S to breathe, knowing that the current leadership will protect us from a preventable health disaster.
Engagement Resources:
EWG Skin Deep (evaluates toxins in skincare, beauty, food, and cleaning products;
also available as an app)
House, B. T. (2021, April). Jack Rodgers. https://www.courthousenews.com/bill-
targeting-toxic-chemicals-reintroduced-in-house/.
Natrual Resources Defense Council . (2021). https://www.nrdc.org/.
The Environmental Working Group. (2021). https://www.ewg.org/.
The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Biggest Nightmare . (2016).
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-
duponts-worst-nightmare.html.
Wood Pellets: The New Renewable or the Same Old Story?
Policy
In 2012, the U.K.’s Department of Energy and Climate Change published its guidelines regarding new British renewable energy policy. These guidelines encouraged the transition of coal-fired electrical generation plants to biomass or wood pellet burning plants, as a way for utility companies to meet European Union air pollution and renewable energy standards. Burning wood pellets to generate electricity has been touted as a renewable energy source because it requires new trees to be grown, offsetting the carbon released by the burning of the trees that preceded them.
European officials had declared biomass energy as carbon neutral, back in 2009. Along with the U.K, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands have also invested heavily in the transition. Shortly after the guidelines were released, European power companies began looking to the well-established and much less restricted logging industry that exists in the Southeastern United States, to be its primary supplier of pelleted wood. Since then, the wood pellet industry in southeastern states has grown “from almost nothing to 23 mills with capacity to produce more than 10 million metric tons annually for export.”
Many foresters, economists, and environmental policy experts have supported the transition in the E.U., but a growing number of ecologists, conservationists and others have voiced their strong disagreement, pointing to the negative impact the growing industry has had on Southeastern forest ecosystems and surrounding communities, as well as a miscalculation of the new fuel’s climate impact. New EPA Administrator Michael Regan has thus far recommended against designating wood pellets as a source of “clean energy” and a spokeswoman for the EPA has said the agency is not “currently considering adding most wood pellets to its renewable fuel standard.” Doing so would open up doors for the industry to expand even further.
Critics of the new industry have successfully forced the installation of pollution controls at various mills, and the Dutch Parliament even recently banned subsidies for new biomass plants. As well, the European Union is expected to announce sometime this year, new regulations for sourcing wood pellets. Regardless, the industry in the southeastern United States continues to grow, with permits recently filed for a dozen new mills, according to the Southern Environmental Law Center. According to Consuelo Brandeis, a research forester with the United States Forest Service, “about 3 percent of harvested wood from the South goes to pellets,” sourced from a rural “patchwork of mostly privately owned hardwood forests, swamps, farms, small towns and pine trees.”
Analysis
Wood pellets are primarily used to replace coal as a fuel for generating electricity. Seth Ginther, executive director of the United States Industrial Pellet Association, says wood pellets are a “low-cost, low-carbon alternative” to coal and that “wood biomass is lower in sulfur, nitrogen, ash, chlorine, and other chemicals than coal and traditional fossil fuels.” William Schlesinger, a biogeochemist and member of the US Environmental Protection Agency advisory board, admits that “burning wood can result in lower emissions than coal if managed and certified properly and could be used as a “bridge fuel” as solar and wind energy continues to expand.” However, Schlesinger says, “When you cut down existing trees and burn them, you immediately put carbon dioxide in the air. None of the companies can guarantee they can regrow untouched forest to capture the same amount of carbon released. The whole renewable forest industry is kind of a hoax in terms of its benefit as climate mitigation.”
Tim Searchinger, a researcher at Princeton, agrees with Schlesinger, calling it “a critical climate accounting error.” Searchinger says, “Wood is a sucky fuel,” noting that “Wood releases more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity produced than coal or gas, and a newly planted tree can take decades to reabsorb the carbon dioxide emitted by burning.” This miscalculation also fails to consider the emissions associated with shipping the pellets all the way to Europe. Schlesinger says, “If you burn young trees and regrow them, it might not be too bad. If you venture into older trees or forests that have never been cut before, that can be very bad. … Philosophically it looks good but practically it looks pretty bad in many cases.”
When Enviva, the self-proclaimed world’s largest pellet producer, opened its first mill in Ahoskie, North Carolina, in 2011, the company promised it would source its wood primarily from “wood residues [(or waste wood)], such as treetops, branches and sawdust with no other market.” Jennifer Jenkins, Enviva’s Chief Sustainability Officer, says the company’s sourcing is sustainable because “it buys only from landowners who commit to regrow trees, and because the Southeast’s forests overall are expanding.” Jenkins also argues that “Pellet demand creates an incentive for landowners … to grow more trees, which suck up more carbon, offsetting the carbon dioxide emitted from power plant smokestacks.”
Some forestry experts and economists agree with Jenkins, but many environmental groups, including the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Southern Environmental Law Center, and the Dogwood Alliance, an environmental nonprofit based in Asheville, North Carolina, are less optimistic. Some report that “they have documented truckloads of logs and whole trees, not just leftovers, entering pellet mills.” Derb Carter, a lawyer for the Southern Environmental Law Center, says, he and colleagues “have tracked some of Enviva’s source material to bottomland forests that have some of the nation’s highest tree biodiversity.” In 2016, the southeastern Atlantic Coastal Plain was declared a “biodiversity hotspot,” recognized for “both its unique plant species and its rate of habitat loss.”
Accusations of Enviva’s bottomland hardwood harvesting concerns Bob Abt, professor of natural resource economics and management at North Carolina State University. Abt says using hardwood trees from bottomlands results in a different carbon calculation” than when using softwoods. He says, “Using these species of trees requires a much longer time to make up for the released carbon, as bottomland hardwoods grow more slowly.” As Gert-Jan Nabuurs, a professor of forest resources at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, calculates, “the Southeast might be able to sustainably supply 35 million metric tons of pellets annually, roughly three times today’s production capacity.” However, as Nabuurs notes, “pellets cannot replace fossil fuels.” He says, “If indeed the whole world starts to ask for pellets, then things go out of control, … That’s very obvious.”
However, Enviva and many private landowners see the challenge as an opportunity. Jenkins is correct that demand for wood pellets incentivizes landowners to grow more trees, but that is not as idyllic as it sounds. One such landowner, Owen Strickler, owns 6,000 acres of woods in Virginia, described by Enviva as a model system for sustainable sourcing. Strickler has planted his acreage into “a mosaic of different-age loblolly pine stands.” In this system, “When one area is harvested, Mr. Strickler sprays the native hardwoods that pop up with herbicide and plants more fast-growing loblollies.” The softwood loblolly pines are useful in that they sequester carbon much faster than native hardwoods, but their cultivation encourages the use of herbicide and discourages the proliferation of native forests. Such a model could prove promising on land already disturbed and open, such as fallow farmland, but if this system requires existing hardwood forest to be clear cut first, it may lose its credit of sustainability.
Francisco X. Aguilar, a researcher at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Umea, recently led a study measuring the carbon held in forests of the Southeastern United States. He found that the forests in areas surrounding existing pellet mills are holding on to more carbon than other forests further away, but he points out that his data “revealed potentially concerning trends.” Aguilar says his study found “fewer standing dead trees and losses of carbon from the soil of forests near mills in the Southeast, suggesting the pellet industry may be taking wood that otherwise would have decomposed on site, feeding the soil.”
Enviva claims it now only harvests wood from bottomlands “it considers non sensitive and that these provide only 1 percent of its supply.” The company says its sourcing practices now go above and beyond industry standards, and it disputes multiple claims by the Dogwood Alliance that trees are being harvested from sensitive wet bottomlands.
Supporters of the industry commend the much-needed creation of rural jobs, noting that the industry in the southeastern U.S. “employs more than 1,000 people directly, and has boosted local logging and trucking businesses.” Opponents, however, point out that, according to an analysis by the Dogwood Alliance, pellet mills “are 50 percent more likely to be located near “environmental justice-designated” communities, defined as counties with above-average poverty levels and a population that’s at least 25 percent nonwhite.”
Kathy Claiborne, a resident of Garysburg, N.C., one of the state’s poorest counties and largely African American, says, “I can’t even recall the last time I had a good night’s sleep,” due to the noise coming from the nearby pellet mill that arrived in 2013 and runs non-stop. Claiborne also says she wears a mask when she goes outdoors, “because dust from the plant can make it hard to breathe.” Residents located near pellet mills in other parts of the Southeast complain of air pollution and new respiratory illnesses as well.
Lisa Sanchez, a resident of Woodville in East Texas, also home to the large German Pellets manufacturing plant, says she was always in good health until the pellet mill arrived. She says when the mill began operating, “I started having a lot of respiratory problems, I was getting sick all the time,” adding that she wouldn’t open the windows because “the air felt more sooty than fresh.” Sanchez says she is “not anti-industry but believes that regulations need to be tightened.” Additionally, a number of pellet mills have been found to pose a danger to both the environment and humans in more ways than one. “An analysis by the Environmental Integrity Project found that at least eight of the 15 largest US wood pellet facilities have had fires or explosions since 2014, while 21 mills exporting to Europe emit excessive greenhouse gases and pollutants.”
It is accepted by most that if done properly and at a limited scale, the wood pellet industry can act as an effective temporary supplement to other renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar. However, the debate is still out as to the industry’s viability as a sustainable large-scale energy source. At least 500 ecologists, conservationists, and other scientists have written to various heads of state, including President Biden, “urging them to reject wood burning as a tool for fighting climate change.” Perhaps we should heed the words of over 100 of those scientists who wrote in a letter to the governor of North Carolina, “Removing the carbon dioxide emitted from burning trees for electricity requires waiting decades to a century for trees to regrow. Not only are those offsets not verifiable nor enforceable, we cannot afford to wait that long: to stave off the worst effects of climate change, it is imperative that we reduce emissions and increase our forest carbon sinks now.”
Action Resources
The Dogwood Alliance – Dogwood Alliance
- For over 25 years, Dogwood Alliance has worked with diverse communities, partner organizations and decision makers to protect Southern forests across 14 states. They do this through community and grassroots organizing, holding corporations and governments accountable and working to conserve millions of acres of Southern forests.
The National Resources Defense Council – NRDC
- Whether in California or Chicago, India, or Canada, we help protect communities around the world. We combine the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and advocates with the power of more than three million members and online activists to confront our planet’s most pressing problems.
The Southern Environmental Law Center – Southern Environmental Law Center
- The mission of the Southern Environmental Law Center is to protect the basic right to clean air, clean water, and a livable climate; to preserve our region’s natural treasures and rich biodiversity; and to provide a healthy environment for all.
References
Dart, T., & Milman, O. (2018, June 30). The dirty little secret behind ‘clean energy’ wood pellets. Retrieved May 09, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/30/wood-pellets-biomass-environmental-impact
Drouin, R. (2015, January 22). Wood pellets: Green energy or new source of CO2 emissions? Retrieved May 09, 2021, from https://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions
Popkin, G., & Schaff, E. (2021, April 19). There’s a booming business in America’s forests. Some aren’t happy about it. Retrieved May 09, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/19/climate/wood-pellet-industry-climate.html
Schlesinger, W., et al. (2017, November 15). Scientist’s Letter to Governor Cooper [Letter written November, 2017 to Governor Roy A. Cooper III]. Retrieved May 9, 2021, from https://www.dogwoodalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Scientist-Letter-to-Governor-Cooper_11-15_2017.pdf
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.