JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
How Effective Are Our Global Organizations?
Brief #125 – Foreign Policy
By Ailín Goode
The United States has been an active member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) since its creation in January 1995. As of 2019, the U.S. had been a party in 179 cases managed using WTO dispute settlement procedures. It remains active in the creation and maintenance of the agreements set for by WTO to organize and govern world trade.
Star Wars: The Weaponization of Space
Brief #60 – Technology
By Henry Lenard
Even as space commerce soars to new heights, it appears the world continues to gird itself for the inevitability of warfare in the heavens. At the official opening of the new UK Space Command on July 30, two top British military officers directly criticized China and Russia for their “reckless” behavior in space, such as using weapons to destroy satellites. That activity has left a trail of dangerous space debris in Earth’s orbit.
The two commanders also left open the possibility that the UK could develop its own weapons to defend assets in space for the first time.
Are We Going to Need Booster Shots of the Covid Vaccine?
Brief # 121 – Health and Gender
By S Bhimji
There is no longer any question about the efficacy of Covid vaccines. Most studies indicate that they prevent severe disease, hospitalization and death. However, breakthrough infections are being reported with a higher frequency. A few months ago, there were only a few sporadic reports but now it appears the numbers are rising.
An Update on Efforts to Reform the Police
Brief #21 – Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
Statistics show that black people are three times more likely to be killed by police than white people, which is why police reform and rebuilding trust between law enforcement and minorities is so important in today’s climate. Local leaders have proposed using the funds to expand law enforcement, invest in social services, or develop technology used to prevent gun violence.
Space Tourism Puts Focus Back on Commercialization of the Outer Limits
Brief #59 – Technology
By Henry Lenard
The successful space tourism flights of Richard Branson aboard his Virgin Galactic craft and Jeff Bezos on his Blue Origin rocket have drawn new attention to what is happening in the skies above us. It also has many asking the question who has oversight of commercial ventures in space.
US Makes Vaccine Available to Overseas Visitors
Brief #120 – Health and Gender
By S. Bhimji
Because of the high cost of healthcare in the USA, for much of the past 20 years, many Americans have sought medical care abroad going as far as India for heart surgery, Thailand for massage therapy, to Israel for liposuction, and so on. In addition, many Americans have undergone cosmetic and weight loss surgery in Central American countries and Europe. The cost of healthcare in these nations is only a fraction of what it would cost in the USA.
Spyware Technology: A Global Threat top Democracy and Human Rights
Brief #58 – Technology Policy
By Scout Burchill
A flurry of articles have recently been published on the Israeli based cyber-surveillance company NSO Group thanks to a recent leak exposed by Forbidden Stories, a collaborative non-profit journalist organization, which revealed a list of about 50,000 phone numbers alleged to have been targeted by the company’s Pegasus surveillance software.
Global Perspectives: Nigeria: A Case Study In The Slow Creep of Digital Authoritarianism
Brief #57 – Technology
By Scout Burchill
On June 4th, the Nigerian government announced an “indefinite suspension” of Twitter after the social media company deleted a controversial tweet by Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari. The Nigerian government’s Twitter ban and its recent history of attempts to more stringently regulate online speech present a cautionary tale about the rise of digital authoritarianism.
Moving Forward After U.S. Withdrawal in Afghanistan
Brief # 125 – Foreign Policy
By Avery Roe
Despite widespread criticism, The Biden Administration has restated its commitment that the United States military mission in Afghanistan will conclude on August 31st. This comes after the Trump Administration made an agreement with the Taliban to remove all American forces by May 1, 2021, a large part of the stated rationale for President Biden’s decision.
New Top Dogs, Same Old Tricks: Uncovering the Power of Big Tech, Part 2
Technology Brief #45
New Top Dogs, Same Old Tricks: Uncovering the Power of Big Tech, Part 2
Beware the Guise of Progressivism
By Scout Burchill
April 24, 2021
Summary:
What exactly does progressivism mean nowadays? This question is worth thinking about as a consortium of tech companies have recently announced the creation of a business association called the Chamber of Progress. Positioning itself as a center-left progressive organization, it is funded by tech companies like Amazon, Facebook, Doordash, Google, Grubhub, Instacart, Twitter, Uber, Zillow and a few others. Their website describes the partnership as “a new tech industry coalition devoted to a progressive society, economy, workforce, and consumer climate.”
Beyond advocating for progressive causes, the organization aims to steer the conversation around tech regulation and Section 230, of which they oppose any reform or repeal. The Chamber’s first official policy engagement is to support the passage of two recent voting rights legislation bills (the “For the People Act” and the “John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act”) and to condemn voter suppression proposals that are currently pending in 43 states.
Analysis:
Beware the guise of progressivism. At face value, it is hard to be critical of an organization currently advocating for voting rights, however, one quick peek below the surface proves that the Chamber of Progress is just another example of Big Tech’s massive influence campaign on American politics and society. The Chamber is an exemplary case study in how progressive causes and the language of progressivism has been co-opted by corporate interests, especially over the past few years, signaling a somewhat strange but potentially momentous shift in the mainstream cultural and political landscape. The term woke washing has emerged to describe this phenomenon.
At the heart of this phenomenon is a schism between economic progressivism and cultural progressivism. True progressivism bridges this schism by melding issues of representation and injustice with an understanding of the economic system and the structures of power that produce suffering, exploitation and inequality. By adopting the language of social justice advocacy and the aesthetics of cultural progressivism, corporations and powerful people are learning to leverage the social capital of the progressive movement in order to amplify their power and cushion their bottom lines.
There are countless examples that illustrate this dynamic. For one, the Chamber claims to advocate for a more progressive workforce. Based on the track records of its corporate funders, this could mean literally anything. As previously covered here (see Tech Brief #25), tech companies like Uber, Instacart and Doordash led a massive push to defeat Prop 22 in California, which would have extended employee protections to ride-share drivers. Many tech companies profit enormously from the gig economy, offering no benefits, healthcare or protections to precarious workers often toiling for pay below the minimum wage. Some might call this innovation, progressives call it exploitation. Amazon’s notorious anti-union busting efforts are well documented and further call into question the Chamber’s meaning of a progressive workforce (see Tech Briefs #27 & #40). Needless to say, this type of exploitation disproportionately affects poor to working class black and brown communities.
Real progressivism aims to challenge centers of power and advance a vision of society in which freedom, prosperity and dignity is possible for all. The original progressive movement was forged out of the excesses of the Gilded Age. The second industrial revolution which started in the late 1800s led to an astounding degree of wealth inequality that concentrated power in the hands of a small group of elites. Think Rockefellers, Carnegies, Vanderbilts, Fords, etc. As growing corporate power threatened individual freedom as well as the opportunity to make a dignified living, progressive reformers emerged to fight for a more equitable society and a fairer economic system for poor and working class people.
President Biden has warned of the dangers of the fourth industrial revolution, or the digital revolution, and the perils it poses to middle and working class Americans. The parallels between our current political and societal ills and that of the Gilded Age are obvious to many and perhaps this is why progressivism is having such a moment in the spotlight. This reality however makes the tech world’s constant woke washing and progressive camouflaging particularly perverse and pernicious. If the richest men in the world are suddenly all progressives, then what does progressivism even mean?
The linguistic similarity between the Chamber of Progress and the Chamber of Commerce, one of the most powerful pro-business lobbying groups in Washington, may be merely a fluke, but it is revealing nonetheless. There is a seismic shift currently underway in our societal landscape. Movement Conservatism, the right-wing coalition made up of neoconservatives and the religious right which established political and cultural dominance under President Reagan, is beginning to unravel. In other words, the Republican Party is grasping at straws and in total disarray. Once the party of limitless deregulation, business friendly policies, and anti-government screeds, the Republican party is now engaging in an outright war of words with corporations who publicly denounce the party’s embrace of the “Big Lie” and its recent bevy of attacks on voting rights. Many in the party accuse these corporations of bowing to the ‘woke mob’ and are openly threatening to withhold corporate welfare. Their reactionary politics lacks a coherent vision and their old playbook of cutting taxes for the rich and pandering to the religious right is looking less and less feasible as a political strategy.
The political and cultural winds have shifted and progressivism is now in vogue. The centers of capital and economic power in the country have begun to coalesce around a new vision of a “progressive” society. Of course there is some sense of progress in this shifting landscape, however, there is still plenty to be wary of.
Learn More:
Chamber of Progress’ official site
Axios reporting on Chamber
American Economic Liberties Project on Chamber of Progress
Brief History of Progressivism
https://www.britannica.com/topic/progressivism
Interview with Chamber of Progress’ Founder Alex Kovacevich
https://www.protocol.com/policy/democrats-google-policy-head-kovacevich
President Biden on the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Movement Conservatism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_conservatism
Republican Mob Tactics
American Withdrawal From Afghanistan
Brief # 108 Foreign Policy
American Withdrawal From Afghanistan
By Will Solomon
April 23, 2021
Policy Summary:
Last week, President Biden announced plans for an American military withdrawal from Afghanistan by September 11 of this year. The date will mark the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the events that precipitated the invasion of that country, and the catalyst for what subsequently became the longest-running war in American history. Biden’s announcement was received largely positively, both by those who have demanded the withdrawal for a long time (Biden himself once stated that America would leave Afghanistan by 2014) and even by some more traditionally hawkish members of the national security establishment, who recognize the war has lost popular support and legitimacy, and is in practice un-winnable.
This is not to say approval was universal: a significant sector of the national security state would evidently be content with a drawn-out occupation, and many neoconservatives—Max Boot, Bill Kristol, Liz Cheney, and others—have been vocal in their opposition to Biden’s plan. There are also reservations from the anti-war sector: many contend that Biden’s announcement obscures the heavy unofficial American military presence, in the form of special forces, drones, and mercenaries and other contractors who will remain after American troops leave. Across the spectrum, there is also concern for the direction Afghanistan may go, even if clear solutions to avoiding outcomes like a Taliban takeover are not readily apparent.
Ultimately, Biden’s decision was overdue and necessary, if possibly insufficient—in part because of the reality of American special forces and contractors who will remain and have even less oversight than would a proper military presence. In this light, Afghanistan could well become a theatre of American warfare more akin to Somalia, or Yemen. Ultimately, the best hope for lasting peace in Afghanistan may involve multilateral negotiations, particularly with the support and involvement of states that border Afghanistan—particularly Pakistan, Iran, and China.
Analysis:
The American War in Afghanistan has clearly been lost for quite some time, perhaps doomed since inception. Afghanistan, colloquially known as the “graveyard of empires,” has been historically near-impossible to effectively occupy. The Americans are only the latest iteration in a pattern than included the British and Soviet Union, among others. Even the Taliban, ruling the country in the 1990s, could not exercise control over vast swaths of Afghanistan.
A neat assessment of the Afghanistan War is difficult but it must, in sum, be deemed a failure. The Taliban will likely return to power after a 20-year interim, and new Jihadist groups like ISIS have, for now, gained a foothold in the country. Supporters of the war may point to social progress, women’s rights, improvements in education, and other reforms—which are not to be blithely dismissed—as evidence of its successes. However, it must be remembered that, first, this was not the objective of the war—the purpose was (officially) to dislodge al-Qaeda—and second and more pragmatically, the price at which these reforms came has been impossible to maintain: a constant insurgency, a weak and corrupt central state, a thriving drug trade, and ongoing civilian and military casualties.
As Americans, our chief concern ought to be our role and responsibility in destabilizing that region. Has the American presence in Afghanistan been beneficial or harmful for the Afghan people, and the American people? This question cannot be seriously answered without considering the indescribable brutality of the American occupation—which has included everything from training death squads to attacking hospitals. (For this reason among others, the presence of mercenaries and special forces in the country, with even less accountability than regular troops, is particularly troubling, especially if the war further recedes from American consciousness).
It should also be acknowledged that the American public was systematically lied to about this war for most of its duration. As the almost immediately-forgotten Afghanistan Papers revealed, the military and members of the national security state were aware for much of the war’s length that it was effectively un-winnable—and they lied to the public and manipulated data to obscure this fact and suggest the war was having successes.
In short—it is important and a (hopefully) positive step that American troops will withdraw (although it is worth considering that September 11 of this year will be too late for the Taliban, who oppose the extension of the May 1 withdrawal date that was negotiated by the Trump administration). But at least Biden is not fully disregarding the plan to withdraw. There are no entirely easy answers here, and this Brief hardly offers a comprehensive assessment of the conflict in Afghanistan—but it is clear that American troops are doing more harm than good, and it is past time for them to leave.
Engagement 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://aboutfaceveterans.org — “We are Post-9/11 service members and veterans organizing to end a foreign policy of permanent war and the use of military weapons, tactics, and values in communities across the country. As people intimately familiar with the inner workings of the world’s largest military, we use our knowledge and experiences to expose the truth about these conflicts overseas and the growing militarization in the United States.”
Derek Chauvin Found Guilty in Trial over George Floyd’s Death
Brief # 104 Social Justice
Derek Chauvin Found Guilty in Trial over George Floyd’s Death
By Erika Shannon
April 24, 2021
For almost a month, the nation has been watching the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. He was on trial for murdering 46-year-old George Floyd; the unfortunate events leading to Floyd’s death unfolded when police were called to a convenience store over a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill. Former officer Chauvin responded to this call (with 3 other Minneapolis police officers), and ended up kneeling on George Floyd, cutting off his air supply for approximately 9 minutes and 29 seconds.
On April 20th, Derek Chauvin was found guilty on all three counts that he was facing in the trial: unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. Sentencing will be in eight weeks, and while the charges collectively add up to 75 years in prison, focus will be on the most serious charge of second-degree murder. This charge carries with it up to 40 years in prison. Many are holding their breath and hoping for the maximum sentence possible.
It is undeniably true that the American justice system has failed people of color time and time again; most recently, there has been a failure to prosecute law enforcement officers who have killed minorities in the line of duty. According to research by Bowling Green State University from 2005-2019, 104 nonfederal sworn law enforcement officers with general powers of arrest were arrested for murder or manslaughter resulting from an on-duty shooting where the officer shot and killed someone. Of those 104 who were arrested, only 35 were convicted of a crime resulting from the on-duty shooting, and only four officers were convicted of murder.
While the research does not indicate race of those killed by the police, there is a disturbing trend nonetheless. We have seen these cops slip through the cracks when they should have been sitting in jail. A prime example of this are the officers involved in the March 2020 death of Breonna Taylor in Kentucky; the officer who fired the deadly shot was charged, but not for her murder. Instead, he was charged with “wanton endangerment” for firing into a neighboring apartment. Derek Chauvin did not get off as easy as his Kentucky counterparts, and he will actually pay for his crime.
The guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin may have some impact on policing, as well as racial justice issues, here in the U.S. Cops like Derek Chauvin may not be the majority of police in America; however, his actions reflect poorly on the police profession.
In his trial, we witnessed his own co-workers and chief of police testify that his actions were not in accordance with department policy. It is about time that police officers stop hiding the truth for one another so that there can be accountability within police departments. Cops exist to uphold the law, and it seems they need a reminder that they are not above the law themselves. With this guilty verdict is the hope that we will see police officers check one another on their misconduct, and there is the hope that we will see the justice system hold police accountable for their unjustifiable killings of unarmed civilians.
Racial tensions are high in America, and a lack of racial sensitivity in police forces around the country is not helping matters. We need to take the legal steps to ensure that police are held accountable for their actions, including ending the practice of qualified immunity for police officers, and enacting tighter and transparent standards for their use of deadly force.
ENGAGEMENT RESOURCES
- For more information and articles regarding Derek Chauvin’s trial, visit The Marshall Project criminal justice webpage.
To view court documents related to Derek Chauvin’s trial, visit the Minnesota Judicial Branch webpage
Our Migrant Workforce: Who Are They? How Did They Get Here?
Immigration Policy Brief #121
Our Migrant Workforce: Who Are They? How Did They Get Here?
By Kathryn Baron
April 22, 2021
Policy Summary
Migrant workers support the US economy providing American industries like agriculture and technology the critical labor force they need to prosper. In 2019, more than 900,000 temporary foreign workers visas were granted, compared to only 400,000 in 1994. During lockdown measures in 2020, Trump suspended all temporary work visas to ensure public health safety.
The first migrant labor program came during WWI due to severe labor shortages and drew in agricultural laborers primarily from Mexico. In 1952, lawmakers attempted to regulate and consolidate temporary visa regulations into a comprehensive Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which introduced the H2 visa (the precursor to the H1B). There are currently 4 types of H-visas for temporary workers (with the 4th being for spouses and unmarried children of H-visa recipients). See below for an explanation of the different H type visas that that are used by migrant workers.
Of the roughly 2.4 million farmworkers in the US, up to 70% (1.68 MILLION) are undocumented. An additional 200,000 come seasonally under H2A visas. California, Iowa, Nebraska, Texas, and Minnesota are the biggest producers of crops and livestock, and are heavily reliant on cheap labor by migrant workers predominantly from Mexico and Central America. Agriculture contributes to around 5% of American GDP, with US farms contributing at least $133 billion of that.
Undocumented workers (illegal immigrants) make up 5.5 million of essential workers in the US. Since they are undocumented, they do not enjoy any benefits or protections that would ensure job security and are often employed ‘at-will,’ meaning they can be fired with little justification or explanation. (Note that it is illegal for an employer to hire an undocumented immigrant.) They are not members of labor unions and/or may sometimes be paid informally. Nearly a million of undocumented workers work in restaurants and are vital to daily functions and operations, pandemic notwithstanding.
A Primer on Migrant Worker Visas
The first, an H1B visa, is for workers in fields requiring special knowledge. There is a 3-year limit, eligible for a one-time renewal. H1B visas are predominantly for individuals in computer, software engineering, and tech consulting with the top 3 countries of origin being India, China, and Mexico. In recent years, it has switched to a lottery system due to overwhelming quantities of applicants, far exceeding the 85,000 annual cap. Corporate executives have pushed for the government to expand the program rather than resorting to a lottery system, as it puts major American companies at a disadvantage. Some major corporations find the H1B visa recipients to be crucial for making up for the shortage of qualified domestic applicants.
The second, an H2A visa,is for seasonal/temporary agricultural workers working predominantly in general farm work and industries like tobacco, oranges, and cotton. The top 3 countries of origin are Mexico, Jamaica, and South Africa. There are no annual caps for these visas, but their duration only lasts for one year with up to 3 consecutive renewals. Under H2A visas, employers cover housing and international travel, but provide relatively low wages and little job security benefits such as paid sick leave and time off. Housing conditions are often deplorable, with the federal guidelines dictating a 40-square-feet requirement per person, roughly the size of a large closet. Similarly, the H2B visa, for seasonal/temporary workers not in agricultural sectors, has the same duration and renewal limits. Most H2B holders are from Mexico, Jamaica, and Guatemala and work in landscaping, forestry, and housekeeping. In 2018, for the first time, the H2B visas system switched to a lottery system. Many employers find the H2A and H2B visas to be inefficient and inflexible.
To issue and obtain H-visas require several steps and involves several executive agencies. Employers must first obtain a certification from the Department of Labor and prove there are no qualified or available workers within the US for the positions necessary. They then file a nonimmigrant worker petition with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services on behalf of prospective workers. Once approved, workers apply to their local US embassy for a visa and interview with Consular officers, usually entailing provision of evidence they intend to return to their country of origin.
Analysis
Migrant workers have been vilified and falsely accused of stealing American jobs, and exploited by employers across sectors. However, they are arguably the backbone of the agriculture and service industry and play a pivotal role in guaranteeing food supply stability. During the COVID-19 pandemic, employers have had to adjust to accommodate social distancing measures. Migrant workers, especially those who work in agriculture, are routinely exposed to pesticides which makes them potentially immunocompromised and more at-risk for COVID-19.
Migrant workers, most of whom were already in the US due to the temporary visa freeze, were deemed essential during COVID-19, but most lacked access to essential benefits and protections like decent wages, overtime pay, and health insurance. The US reaps the benefits of being the “melting pot of risk-takers.” Our immigration system needs reform – most Americans can agree, regardless of party affiliation. The Biden Administration should aim to simultaneously strengthen management of the border while providing pathways to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already here and increasing quotas for legal immigrants. Being too lax will overwhelm the system and force xenophobic or even slightly immigration conservative voters to opt for stricter border and immigration laws regardless of the implications.
Engagement Resources
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
- Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
- Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): Through the Department of Homeland Security’s website, this link provides additional information regarding the Obama era program.
Is Broadband Internet Access for All Possible? Ask the Biden Administration
Brief #43 – Technology
Is Broadband Internet Access for All Possible? Ask the Biden Administration
By Charles A. Rubin
April 20,2021
Policy Summary
The Biden administration infrastructure bill will prioritize broadband expansion as a top goal. The plan earmarks $100 billion to bring affordable internet to all Americans by 2029.
The plan’s goals are to reach 100% high-speed broadband coverage across the US by prioritizing broadband networks owned, operated by, or affiliated with local governments, non-profits, and cooperatives. The emphasis of this plan is to not make this endeavor the province of big tech for which the Biden administration has a healthy mistrust. The scope is on a scale as such projects as rural electrification during the administration of FDR. Is it enough?
Analysis
According to Microsoft, who did a study of the broadband gap in 2020, 157.3 million people in the US do not access the internet at broadband speeds and, according to BroadbandNow, who has advocated for universal broadband access since 2015, at least 42 million people do not have internet access at all.
The implication of this technology shortcoming has become more stark as the COVID 19 pandemic has dragged on into its 2nd year. Millions of people today aren’t just being left behind, they’re being left out of everyday life. While many have the luxury of working from home, using telehealth services or attending classes remotely, huge swaths of the country are forced to drive long distances to pick up schoolwork or camp out in public library parking lots to access Wi-Fi.
The digital divide is a multifaceted problem. Closing the gap requires attention to both availability and affordability: subsidizing construction of networks in places where the business case does not support investment and providing assistance to low-income families that have access to broadband networks but cannot afford the monthly service and equipment needed to get online.
This is where the Biden plan is transformational. While big tech is likely to reap some benefit in terms of equipment sales and services, the main thrust of the plan is providing local governments, not-for-profits and cooperatives the tools to build networks to serve their communities. This is a long overdue recognition that connectivity is not a luxury but an essential service that all citizens are entitled to.
There is also a danger of relying on the public sector too heavily. Information technology is a rapidly changing field and the technologies to provide services and equipment to unserved and underserved areas are ever-evolving. The Biden plan needs to incorporate the flexibility to adopt new equipment and modalities as they become available, accurately define what connectivity speeds are acceptable and be cognizant of when those requirements shift.
It is an admirable goal to get everyone connected but we need to be aware that the definition of connectivity could change and agility is as important as coverage. Ten years ago, DSL was a relatively cheap and acceptable way to access the internet. Today, a family trying to school, work and carry on household functions would be crippled by using DSL. The oublic access strategy that emerges needs to have the ability to adopt, whatever is coming next, built in.
Engagement Resources
- Microsoft has extensively studied the broadband gap in the United States
- BroadbandNow analyzes government data and helps consumers find internet connectivity alternatives
- org is an nonprofit organization dedicated to helping all kids thrive in a world of media and technology
Reunited; Science and Government… And It feels so good.
Brief # 112 Environment Policy
Reunited; Science and Government… And It feels so good.
Written by: Shannon Q. Elliott
April 20, 2021
Biden and Harris walked into a cyclone of environmental ludicrousness as they entered The White House. The previous four years disavowed regulatory science, and neglected to create policies which would support public health and the environment. The policies enacted during the Trump era are now being reevaluated via Executive Order (EO) “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” Under the EO, federal agencies will vet existing environmental policies, vowing to hold polluters accountable, and discuss innovative ways in which to restore and confront environmental crisis.
Policy
As a result of President Biden’s EO; several Trump era environmental policies have been rescinded by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The mission of the CEQ is to work within the Executive Office to improve and protect American public health as well as the environment. The CEQ will work alongside entities such as (but not limited to) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), United States Forest Service, United States Department of Energy, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service taking immediate steps to set forth consistent and relevant law which prioritizes national health and environmental justice. In the meantime, Trump rollbacks will continue to remain active until each agency agrees on how to move forward with appropriate actions to sequester greenhouse gases.
One of the most significant pieces of legislation undergoing CEQ and EPA review, is The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Enacted in 1970, NEPA requires federal agencies to “act as trustees of the environment for succeeding generations.” EPA.gov puts it simply “This policy requires the federal government to use all practicale means to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony.”
The language of NEPA was reworked under Trump in 2020 favoring the oil and gas industries. Void of public morality, Trump declared war on the scientific community when he tailored the 50-year-old legislation to ease permitting processes for large corporations and their multimillion-dollar infrastructure projects. Trump insisted that the environmental “red tape” was unnecessary and the hurdles put in place to conserve natural resources stifled jobs and economic growth.
Trump’s refusal to acknowledge the linkage between modern science and the declining health of the environment, soured the relationship between scientific scholars and the federal government. It became evident that the now ex-President had no intentions of incorporating intellectual studies that would protect our decaying country. Tensions escalated, and practical safeguards were ignored. At the peak of the Trump presidency, emissions soared to their highest number since 2014, totaling 5.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide dispersed into the atmosphere.
Analysis
The White House website states that “President Biden will take swift action to tackle the climate emergency. The Biden Administration will ensure we meet the demands of science, while empowering American workers and businesses to lead a clean energy revolution.”
We must have an administration in place that respects the opinions of those who have dedicated their lives studying environmental impacts. They will be the ones to most accurately depict how to move forward combating environmental damage attributed to climate change, rising greenhouse emissions and other “acts of god” which are a direct result of environmental negligence.
Biden is hopeful that the changes mandated in the E.O. will repair the relationship with the scientific community. He is asking them to take a leadership role in the ratification of environmental policies, which will play a vital role in present and future policy reconstruction. Failure to mend frayed relationships between government and science could have devastating consequences for future public policy making.
The Executive Order ““Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” can be found Here
Learn More:
Friedman, L. (2021, March). EPA to review attacks on science under Trump. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/03/24/nation/epa-review-attacks-science-under-trump/
Gardner, T. (2021). Trump’s EPA finalizes last minute limits on science used in rulemaking. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-science/trumps-epa-finalizes-last-minute-limits-on-science-used-in-rulemaking-idUSKBN29A0BY
Hahn, J. (2020, July). Trump’s NEPA Rollback Favors More Pollution and Less Community Input. https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/trumps-nepa-rollback-favors-more-pollution-and-less-community-input
National Environmental Law Center https://nelconline.org/
Project NEPA https://protectnepa.org/
The White House https://www.whitehouse.gov/
Biden and the Conflict in Ukraine
Foreign Policy
Brief #108
Biden and the Conflict in Ukraine
By Will Solomon
April 15,2021
Summary:
The last several weeks have seen a significant escalation of tensions in Eastern Ukraine, a focal point of confrontation between the United States/NATO, and Russia. It has been reported that Russia has amassed troops on the Ukrainian border, with some estimates suggesting as many as 40,000 are currently stationed there. Russia has publicly claimed their troop movements are due to NATO provocations. Much of Eastern Ukraine, a predominately Russian-speaking region, has been effectively controlled by Russian-backed separatists since 2014.
In response, the European Union, United States, and NATO have assured Ukraine of support. Ukraine is not a NATO member, but the US has supplied weapons to the country, and NATO has been involved with training of Ukrainian military units.
Because Eastern Ukraine has become a focal point for antagonism between Russia and the West, the conflict conveys both immense symbolic importance, and potentially, were it to escalate, the alarming prospect of more severe military confrontation.
Analysis:
The situation in Ukraine is complex and difficult to understand without knowledge of the long and complex history of the region. The history extends a long way, but of particular relevance was a deal apparently broached in 1990, during German reunification negotiations, that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe. This agreement was fairly quickly abrogated by NATO, as numerous former Warsaw Pact countries were brought into the organization. While Ukraine is not presently a NATO member, membership has been a prospect for over a decade. Popular support for joining has evidently grown in recent years, and many segments of Ukrainian leadership clearly desire membership.
Historically and presently, major geopolitical rivalries have acknowledged spheres of influence and the maintenance of delicate balances of power. Ukraine has a particularly close historical relationship with Russia, and so the prospect of further NATO encroachment on the Russian border is understandably seen as a threat to the Putin regime. This is not to suggest Russian movement in Ukraine is justified, but to recognize the conflict exists within a complex set of international relationships, and that NATO and the US have some role in creating the current situation. (Notably, for these and other reasons, at the start of the present conflict in 2014, President Obama chose not to supply Ukraine directly with lethal weapons, so as not to exacerbate the conflict in that way—a policy rescinded by the Trump administration).
It might also be acknowledged that the development (and Western fostering) of Ukrainian nationalism, in opposition to Russia, has some ugly and volatile undercurrents. One has been the rise of an anti-Russian far right in Ukraine, symbolized by groups like the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. While hardly indicative of all opposition to Russia within Ukraine, such hardliners are increasingly legitimized by aggressive Western military support.
While many observers oppose Putin’s tactics, the fact remains that military confrontation between Russia and NATO could quickly spiral into catastrophe, and that the induction of Ukraine into NATO—are going to fuel a budding US/Russia confrontation. Again, despite American and Western opinions of Putin, Russia maintains the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, in a world in which nuclear regulatory agreements are increasingly coming apart, and nuclear modernization and even re-armament are proceeding dangerously.
Biden has generally taken a hard line towards Russia, both through his campaign and early presidency. Just last month, he controversially referred to Putin as a “killer” in an interview, prompting the Russians to recall their ambassador. This said, recent reports suggest Biden has made some diplomatic overture to Putin in the hopes of holding a summit on issues of joint interest: “The Kremlin said in its account of the call that Biden told Putin he wanted to normalize relations and to cooperate on arms control, Iran’s nuclear program, Afghanistan and climate change.” If true, this diplomatic rapprochement will presumably involve discussions around Ukraine, and will hopefully be a first step towards de-escalation in the region.
Engagement 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,
The Future of the Republican Party, Part 1
Brief # 17 Elections and Politics
The Future of the Republican Party, Part 1
by William Bourque
April 14, 2021
On January 20th, 2021, a large part of the country collectively sighed relief. After days of tumult and chaos, President Trump had finally left office, and for what felt like the first time in months, we could see a light at the end of the tunnel. However, we were quickly reminded that just because President Trump was out of office didn’t mean that his influence and rhetoric would disappear. However, throughout the past several months it has been made abundantly clear that the “Trumpism” is here to stay, at least for now. With that in mind we will begin an in-depth series on our predictions for the future of the Republican Party, whether that includes former President Trump or not.
Even before President Trump left office, we knew he would leave a lasting impact on the future of this nation. The January 6th insurrection was a shock to the system of every American, and it wasn’t hard to see that Trump was the root of all the hate that was spewed that day. However, it is notable to look at the reaction of many Republican Senators and Congresspeople after the insurrection. For most of them their first words weren’t to denounce the President, but rather to misdirect the attention to the left and, for folks like Josh Hawley, to continue to insist that the election was “stolen.”
With the Senate and House having a Democratic majority and Democrats controlling the house, Republicans have been scrambling to assert themselves in Congress with little success. Their former President hasn’t had much to say. Trump has made only a few public appearances since he left office, and in these appearances he hasn’t provided much new material, mostly just chatter about “Sleepy” President Biden and the “radical left.”
The Trump wing of the party has begun to lose a significant amount of credibility, with many coming under-fire for their support of the former President. Those like Josh Hawley, whose remarks after the insurrection drew heavy scrutiny, have stuck with their schtick of idolizing far right Trumpian policy and beliefs. Some more experienced members of the party, like minority leader Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham, have moved themselves away from Trump and his antics, with McConnell even actively promoting vaccination, which didn’t set right with Trump. Other, newer faces of the party, like representatives Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene, have taken to the way of Trump.
Boebert notably posted a video of herself carrying a pistol in and around the Capitol building, citing DC’s anti-conceal and carry laws as a violation of her second amendment rights. Eventually, Boebert did receive a permit to carry a weapon in the District of Columbia. Marjorie Taylor Greene, of Georgia, has also been a controversial “Trump Republican”, who has been nothing but trouble for her compatriots on the other side of the aisle. In fact, Taylor Greene has been a subject of conversations regarding expulsion from Congress, something that has only happened to 5 members, as recently as 2002.
The party seems to be splitting into a deep division, much like during the 2016 election cycle when the mainstream members of the party were divided in their support of Trump. The next several months will be critical in the development and formation of their platform that will ultimately frame who the party chooses to run for president. The division of Trumpian Republicans and those who are willing to work with President Biden will be a good measuring stick of where Republicans stand currently. We will be continuing this series on the future of the Republican party as we see how current issues begin to unfold.
The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act Can Help Fight Restrictive Voter Suppression Bills
Policy Summary: In 2013 the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in the Shelby County v. Holder case. The case was brought seeking to have Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 declared unconstitutional. The Voting Rights Act had been enacted to address racial discrimination in voting that had been a longstanding feature in a number of states, particularly in the Deep South.
Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act contained a “coverage formula” which was used to determine which states and political subdivisions would be subject to other provisions in the Act. The formula singled out states that had a long history of racial discrimination in voting. If states had a “test or device” that restricted voting and did not meet statistical parameters regarding the number of voters registered compared to the number of residents eligible to vote in a county then a state became subject to additional obligations under Section 5. Under Section 5, a state had to “pre-clear” with the Federal Government any changes that they wanted to make to their election law. The purpose was to allow the Federal Government a chance to look over the proposed change and make sure that the change was not racially discriminatory in any way. However, a number of states found the federal oversight an overreach of election administration matters that they believed belonged to the states alone. Plaintiffs in Shelby County, Alabama sued but lost in federal district court and on their appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. After appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the Court declared Section 4(b) unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the coverage formula in use applied to facts that existed forty years ago and were not applicable to the present day. Since 4(b) was declared unconstitutional, enforcing the “pre-clearance” process contained in Section 5 became impossible. The result was that states were now free to enact new election laws without having to get approval from the Federal Government.
The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act was first introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R.4 in the 116th Congress (2019 – 2021). No further action was taken on the bill. The bill has not been introduced in the current Congress although a number of Representatives have indicated the bill will be introduced soon and are now scheduling upcoming hearings for the bill when it eventually gets introduced. The bill will likely face an uphill battle in the Senate where most Republicans are opposed to the bill. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: While H.R.1 – the For The People Act – seeks to implement much needed reforms to a number of election laws issues (automatic voter registration, absentee ballots, election administration) the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act goes in a different direction and seeks to revive a voter protection procedure that had been rendered obsolete since 2013. The Supreme Court decision in the Shelby County case did not declare the “preclearance” process under Section 5 unconstitutional. What it did was render the coverage formula contained in Section 4(b) unconstitutional. The coverage formula was the necessary first step that got the preclearance process underway. In the aftermath of the Shelby County case states were now free to implement any election change, which is what happened. Many of the new election changes after 2013 were restrictive in nature. Voter ID laws were quickly passed (Texas, North Carolina) which likely would have run into opposition from the federal government had the preclearance process been utilized. Poll closures, voter purges and a reduction in early voting days and hours also followed. What became clear was that states could now, and did, enact election changes which made it more difficult to vote with some measures disproportionately affecting minority communities.
What the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act proposes to do is bring back a proven review process to halt or, at a minimum, scrutinize bills that may have a negative effect on minority communities. The years post – Shelby have shown that the stain of racial discrimination in the service of voter suppression is still present in a number of states. The John Lewis Act responds to the deficiencies that the Supreme Court listed in its Shelby decision. The coverage formula initially enacted deemed a state or political subdivision eligible for preclearance if there was a “test or device,” such as a literacy test, and turnout of registered voters was below 50% of those eligible to vote. The Court stated that the coverage formula from forty years ago does not speak to current conditions. The John Lewis Act proposes a new formula where instead of a statistic of a number of eligible voters voting a state would now be subject to Section 5 preclearance based on the number of voting rights violations. A state would have to comply with preclearance procedures if the state has had 15 or more voting violations in the prior twenty – five years or 10 or more voting violations of which one was committed by the state itself. Additionally, any political subdivision (local counties) that has had three or more in the prior twenty – five years would also be required to submit to Section 5 preclearance procedures. States that do not exceed the number of violations during this set time period can then apply to a federal district court for a declaratory judgment stating that the state or political subdivision no longer needs to comply with Section 5 preclearance procedures. By knowing what they can avoid in terms of the number of voting rights violations, states can be more cautious in enacting bills that might be counted against them.
This is an important bill, maybe even more than the For The People Act, because it would currently help stem the tide of numerous restrictive voting laws that we have seen the last couple of years. And, it will help stabilize election law in the U.S. by providing guidance on what election laws in the future are permitted and what are not. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
Brennan Center for Justice – info on how the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act will help strengthen the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Indivisible – non – profit group’s infopage on the need for the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
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.
Amazon Workers Vote Against Union in Alabama
Brief # 12 Social Justice
Brief Title: Amazon Workers Vote Against Union in Alabama
Author: Lily Lady Cook
April 12, 2021
Summary: In the United States, Amazon operates 110 fulfillment centers, and has increased its employees in the past year to around 1.2 million workers worldwide. Those employed in Amazon’s fulfillment centers have become highly visible during the pandemic, as the nation becomes more aware of our essential workers and the mechanisms of the global supply chain.
Since Amazon’s inception in 1994, there have been multiple attempts at collective organizing; workers in Staten Island, Chicago, Virginia, and now Alabama have attempted but ultimately failed to unionize. In this latest instance, warehouse workers began a union voting process in Bessemer, Alabama, in coordination with the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU). The results were announced earlier this month, and indicated a resounding victory for Amazon. Of the 5,800 workers, 3,215 cast ballots. 1,798 of those voted against a union and 738 in favor. In order for the union to proceed, at least 30 percent of voters would have had to indicate support; in this case, a mere 13 percent of workers were in favor.
Representatives from the RWDSU said it would ask federal officials to investigate the election on the grounds of coercion, alleging that Amazon instilled a fear of reprisals and an environment hostile to unionization. If the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) deems these claims valid, another vote can be held, but the chances of this are widely considered to be marginal.
Analysis: Amazon’s main rebuttal against unionization has been that its starting wage of $15 an hour is well above the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, and the company offers health care to all employees. In a statement on the election in Bessemer, the company said “[we] welcome the opportunity to sit down and share ideas with any policymaker” who wants to pass laws to federalize these same conditions. These and other reasons make it easy to understand why a warehouse worker at Amazon—with a steady job during a period of high unemployment—would vote against a union. Amazon does in fact offer a higher wage and job security than other employers, especially in economically disadvantaged areas.
Further, the RWDSU’s approach left a lot to be desired. A worker at an Amazon facility in Baltimore told the World Socialist Web Site that he felt the RWDSU’s campaign was a “publicity stunt” that “was not being motivated from the ground up.” Whether or not the RWDSU was primarily motivated by publicity, their failure to call for concrete demands during the voting period indicates that its concern with material change for workers was inexcusably absent in this campaign.
In its appeal, the biggest piece of evidence the RWDSU has against Amazon is the installation of a mailbox on warehouse property that violated NLRB orders. Workers could have incorrectly believed that Amazon would be involved in the counting of votes, thereby skewing their decision-making. In addition, it has been reported that Amazon told people false information about the voting deadlines, and held mandatory ‘union education meetings’ that pushed anti-union messaging.
One of the main unresolved questions with regards to the voting outcome is: what percent of those who voted against the union did so out of genuine fear of reprisals, and what percent simply considered the union as against their best interests?
With Biden in the White House, this is arguably the most pro-labor administration in generations (or at least, presents itself as such—Biden’s actual voting record is far less beneficial for the working class). The Biden administration released a video in March that backed workers’ right to organize without interference from their employers. This was a definitive statement in favor of labor, yet Biden stopped short of calling out Amazon by name; he stated that workers in “Alabama and all across America” were voting about union organization. Why not boldly name the company in Alabama he was so clearly referring to?
Perhaps in the absence of incendiary, direct speeches, Americans can look with hope towards pro-labor bills on the legislative docket. For one, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act is getting more attention in the wake of the Bessemer results. This proposal is included in Biden’s $2 trillion infrastructure plan, but must be passed in the Senate to proceed. The purpose of the act is to increase labor protections by a number of measures. Some of these include allowing secondary strikes, preventing the type of mandatory meetings Amazon held to dissuade union organizing, and giving more enforcement mechanisms to the NLRB to fine employers in the case of labor violations. Moreover, it would allow individual workers to sue for back pay and damages, even allowing for direct penalization of corporate directors.
The passage of this act would require complete Democratic support and support from at least ten Republicans to pass. With the populist appeal of labor unions on the rise, enough pressure on politicians could have a decisive influence to implement the kind of ground-up results that the RWDSU failed to achieve.
Engagement Resources:
- Call your senator to support passage of the PRO Act: This form will connect you to your senator. Ask them to vote “yes” on the PRO Act.
- Donate the the Jobs with Justice Education Fund: This is a grassroots advocacy group that champions the rights of workers through national campaigns that include funding economic justice programs for Black workers, and alleviating the impact of coronavirus on agricultural workers.
- Join your workplace union! Since the 1970s, union membership has declined and inequality has risen. Increased union activity can help reverse the tide.
- Email Jeff Bezos: his email address is public. It’s unlikely he’ll respond to you directly or even read the email, but it’s worth a shot.