JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Equality Act Seeks To Expand LGBQT Discrimination Protections
Brief #152—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
On February 18, 2021 Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced H.R. 5 in the House of Representatives. The bill is popularly known as the Equality Act and had been introduced in various forms in previous sessions of Congress. The bill seeks to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity and sexual orientation, and other purposes.” The text of the bill uniquely specifies and amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to state that discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation are protected categories under that law. In addition to adding these new protected categories to that landmark law the bill also expands coverage for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Jury Selection and Services Act housing and education laws and a number of other federally funded programs. And finally, the bill states specifically that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 cannot be used to challenge a provision in the Act and cannot be used as a defense to a claim of unlawful discrimination under the Act. On February 25, 2021, the House of Representatives voted to pass the bill by a 224 – 206 vote. The bill was then sent to the Senate for a vote in the coming weeks. LEARN MORE
Democratic Education and Practice
Brief #55—Education
By Emily Carty
Schools are an ideal place to plant the seeds of democracy and cultivate a culture of learning, participation, and will to be informed and take action for one’s rights and ideals. Commentary from a recent Brookings Institute article contrasts the emphasis placed on preparing kids for a modern economy with the lack of resources to prepare kids for a modern democracy. Citing the constant criticisms of schools being unable to prepare graduates for the job market or college, the author notes that a demand for prepared, active citizens is lacking. Conservatives and progressives have their respective fears about civic education in schools — will it be propaganda, whitewashed history, or activist training to make major changes to our country? While those concerns do have their place, no one can deny that basic education around the political process, civil rights, and modern media literacy is much needed in this country.
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 2: Expanding Access to Healthcare
Brief #97—Healthcare
By Erin McNemar
Throughout his presidential campaign, President Joe Biden made it clear that women’s rights were going to be a leading issue during his administration. Over the summer, Biden released a policy proposal titled “The Biden Agenda for Women.” The plan outlined different areas in which women are disproportionately impacted, and how he intends to level the playing field. One of the major areas the plan focuses on is expanding and protecting healthcare for women.
Facebook’s Supreme Court: A New Model For Online Governance?
Brief #39—Technology
By Scout Burchill
A new experiment in online moderation governance has been taking shape at Facebook over the past two years and its most consequential test is fast approaching. By the end of April Facebook’s Supreme Court, officially called the Oversight Board, will declare a ruling on the company’s permanent ban of Donald Trump from the platform. Facebook’s Oversight Board was first conceived of in 2018 as an independent quasi-legal governing body that would advise Facebook on its content moderation policies and litigate appeals of users over content moderation enforcements. In the years since, Facebook has invested considerably in developing the operational procedures, powers and composition of the Board. The Board abides by an official public charter and currently consists of 20 members from various areas of expertise as well as diverse backgrounds. By design, the Oversight Board only has the authority to review user appeals that involve ‘take-downs’ of content and can rule to either uphold or overrule them. The Board is indirectly funded by Facebook through a trust to the tune of around $130 million.
Killer Robots are a Reality, Where Does the Biden Administration Stand?
Brief #40—Technology
By Charles A Rubin
Fully autonomous weapons, the stuff of dystopian sci-fi novels, are now approaching reality. The US, China, Israel, South Korea, Russia, and the UK are developing weapons systems with significant autonomy in their critical functions of selecting and attacking targets. If left unchecked the world could enter a destabilizing robotic arms race. These weapons include autonomous submarines, precision bombs and autonomous machine guns similar to the one that Iranians authorities claimed to have killed scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in late November. Unlike drone weapons, which have a human albeit remote handler, Fully Autonomous Weapons Systems (FAWS) decide algorithmically who lives and who dies without further human intervention. FAWS systems cross a moral threshold that lack the inherently human characteristics such as compassion that are necessary to make complex ethical decisions. With a new administration the United States must take a leadership role in banning these weapons worldwide.
Fishing Boat Dispatch # 2
U.S. RESIST Blog
By Katherine Cart
I came to Amaknak Island by plane. The mountains the plane passes between were, in June, very green. The visual sense that the Aleutian Chain gives is of a treeless Hawaii – its geology is similar; the landscape is very young, and active volcanoes grow the islands sporadically. Extending like a hooked arm, the Aleutians delineate the southern edge of the Bering Sea. Amaknak rises from the North Pacific, 800 miles south of Anchorage. Around the smidge of land that is the Aleutian Chain, there is very little but sea. Amaknak’s Iliuliuk Bay, where 300 foot vessels dock, offload fish, and fuel, drops dramatically to twenty fathoms. The basalt and andesite flows and pyroclastic rocks that form the cliffs of Mounts Ballyhoo and Split Top, and through which obdurate roads have been blasted, rise nearly two thousand feet from the bay edge. Thin soil, reddish, capped by tall grasses and shrub like a fur, holds tremulous purchase on the volcanic substrate. There is a wildness and fragility to Amaknak. With nearly three thousand residents, Amaknak is the most populous of Aleutian islands, and where Dutch Harbor provides anchorage to the North Pacific fishing and shipping fleets. Billions of dollars pass through each year.
2 New Congressional Bills Seek to Address Racial Inequalities in US Agriculture
Brief #1—Agriculture
By Katherine Cart
Farmland is lucrative. Acreage denotes wealth and provides multi-generational investment returns. Racial inequity and farm policy, in this country, have long been indivisible; discrimination in agrarian land ownership and by the USDA has made a farce of an already flimsy bid for equality, for financial freedom and freedom to farm and ranch American land with the nonpartisan support of government. The Covid-19 pandemic has both exacerbated and highlighted the racism within the USDA’s treatment of farmers. Two bills, the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act and the Justice for Black Farmers Act seek to begin the remediation of racial disparity in US agriculture.
Maryland’s New Tax – A Significant Step Forward in Digital Policy-Making
Brief #38—Technologybr>By Scout Burchill
On Friday, February 12th the Maryland State Senate overrode Governor Hogan’s veto to become the first state in the nation to impose a tax on digital advertising revenue. Even though the new law is already being challenged in the courts, its passage reflects the dire need to plug gaping holes in state and local budgets due to pandemic losses as well as enact innovative new approaches to taxing and regulating big tech companies that have continued to rake in record profits over the past year. Maryland’s Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax would impose a 2.5% tax on advertising revenue made by selling digital advertising within the state for companies that make over $100 million a year globally from digital advertising revenues. This tax rate increases to 5% for companies making between $1 billion and $5 billion, 7.5% for companies making between $5 billion and $15 billion and finally 10% for those companies making more that $15 billion, essentially targeting Google and Facebook. The new tax is expected to generate $250 million after the first year, which will be set aside for Maryland’s education system.
MIS-C: What is it, and Why it Matters
Brief #96—Health & Gender
By Justin Lee
There are multiple reports of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (in children, MIS-C) being seen across the world shortly after the onset of COVID-19. Children and teen patients with MIS-C can suffer from inflammation that can limit blood flow throughout the body, exposing danger to major organs such as the heart, kidneys, and other organs. While cases, which have ranged from ages 2 to 15 years, have been considered rare the outcome can be dangerous if left untreated. MIC-C can be treated with drugs that can control the inflammation and prevent prolonged, permanent organ damage.
An Update on the Status of the 666 Immigrant Children Separate from Their Parents
By Linda F. Hersey
November 16, 2020
U.S. RESIST NEWS has made an effort to track down the whereabouts of the 666 immigrant children separated from their parents but no one is really sure. To the best of our knowledge some are in ICE detention centers, some are in foster homes, some with relatives but sadly it is difficult to really know even the names of the children and where they are.
A federal court-ordered search for deported families separated from their children at the U.S. border is severely hampered by the Trump administration’s refusal to fund location efforts and a failure to collect the most basic information on the families, such as a phone number.
The ACLU and other civil rights groups, meanwhile, complain that the federal government is continuing to separate families at the border and sending children to detention centers that operate with little outside oversight and under harsh conditions.
“A recent spike in apprehensions of migrant children crossing the U.S. southern border without a parent or guardian threatened to overwhelm the systems set up to care for them, and reinvigorated debate over the detention of minors,” the Council on Foreign Relations reported in a formal statement issued in October 2020. “Critics, including many in Congress, say the administration’s response is exacerbating a humanitarian crisis in Central America, breaking U.S. law, and violating international human rights norms,” the council concluded.
The Council on Foreign Relations reports that six children have died in the custody of immigration authorities since 2018. There is scant information on the conditions of their detainment or circumstances that led to their deaths.
The incoming Biden administration has pledged to establish a task force whose mission is to overturn many of Trump’s anti-immigration policies and reunite the families, though there has been no promise of asylum.
No budget under Trump to find deported parents
The Biden administration will have a large task in tracking down the parents of the 666 children orphaned under the so-called “zero tolerance” policy created by the Trump administration. The policy was implemented in July 2017 and stopped by court order in June 2018. According to the federal government, the children are with sponsors who are extended family members or caretakers assigned by the courts.
The Trump administration has not allocated a budget to cover finding and reuniting the families, with most of the location work done by volunteers, including attorneys, child advocates and religion-based organizations.
The Trump administration did little to document the background of the children forcibly removed from their parents – with some infants and toddlers taken from the arms of their mothers and fathers. The ACLU has argued the government has been unable to provide any documentation that would enable advocates to “allow meaningful searches” to identify and find the parents.
The government does not have phone numbers or know the location of the children’s homes. Families separated from their children often are concerned about reprisal, and have not come forward. When contacted some parents have elected to leave children with relatives and sponsors in the U.S. where they are safer.
Many of the children are young. More than 125 children were under the age of five, when they were taken from their families in 2018.
Some children were placed hundreds and thousands of miles away, in so-called detention centers, such as the Homestead Temporary Center for Unaccompanied Children, in Florida, which was run by a for-profit company, Caliburn International.
For-Profit Centers Detain Children
The displaced children are at the center of a class-action lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union against the federal government that names as defendants ICE, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement and U.S. Immigration and Customs. The ACLU is seeking damages for the defendants, including coverage of mental health treatment because of the trauma the children and parents suffered from forced separations. The goal of the ACLU also is to end new separations and reunite the youngsters with their families, in the United States.
Overall, the majority of immigrant children in federal custody are 15 years or older. These children arrived in the U.S. without an adult sponsor or were separated from their families at the U.S. border.
The Trump administration is accused of directing children into for-profit centers like the one in Homestead, rather than placing them with sponsors or nonprofit agencies that provide foster care. There is a large network of migrant detention centers in the U.S., with little outside oversight and anecdotal reports by parents and children of unsafe and harsh conditions.
Comprehensive Health Services, a subsidiary of Caliburn, had a $30 million contract to run the Homestead shelter at a cost of $1 million per day. The property sits next to a Superfund site that stores toxic waste, including arsenic and lead. A report by the Miami Herald revealed that the children’s detention center was never tested to ensure that chemicals were not leaching into their environment.
The federal government emptied the center in 2019 after press reports and photos drew wide-scale criticism and questions about the safety and welfare of the youngsters housed there. Officials claimed that the children were released to sponsors but there has been no real outside verification or accounting of all the children who were taken from parents, detained and then released.
Negative publicity had included one report about a young girl who ran away from the facility and was discovered hiding and weeping inside a filling station. The center, often referred to as a children’s prison, became a disturbing symbol of the practices of the Trump administration of separating children from their parents immigrating from Central America.
Before the facility was shut down, it was estimated to be holding about a quarter of the immigrant children in federal custody, after they arrived in the U.S. alone or had been separated from their parents at the border. After a congressional delegation toured the facility in 2019, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland told reporters, “The Trump Administration’s actions at the southern border are grotesque and dehumanizing.”
Resistance Resources
American Civil Liberties Union has a mission to “realize the promise of the U.S. Constitution for all and expand the reach of its guarantees,
Women’s Refugee Commission works to hold the U.S. government accountable and to ensure refugee children and families are treated humanely and fairly.
Council on Foreign Relations is an independent nonpartisan think tank that helps people and organizations better understand foreign policy choices facing the U.S.
www.cfr.org
The Google Antitrust Suit and Big Tech’s Fall From Grace
By Scout Burchill
November 16, 2020
Summary:
On Tuesday, October 20th the Department of Justice, along with 11 Republican state attorney generals, sued Google under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The lawsuit alleges that Google illegally maintains monopolies in “general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising […] through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices.”
The scope of the suit focuses specifically on Google’s exclusive contracts with hardware makers like Apple and Samsung, browser developers like Mozilla and Opera and major wireless carriers like AT&T and Verizon. These exclusive agreements require Google to be the default search engine in the products and devices produced by these companies. Furthermore, some of these agreements require that smartphones and other devices that use Google’s Android operating system be preset with a bundle of Google applications (Gmail, Youtube, Maps, etc) and that these applications be featured in primary positions. To illustrate these practices, Google pays Apple up to $12 billion each year to appear as the default search engine on iPhones and other Apple products.
The Justice Department’s suit argues that Google’s monopoly over the search market is monetized and maintained through advertising revenues. This stranglehold on both the search market and search advertising denies competitors the benefits of scale, stifles innovation emerging from rival search engines like DuckDuckGo, lessens consumer choice and forces consumers to accept Google’s policies, personal data collection practices and privacy policies. The arguments presented by the Justice Department mirror those made in the antitrust suit against Microsoft in 1998, in which Microsoft was found guilty of a similar practice by making restrictive contracts and requiring computer makers to include Windows Explorer.
Analysis:
The Department of Justice’s lawsuit is the most significant challenge to a Big Tech company since at least the late 90s and signals what is to come as the political tides have decisively turned against Big Tech companies. The Trump administration’s partisan-backed suit, coming in the midst of a raging pandemic and a few weeks before the election, is politically motivated. However, Republicans are not alone in sharing the idea that the Tech Giants, which include Facebook, Amazon and Apple, have grown too powerful. According to Politico, another, broader antitrust lawsuit is expected to come from a bipartisan group of states, led by Democratic attorney generals in Colorado and Iowa and a Republican attorney general in Nebraska. Additionally, in a rare instance of bipartisan agreement, both Republicans and Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee agreed that Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple are abusing their powers and need to be checked. Much disagreement remains about how to tackle this problem, and as is the case for most issues there is little hope for a truly honest and forward-looking bi-partisan effort, but still, there is a growing consensus that something needs to be done.
Merely a decade ago, in the early 2010s, the same Big Tech companies that are under increasing scrutiny today were championed as great American success stories and were associated with a myriad of positive outcomes, such as the strengthening of democracy worldwide, greater connectivity between people and booming businesses generating unprecedented amounts of wealth. One crucial turning point leading to the backlash we now see against these companies was the 2016 election and the victory of President Donald Trump. Online disinformation ran rampant during the election and ever since there has been a growing awareness of the amount of disinformation that spreads online, especially on Facebook. Facebook and Google’s business models, which are based on targeted advertising, profit off click-bait and virality rather than the quality and trustworthiness of information. Their dominance in the advertising market has also destroyed many local sources of news and journalism. Current issues over content moderation have pushed the topic of the power of Big Tech further into mainstream political discourse. Additionally, as the wealth and influence of Silicon Valley grew to staggering levels over the past two decades and the majority of Americans’ wages continued to stagnate, these companies came to symbolize a corrupt, elite class particularly in the rising usage of economic populist rhetoric on both the left and the right.
The Biden administration is likely to stand by the Trump administration’s suit and may even look to strengthen it. According to the House Judiciary Committee’s report, which was spearheaded by Democrats, Democrats in particular have called for much more sweeping changes to the laws and regulations governing these corporations. For now, it is unclear how the current suit will affect the internet landscape and furthermore, whether consumers would actually prefer to use other search engines. Google is largely expected to argue exactly this point: they are dominant because they are preferred. For now, the narrowness of this lawsuit, which mirrors the Windows suit of the late 90s in which the government won, is effective enough to gain some leverage over Google and can pave the way for potentially larger changes. Facebook, Amazon and Apple can see the writing on the wall and will be watching closely.
The Google case on its own represents a major step forward in challenging Big Tech companies and corporate power, however it remains unclear where this path leads. The Biden administration will play a key role in deciding the direction. Big Tech got so big because the government allowed them to. In fact, nearly all the business practices and behaviors outlined by the Google lawsuit have been known for a long time. The Federal Trade Commission and other regulators and oversight committees have done little to check Google and the other Tech Giants over the past decade. Even if this case and others are successful, they need to be accompanied by forceful and effective regulation of business practices.
Resistance Resources:
American Economic Liberties Project:
https://www.economicliberties.us/big-tech-monopolies/
https://www.economicliberties.us/
Department of Justice’s Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monopolist-google-violating-antitrust-laws
House Committee’s Antitrust Report:
https://judiciary.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3429
Trump Administration Removes Federal Protections for Gray Wolves
By Jacob Morton
Policy
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has announced it will no longer provide federal protections to the gray wolf and will remove the species from the Endangered Species List. The announcement came just days before the presidential election on November 3, fueling the flames of what has been a controversial debate for decades in states considered key battlegrounds for the 2020 election.
The gray wolf has received protections from the federal government since the 1960’s after being nearly eradicated from the contiguous United States under government-sponsored poisoning and trapping campaigns. In 1978, the gray wolf was added to the Endangered Species List, with only 1,000 gray wolves remaining in the lower 48 states. Protected under the Endangered Species Act for over four decades, gray wolf populations have seen a tremendous recovery, with more than 6,000 gray wolves now living below the Canadian border.
Attempts have been made on numerous occasions to delist the gray wolf, including by the Obama administration in 2011. Federal protection of the gray wolf has been a controversial issue since it began. The debate tends to pit environmentalists against hunters, ranchers and farmers who see the gray wolf as a threat to their livelihoods. Ranchers have struggled to protect their herds from wolf attacks, and hunters complain of having to compete with wolves for deer and elk.
The Trump administration’s proposal will go into effect 60 days after being posted to the Federal Register on November 3. Once removed from the Endangered Species List, the protection and management of gray wolves will fall under state and tribal control. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will continue to monitor wolf populations for five years “to ensure the continued success of the species.” U.S. Interior Secretary, David Bernhardt says, “After more than 45 years as a listed species, the gray wolf has exceeded all conservation goals for recovery,” and as determined by the agency, “this species is neither a threatened nor endangered species based on the specific factors Congress has laid out in the law.”
Analysis
Republican Congressman of Utah, Bob Bishop, praised the decision by the federal government to hand over management to the states, saying, “The gray wolf is one of the most successful species recoveries in history, despite the mounds of federal red tape and abusive litigation preventing this long-overdue delisting.” Bishop says, “It’s unfortunate it took this long for the federal government to turn management back to the states, when in fact state management and expertise is what got us to where we are today.” Former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director Dan Ashe also agrees gray wolf populations have recovered and the agency should “move on” and redirect energies to other wildlife in need.
The announcement from the Department of Interior points to the growing gray wolf populations across the Western Great Lakes region in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, as well as expanded ranges “into western Oregon, western Washington, northern California and most recently in northwest Colorado.” The agency’s press release makes a point to note that “No administration in history has recovered more imperiled species in their first term than the Trump Administration,” with 13 species removed from the Endangered Species List since 2017. Environmentalists and conservation organizations argue that delisting a species is only worth praising if done appropriately.
EarthJustice attorney Kristen Boyles, argues that despite the remarkable recovery so far, delisting gray wolves now is premature. Boyles says, “This is no ‘Mission Accomplished’ moment for wolf recovery. Wolves are only starting to get a toehold in places like Northern California and the Pacific Northwest, and wolves need federal protection to explore habitat in the Southern Rockies and the Northeast.” Biologists say the recovery is still fragile in many states and gray wolf populations have not fully recovered throughout their historical habitat. Prior to the mid-20th century, gray wolves existed across most of North America.
Joanna Lambert, a professor of animal ecology at the University of Colorado Boulder says the bulk of the recovered gray wolf population has been seen in the western Great Lakes region and the Northern Rockies, “But outside these clusters, wolves haven’t established viable populations.” Lambert argues, “Although parts of Colorado, Utah and California could be ideal wolf habitat, there are hardly any packs in these states. It’s unclear whether gray wolves will be able to expand their range without the federal protections they’ve had for nearly 50 years.” Several biologists and former government officials claim the administration’s proposal lacks scientific justification and that “the agency’s conclusions were based on factual omissions and errors.” Critics point out that “the proposal barely considered the effects of climate change” and its impact on gray wolf habitat and prey.
Many environmentalists see the delisting proposal as an attempt by the Trump administration to appeal to rural voters in the election battleground states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan. Ranchers, farmers, and hunters in these states have largely advocated for leaving the management of gray wolves in the hands of state and tribal governments. Many believe their livelihoods are at stake and feel state regulation provides greater flexibility for managing the relationship between wolves and humans. Ashleigh Calaway of Pittsville, Wisconsin lost 13 of her family’s sheep to wolves in July 2019. Calaway says that giving control back to the states would allow for “state-sponsored hunts” to keep local wolf populations at a managed level and “lower the risk to sheep and cattle.” Miles Kuschel, a third-generation rancher in north-central Minnesota, says he has watched the wolves’ territory expand over the past few decades to surround his land. Kuschel argues that under state management, “farmers and ranchers have the ability to protect their livelihoods and livestock.”
Adrian Treves, professor of environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin recalls that when federal protections had been lifted years prior in the western Great Lakes region, gray wolf populations declined significantly, citing exhaustive hunting seasons and poachers “emboldened by the absence of federal enforcement.” Treves says, “The science is 100 percent clear that there will be a spike in mortality.” Collette Adkins, carnivore conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity says her organization plans to sue. “The courts recognize, even if the feds don’t, that the Endangered Species Act requires real wolf recovery, including in the southern Rockies and other places with ideal wolf habitat.” She argues that with this proposal, “the Fish and Wildlife Service has just adopted the broadest, most destructive delisting rule yet.”
Maureen Hackett, founder of Minnesota-based Howling for Wolves, is sensitive to the divisions this long-standing debate has created, recognizing it as a complex issue. A survey sent out by the University of Minnesota revealed that Minnesota residents “largely agree that maintaining a wolf population in Minnesota is important, and that they should occupy about the same amount of habitat.” However, opinions diverged over the proposal of a wolf hunting season as an appropriate solution for a sustainable human-wolf relationship. The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, representing 11 Ojibwe tribes in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan opposes the delisting of gray wolves as well as strongly opposes a wolf hunting season. A spokesperson for the Commission says, “Wolves are seen as relatives to the Anishinaabe and we don’t believe in hunting our relatives.”
Many Fish and Wildlife Service scientists believe wolf populations can continue to expand without Federal protection, but support from the states would be crucial. Hackett argues, “We need a non-lethal wolf plan and continued funding for prevention methods for farmers and ranchers to ensure an intact and healthy wolf population, because the wolf is vital for our ecology and the legacy of future Minnesotans.”
Resistance Resources
EarthJustice
- Earthjustice is the premier nonprofit public interest environmental law organization. https://earthjustice.org/
Center for Biological Diversity
- Working to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law, and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters, and climate that species need to survive. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/
The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
- GLIFWC provides natural resource management expertise, conservation enforcement, legal and policy analysis, and public information services in support of the exercise of treaty rights during well-regulated, off-reservation seasons throughout the treaty ceded territories. http://www.glifwc.org/
Learn More References
Associated Press. (2020, October 29). Trump officials end gray wolf protections across most of U.S. Retrieved November 15, 2020, from https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/10/29/trump-officials-end-gray-wolf-protections-across-most-of-us
Brown, M., Flesher, J., & Mone, J. (2020, November 13). Trump officials end gray wolf protections across most of US. Retrieved November 15, 2020, from https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/correction-gray-wolves-endangered-story-74192466
Interior Press. (2020, October 30). Trump Administration Returns Management and Protection of Gray Wolves to States and Tribes Following Successful Recovery Efforts. Retrieved November 15, 2020, from https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump-administration-returns-management-and-protection-gray-wolves-states-and-tribes
Kraker, D. (2020, October 30). Gray wolves lose federal protection; state will manage instead. Retrieved November 15, 2020, from https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/10/30/gray-wolves-lose-federal-protection-state-will-manage-instead
Phillips, A. M. (2020, October 29). Trump administration drops gray wolf from endangered species list. Retrieved November 15, 2020, from https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-10-29/trump-administration-drops-gray-wolf-from-endangered-list-ending-all-federal-protection
Rott, N. (2020, October 29). Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List. Retrieved November 15, 2020, from https://www.npr.org/2020/10/29/929095979/gray-wolves-to-be-removed-from-endangered-species-list
Major Cable News’ Post Election Coverage
U.S. RESIST NEWS Media Blog Post
The U.S. RESIST NEWS Media Blog reports on how media channels from the right and left are covering today’s news.
Post # 5 Major Cable News’ Post Election Coverage
By John McCabe
November 13, 2020
Since election night, the major cable news networks have been relentless in their coverage. With former Vice President Joe Biden securing the presidency, major networks are talking about the significance of a Biden victory, as well as President Donald Trump’s continuing accusations of voter fraud and his refusal to concede a Biden victory.
On November 7th, upon Biden being declared the 46th President of the United States, CNN anchor, Van Jones, broke down in passionate tears.
“Well, it’s easier to be a parent this morning,” said Jones. “It’s easier to be a dad…it’s easier to tell your kids character matters…Telling the truth matters. Being a good person matters…”
Jones went on to discuss how a Biden victory is a vindication for a lot of people who feel as if they have suffered under Trump’s presidency, attributing the late George Floyd’s last words of, “I can’t breathe”, to a larger message.
“That wasn’t just George Floyd,” said Jones. “That was a lot of people who felt they couldn’t breathe…this is a big deal for us just to be able to get some peace and have a chance for a reset, and the character of the country matters…”
Jones sentiment on character resonated with co-panelist, Gloria Borger, who added that the COVID-19 epidemic became a large part of the character issue in the 2020 Presidential election, specifically, how a leader would use the quality of character to empathetically handle a virus that has killed more than two-hundred thousand people.
Political Consultant David Axelrod also agreed with Jones, adding that Biden has qualities like character, decency, empathy, in abundance.
Two days later, over on Fox News, Steve Hilton of The Next Revolution hosted Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL), radio personality Tammy Bruce, reporter Sara Carter, and former Congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah.
Instead of analyzing the significance of a Biden victory, most of the guests were of the same school of thought that the election is still not over, seemingly holding onto the possibility of a Trump victory, as well as showing their support for Trump to do everything in his power to establish evidence of voter fraud.
“This isn’t a battle just against Trump,” said Carter, “…this is a battle against the American people that voted for Trump, against the establishment. The establishment is what wants to stop this…and unfortunately, the establishment has a mainstream media on their side that is working in conjunction with them. It’s up to us as Americans to stand up…to stand up to that in such a way, peacefully…and defend our constitution…if we allow the Democrats to trample that constitution and rip it apart, we have nothing left…”
Predictably, a lot of Fox News pundits have been writing off Biden’s victory and defending Trump. Despite this, Trump is angry with Fox News for even conceding a Biden victory.
In his article for Columbia Journalism Review, aptly titled “Surprise! Election night was a confusing mess”, Jon Allsop discusses how Trump was reportedly furious about Fox News calling Arizona for Biden. And if election night was a confusing mess, the days that followed a Biden victory have provided their own sense of disarray and uncertainty.
Recently, major networks are reporting on Secretary of State Pompeo’s comments regarding the election. When asked if the state department was preparing to engage with the Biden transition team, Pompeo stated that, “there will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.”
Brianna Keilar of CNN brought on Kylie Atwood, a national security correspondent who works at the state department, to discuss Pompeo’s comments.
“It is truly extortionary,” said Atwood, “…it’s important to note that the secretary was asked about the credibility of America continuing to call for free and fair elections internationally, and to call for people to step down and accept the realities of votes in other countries, and he was asked if those efforts are undermined by what President Trump is doing here; contesting these election results based on no evidence…”
On November 10th, on Fox News, Pompeo was asked by Baier if he was being serious regarding his comments to a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.
Rather than addressing his specific comments, Pompeo said, “We’ll have a smooth transition and we’ll see what people ultimately decide when all the votes have been cast…I am very confident that we will have a good transition. That we will make sure that whoever is in office on noon on January 20th has all the tools readily available so that we don’t skip a beat with the capacity to keep Americans safe…”
Amid cable news post-election coverage, President Trump continues to churn out tweets that warrant a disputed flag from Twitter, like an accusation that his poll watchers were not allowed to watch or observe in Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Over at Fox News, the political strategy seems to involve trying to paint a picture that the Democratic party is hostilely divided between centrists and progressives in the hopes that it will increase the Republican party’s chances at securing the Senate for the Georgia runoff election. In his recent coverage, Sean Hannity asked, “How fast would he [Biden] surrender to the far-left agenda? It’s frightening…god forbid they ever get this power.”
Meanwhile, Biden’s strategy seems to laugh off both Trump’s comments on not conceding the election, as well as his surrogates. While delivering remarks on the Supreme Court’s recent hearing on the Affordable Care Act, Biden referred to Trump’s behavior as “an embarrassment” and alleged that much of the leaders in the Republican party that are beholden to Trump are “mildly intimidated by the sitting President.”
At any rate, Trump seems dead set on resisting a Biden victory, filing suit in multiple states, and going on Twitter tirades about voter fraud. All the while, the United States awaits Georgia hand counting its votes, as well as a runoff election that will decide the fate of the Senate come January 2021.
What Trump Could Do on the Way Out
Transition of Power
A new blog post by U.S. RESIST Reporters on the transition of Presidential Power from the Trump to the Biden administration
Post # 1: What Trump Could Do on the Way Out
By Sean Gray
November 12, 2020
It’s all over but the crying in the case of the 2020 presidential election, and rest assured there will be crying. Celebrations broke out in cities across the country at the news the Associated Press had called the race in favor of Joe Biden. Donald Trump has refused to accept the results and has threatened legal action to challenge the results. To date he has offered no evidence of voter fraud and his coming legal challenges are likely to die on the vine. Nevertheless, his obstinance is reason enough to temper enthusiasm at his ouster. He has treated the presidency like a vanity project and governed in a most haphazard fashion. John Bolton in his memoir could not recall a single Trump decision that was not made with reelection calculations in mind. For the remaining 72 days of his presidency, Trump does not have that consideration, his power is not officially curtailed and he’s watched the masses celebrate his political demise.
Over the past four years, Trump has issued a number of impulsive executive orders, often when someone or thing has displeased him (see the repeal of Section 230 after Twitter fact-checked him). While not inconsistent with the number issued by recent predecessors, Trump’s usage of the tact has been self-serving and has circumvented the normal channels of government. Environmental rollbacks, for example, have been a constant subject of Trump’s executive orders. Now there is nothing to prevent him from issuing a slew of executive orders on his way out which could wreak untold harm.
Remaking the courts in his conservative image, was perhaps the chief selling point of Trump’s reelection bid. He has appointed three Supreme Court Justices and 214 judges to the federal court system, based on adherence to a right-wing judicial philosophy. 57 vacancies remain between the circuit and appeals courts. There is no firewall against Trump and his allies further stacking the court with politically motivated appointees.Pushing the court further right might drastically alter the American landscape.
Take Roe v. Wade for example. The landmark 1973 ruling has been under constant assault by religious conservatives. Recently they have adopted the tact of ‘’death by a thousand paper cuts’’ with restrictive state measures passed in Louisiana and Texas that were expected to fail constitutional muster. Now drafters and enactors of such bills can throw them against the proverbial wall, see how the courts react and tailor future challenges to Roe accordingly. Roughly a quarter of federal judges and a third of Supreme Court justices have been appointed by Trump, with the explicit litmus test that they disagree with how Roe was decided. 60 more appointees could make their way to the federal court before Trump leave office. That makes reproductive freedoms and other key issues in the country more likely to be adjudicated through the lens of conservatism.
Presidential pardons have traditionally been granted by outgoing presidents. It is a particularly thorny issue for Trump considering how many of his allies find themselves in some phase of the criminal justice system. Roger Stone has already been convicted for crimes committed on Trump’s 2016 campaign, and granted clemency for his refusal to incriminate the president. A similar fate could await the currently incarcerated former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, or Trump associate Michael Flynn, who has twice pleaded guilty to lying to Robert Mueller’s investigators. It wouldn’t be out of character for Trump to put his finger on the scale for a few friends one last time. Doing so would be a final black eye on his Justice Department and likely embolden future political operatives. It also is not beyond belief that Trump may use the pardoning power of the Executive Office to pardon himself and free himself from the worry of federal prosecution (though Presidential pardoning power will not make Trump immune from prosecution at the state level.)
Fired employees are sometimes escorted out of their workplace for fear of what they might do on their way out. It is truly unfortunate such a measure can’t be taken for an outgoing president. Trump’s presidency will make for an interesting historical study. He has previously violated The Presidential Records Act by destroying or altering documents to be placed in archives. Any record that contains incriminating or unflattering information could meet with the same fate, losing for posterity the black box on the nation’s most controversial presidency.
Archival violations pale in comparison to the damage Trump could inflict if he sought to undermine Biden’s presidency before it starts (which he erroneously believes happened to him). Shortly before the election, Trump signed an executive order stripping federal employees of protections they had enjoyed for decades. It gave him the near-unilateral ability to fire any government employee at will. A ruthless purge is not unthinkable in the aftermath of Trump’s defeat. He could throw a tantrum, and thwart the incoming administration by removing key cogs of government and throwing executive branch agencies into chaos. Again Biden could undo these moves, but the cure would not be instant. Monday, two days after the AP called the race, Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper, with whom he had clashed since July. His timing of Esper’s removal seems arbitrary and serves as a troubling omen. Esper must think so as well, remarking ‘’God help us’’ if his replacement is a yes man.
Trump’s impending court battles and refusal to gracefully accept defeat put his government and its citizens in an unnecessarily precarious situation. Never in 230 years has a defeated president refused to leave office peacefully or questioned the legitimacy of election results unfavorable to him. It is only fitting that Trump leave office with one more assault on the infrastructure of our democracy. No evidence exists of meaningful voter fraud and recounts seldom alter the results of elections. That won’t deter Trump from crying foul and seeking to overturn the will of the American people. It is a troubling move that serves to undermine public confidence in elections, particularly among the astonishingly large segment of the electorate inclined to believe whatever wild-eyed falsehood Trump may offer up.
Election Legal Challenges # 2 Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin
Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin
By Zack Huffman
November 6, 2020
Nevada
On Thursday, November 5, The Trump Campaign filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Nevada. The suit seeks an emergency order to halt the use of an optical scanning machine to process ballots and validate voter signatures. The claims are directed at Clark County, which includes Las Vegas and a strong Democratic turnout.
Plaintiff Jill Stokke claimed that she was denied the opportunity to vote in person after she was told that her mail ballot had already been submitted. The lawsuit failed to include the fact that Stokke was given the option to cure the mix-up with a provisional ballot and she refused, which was explained by Clark County Registrar of Voters Joe Gloria.
The lawsuit also claimed that ballots had been counted that belonged to deceased individuals but there was no evidence of the allegations included in the complaint.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon, who was appointed to the federal bench by Barack Obama in 2013, oversaw the case. After a brief hearing on Friday, November 6, Gordon dismissed the GOP’s request for an injunction, while allowing the Nevada State Democratic Party to become a party to the case. The inclusion of the Democrats would become relevant in the event of an appeal, which as of Monday morning, November 9, had not been filed.
Georgia
The Trump campaign filed a lawsuit the day in Georgia’s Chatham County Superior Court the day after the election to halt counting of absentee ballots. Chatham County includes Savannah and is one of the blue pockets in Georgia’s electoral map. As of Saturday November 9, the county reported 78,118 votes for Biden, compared to 53,191 for Trump. The lawsuit claimed that ballots arrived after 7 p.m., but were improperly combined with timely ballots, but the plaintiffs failed to include evidence to support their claims.
Instead, the Trump campaign submitted an affidavit from a poll worker who said he thought he witnessed late-arriving absentee ballots store with ballots that were already set for tabulation. The state Democratic Party submitted two additional affidavits from poll workers who said they saw nothing improper in terms of ballot storage.On Thursday, November 5 Superior Court Judge James Bass tossed the Trump campaign’s complaint after noting that the campaign failed to produce any evidence to support its suspicions. The State GOP announced, on November 4, that it planned to file lawsuits in about dozen unspecified counties but aside from the Chatham County injunction, the party has yet to file anything else.
Wisconsin
Biden was able to narrowly flip Wisconsin after Trump had won the state in 2016. Biden was declared the winner in Wisconsin with a small, 20,000-vote lead, representing just 0.3% of the vote total to score 10 electoral votes. The Trump campaign has not yet filed any lawsuits in the state, but state GOP officials have called for a recount. State Assembly Speak Robin Vos, who is a Republican, called on the legislature’s Committee on Campaigns and Elections to investigate reported irregularities in the vote.
“With concerns surfacing about mail-In ballot dumps and voter fraud, Wisconsin citizens deserve to know their vote counted,” said Vos in a released statement. “There should be no question as to whether the vote was fair and legitimate, and there must be absolute certainty that the impending recount finds any and all irregularities.”
Democrats on the bipartisan committee, who released their own statement, rejected the claims as “a ridiculous attempt to cast doubt on the results of the November 2020 Presidential Election in Wisconsin.”
Student Loan Debt and the Higher Education Act of 1965
Summary
The student loan debt crisis has many people across the nation rethinking the university and job training systems. According to Forbes, 45 million borrowers nearly have a collective $1.6 trillion in student loan debt, falling just behind the collective debt of the mortgage industry.
The Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) set the tone for the federal government’s role in higher education funding and oversight. Most importantly, Title IV of the legislation addressed the federal government’s role in ensuring equitable access to higher education through funding. The HEA has been modified eight times and today it lays the groundwork for higher education advocates’ changemaking. Amendments to the HEA have been the basis for higher education reform. In particular, the revisions to Title IV of the HEA have included some of the major policies outlining how the federal government and universities approach equity — policies here dictate how the government allocates money to students with financial need.
The HEA also lays the groundwork for the government’s role in promoting loans and tax credits over outright grants. Modifications to the bill have slashed the prominence of grants by incorporating a growing number of amendments which favor loans. These include: providing families who take out student loans with tax credits; allowing federally subsidized loans to be administered by private companies; lifting the cap on how much money a student can take out in loans.
The legislature was born out of WWII and Cold War era college grant programs which supported soldiers and low-income students with grants based on their financial need (this was the birth of the federal Pell Grant). The grants did not have to be repayed, and the government was not necessarily seeing a tangible return on their money, so the legislature morphed into a mix of grants, guaranteed loans, and tax credits — a move to give the government a pass on providing more money to students and to appease the middle-income families in the face of higher costs of college. In the late 70s the government provided favorable rates of returns and a pathway for private lenders to disburse money to middle- and low-income students. The rising cost of college and shrinking availability of grants for education spiraled out of control throughout the 80s and 90s until student loan debt began to be seen as a crisis. The move away from subsidized education towards private lending, in conjunction with colleges raising tuition because loans existed to cover it, worked to commodify higher education and put millions of students in debt whilst lining the pockets of private lenders.
Plenty of statistics exist analyzing the demographics and concentrations of this debt and who it affects. Currently, the average cost of student debt exceeds $30,000 — a record high. Additionally, more than half of that debt is concentrated among borrowers under 34, and the largest debt is held by students attending for-profit colleges. Those students are also more likely to default on loans. The factors driving rising student debt include increases in tuition, more students going to college, and the skyrocketing cost and attendance rate of graduate schools. Increases in the demand for graduate and professional degrees in today’s job market, in addition to student loans becoming the norm, have allowed graduate schools to increase costs with little risk of a decrease in enrollment. While borrowing and repayment looks different for everyone, it no doubt influences decision making, lifestyle, and opportunity to invest in other types of capital, such as a home, investment property, stocks, or even futher schooling.
Analysis
The impact of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and its various amendments are still felt today. The rise in student loan debt has caught the attention of lawmakers across the nation, notably Democratic Senators and 2020 Presidential Candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. It has also garnered attention from the media in the form of celebrity promises to pay off “Class of 20__’s” student loans and student activists’ calls for loan forgiveness.
This form of debt is troubling for society at-large and not just for the individuals who default. The looming debt is a major factor influencing the decisions of this group of young and middle-aged graduates, potentially changing the traditional American paradigm of success: getting a job, buying a home, and becoming independent of one’s parents. According to Federal Reserve researchers, an estimated 20% of the decline in homeownership can be attributed to student loan debt. Some proponents for free college tuition programs argue that free college and reduction of student debt will lead to higher earnings and therefore a better impact on the economy at large.
Although we can’t know for certain how this might change the future of society or our college system, especially with the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic still unknown, perhaps a look into the 2008 Great Recession can give us some hints. With job prospects low, many individuals sought higher education degrees to get jobs in the changing economy amid widespread financial insecurity. Although the economy bounced back up until recently at least, the group of 2008 Recession era borrowers still holds a significant amount of debt, with borrowers over 30 more likely to default and those over 40 holding nearly double the amount of debt of folks who borrowed just 5-10 years earlier. Due to Covid-19, job prospects once again aren’t stable and without income the risk of loan default is omnipresent. Moreover, the cost-benefit ratio of college is being questioned. Lessons from 2008 should be a warning that the debt will not disappear even if the economy makes a comeback.
Deciding to take out a student loan is a major, but necessary, undertaking for many — not being able to make payments is a risk that comes with severe consequences, particularly for people of color who already face economic barriers in many forms. One recent federal study, for example, found that six years after enrolling in college in 2011-2012, 13% of white borrowers were in default, yet default rates were 20% for Latinx borrowers and an alarming 32% for Black borrowers. Additionally, students who received federal grants and students with dependents, whether or not they graduated, are much more likely to take out and to default on loans. The result is that many students with lower incomes are either in long-term debt or in default status. This can lead to lower credit rates and inability to take out loans for other financial investments, ultimately keeping borrowerss of color and poor borrowers on the lower end of the borrowing and capital wealth spectrum.
The existence of this debt is troubling for future generations. How will cohorts of well-educated, debt-riddled adults expect to invest in other financial assets or assist their children in paying for college if they still haven’t paid off their own loans or have already defaulted? There is potential here for the higher education economy to be reorganized through policy addressing access to and necessity of higher education in the modern workforce. There is also room for the goals and aspirations of the generation of adults in debt, and their kin, to shift away from higher education. Finally, there’s potential for the government and university systems to take action to ensure that the value of a college education can be realized by anyone without the threat of decades-long loan repayment.
The slew of recent legislation proposed in the wake of Covid-19, and even prior to the pandemic, is promising, but very little action has been taken legally so far; the President’s federal loan forbearance is a band aid, but it ends on December 31 of this year. Newly proposed regulations around loan forgiveness, loan consolidation, and income-based plans have yet to be voted on by legislators despite a wave of support for amending the Higher Education Act and increasing the federal government’s role in subsidizing education. It seems lawmakers recognize the severity of the current economic crisis and are aiming to protect borrowers, but there is only so much that can be done against private lenders — if the government allows private lenders to set the terms for student loans, the government cannot go in and change their policies on a whim, as the companies have been operating legally, if not ethically. Plus, for those already in default, some of the damage has already been done: the government cannot “fix” everyone’s credit score or reimburse years of loan payments in a thorough and meanigful way.
Additionally, these proposals are only short-term solutions for those already in debt. Large scale systemic change is needed to adequately address the rising cost of the university system and diminishing federal and state subsidies. Otherwise student debt will continue to rise and impact the lives of millions who were attempting to better their lives through education. The complexities of who would benefit from proposed debt forgiveness and reorganization of student grant and loans must be considered carefully. For example, those with the greatest student loan debt often have the highest income upon graduating, repaying the loans is somewhat reasonable. On the other hand, those who take out loans and don’t graduate often default or have too low an income to make significant headway on their debt. The impact on forgiving loans for these two “types” would be drastically different. Work is being done to address this in a thoughtful, equitable way, but legislators need to make informed policies and take action soon in order to ensure everyone who wants to is able to access and benefit financially from quality higher education.
Resistance Resources:
Student Debt Crisis – They are fighting for reform in student debt and borrowing policies and assisting borrowers with their financial issues and questions. Get involved with them to learn more, assist borrowers, share your story, or contact legislators.
Council for Opportunity in Education – COE provides resources for low-income, first-generation, and students with disabilities to access college, COE advocates for equity in education through its member organizations and outreach. Get connected with advocacy tools and send emails to congress through their site to advocate for equity and funding in higher education.
The Education Trust – This nonprofit organization fights for equity in education through research and policy advocacy. Check out their Higher Education section to take action and get connected with resources to write to your representatives about legislation related to Higher Ed.
Learn More Sources:
- Forbes – Student Loan Debt Statistics
- CNBC – How Student Debt Became a Crisis
- New America – Student Debt History
- Pew Research Center – 5 facts about Student Loans
- US News – Avg. Student Borrowing Increases
- US GOV – Brief on Federal Funding of Post-Secondary Education
- The New Yorker – How Student Debt is transforming the middle-class family
- US Bureau of Labor Statistics – Student Loan Debt
- Congressional Research Service – Higher Education Act Primer
- Brookings Institute – Who Holds Student Debt
- Center for American Progress – Addressing Student Loan Debt
- US Senator Schatz – Debt-Free College Act
- Federal Reserve – Student Debt Impacting Economy
- Inside Higher Ed – Student Debt Cancellation Mainstream
- NASFAA – Higher Ed Loan Legislative Tracker
Timber industry clear-cuts a path to more old-growth forest in Alaska
By Todd Broadman
November 9,2020
POLICY
The Tongass forest, referred to as “America’s Amazon,” was designated a National Forest by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1902. The Tongass is one of the largest, relatively intact temperate rainforests in the world. U.S. Forest Service, charged with managing its vast 16.7 million acres, developed a travel plan and new policy for the area in 1990 with passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act. Since then, the Clinton Administration issued Roadless Rule, prohibiting new road construction on previously undeveloped national forest lands across the country; that included 9.2 million acres of the Tongass. That put an end to larger scale logging.
Recently though, the Trump administration removed Roadless Rule protections from the Tongass National Forest. In combination with the Forest Service’s reclassification of certain old-growth parcels – 168,000 acres – as “suitable timberlands,” a major swath of the forest is open again to clear-cut logging. The underlying rationale follows a predictable pattern: the need for economic growth. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, who oversees the U.S. Forest Service, issued a recent notification concerning the Tongass: “changes can be made without major adverse impacts to the recreation, tourism, and fishing industries, while providing benefits to the timber and mining industries, increasing opportunities for community infrastructure, and eliminating unnecessary regulations.” The Forest Service is charged with approving all above-ground operations and construction in national forests.
The timber industry is among the most prominent lobbyists behind the removal of protections. “The forest products industry has been imperiled for some time,” claims Tessa Axelson of the Alaska Forest Association, and went on to assert that, “There’s a handful of small operators that are working on the Tongass, harvesting timber. In order to continue to survive, those businesses are dependent on a predictable supply of timber.” The industry has the ear of U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, who desires a full exemption from the Roadless Rule to open the Tongass up to recreation and renewable energy, “while ensuring good stewardship of our lands and waters.”
Along with Murkowski, Alaska Governor, Mike Dunleavy, strongly backs the Trump administration’s “job and opportunity creating” move. The governor has a large constituency – the state has experienced declining oil revenues and employment since development of the Prudhoe Bay oil field began in the summer of 1969. According to Dunleavy, “Trump has given responsible resource development a fair shake.”
Dunleavy has carried out massive cuts to the Alaska state budget, and though opposed by many, has been supported in the move by his core conservative constituency in favor of slimming down big government. Although Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay is the largest such oil complex in the country, overall oil industry employment numbers in Alaska are small and have shrunk markedly since the end of the oil pipeline boom in 1978. Since 2000, the industry has employed under 5000 workers, versus retail, for example, that employs ten times that amount. Recently, oil industry layoffs have been constant due to reduced travel due to COVID-19 and the global drop in oil prices.
The Tongass National Forest is an ecosystem of glacier-carved fjords, thick green forests of old-growth hemlock, spruce and cedar; spongey carpets of muskeg, and expansive fields of rock and glaciers. The wild salmon and associated fish industry depend upon an intact landscape. In spite of this, the timber industry cites the high economic value of old growth timber. Clear-cutting would have long-term impacts and opponents claim that government subsidies to the timber industry cost taxpayers far more money than is generated.
ANALYSIS
Environmentalists call the Tongass “our silent partner” due to its absorption of carbon; they point to its healthy and wild salmon runs. The area contains 14,873 miles of anadromous rivers and streams. The fishing industry says that removing protections would threaten the more than $2 billion per year commercial fishing and tourism industry in the area. According to the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, Alaska’s seafood industry accounts for nearly $6 billion in direct output as well as $8 billion in “multiplier effects generated as industry income circulates throughout the U.S. economy.”
President Donald Trump, when he stood amid the burned down homes of Paradise, California, nearly two years ago, indirectly blamed lack of forest resource development on the deadliest wildfire in the state’s history. “You’ve got to take care of the floors, you know? The floors of the forest, very important.” He followed that by ordering the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Interior to make federal lands less susceptible to catastrophic wildfires through the removal of dead trees, underbrush and other potentially flammable materials. He gave the Secretary of the Interior the final decision on granting oil and gas leases on National Forest lands and that of course includes Tongass National Forest.
Native tribes have not, as expected, been a significant part of the Administration’s decision. Joel Jackson, president of the Organized Village of Kake on Kuprean said that “They just completely ignored our input and input of the other five tribes, so I felt very disrespected.” In total, a half-dozen tribes withdrew their cooperation with the Forest Service. The Native community strongly opposes the opening up of their lands to logging. They still rely upon the Tongass for their way of life. Richard Chalyee Eesh Peterson, president of the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, said “Our health and well-being, identity and worldview are intricately woven into the fabric that is our homeland.”
In response to claims of potential environmental damage, the USDA claims that carbon released from logging will be insignificant. Dominick DellaSala, a scientist with the Earth Island Institute, counters that “There’s no science that supports their analysis.” His own analysis concludes that the carbon dioxide emissions from logging the 160,000 acres of old-growth forest would create the equivalent of adding about 10 million cars to the road.
There is a bill before Congress – the Roadless Area Conservation Act (HR 2491) – that, if passed, would make the Roadless Rule permanent. At stake are the remaining 58.5 million acres of undeveloped forests throughout the country. Two states though – Alaska and Utah – have recently filed petitions seeking exemptions to the rule and open up a combined 13 million acres. The Administration supports these and other exemptions.
Author’s note: As I write this brief, election results are nearing completion and it is likely that former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. will win; if so, reinstating protections to the Tongass and other public lands is expected.
Resistance Resources:
- https://www.outdooralliance.org/ is the only organization in the U.S. that unites the voices of outdoor enthusiasts to conserve public lands and ensure those lands are managed in a way that embraces the human-powered experience.
- https://www.earthisland.org/ supports environmental action projects and helps foster the next generation of environmental leaders in order to achieve solutions to the crises threatening the survival of life on Earth.
- https://alaska-native-news.com/
- https://alaskaconservation.org/ is the only public foundation solely dedicated to conservation in Alaska.
Democrats Missed Opportunities with Latino Voters
Brief # 2 Democrats Missed Opportunities with Latino voters
By Linda F. Hersey
November 6, 2020
Neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump addressed adequately the most significant issues facing Latinos in the United States is the blunt assessment of Kristina Sosa, a bilingual caseworker in California, about Election 2020. Sosa ticked off a list of concerns:
- Undocumented workers lack a safe forum to express their views, and are ineligible for public assistance.
- ICE raids are a constant and real fear for adults and their children.
- Not enough attention is paid to the impact of Covid-19 on Latin Americans, who have been harder hit by the disease than many other ethnic groups.
Sosa, a Pacific Islander with a Hispanic background, says that her disappointment is shared by many clients she deals with in her job helping adults connect with employment. Sosa said she feels that despite their large numbers, people of Latino descent often are not heard or ignored in political and policy debates. “It’s a crisis, in my mind, affecting all of us,” she said. “People need to feel safe and have a forum to speak and express their views.”
As the Biden campaign responds to criticism that it did not work hard enough to win Latino support, Hispanic voters and advocacy groups say that public officials need to do more to cultivate the Latino vote, and address the needs of a significant, diverse and growing population in all 50 states.
There are 60 million people of Hispanic descent living in the U.S., nearly one-fifth of the population. They include Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Salvadorans, Dominicans, Guatemalans, Colombians, Hondurans, Ecuadorians and Peruvians. And with the presidential race outcome much closer than predicted, some high-ranking Democrats complain that Biden could have done more groundwork to gain support from Latino constituents.
Sonia Velazquez works with Sosa at the San Francisco unemployment agency. She complained that all Latinos are not treated equally by the U.S. government. Latinos “are treated differently in terms of getting asylum and accessing government assistance that is based on their country of origin. That does not seem fair,” she said.
Unlike many other Hispanic groups, for example, Cuban Americans have a different status than other Latinos. “They don’t face the same hurdles and documentation issues,” Velazquez noted. Cuban
Biden drew fewer votes than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 among Hispanic Americans in both Florida and Texas. Biden did carry the popular vote in Miami Dade County, which has a Hispanic majority, but by just 7 percentage points. The Associated Press reported that Trump carried Florida by 51.2 percent to Biden’s 47.8 percent. Stronger Latino support could have made the difference.
Domingo Garcia, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), told National Public Radio that Biden’s team needed to do more outreach in Latino strongholds, to get out the vote. “The Democrats cannot take Latinos for granted. I think Biden missed a grand opportunity to have been able to carry both Florida and Texas,” Garcia told National Public Radio. “If he had just invested in the Latino community more, if he had delivered the correct message.”
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, was swift to criticize the under-performance. “We’ve been sounding the alarm about Dem vulnerabilities w/ Latinos for a long, long time,” she wrote on Twitter, according to Business Insider. “There is a strategy and a path, but the necessary effort simply hasn’t been put in.”
ANALYSIS
Advocacy groups for Latinos agree that the party missed an opportunity and needs to do more — much more to cultivate support. But the path is not a straight line. The needs and interests of Latino voters is complex, as they are a diverse group from multiple countries who include new arrivals as well as people who have lived in the U.S. for generations. They identify as Republicans and Democrats. They live in communities across the U.S., with a growing presence in all 50 states. California, Texas and Nevada have seen the most rapid increases in the Hispanic population in the last two decades, reports the Pew Research Center.
A study by Pew published in September 2020 had concluded that Hispanic support could be “a deciding factor” in the 2020 Presidential Election. And while Hispanics historically are more likely to identify as Democrats, that increasingly does not tell the whole story.
Engagement Resources
- League of United Latin American Citizens: LULAC advances the economic, educational and political interests of the U.S. Hispanic population.
- https://lulac.org/
- Mi Familia Vota is a national civic engagement organization that promotes social and economic justice for the Latino community.
- https://www.mifamiliavota.org/
- Voto Latino is a grassroots political organization that focuses on education and empowering Latino voters.
- https://votolatino.org/
2020 Presidential Election Motivates Both Sides to Protest
2020 Presidential Election Motivates Both Sides to Protest
By Erika Shannon
November 6, 2020
This past week, tensions have been rising here in the U.S. while everyone impatiently awaits the result of the 2020 presidential election. A winner has still not been announced, but we already see civil unrest in American cities. There was always a fear that no matter who won the presidency, we would see demonstrations and protests, even violence; however, the waiting has been the hardest part for some, and we are already seeing protesters on both sides take to the streets so their voices can be heard. On the one hand, supporters of President Trump are protesting to demand that the process of counting votes is stopped because some of the votes are “fraudulent,” with claims that this election has somehow been hi-jacked by Democrats. On the other hand, Biden supporters are protesting to insist that all legitimate votes should be counted. The Black Lives Matter movement has combined with the Count Every Vote movement, with the two groups rallying together in several cities across the U.S. They are protesting because they want peoples voices to be heard, while Trump supporters are seemingly seeking to suppress valid votes.
While both sides are (mostly) peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights, these two sides could not be more different in what they represent for our democracy. Trump supporters have often been vocal about their disdain for Black Lives Matter protests around the country. They have taunted and antagonized peaceful protesters, with some of the altercations ending in violence and tragedy. However, now that they are the ones in danger of losing something – a republican presidency – they wish to take to the streets and attempt to derail the Democratic voting process. We have seen pro-Trump protests break out in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada, and Arizona, among other states. President Trump himself is likely responsible for inspiring these protests, for as early as Wednesday morning he was proclaiming premature victory and demanding that people stop voting, and that votes should stop being counted. The remark was partially unfounded, for voting itself had been finished since Tuesday night, and counting the remaining votes was the last step before revealing a winner. The President then tweeted Thursday morning to “STOP THE COUNT,” a day after it had been announced that he was filing suit in Michigan and Pennsylvania to stop the counting of votes. These moves are a threat to the integrity of our democracy. It is evident that Donald Trump is not ready to give up yet, and now that losing is a real possibility, he is grasping at straws to do anything in his power to stop our democratic processes at work. Pro-Trump supporters chanting to “stop the count” represent a true threat to fair democracy, one where all votes that were received on time are counted. It seems that a group of people who were so keen on shouting “all lives matter” have forgotten that all votes matter, too.
Supporters of Joe Biden have also taken to the streets in response to the messages from Trump and his supporters. They are leading their own protests to voice that states should continue to count their legitimate votes. These protesters, many of whom are associated with the Black Lives Matter or Count Every Vote movement, have convened in places like Washington, New York, Minnesota, and Washington D.C. They are insisting that votes should continue to be counted so that we can finally know who has won this roller coaster of an election. Some protesters feel that President Trump is trying to stall the election results so that he can do anything in his power to retain the presidency. A move like this would come as no shock, for the President implied in late September that he would only turn over power if he felt the election was fair. His comments also included a theory about a “ballot scam,” where ballots of people who voted for Trump were supposedly being lost. To date, there has been no evidence of pro-Trump ballots disappearing, yet unfounded comments like these lead some Biden supporters to believe that Trump may not want to step down if he loses the election. Filing suits to stop counting votes is evidence that the President is in fear of what the votes may reveal: a win for Biden. He has been able to get his supporters riled up and there are still concerns that things may not stay peaceful if it is eventually revealed that Trump has lost the election. It is only fair to tally every vote that was cast, postmarked, or dropped off on time. The Count Every Vote movement is representative of the need to consider each vote so that a winner can be fairly determined. Some people’s only voice in the political process is their vote, and to rob them of that is a blatant disregard for our Democracy in action.
Resistance Resources
- The Count Every Vote Movement is part of the Movement Voter project; to learn more visit their Defend the Election Fund website.
- To report an incident of voter suppression or election interference around the country, fill out this form on the NAACP website.