Sign up for updates
Donate today
Join our newsletter
JOBS

JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

The Jobs and Infrastructure domain tracks and reports on policies that deal with job creation and employment, unemployment insurance and job retraining, and policies that support investments in infrastructure. This domain tracks policies emanating from the White House, the US Congress, the US Department of Labor, the US Department of Transportation, and state policies that respond to policies at the Federal level. Our Principal Analyst is Vaibhav Kumar who can be reached at vaibhav@usresistnews.org.

Latest Jobs Posts

 

Facing a New Political Reality: Am I the “Enemy Within?”

In a divided political climate, the concept of the ‘enemy from within’ has taken center stage. As Donald Trump and JD Vance target those who oppose their vision for America, many, like the author, are forced to grapple with the label of internal threats to democracy. This article explores the fear and uncertainty of being labeled as the ‘enemy’ in Trump’s America and its implications on freedom, democracy, and political survival.

read more

The Right To Vote in the U.S. Constitution – Part Three

In this third part of our series on voting rights, we dive into the role of individual voters who have driven change through ballot initiatives and referendums. From early suffrage movements to recent ballot measures aimed at restricting or expanding voter access, this article explores how citizens have taken the power of voting rights into their own hands—and the impact they’ve made.

read more

What Happened to Climate Change as a Political Priority?

In the midst of escalating environmental crises, climate change has surprisingly taken a backseat in political discourse. Despite initial commitments from the Biden administration to combat climate change through initiatives like the Paris Agreement and the Inflation Reduction Act, significant challenges remain. As fossil fuel production reaches unprecedented levels and partisan divides deepen, the urgency to prioritize climate policy faces increasing obstacles, leaving many to question the future of our environmental commitments.

read more

The Week That Was: Global News in Review

Brief #166 – Foreign Policy Brief
by: Ibrahim Castro

In this week’s global news review, we focus on the BRICS summit in Kazan, where leaders like Putin and Xi discussed alternatives to the U.S. dollar. North Korea’s deployment of troops to Russia raises geopolitical tensions, while Israel’s airstrikes on Iran escalate the ongoing conflict. In Cuba, a nationwide power outage follows a hurricane, and elections in Chile and Uruguay signal potential political shifts. As these critical developments unfold, stay informed on the changes shaping our world.

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
The Unfinished Story of Our Right to Vote Part One

The Unfinished Story of Our Right to Vote Part One

The Unfinished Story of Our Right to Vote: Part One 

Civil Rights Policy Brief #220 | By: Rod Maggay | October 12, 2024

Featured Photo by: time.com

__________________________________

This is the first in a series examining the Right To Vote in the United States. The first part of this series will examine the Right To Vote as derived from the United States Constitution. 

In the text of the original constitution there was no explicit right to vote granted to the people of the new country. The original document mentioned briefly in Article 1, Section 2 that Members of the new House of Representatives would be elected by electors from their state who were qualified to vote for members of the state’s own legislative chamber. But that was the extent of using the popular vote to elect national politicians. U.S. Senators were originally chosen by the state legislature of their state until it was changed to direct popuular vote in 1913 by the Seventeenth Amendment.  

The Constitutiion also allowed ordinary citizens to vote for the President. But that   was somewhat diluted as their vote elected only Electoral College electors who would vote for the presidential ticket and not a direct vote for President and Vice – President. So direct vote of national politicians was not widely used and the right to vote was controlled by each individual state that imposed their own set of qualifications. That naturally led to states excluding large classes of people – blacks, women, Indians, Chinese. The right to vote was not uniform and the qualifications to vote varied depending on what state you resided in. In the early years of the United States a person could be qualified in one state and not qualified to vote if they lived in a different state. 

The Civil War changed this state of affairs. After the war, Congress began passing constitutional amendments that limited what an individual state could do to restrict the right to vote. States still controlled the requirements needed to determine if a person was eligible to vote. However after the Civil War Congress passed the Fifteenth Amendment which prohibited a state from denying a person the right to vote based on race. In 1913 the Seventeenth Amendment was passed which now made the election of Senators subject to a direct popular vote. In 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment was passed barring a state from denying women the right to vote simply because of their gender. The Twenty – Fourth and Twenty – Sixth Amendment were passed in the middle of the twentieth century and they removed another restriction that states had used to limit people from voting. The Twenty – Fourth Amendment abolished the poll tax – the requirement of paying a tax or a set fee in order to be allowed to vote. And the Twenty – Sixth Amendment prohibited states from denying the right to vote to anyone over the age of eighteen. 

Analysis: The right to vote is now clearly a fundamental right that can have significant consequences for government policies depending on the turnout of the electorate. A higher turnout can mean more policies that are in line with what the majority of the citizens want. A lower turnout – whether through apathy or more worrisome, government sponsored voter suppression – can lead to the passive acceptance of unpopular and even dangerous policies. 

The Constitution is not perfect and a historical review of the amendments it has had to pass shows that states have tried to bar and prohibit numerous classes and groups of people from the ballot box. They have had a fear that maybe women, blacks and/or youths might vote for something that the establishment might not approve. The Constitution’s lack of an explicit guarantee of the right to vote for all citizens has opened the floodgates for many groups to try and sneak in laws that suppress the right to vote for some marginalized groups today. 

Passing a constitutional amendment prohibiting poll taxes as a requirement to vote was a much – needed measure because of the invidious racial history and violence in the American South. But some groups are still trying to use the tactic of a poll tax today as seen in Florida where the state is in a dispute because of it’s proposal to require ex – convicts who have served their prison sentences to pay all court fines and penalties before their right to vote is restored to them. And even though 18 year – old youths are constitutionally guaranteed the right to vote under the Twenty – Sixth Amendment, some states are using underhanded tactics to prevent college students from voting – such as denying college students the right to vote simply because they are students from out of state that might not be able to satisfy the state residency requirement. (Red leaning states try to suppress college age voters since younger voters tend to lean liberal.) These modern – day incidents demonstrate that while the constitutional voting eligibility amendments were necessary to allow and protect people in exercising their right to vote, the effort has not been enough. The right to vote in the United States needs more — an explicit constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to vote for all adults in this country regardless of what individual states may do. Until that broad constitutional guarantee is implemented the right to vote for all will not be fully realized. 

 


Engagement Resources
  • Democracy Docket – an informative history on the right to vote in the text of the U.S. Constitution. 
  • The Constitution Center – a list of the amendments to the Constitution including a list of the voter eligibility amendments that have been passed. 


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 rodwood@email.com.

Stay in-the-know with the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism, so please consider donating to keep democracy alive today!

Recounts, Lawsuits, and Headaches: How Certification of the Election Could Stall

Recounts, Lawsuits, and Headaches: How Certification of the Election Could Stall

Recounts, Lawsuits, and Headaches: How Certification of the Election Could Stall 

Elections & Politics #146 | By: Damian DeSola | October 12, 2024
Featured Photo: usatoday.com
__________________________________

In 2000, George W. Bush won the election against Al Gore. This was after months of legal proceedings, recounts, and political maneuvers, turning the 2000 election into one of the most controversial in American history. Thousands of votes in Florida were left uncounted after the Supreme Court determined that electoral officials would not have enough time to recount before the mid-December deadline. Also notable was the “Brooks Brothers Riot,” where Republican congressional staffers and others prevented official oversight of a hand recount. Many today still argue that Gore should have won with all the post-election evidence that has come out.  

Today, we do not have the same problems such as “hanging chads” of paper ballots, but this year’s election proceedings could put the issues of 2000 to shame. With polling margins in some swing states under one point, along with active questioning about the reliability of the election, 2024 is shaping up to be a possible long haul of a wait for a certified electorate.  

Even as this is being written, lawsuits about electoral rules in certain states are still being settled. With less than a month until the election, Republicans, Democrats, and other interested parties, are working daily to build workforces and legal frameworks that are prepared to set up or counter any proceedings that may take place after the polls close. 

Major media groups, generally relied upon by the public to call state elections, are ensuring that they have vast networks of election experts and legal teams so that no mistakes are made when calling an election. These measures have come to the forefront after 2020’s various events including Fox News calling Arizona early, Donald Trump declaring victory early, and the legal battle Fox had with Dominion Voting Systems over false claims of electoral fraud. 

Analysis 

Actions to take claim of victory by both sides will come early, but the first will likely come from an expected source. Donald Trump, like in 2020, may claim a premature victory. It will be after most states are called, but before major swing states are counted in full. An announcement might be contingent on a “red mirage” that makes initial Republican leads look stronger than they are. However, many pollsters may feel more cautious about reporting results early with memories of four years ago ever present. Regardless, an announcement of victory would immediately sow doubt in the election’s integrity among the populace, no matter who ends up winning. It is here where the difficult task begins.  

Lawsuit, it is the tool that parties have enjoyed using to stall the regular activities of electoral bureaucracy when the results do not look rosy for them. Many states will be extremely close, especially the seven swing states that will choose the victor of this election. Closeness brings the opportunity for discrepancies, like those in the 2000 election.  

As previously mentioned, Republicans are working to challenge election rules in state courthouses, as Democrats work to counter those challenges. Legal frameworks are being laid by both sides to ensure their side wins a battle in a courthouse over recount requests, voter disqualification, and even state election boards refusing to certify results.   

One dangerous possibility would be that of a tie. There are three reasonably possible ways that leave the electoral college split evenly at 269 votes for both candidates. In this case, a contingent election in Congress will take place to determine the victor. However, these contingent election rules are untested in the modern era and will likely be under heavy scrutiny from both parties. With such an unprecedented case, twelve years of tension may come to a dangerous boil  

The final delay a certification of the 2024 election could endure would be a repeat of the last certification day, the Capitol storming of January 6th. Though it is likely that security services have learned from their previous mistakes, attempts to prevent certification are still a possibility. It is impossible to say what plans there may be, and it is dangerous to speculate, but it might suffice to say that whoever loses this election will not take it lying down. 

This writer, once more, implores all that read to go to the polls on November 5th or vote via mail-in ballot. Regardless of your political views, we can all agree that a clear and concise election with votes like yours may save us from this article’s stated complications.

 

Engagement Resources
  • Vote.org: A nonpartisan site that helps you register to vote and provides voting information. 
  • AP News Election 2024: News site that will help you keep track of election news and campaign activity. 
  • Voting Rights Lab: A nonpartisan site that conducts research on voting restrictions and promotes voting rights across the country. 

 

Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.

 

Ukraine is Borrowing a Strategy from Robert E. Lee. Can it Avoid Pickett’s Charge?

Ukraine is Borrowing a Strategy from Robert E. Lee. Can it Avoid Pickett’s Charge?

Ukraine is Borrowing a Strategy from Robert E. Lee. Can it Avoid Pickett’s Charge? 

Foreign Policy #162 | By: Rudolph Lurz | October 08, 2024
Featured Photo: forbes.com

__________________________________

In 1863, the Confederate States of America was in an untenable situation. The Union blockade had suffocated the CSA’s economy. Vicksburg was under siege. Its fall would cut the Confederacy in two along the Mississippi River. The Confederacy was in desperate need of aid and recognition from foreign governments, specifically England and France. 

The Confederacy’s lone bright spot was the battlefield success of the Army of Northern Virginia, commanded by Robert E. Lee. Their victories over the Union were a source of pride for the South and gave Lee an aura of invincibility. The ignominious defeats of the Army of the Potomac were highly embarrassing for the Union and President Lincoln. Time and time again, the Union Army would march south into Virginia and be turned aside by Lee.  

Despite Lee’s battlefield success in the East, the Confederacy was losing the war. In the summer of 1863, Lee made a bold choice. He would take his army deep into Union territory and threaten a major city like Harrisburg or Philadelphia. This would force the Union to fight on the ground of Lee’s choosing. Such a battle would not be like the Union’s prior losses in Virginia. The Union Army would be unable to retreat and regroup if Lee crushed it in Pennsylvania. If the Confederate Army marched through the streets of Philadelphia, foreign recognition and potential aid would likely follow. No matter how badly the Confederacy was doing elsewhere, a primetime victory on Northern soil would change the entire course of the Civil War. 

Every elementary school student in the United States learns about what happened after Lee’s gambit. The Army of Northern Virginia engaged with its Union counterpart in the vicinity of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The Union was able to secure the high ground on Little Round Top on the flank and Cemetery Ridge in the Union center. Confederate efforts to turn the Union flank on Day 2 of the Battle of Gettysburg were heroically repulsed by the 20th Maine Regiment, led by Colonel Joshua Chamberlain. After testing the flanks on Days 1-2, General Lee launched a massive attack on the Union Center on Day 3, following an artillery barrage which could be heard as far east as Philadelphia. Pickett’s Charge, as the Confederate attack came to be called, was convincingly annihilated by General Hancock and the Union Army holding Cemetery Ridge. General Lee’s shattered army retreated back to Virginia. They would never again threaten a major Union city.  

This summer, shades of 1863 emerged with Ukraine’s sudden surprise attack in the Kursk region of Russia. Ukraine’s armed forces maintained absolute secrecy about the incursion into Kursk. Even the United States, Ukraine’s most important supplier of arms and munitions, was not informed of Ukraine’s attack. Two months after its initial attack, Ukraine still holds more Russian territory than any foreign power since World War 2. Will Ukraine be successful in defeating Russia’s army on Russian soil in a major military engagement? Or will they face their own version of Pickett’s Charge in a redux of the Confederate high tide of 1863? 

Analysis 

Many other scholars and journalists with more knowledge than I possess have written extensively about Ukraine’s incursion into Russian territory. A few of them have written very good articles right here at U.S. Resist News. I make no claims of holding a candle to their work with this brief.  

My immediate research background is in policy formation and political rhetoric, from my days earning my doctorate at the University of Pittsburgh. This brief has its roots much further back-from my days reading my father’s history texts and watching the Ken Burns mini-series, “The Civil War” on PBS. My love for battlefields of the past eventually earned me a B.A. in history from the University of Florida. I keep a memento of a rock from each battlefield I visit. Two from Little Round Top and one from The Angle at Cemetery Ridge sit a foot away from my laptop on my desk. When I hold these stones, I feel inspired by the weight of history in my hands. When I read for leisure, I choose historical texts.  

Ukraine’s crossing into Kursk created a flood of analyses. Some of these are speculative, others are solid day-by-day summaries of the political and military realities on the ground. My mind went directly to 1863. Much like Lee, Ukraine’s army has produced incredible results while standing outnumbered against a much stronger foe on paper. Unlike Lee and the Confederacy, most of the civilized world is firmly supporting the cause of Ukraine and its leader, Volodymyr Zelensky. The Confederacy dreamed of having such recognition and support. Ukraine has the world behind it in its battle against Russia.  

Ukraine has received billions of dollars in aid from NATO members and from around the globe, led by a coalition held together by U.S. President Joe Biden. Its fight has been painted, perhaps rightfully so, as freedom fighting against the tyranny of a neighboring dictatorship. Russia’s “special military operation” has brutally destroyed the infrastructure and population of a smaller neighbor in an attempt to force its political and economic will in the region. Despite Russia’s advantage on paper, Ukraine, with the help of its allies in the West, has forced a stalemate on the ground. Battlefield conditions have been compared to the muddy trenches of World War 1.  

Despite embarrassing defeats, Russia is advancing in its war of attrition. Villages like Bakhmut and Avdiivka have become household names as symbols of both Ukraine’s resolve and Russia’s brutality. These strongholds were taken by Russia after months of grinding battles. The Russian flag flies over nothing but ruins in each of them. Even still, Russia continues to advance in Ukraine’s eastern regions. Ukraine has a manpower problem after years of war. It does not have the reserves to replace the soldiers it loses. Russian soldiers are dying at a much faster rate than their Ukrainian opponents, and it is using tanks from the 1950s and 1960s because Ukraine has destroyed much of its modern equipment.  

That does not matter in the end. 

Putin knows he does not need to have dramatic victories to achieve his war aims. If Russia continues to lean on Ukraine and force it to lose men and material, he will continue to gain territory. It is meaningless to Putin whether this territory looks like Bakhmut when the Russian flag is raised over it. It has the reserves to continue fighting. 

This is why Ukraine’s foray into Kursk is so interesting. It conquered more territory at a much faster rate than what either Russia or Ukraine has been able to accomplish in the East. It has held this territory for two months. Ukraine hoped to divert Russian manpower from its advances in the East. It also hoped to use Kursk as a potential negotiating chip for a diplomatic peace.  

If Putin is embarrassed by Ukraine’s presence on his territory, he certainly is not showing it. Russia is patiently counter attacking without being drawn into a huge engagement. Russia seems willing to let its own towns become ruins like Bakhmut or Avdiivka instead of risking a major battle against Ukraine and its superior equipment.  

Ukraine’s best chance of a victory against Russia would be a 2024 Battle of Gettysburg on Russian soil. That would also be Russia’s best chance for a quick end to the war. Putin is unwilling to take the risk. Ukraine will not likely experience its own Pickett’s Charge in Kursk.  

It will not likely get the opportunity for a war-ending victory there, either.  

 

 

Engagement Resources

 

Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless, independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to continue in helping to protect democracy and empower citizenship.

 

 

Partisan Echoes & Information Silos: Navigating the Media Landscape of Rural West Texas

Partisan Echoes & Information Silos: Navigating the Media Landscape of Rural West Texas

Partisan Echoes & Information Silos: Navigating the Media Landscape of Rural West Texas

Elections & Politics #145 | By: Morgan Davidson| October 8, 2024
Featured Photo: gwtoday.gwu.edu
__________________________________

More and more, politically aware Americans seem to be having entirely different conversations based on their political affiliations. It’s a running joke in left-leaning media that one would have to frequent fringe message boards like 4Chan or platforms like Truth Social to understand what Trump is talking about. On the other side, you would be hard pressed to find a Republican who knows much or has even heard of the infamous Project 2025 denoting the unfavorability that Republican elites are away it would generate among even their election base.  

While following QAnon conspiracy theories are hardly useful in grasping Trump’s weird comments about windmills or nuking hurricanes, it’s true that the information ecosystems for Democrats and Republicans are increasingly distinct. Each group pays attention to different issues, shaped by their preferred media and partisan interests. In an era where media outlets are driven by clicks and the desire to cater to their audience’s preferences, hyperbole dominates, and the quality of reliable, fact-based reporting diminishes. 

This media division is perhaps most pronounced in rural West Texas, where mainstream outlets like CNN and MSNBC are viewed with disdain, and Fox News reigns supreme. Even here, more far-right sources like Newsmax and OAN have gained traction, especially among those seeking to reinforce their partisan beliefs. 

Analysis 

As noted in my earlier brief on West Texas, voters in this region tend to be older than the state and national averages. This age difference means they rely heavily on traditional media sources like print, radio, and television for their information. While print media is dying in many parts of the country, rural West Texas has been slower to abandon it. Most towns, and nearly every county, still have at least one local newspaper in print. 

One might expect these voters to be loyal to national conservative publications like The Wall Street Journal or The New York Post, but these are rare sights in West Texas outside of major hubs like Amarillo, Lubbock, and Midland/Odessa. Instead, you’re more likely to find The Epoch Times, a far-right outlet that has become popular in these areas. 

Radio remains a dominant force in rural Texas, even though it’s less popular than TV and print. As you lose signal driving through backroads, evangelical sermons mixed with conservative commentary fill the airwaves. Before Rush Limbaugh’s death, radio was arguably the most powerful medium in the region. Today, his replacements, like Clay Travis and Buck Sexton, continue to influence the media landscape, alongside podcasters like Ben Shapiro, whose show has a growing younger audience. 

On TV, Fox News is still king. Among those seeking more partisan content, Newsmax and OAN (when it was available) have strong followings. While all three networks were embroiled in lawsuits over their 2020 election coverage, Fox’s $787 million settlement stands out. Newsmax and OAN reached confidential agreements, but their complicity in pushing disinformation for profit remains clear. 

Among younger conservatives, media habits are shifting. Podcasts, influencers, and platforms like X (formerly Twitter) are becoming more popular. Figures like Tucker Carlson, now unaffiliated with Fox, have found new homes on X, while figures like Andrew Tate and Charlie Kirk capture younger audiences. It’s important to note that some of these figures, including Tate and Steve Bannon, are facing legal consequences—not because of political persecution, but because their content often veers into the realm of dangerous misinformation and other crimes. 

Examples of different coverage can be found on salient issues, such as the assassination attempt on Trump in Butler, PA on July 13th. 

Fox News initially covered the story by calling for a reduction in political rhetoric but has since shifted to more dramatic narratives, with headlines like, “Democrats’ Deadly Agenda: Barron Trump Learns His Father’s Been Shot,” and Greg Gutfeld suggesting a civil war because elections “no longer work.” 

CNN and MSNBC, across their platforms, focused on debunking conspiracy theories, with headlines such as “No Evidence Shooter Affiliated with Democratic Party, Law Enforcement Says,” stressing that escalating rhetoric endangers future violence. Both outlets condemned inflammatory speech but emphasized factual reporting. 

Ben Shapiro acknowledged the need to calm political rhetoric, saying the attempt was inevitable due to “both sides fueling the fire.” However, his coverage, while balanced, largely ignored the role of right-wing language in justifying violence. 

Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon’s War Room framed the attack through conspiratorial lenses. Carlson pushed the idea of “A Larger Elite Plot Against Trump,” while Bannon’s War Room questioned “Who’s Really Behind the Butler Attempt?” Both shows reinforced distrust of official narratives. 

In many ways, it feels like Republicans and Democrats are speaking different languages, and in a sense, they are. As shown by West Texas’ media landscape, Republicans are consuming content that’s far outside the mainstream. Though conservative media figures frequently criticize the “mainstream media” for bias, they’ve built an alternative network that caters to their own biases. In doing so, they’re different from their counterparts on the left, where right-wing media tends to promote pro-Trump narratives, while left-leaning outlets are more often centered around defending democratic norms and institutions, even as both sides seek out news that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs.” 

As party elites signal what their voters should care about, these partisan media networks amplify those issues, often at the expense of factual reporting. It’s no wonder that voters in places like West Texas, immersed in this ecosystem, develop a worldview that feels increasingly detached from that of their Democratic counterparts. The rise of conservative media outlets shows there is no silencing of conservative voices—rather, their reach is expanding, with consequences for how political conversations play out across the country. 

 

Engagement Resources

 

Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.

 

Mars Exploration: Is It Worthwhile?

Mars Exploration: Is It Worthwhile?

Mars Exploration: Is It Worthwhile?

Foreign Policy #161 | By: Inijah Quadri | October 03, 2024
Featured Photo: www.cnn.com

__________________________________

Mars exploration, particularly the notion of human settlement on the Red Planet, has captured the imagination of scientists, space enthusiasts, and billionaires like Elon Musk. The prospect of extending human life beyond Earth presents an ambitious and awe-inspiring challenge. However, this vision of a permanent human settlement on Mars is fraught with significant technical, ethical, and financial hurdles. Many critics question the very premise of attempting to colonize Mars, arguing that the obstacles may outweigh the benefits.

Advocates for Mars exploration point to its potential as a safeguard for humanity in the face of global existential threats such as climate change, nuclear warfare, or asteroid impacts. This argument hinges on the idea that making humanity a “multiplanetary species” would offer a form of insurance for the survival of civilization. Yet, critics emphasize the ethical, logistical, and resource-driven dilemmas that loom large over any realistic attempt to settle Mars. Indeed, a deeper analysis reveals substantial skepticism about why we are pursuing this endeavor in the first place.

Analysis

The practical challenges of human settlement on Mars are monumental. First, there are significant health risks for astronauts, including exposure to high levels of cosmic radiation, bone density loss due to low gravity, and severe psychological stress from isolation and distance from Earth. Current technologies, though advancing, are not yet equipped to overcome these obstacles fully. NASA’s Mars exploration roadmap remains cautious, focused primarily on research and preparatory missions rather than immediate settlement. Yet private ventures, notably Elon Musk’s SpaceX, propose far more aggressive timelines, aiming to establish a colony by this century.

From a financial standpoint, the costs of creating a sustainable colony on Mars are astronomical. It is unclear who will fund such a venture, especially given the uncertain return on investment. The vast sums required to make this a reality—through private funding, national space programs, or a mix of both—are difficult to justify, particularly when pressing issues on Earth, such as climate change and global inequality, demand immediate resources.

More troubling, perhaps, is the ethical dimension of Mars colonization. The psychological and physical effects of long-term space habitation are largely unknown. Colonists would face extreme conditions—thin atmosphere, frigid temperatures, and the lack of basic necessities like water and food—which would demand heavy reliance on artificial systems. Moreover, critics argue that the drive to colonize Mars may mask ulterior motives, including the potential for corporate exploitation of resources and privatization of extraterrestrial land, challenging international space laws like the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which declares celestial bodies the “province of all mankind.”

Beyond these challenges, some question whether focusing on Mars as a second home for humanity is a distraction from solving Earth’s problems. Environmentalists argue that the effort and resources being poured into space exploration could be better spent addressing the climate crisis, poverty, and technological innovation for sustainable living on Earth. The philosophical critique here is profound: Why should we abandon Earth for a hostile planet when we haven’t yet proven capable of caring for our own?

Finally, there is the societal impact of creating a settlement on Mars. The governance of such a colony raises pressing concerns. Who will govern these Martian outposts, and what rights will settlers have? Will corporate entities control the population? What ethical guidelines will govern reproduction, healthcare, and access to resources? These questions reveal a grim undercurrent: the potential for inequality, authoritarian control, and exploitation in the pursuit of extraterrestrial colonization.

 

 

Engagement Resources
  • NASA Mars Exploration Program (https://www.nasa.gov/mars): Learn about NASA’s latest missions and research related to Mars exploration.
  • The Space Review (https://www.thespacereview.com) Critical insights into the challenges and skepticism surrounding human settlement on Mars.
  • The Mars Society (https://www.marssociety.org/): The Mars Society is dedicated to the exploration and eventual settlement of Mars. It provides both optimistic perspectives on human exploration while also addressing the practical challenges that remain unsolved.

Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless, independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to continue in helping to protect democracy and empower citizenship.

 

 

Female Autocrats: Navigating Power, Gender Bias, and Political Survival

Female Autocrats: Navigating Power, Gender Bias, and Political Survival

Female Autocrats: Navigating Power, Gender Bias, and Political Survival

Elections & Politics #144 | By: Morgan Davidson| September 27, 2024
Featured Photo: www.independent.co.uk
__________________________________

The recent ouster of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, following violent riots in Bangladesh that resulted in over 300 deaths, presents a rare opportunity to explore a less-studied area in international relations: female autocrats. While discussions of autocracy often focus on men like Hitler, Stalin, Putin, or Xi Jinping, female autocrats are an equally significant but under-explored phenomenon. This analysis focuses on the unique dynamics and challenges women face in leadership within autocratic regimes, distinct from female leadership in democratic systems.

Analysis

Female autocrats navigate a challenging landscape shaped by societal perceptions and media biases. Unlike their male counterparts, who are often viewed as assertive, women leaders face skepticism regarding their authority and competence. This bias complicates their leadership journey, requiring them to balance societal expectations of femininity with their roles as powerful leaders.

The media significantly influences public perceptions of female autocrats, frequently focusing on personal attributes rather than political achievements. This scrutiny can undermine their authority and present challenges that male autocrats typically do not encounter.

A primary challenge for female autocrats is establishing legitimacy. Due to gender biases, they often need to demonstrate their capabilities more vigorously than male leaders, which may lead them to implement gender reforms, such as quotas, to enhance their credibility. In contrast to male leaders who can rely on traditional masculinity to assert power, female autocrats must emphasize their accomplishments to earn respect from political elites.

Co-opting male elites into their power structures presents another hurdle. Male autocrats generally benefit from established political networks, while female leaders must navigate a male-dominated political environment. This dynamic can compel female autocrats to adopt aggressive policies, including military crackdowns, to consolidate their rule and demonstrate strength.

Contrary to stereotypes suggesting women leaders prioritize social issues, female autocrats often engage in conflict and implement harsh policies to assert dominance. These actions serve to prove their capability in maintaining control, especially in regions where traditional gender roles prevail.

Historically, Catherine the Great of Russia exemplified this dynamic. Ruling from 1762 to 1796 after overthrowing her husband, she centralized power and enacted governance reforms while suppressing dissent. More recently, Indira Gandhi’s tenure as Prime Minister of India illustrated similar tendencies. She bypassed constitutional norms and curtailed civil liberties, ultimately consolidating power and quelling multiple episodes of dissent before her assasination in 1984.

Female leaders may adopt autocratic styles in response to crises, believing decisive action is necessary to restore order. Even in democracies, women may shift toward autocracy when faced with political challenges. Cultural contexts also play a significant role; in societies where women face significant barriers to leadership, an authoritative style may be necessary to demonstrate the masculine qualities that their male counterparts inherit from birth.

Additionally, individual backgrounds can shape leadership styles. Experiences in politics or the military may make autocratic strategies seem more viable. Conservative leaders like Margaret Thatcher and more liberal leaders like Angela Merkel occasionally acted unilaterally to project strength, demonstrating that autocratic tendencies can emerge across the political spectrum.

Regarding gender reforms, both male and female autocrats may implement gender quotas, but their motivations differ. Male leaders often use these reforms to enhance international legitimacy, while female leaders may have more genuine intentions to advance women’s rights. Examining the effectiveness of such reforms can shed light on the role of gender in autocratic governance.

In many autocracies, gender reforms like quotas often serve as political tools to enhance regimes’ international standing. While these reforms improve women’s representation, they are often viewed skeptically as superficial strategies rather than genuine efforts for equality.

The presence of female autocrats can inspire greater political engagement among women, evidenced by studies indicating increased awareness of political processes when women hold high-ranking positions. However, the long-term impact on gender equality remains uncertain. Gender reforms in autocracies often prioritize political survival over meaningful change.

In conclusion, female autocrats represent a unique dimension of political leadership, facing distinct challenges in navigating gender biases and power dynamics. While they may implement reforms that promote women’s representation, the advancement of gender equality often remains limited as both male and female leaders prioritize political survival over genuine reform.

 

Engagement Resources

Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.

 

No More Than a BAND-AID: Instagram’s New Teen Accounts

No More Than a BAND-AID: Instagram’s New Teen Accounts

No More Than a BAND-AID: Instagram’s New Teen Accounts

Technology Policy #117 | By: Allie Amato | September 25, 2024
Featured Photo: www.fastcompany.com

__________________________________

Nearly one in four Instagram users under the age of 16 have reportedly had a “bad experience” on the platform from being firsthand witnesses to racism, bigotry, and antisemitism. Even worse, more than 25% of teen users between 13 and 15 years old have received unwanted sexual advances on Instagram. This is according to research conducted by former Facebook employee turned whistleblower, Arturo Bejar. These statistics are not new or novel, they were published by the Wall Street Journal more than a year ago. Bejar isn’t even Meta’s first whistleblower to point out the tech giant’s “see no evil, hear no evil” approach when it comes to protecting kids on their various platforms.

However, this information is worth revisiting in light of Meta’s rollout last week of their new Teen Accounts. What appears to be the company taking accountability for their previous inaction is unfortunately a small patch to a wholly flawed system. While the company promises built-in protections many holes in the new feature do little to mitigate the central issue. Kids can’t get a vodka soda at the bar because that’s legally an adult space and a federally regulated adult product. Yes, there are even holes in those protections but what’s important is they make it that much more difficult for kids to access. So shouldn’t the same go for social media, namely Instagram? An easily accessible, arguably adult space, dominated by adult products that has proven to be exceedingly damaging to the psyche and well-being of our youth.

ANALYSIS:

It remains to be seen if and how the Instagram Teen Accounts will help with the harassment, discrimination, and diminishment of self-worth that plagues Instagram’s young users. A cursory glance at the new feature easily shows the glaring flaws within Teen Accounts. Firstly, teens under 16 need a guardian’s permission to disable Instagram’s new built-in protections, but this leaves those 16 and older with virtually no safeguards. They may be approaching legal adulthood, but kids in their late teens are still very much young, impressionable kids with minds that are still developing. Secondly, there are seemingly no protections in place to stop adults from catfishing as teens themselves. The language is vague on how Meta plans to mitigate teens pretending to be older than they are as well. There’s mention of a new technology that will help identify teens, but testing hasn’t even begun on that feature, so it’s unclear when these issues will be properly addressed. Thirdly, and most importantly Instagram passes off the responsibility of managing and supervising these accounts to the parents. A well-meaning guardian may take advantage of the features out of genuine concern, but what about those who don’t have their kids best interests at heart? According to the CDC, in the United States at least one in seven children have experienced neglect or abuse.  We must think of these especially vulnerable children whose guardians will otherwise ignore the effort, or more dangerously, abusive ones who can use this as a tool to further carry out their cruelty.

There are already some policies in place meant to safeguard children from the harms of the World Wide Web, such as the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). The problem is, that technology is ever-evolving which can make it difficult to pin down violators with outdated regulations. For example, CIPA merely protects children in certain school and library settings, imposing restrictions only on institutions that receive discounts for Internet access through the federal E-rate program. Meanwhile, social media companies are able to mostly dodge legal repercussions due to a law known as Section 230, which grants immunity to tech industry titans from being held responsible for user-generated content. Late last October, more than 40 states took Meta to task, suing the company for what they say was deliberate action to make their platforms addictive and knowingly fueling the youth mental health crisis. It’s clear though that more comprehensive action is needed.

This is where the Kids Online Safety Act comes in. Sponsor Senator Richard Blumenthal has been in staunch opposition to Meta’s practices, accusing the company of hiding evidence of the “harms that they knew was credible” The bill has been making its way through Congress over the past few months and was just advanced by the House. It focuses on putting the responsibility solely on social media companies to prevent harm to minors, even calling for frequent public reports of foreseeable risks on the platforms and the establishment of the Kids Online Safety Council. Both sides of the aisle are united in that social media has become a public health issue, but opinions vary on how to tackle that. If made into law, it could change the landscape of the internet for kids and force the hands of tech companies to take meaningful action to repair the damage they’ve already done.

 

 

ENGAGEMENT RESOURCES:
  •  Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program is a national network of task forces, representing thousands of federal, state, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies developed in response to the rise of online sexual abuse.
  • Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI) is an international, non-profit organization which seeks to make the online world safer for families through public policy, industry best practices, and good digital parenting.
  • Protect Us Kids (PUK) equips young people in marginalized and rural communities worldwide with essential life-saving skills to safely navigate the online world, minimizing their risk of being targeted by child predators and exploiters.

Stay in-the-know with the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism, so please consider donating to keep democracy alive today!

 

Situation Update: The War in Ukraine

Situation Update: The War in Ukraine

Situation Update: The War in Ukraine

Foreign Policy #160 | By: Ibrahim Castro | September 24, 2024
Featured Photo: www.nbcnews.com

__________________________________

Zelensky Travels to the US

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is visiting the United States this week to lay out his “victory plan” to the White House, in an attempt to shift policy on Ukraine’s war with Russia. The Ukrainian leader has said he wants to present the plan to President Joe Biden and his two potential successors, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. It is expected that Zelenskiy will likely press for longer-term assurances of aid into 2025 and seek some kind of declaration of post-Biden continuity in support. This is due to Trump’s proposals of cutting aid and weapons to Ukraine. Also on the agenda will be the repeated ask of Ukraine, to be allowed to use long range American weapons to hit targets inside Russian territory. Ukraine reportedly wants the capability to strike military installations up to 186 miles inside Russia, such as airfields that host attack helicopters and warplanes used to fire missiles. The US has been unwilling to allow that up until now, fearing a confrontation between the US and Russia. Putin has warned that allowing long-range strikes against Russian targets would mean that NATO was “at war” with Russia. Zelensky will also be addressing the U.N. General Assembly in New York later this week.

Waging war across borders

On September 18, Ukraine conducted one of the largest drone attacks of the entire war, causing a blast at a weapons depot inside Russia that was large enough to be picked up by earthquake monitoring stations. The attack involved more than one hundred domestically produced long-range Ukrainian drones and targeted a major Russian arms storage facility in Toropets, a town northwest of Moscow. Two weeks ago Ukraine targeted the Russian capital, killing  one person, wrecking dozens of homes in Moscow, and forcing flights to be diverted from airports around the capital. It was the first attack against the Russian capital that resulted in a civilian death since the start of the war. The increasing frequency and effectiveness of drone attacks would appear to lend credibility to Ukraine’s decision to focus its limited resources on boosting the domestic development and production of long-range drones. Ukrainian attacks are now visibly expanding in scale as more drones are produced.

On August 6, 2024, Ukraine began an incursion into the Russian Kursk region, capturing territory inside Russia for the first time. At least 56 civilians are reported to have been killed and 266 wounded during the now seven-week-old incursion. President Zelenskiy has said that his forces controlled more than 100 settlements in the Kursk region. Russian officials dispute this number and say they have since taken back some villages in a counter-attack. The main aim of the incursion into the Kursk region was primarily to create another front and draw Russian forces away from the occupied Donbas region in Ukraine.

Russian missiles meanwhile continue to cause civilian casualties within Ukraine. In the city of Poltava earlier this month, two ballistic missiles hit a military academy and a nearby hospital, killing more than 50 people and wounding more than 200 others. This attack was one of the deadliest Russian strikes since the war began.

ICC visits Ukraine to investigate war crimes

The International Criminal Court”s ( ICC  )chief prosecutor Karim Khan recently conducted his sixth trip to Ukraine where he visited a children’s hospital destroyed by a missile strike, spoke to victims of alleged crimes committed in detention facilities, and held an event with Ukraine’s first lady on Russian war crimes against Ukrainian children. In March 2023 the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, and though not as widely reported, more warrants for Russian officials were put out this year. One for Russia’s former defense minister, Sergei Shoigu, and the chief of general staff, Valery Gerasimov. Andriy Kostin  is in charge of the court prosecution system in the country and has called on the ICC to investigate Russian  attacks as war crimes, and  said  that every legal avenue would be pursued against Russia. “There is no statute of limitations for the time… We understand that our work is for years, maybe for decades, but our commitment is to do it as soon as possible” he said.

Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless, independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to continue in helping to protect democracy and empower citizenship.

 

 

Swing States Will Decide the Election: It’s Anyone’s Game

Swing States Will Decide the Election: It’s Anyone’s Game

Swing States Will Decide the Election: It’s Anyone’s Game

Elections & Politics #143 | By: Damian DeSola| September 23, 2024
Featured Photo: www.share.america.gov/what-is-a-swing-state
__________________________________

This whirlwind of an election season has shaken the United States’ election practices to their core. Unprecedented events have resulted in this election becoming one of the most contentious in our modern era. The results of this election are in the hands of the seven swing states that have proven stubbornly neutral. Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan, and Wisconsin, whichever side wins enough of these swing states and their electoral votes will win this election.

From a national point of view, Harris is up by around two percentage points on average, however the polling from these swing states will matter much more. Many averages done by organizations such as the New York Times, 538, and RealClear Polling, paint a picture of each swing state leaning either way by less than a percentage point. Some do not even show a lean, labeling the states as “tossup” or “even.” Based on such margins, the imagination of pundits, analysts, and journalists has run wild, building electoral maps showing how either side could win.

Analysis

Predictions for this complicated election that has been upended multiple times is a monumental task to say the least. Every prediction could change the second an unforgivable gaff or unpredictable event happens over the very few days left in this election cycle. Nonetheless, out of data and the preferential trends of voters, a prediction will be made.

The two swing states that are certainly leaning red are Georgia and Arizona. While Joe Biden won these states in 2020,  recent reactions to border policies and economic policies have made Georgians and Arizonans hesitant to stand behind Harris. However, Georgia may swing blue if the issues of democracy and abortion overpower economic woes.

Michigan and Wisconsin conversely have shown preference to Harris. Unions are likely to play an important role in pulling the newly invigorated industrial areas of Wisconsin and Michigan closer to Harris. Polls have also shown these two states leaning towards Harris by much larger margins and with more consistency than other states. However, there is a significant Muslim population in Michigan that is heavily focused on the Israel-Palestine war. If enough consider Harris’ policy statements to be unsatisfactory, winning Michigan will become a much harder task for the Harris campaign.

Next is Pennsylvania, which has become a focal point for both campaigns. Both realize that winning the Keystone state will neigh win them the election. Polling is tight, but some signs are beginning to crop up.

After Harris and Trump’s first, possibly only, debate, a poll conducted by the New York Times showed Pennsylvania leaning towards Harris by two points. The Democratic campaign is focusing on large cities and their suburbs, and is rebuilding the winning black and women coalition from 2020. This election may come down to thousands of votes, but with the way trends are moving at this moment, this writer has confidence in a blue Pennsylvania this year.

Finally, we look at the states that are declared for the moment, “too close to call.” These two being Nevada and North Carolina. They are likely to share similar Republican sentiments as their respective neighbors, Arizona and Georgia, but show amenability to the Democratic message.

In North Carolina’s case, demographics are likely to be key. The high concentration of women and black likely voters will be a balancing force for the Democrats. However, this is countered by the heavy concentration of non-college educated voters, about 64% of the electorate, which overwhelmingly support Trump.  Leading this predictor to believe that North Carolina is likely to still fall to the Republicans.

Finally, there is Nevada. This state could change the tide of the election if the electoral margins are truly slim. Very sparse polling data has come out of the state. Harris has a slight edge in most polls and may feel comfortable since Nevada has not favored Republicans since Obama won it in 2008. However, its proximity to the border might swing voters towards Trump. However, if trends hold true, Harris is far more likely to win Nevada.

Thus, a final prediction for this election is as follows. Trump will win Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina, and Harris will carry Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada. Leaving the final electoral score being 276 votes for Harris, and 262 votes for Trump, making Harris the next president of the United States.

As a final note, regardless of your political views, this writer hopes that you exercise your civic duty this November 5th and vote.

 

 

Engagement Resources
  • 270 to Win: An interactive site that allows you to build your own predictive electoral map
  • org: A nonpartisan site that helps you register to vote and provides voting information
  • Voting Rights Lab: A nonpartisan site that conducts research on voting restrictions and promotes voting rights across the country.

Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.

 

Tech Wants Kamala – and More!

Tech Wants Kamala – and More!

Tech Wants Kamala – and More!

Technology Policy #116 | By: Mindy Spatt | August 26, 2024
Featured Photo: www.nytimes.com

__________________________________

While President Biden’s campaign didn’t receive much support from the wealthy, powerful CEOs and venture capitalists of Silicon Valley, Vice President’s Harris campaign has been drawing in tech dollars from the instant she announced her candidacy.

Trump’s early efforts to reach tech money were led by his running mate, JD Vance, who spent a few years as a venture capitalist in the Valley. Still, Vance’s ties are not nearly as strong as Harris’s, who is from the Bay Area and has deep connections nurtured during her many years as an elected official.

A fundraiser for Harris in San Francisco early in the campaign brought in luminaries like Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Lee, and Governor Gavin Newsom, and raised the same $12 M that Trump had on his first visit here (See Technology Policy Brief # 112).  But Harris’ event had 700 attendees; Trump’s only 100.

Trump’s efforts were bolstered by the tech industry’s notorious distaste for Biden appointee Lina Kahn, the FCC Chair who has been aggressive in pushing for accountability, regulation, and consumer protection.  Under Kahn’s leadership, the agency has won orders requiring social media and streaming platforms to turn over information about deceptive advertising, fining Microsoft $20 million for collecting children’s data on Xbox and fining Amazon $25 million for violating children’s privacy laws.

Reid Hoffman, CEO of LinkedIn, has described Kahn as “waging war on American business.”  Yet he is leading an effort to raise over $100 million to support Harris.  Other heavyweight supporters include Sheryl Sandberg, the former COO of Facebook, Netflix’s Reid Hastings, and philanthropists Melinda French Gates and Laurene Powell Jobs.  And Harris’ brother-in-law, Tony West, who is an executive at Uber.

Two websites have sprung up as part of the effort, Tech for Kamala and VC for Kamala.  According to organizer Leslie Feinzaig, a co-founder of the Female Founders Alliance, the groups formed in part to counter the high-profile tech support Trump had been attracting, which many saw as an unwelcome shift to the right.

Hoffman and other big donors can have a huge impact on the race.  The problem is that he has stated publicly that if elected he wants Harris to get rid of Kahn and appoint someone more to the industry’s liking as the top regulator.  That has watchdog groups alarmed.  Twenty-two organizations sent Harris a letter of concern urging her to commit to keeping Kahn on the FCC and not be beholden to wealthy corporate donors and their influence, saying:

“Monopolies, price gougers, and billionaires choosing their own regulators flies in the face of the principles of the work you have done as a leader of the Biden/Harris administration. We ask you to publicly signal your support for Lina Khan’s leadership of the FTC, competitive markets, and a pro-consumer agenda.”

Signatories include Public Citizen, the NAACP, Food and Water Action, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a grassroots organization engaged in electoral work and issue advocacy with close ties to Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Kahn for her part isn’t intimidated and continues to push for accountability.  Her most recent effort, on September 19, is a report on the vast amounts of personal data being collected and sold by tech companies including Facebook, Amazon, YouTube, and Twitter.  She commented that “[While] lucrative for the companies, these surveillance practices can endanger people’s privacy, threaten their freedoms, and expose them to a host of harms, from identify theft to stalking. Several firms’ failure to adequately protect kids and teens online is especially troubling.”

 

 

Engagement Resources

Stay in-the-know with the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism, so please consider donating to keep democracy alive today!

 

x
x
Support fearless journalism! Your contribution, big or small, dismantles corruption and sparks meaningful change. As an independent outlet, we rely on readers like you to champion the cause of transparent and accountable governance. Every donation fuels our mission for insightful policy reporting, a cornerstone for informed citizenship. Help safeguard democracy from tyrants—donate today. Your generosity fosters hope for a just and equitable society.

Pin It on Pinterest