JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Mars Exploration: Is It Worthwhile?
Mars exploration offers the tantalizing possibility of extending human life beyond Earth, but the journey to colonize the Red Planet is fraught with immense technical, ethical, and financial challenges. As excitement grows over private ventures like Elon Musk’s SpaceX, critics question whether the pursuit of Mars distracts from addressing the urgent crises facing our home planet.
Female Autocrats: Navigating Power, Gender Bias, and Political Survival
Morgan Davidson uncovers the untold dynamics of female autocrats, exploring how they navigate gender bias and power struggles in authoritarian regimes. With compelling examples from Sheikh Hasina to Catherine the Great, this piece examines how these leaders defy expectations and adopt fierce policies to maintain control.
No More Than a BAND-AID: Instagram’s New Teen Accounts
Meta’s newly launched Instagram Teen Accounts aim to address concerns over online safety, but many argue it’s just a superficial fix. With significant gaps in protection for teens and the onus falling heavily on parents, the platform’s measures may not be enough to shield young users from harassment, discrimination, and predatory behavior.
Situation Update: The War in Ukraine
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to the U.S. aims to secure ongoing support and approval for expanded military actions, including strikes deep into Russian territory. As Ukraine intensifies drone attacks and pushes into the Russian Kursk region, the stakes are rising, with Zelensky urging American leaders to maintain their commitment amid shifting political dynamics and ongoing investigations into Russian war crimes.
Swing States Will Decide the Election: It’s Anyone’s Game
As the 2024 election reaches its fever pitch, the fate of the presidency hinges on just a few swing states like Arizona and Pennsylvania. With razor-thin polling margins, the final days of campaigning could determine whether Harris or Trump secures enough electoral votes for victory.
Tech Wants Kamala – and More!
Kamala Harris’ Silicon Valley fundraising has quickly outpaced Trump’s, despite his early inroads. But these wealthy tech donors have made no secret about what they might want in return, raising alarm bells with watchdog groups.
The Wars in Gaza and Ukraine Are the Same War
The wars in Gaza and Ukraine, though geographically distant, are strikingly similar in their fight against authoritarian aggression and defense of democracy. In this compelling analysis, Michael Mandelbaum explains why support for both conflicts is crucial to safeguarding Western values and interests worldwide.
The Limits of Electric Cars and the Benefits of Transit Solutions in Addressing Climate Change
Electric cars may seem like the answer to cutting emissions, but they only scratch the surface of our climate challenges. True sustainability lies in reimagining our cities with transit-focused solutions that can drastically reduce greenhouse gases and reshape our future.
Football, Politics, and Polarization: Tim Walz’s Struggle for West Texas Voters
Governor Tim Walz, a former football coach and centrist Democrat, faces an uphill battle resonating with West Texas voters, who view him through a lens shaped by conservative media. Despite sharing a working-class background with Trump’s VP pick JD Vance, Walz’s moderate record struggles to break through the polarization gripping this crucial voting bloc.
Resilience and Tradition: The Political Heartbeat of West Texas
Resilience and Tradition: The Political Heartbeat of West Texas
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #135 | By: Morgan Davidson| August 05, 2024
Featured Photo: www.reddit.com/r/texas
__________________________________
From the Cadillacs of Amarillo to the deserts of the Permian Basin, West Texas is known for its oil, agriculture, and conservatism. The people here are gritty, hardworking, gun-loving, God-fearing, and Friday night fanatics, embodying an underdog spirit born from their characterization and the implicit acknowledgment of being overlooked at both state and federal levels. Who are the people of West Texas?
Analysis
According to Census data, West Texas, home to 2,063,830 people (about 7% of the state’s population), is divided by the Texas Comptroller into three sub-regions: West Texas, the High Plains, and Northwest Texas. Each sub-region has unique demographics, economic traits, and cultural identities, shaping the political landscape and voting behavior of West Texas.
West Texas, my home area, has a median age of 33.1 years, a college education rate of 14.5%, and an average household income of $59,700. It is a majority-minority region, with 53.1% Hispanic or Latino, 39.3% White, 4.2% Black, 1.4% two or more races, and 0.9% Asian, including the metropolitan areas of Midland, Odessa, and San Angelo.
The High Plains (Panhandle) has a median age of 33.6 years, 16.3% with a college degree, and an average household income of $56,413. Its population is 50.2% White, 40.1% Hispanic or Latino, 5.7% Black, 2% two or more races, and 2% Asian, encompassing Lubbock and Amarillo.
Northwest Texas has a median age of 37.4 years, a college education rate of 15.1%, and an average household income of $54,037. Its population is 65.5% White, 24% Hispanic or Latino, 6.4% Black, 2.7% two or more races, and 1.4% Asian, including Abilene and Wichita Falls.
Statewide, Texas has a median age of 35 years, a college education rate of 33.9%, and an average household income of $72,284. The population is 39.8% White, 40.2% Hispanic or Latino, 12.5% Black, 5.5% Asian, and 2.1% two or more races. The region’s lower educational attainment and household incomes contrast with statewide averages and highlight the challenges and opportunities facing West Texas.
In the 2020 election, the 20 counties comprising the seven metro areas in West Texas accounted for 371,307 votes for Donald Trump, representing 58.82% of the difference between Biden and Trump in the state. This figure only includes metro counties, not the surrounding deep-red rural counties, where the lowest vote share for Trump was 68.9%. Despite making up only 7% of the state’s population, voters in West Texas significantly prevent the state from being more competitive electorally.
In Texas, discussing politics inevitably involves the border. In West Texas, key concerns include stopping illegal immigration, combating fentanyl, and preventing the spread of cartels and crime. Lubbock, as the region’s hub city, often reports high violent crime rates compared to the state and nation. Republicans have a strong advantage on border issues, with West Texas voters viewing Democrats as too radical on the issue.
Economic concerns in West Texas primarily center around the region’s dependence on oil and agriculture. Many view policies like the Green New Deal as threats to their way of life. Although not everyone is directly involved in these industries, growing up in West Texas fosters a conservative bond that is deeply-rooted.
Religion strongly reinforces conservative beliefs in West Texas. It’s common to see multiple churches in small towns with populations of just a few thousand. Voters in the region hold firm to American principles such as limited government, the right to bear arms, and lower taxes, viewing these as core to their ideology. The region’s norms contribute to its consistently conservative stance.
Do Democrats have an inroad? If they did Texas has the lowest percentage of insured individuals, and with rising medical costs, Democrats could appeal to those in an area with below-state-average incomes. Water scarcity and drilling limitations are growing issues in West Texas. If Republicans continue to ignore climate concerns, Democrats might gain ground if persistent droughts exacerbate the water crisis.
The best chance for Democrats is to engage directly with voters. Beto O’Rourke’s 254-county tour energized the Democratic base by showing up. In a state where leaders often seem detached, Democrats can make a difference by addressing local grievances and making residents feel seen. Campaigning in the areas could counteract negative caricatures in conservative media and boost support.
West Texas’s blend of resilience, traditional values, and reliance on oil and agriculture shapes its strong conservative stance. Democrats could find opportunities by addressing local issues like healthcare, water scarcity, and engaging directly with voters with genuine concern. While Republicans must continue to align with the region’s values and show up to maintain their stronghold.
Engagement Resources
- The “Texas Take” podcast offers in-depth analysis and discussion of Texas politics and policy, featuring insights from experienced journalists on the state’s latest political developments and key issues. https://open.spotify.com/show/7nrIy8PBrkRmySACgW1mzS
- The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit news organization providing in-depth, nonpartisan coverage of Texas politics, policy, and statewide issues, aiming to inform and engage the public through investigative reporting and data-driven journalism. https://www.texastribune.org/
- The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a conservative think tank that advocates for limited government, free markets, and individual liberty. They conduct research and analysis on various policy issues affecting Texas, including energy, education, and healthcare. https://www.texaspolicy.com/
- The Texas Freedom Network is a progressive organization that advocates for religious freedom, civil liberties, and public education. They work to counter the influence of far-right policies in Texas politics and promote progressive values. https://tfn.org/
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.
Putin and Trump’s Connections: Onstage and Behind the Scenes, Part 1: The Russian Trace
Putin and Trump’s Connections: Onstage and Behind the Scenes
Part 1: The Russian Trace
Foreign Policy Brief #151 | By: Yelena Korshunov | August 05, 2024
Featured Photo: www.americanprogress.org
__________________________________
Suspected backstage political connections and long-term mutual curtsies of former US president Donald Trump and Russia’s president Vladimir Putin have been in the center of intelligence investigation and public attention from the time of the US presidential elections in 2016.
Suspected Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
In 2017 The New York Times revealed the Trump team’s connections with the Russians, along with attempts to sway the F.B.I. director, James Comey. (SWAY COMEY TO DO WHAT; PLEASE EXPLAIN. Later, in May 2018, Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, who joined Trump’s legal team, told Fox News that president Donald Trump fired James Comey because the former FBI director wouldn’t offer public assurances that Trump wasn’t a target of an investigation. “He fired him and he said, ‘I’m free of this guy,’” declaired Giuliani.
According to the New York Times, Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential elections and Vladimir Putin’s desire to establish control over eastern Ukraine could be linked. This assumption was based on FBI director Robert Mueller’s documents from the “Russia investigation” conducted by the intelligence committee of the US Senate and on dozens of interviews and other materials.
The central figure of this case is Paul Manafort, the head of Donald Trump’s election campaign, who worked for many years in Ukraine with former Ukrainian pro-Russia president Viktor Yanukovych, and his colleague in Ukrainian projects Konstantin Kilimnik, whom American investigators consider an agent of Russia’s intelligence (Klimnik denies this). In August 2016, Kilimnik presented to Paul Manafort the so-called “Mariupol Plan” developed to create an autonomous republic in eastern Ukraine. The plan had to be headed by Viktor Yanukovych, former pro-Russian Ukrainian president who fled to Russia in 2014.) These territories would be under the control of Putin while formally remaining a part of Ukraine.
According to The New York Times, this plan essentially coincides with what Putin is trying to achieve in Ukraine by annexing Ukrainian territory captured during the war. Russian interference in the US presidential election is believed to have been aimed at damaging Trump’s rival Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The implementation of the “Mariupol Plan” would have been impossible without the participation of the United States and would be a pay for the Russia’s interference in the US election supporting Trump in his presidential race. The New York Times writes that all this was the conclusion of the prosecutors who discovered the existence of the plan. The article notes that Trump’s victory in elections was necessary for the implementation of the “Mariupol Plan”, since Hillary Clinton as the US president would not have agreed to Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty.
In November 2023 CBS News declared that materials from a binder containing highly sensitive intelligence related to Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election went missing at the end of the Trump administration and have not yet been recovered. It’s not clear whether the disappeared information was an official document or a compendium of things put together by former president Trump’s allies in the administration.
Vladimir Putin about Donald Trump, “We had such a personal relationship.”
In June 2019, Putin and Trump held a bilateral meeting at the G20 summit in Osaka. The day before, in an interview with the Financial Times, Vladimir Putin praised Donald Trump, describing him as a “talented person” having “a very keen sense of what the voter expects from him.”
Later, In February 2024, at the interview with Tucker Carlson in Moscow, Putin emphasized that “Trump and I had such a personal relationship.”
On July 4, 2024, Reuters reported from Astana (the capital of Kazakhstan where Putin arrived) that the Russian president expressed his belief that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was sincere about wanting to end the war in Ukraine. “The fact that Mr. Trump, as a presidential candidate, declares that he is ready and wants to stop the war in Ukraine, we take this completely seriously,” Putin said. “I am not, of course, familiar with possible proposals for how he plans to do this. This is the key question. But I have no doubt that he means it sincerely, and we support it (the idea of ending the war).” The Washington Post reported in April that Trump had privately spoken about the option of allowing Putin to keep Crimea, which Moscow annexed from Ukraine in 2014, and the Donbas area – which Russian forces partially control – in return for peace. However, Trump’s campaign didn’t confirm it officially.
What makes Russia’s president so loyal and supportive toward former US president Donald Trump — who is currently betting on securing his second term in office? What supports this warm attitude in the background of Russia’s official hate of the US and the entire Western world? Part 2 of this brief may bring us closer to the answer.
Engagement Resources
- Russian Interference in 2016 U.S. Elections, https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyber/russian-interference-in-2016-u-s-elections
- Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/dl
- Putin Says He Thinks Trump is Sincere About Ending Ukraine War, https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-says-preference-biden-remains-unchanged-despite-debate-2024-07-04/
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.
Olympic Games Political and Social Issues, Early Update
Olympic Games Political and Social Issues, Early Update
Foreign Policy Brief #150 | By: Reilly Fitzgerald | July 31, 2024
Featured Photo: www.healthnews.com
__________________________________
The Paris 2024 Olympic Games held their opening ceremony a little over 24 hours ago. In the opening day or two of the games there has already been criminal activity attempting to disrupt the Games, a doping scandal, water quality tests and checks of the Seine, and the misidentification of South Korea as the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” (otherwise known as North Korea). It has been a busy, and eventful opening to a historic and monumental Olympic Games. There have also been several medals awarded, including a few for Team USA.
Analysis
Paris 2024, in the build up to the Games, was pegged as being a monumental opportunity for the world as the first post-pandemic Olympic Games. It has been made into a transition point for society to move beyond the pandemic and get back to normalcy. The Games held their historic opening ceremony with the parade of nations taking place on the Seine; making it the first time an opening ceremony has been held outside of a stadium (let alone on a series of boats moving down one of the most famous rivers in the world).
Security has been a large question at these Olympic Games, and early in the day, before the Opening Ceremony, there were concerns about security as railway lines in and around Paris were the target of, what appears to be, criminal arson. The ceremony is also drawing criticism from right-wing media outlets in the United States for a depiction of The Feast of Dionysus (or Bacchus), the Greek god of wine, due to the false interpretation that it was depicting the The Last Supper painting of Jesus and his apostles. The criticism is largely due to the presence of “drag queens”, as the Associated Press stated, and many icons of the LGBTQ+ community to represent the inclusivity of French society.
Also during the Opening Ceremony, the Olympic officials introduced The Republic of Korea (otherwise known as, South Korea) as the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (also known as, North Korea) – which has seemed to lead toward a diplomatic issue, and an official apology from the IOC President Thomas Bach to the President of South Korea, Yoon Suk Yeol, according to ESPN.
The Seine has also been the cause of controversy, and concern, due to the water quality of the river. There are several events set to take place in the river, such as the Olympic Triathlon and other open-water swimming events. For months there have been concerns of these events being altered or canceled due to higher levels of E. Coli. Olympic and city officials have been working on lowering these concerns, the mayor of Paris – Anne Hidalgo – took a swim in the river just about a week ago.
When it comes to the Olympics, and many other high-level sporting tournaments, doping is always a concern; especially, after the Olympics in Sochi where the Russian Federation created a state-sponsored doping program for many of their athletes across all sports. Very early on in the Games, an Iraqi judoka, Sajjad Sehen, tested positive for various steroids – marking the first positive test at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games. As the opening days have gone on, a Nigerian boxer, Cynthia Ogunsemilore, tested positive for furosemide. Furosemide is a banned substance in international sports, and is often used for two different purposes: the first being to mask other substances that may be discovered via testing a urine sample, and the second would be to help lose weight via loss of water/fluids, as it is a diuretic. According to NPR, the Chinese swimming team is under the microscope and are denying accusations of doping. Prior to the 2021 Games in Tokyo, there were 23 swimmers who had positive tests for performance-enhancing drugs; of those 23 athletes, 11 of them are competing in Paris. Adding to the drama and accusations, is that some of those 11 swimmers (who tested positive at the previous games) have already won medals in Paris. China also is leading the medal count at the time of my writing this brief; and Team USA is sitting in fifth place.
Engagement Resources:
- World Anti-Doping Agency’s Prohibited List 2024 – https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/2024list_en_final_22_september_2023.pdf
- Olympics Live Updates – https://olympics.com/en/paris-2024
For more on the Olympics, check out USResistNews.org/Olympics.
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.
AI: Is It Worth the Climate Cost?
AI: Is It Worth the Climate Cost?
Technology Policy Brief #113 | By: Mindy Spatt | June 31, 2024
Featured Photo by Indy Silva for U.S. Resist News, 2024
__________________________________
A dire one-sentence warning from the Center for AI Safety reads “Mitigating the risk of extinction from A.I. should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks, such as pandemics and nuclear war. It was signed by prominent engineers and executives in the field including Sam Altman, chief executive of Open AI, and Dario Amodei, chief executive of Anthropic. The threat AI poses to the environment wasn’t included, but by all estimates is equally alarming and is already having a huge impact on greenhouse emissions and water use.
Analysis
Google grabbed headlines a few years ago by announcing that it intended to be carbon neutral by 2030. However, a recent company report shows that goal is further away than ever before; emissions last year were 48% higher than in 2019. Tech giants Microsoft and Meta have also reported higher emissions and increased water use. The culprits? Data centers and the rapid rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
With that growth, policymakers and researchers are raising critical concerns about the vast amounts of water and energy AI requires, which is growing by leaps and bounds. That’s because data centers consume energy in proportion to their computational workload. Training AI models involves continuous and intricate computations on vast databases using increasingly larger hardware setups. All this energy consumption generates heat, hence the need for vast amounts of water to cool things down.
According to the World Economic Forum, the energy required to power AI is accelerating by up to 36 percent annually. In addition, the “computational power required for sustaining AI’s rise is doubling roughly every 100 days. This means by 2028, AI could be using more power than the entire country of Iceland used in 2021.”
The International Energy Agency estimates the energy use from data centers that power AI will double in just the next two years, reaching 1,000 terawatts, as much energy as the entire country of Japan uses.
These estimates don’t include the additional energy drain of cooling, the amount of which is dependent on where data centers are located; in some locations, it could add as much as 50% to energy use.
The impacts of that energy use also vary. A report by the nonprofit environmental advocacy organization Friends of the Earth (FOE) predicts that absent major changes AI will “only exacerbate environmental injustice. Marginalized communities continue to bear the brunt of climate change and fossil fuel production, and studies are already finding that AI’s carbon footprint and local resource use tend to be heavier in regions reliant on fossil fuels.” FOE’s view is that the risk of misinformation about the climate being created and disseminated by AI is also an urgent concern.
The World Economic Forum and other critics suggest that AI’s negative impacts on the environment can be mitigated by the potential of the technology for innovation in the energy industry including improvements in weather predictions, making smart grids even smarter, and streamlining methods of delivering renewable energy. These arguments are very similar to the ones made by California utilities during the Smart Meter wars of the 2010s when expensive new digital meters were installed over customers’ objections under the guise that the usage data they produced would help consumers use electricity more efficiently and help utility companies avoid wildfires. Neither has proven true.
And in the end isn’t the smartest solution, perhaps the only solution to climate change, to reduce emissions? And the dumbest to increase them?
Alex de Vries, a data scientist in the Netherlands who studies the energy costs of emerging technologies and has critiqued cryptocurrency for its carbon footprint, said in an interview with Scientific American “I think it’s healthy to at least include sustainability when we talk about the risk of AI. When we talk about the potential risk of errors, the unknowns of the black box, or AI discrimination bias, we should be including sustainability as a risk factor as well.”
And he raises the obvious question that other analysts seem to avoid. Do we really need to be using this technology in the first place?
Engagement Resources:
- Friends of the Earth, Artificial Intelligence Threats to Climate Change
- Peter Herweck, Climate Change Won’t Wait for AI — And We Must Not Either, World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Jan 8, 2024
- David Berreby, As Use of A.I. Soars, So Does the Energy and Water It Requires, Feb. 6, 2024
Check out USResistNews.org/AI for more news on Artificial Intelligence policies, technologies, and trends.
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!
Judge Aileen Cannon’s Dismissal of Trump’s Case Ignores Legal Precedent and History
Judge Aileen Cannon’s Dismissal of Trump’s Case Ignores Legal Precedent and History
Civil Rights Policy Brief #228 | By: Rod A. Maggay | July 29, 2024
Featured Photo: www.secure.numero.ai
__________________________________
On Jul 15, 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued an order granting former President Trump’s Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment in the criminal case United States v. Trump. The basis of Judge Cannon’s order is that the appointment of Special Prosecutor Jack Smith to pursue the case against Mr. Trump was in violation of two sections of the United States Constitution – the Appointments Clause and an Appropriations Limitation Clause found in Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution.
Article II, Section Two, Clause Two of the Appointments Clause provides that the President shall appoint all Ambassadors, members of the Supreme Court and all other officers. Additionally, the President is empowered to make all other appointments (usually referred to as “inferior officers”) that are established by law. Article One, Section Nine, Clause Seven of the Constitution refers to funding and while Judge Aileen Cannon mentions that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s appointment violated this clause too because of the indefinite period of funding for his activities, she did not rely on it to dismiss the case. She relied only on the Appointments Clause. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: In the long history of the use of special counsels and special prosecutor’s in this nation’s history, how did it get to the point where a federal district judge seemingly out of the blue declared them unconstitutional?
It starts with former President Trump’s federal election interference case in Washington, D.C. Trump appealed to the Supreme Court that he had broad immunity for a number of actions he took while President. The Supreme Court issued their landmark decision and made it a point that presidential immunity must distinguish between official acts and unofficial acts before proceeding with a criminal case. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion in the case (not joined by any other member of the Court) that questioned the constitutionality of the appointment of special counsels and prosecutors. Justice Thomas reasoned that if a special counsel is a “principal officer” then he must be appointed by a President and then be confirmed by the Senate, similar to the selection of Supreme Court Justices. If a special counsel is considered an “inferior officer” Senate approval would not be required but a congressional statute authorizing a special counsel would still be needed. Currently, there is no congressional statute on the books authorizing the appointment of a special counsel or special prosecutor. This language in Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion is what Judge Cannon seized on to rule on her motion dismissing Trump’s criminal case.
However, Judge Aileen Cannon may have committed judicial malpractice in her order because of how she ignored legal precedents, even a unanimous prior Supreme Court case. In the 1974 case United States v. Nixon that arose out of the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a President had to hand over documents and tapes to a special prosecutor. They also analyzed the appointment of the special prosecutor and found it to be valid under the law at the time. The rule appointing special prosecutors was later changed in the 1990’s and written into Department of Justice regulations with input by members of Congress. However, since Congress did not officially vote to make these new regulations law, the appointment of special prosecutors is viewed in some circles as not legally valid. But other lower court cases have reviewed the appointment of special counsels and held them to be valid – notably in 1987 when reviewing the appointment of a special counsel for the Iran – Contra scandal and in 2019 when reviewing the appointment of Robert Mueller III to investigate ties between the Trump campaign and Russian individuals. However, Judge Cannon has rejected all of these precedents and proceeded to use Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion as the basis for her order dismissing the case.
The amazing thing about Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion in the presidential immunity case was that it was not necessary. Judges and Justices are trained to only rule on the issues before them and only those issues are binding precedent on all other lower courts. But by bringing up the issue of the constitutionality of appointment of special prosecutors, Justice Thomas put the issue out there for other judges and Trump defense attorneys to grasp on. A judge has now decided to use it as the basis for her order and sets up the possibility that other Trump cases will use this issue to delay the case, set up a likely lengthy appeals process and maybe even have other Trump cases dismissed. As disappointing as Judge Cannon’s decision was, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith and his team are now in the process of appealing Judge Aileen Cannon’s order to see if they can have her misguided order overturned. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- VOA News – history of special counsel investigations.
- PBS – history of special counsels with more analysis of the cases and legal issues involved.
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!
President Biden Drops Out, Vice President Harris Moves In
President Biden Drops Out, Vice President Harris Moves In
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #134 | By: Arvind Salem| July 25, 2024
Featured Photo: www.wpr.org
__________________________________
President Biden, on July 21st, ended his candidacy for re-election stepping down and then endorsing Vice President Harris for the nomination, although the convention is technically open and anyone can win the nomination. Biden promises to address the nation later this week to further explain his dramatic decision.
Biden withdrew over concerns about his mental acuity and repeated polls showing that he was down nationally and that he could drag down-ballot candidates down with him if he remained on the ticket. His poor performance in the debate, a disappointing follow up interview, and continued gaffes, resulted in a cascade of Democratic donors, party insiders, and even grassroots voters calling for Biden’s resignation. Some were so concerned there was speculation about forcing Biden out even with his pledged delegates.
The Democratic party since this withdrawal, has lauded Biden for making the right decision. Yet that leaves the party in disarray just over 3 months until Election Day. Mobilizing the infrastructure and political momentum to beat Donald Trump when he is at his strongest, and the Democratic Party is close to their weakest, will be difficult regardless of the new nominee. If this nominee doesn’t work out, there is no time to replace them.
Analysis:
Vice President Harris has access to the Biden campaign’s millions of dollars in funding, which could prove to be a huge advantage. Additionally, Harris has significant experience as vice-president and has been tested on a national stage, which some other possible replacements (the governors) have not been. Harris also has the advantage of the public backing of Rep Jim Clyburn, who has acted as a kingmaker for the Democratic party, since his support for Biden was crucial in his 2020 primary win.
Extremely strong candidates, such as Governors Whitmer and Newsom, have publicly stated they wouldn’t contest the nomination even if Biden stepped aside. They then publicly endorsed Vice President Harris. A bevy of governors also threw their support behind Harris, including some that were viewed as possible candidates themselves: Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, Maryland Governor Wes, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (Minn.), Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers. Voices at the top rung of the party have also endorsed Harris, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Clintons. Notably, President Obama hasn’t yet endorsed Harris, but it is widely thought that is because he is against intervening in the nomination process by principle, rather than having reservations against Harris. Some of those who endorsed Harris, chiefly Andy Beshear and Josh Shapiro, are viewed as strong picks for vice-president.
According to polls Harris is making up ground relative to Biden against Donald Trump, but Trump is still ahead. There is huge variance in these polls, and they tested Harris as a hypothetical nominee, whereas now she is the presumptive nominee. Those polls clearly show that Harris has the potential to beat Trump, whereas Biden towards the end had essentially no chance. The views on Harris tend to be less concrete, meaning she has a lower floor, but a higher ceiling than Biden, and that these next few months will be crucial in shaping her image. This switch also takes away the Republicans chief criticism of the Democrats, which was Biden’s senility, and resets the news cycle to focus on Harris rather than the favorable news coverage towards Trump (Biden’s poor debate performance, failed assisination attempt, and pressure on Biden to withdraw). Harris’s candidacy is also re-energizing the party: she raised a record 81 million in the first 24 hours of her candidacy.
Engagement Resources:
- Harris for President: Readers interested in donating or otherwise supporting Harris’s campaign for President can go to this site to get involved.
- ActBlue: ActBlue allows people to donate to a host of Democratic organizations, candidates, and causes. Readers who want to support the whole Democratic party can visit this website to learn more.
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.
Trump Got Shot: Is It Time for Another Debate About Gun Ownership Laws?
Trump Got Shot: Is It Time for Another Debate About Gun Ownership Laws?
Social Justice Policy Brief #168 | By: Inijah Quadri | July 25, 2024
Featured Photo: www.cnn.com
__________________________________
The recent attempt on Donald Trump’s life has reignited the intense debate over gun ownership laws in the United States. The attack, involving an AR-15-style rifle, has highlighted the ongoing conflict between gun rights advocates and those calling for stricter gun control measures. The incident has brought to the forefront questions about the adequacy of current gun laws and whether more stringent regulations are necessary to prevent such events in the future.
The AR-15, often a focal point in discussions about gun control, has been involved in several high-profile shootings, raising concerns about its availability to the general public. Gun reform advocates argue that the ease of access to such weapons poses a significant threat to public safety. The debate centers on balancing Second Amendment “ right to bear arms” with the need to protect citizens from gun violence.
Analysis
Gun ownership and control have been deeply divisive issues in American politics. Former President Donald Trump is a staunch supporter of gun rights, receiving endorsements from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and advocating for the protection of the Second Amendment. His administration took steps to loosen certain gun restrictions while focusing on mental health as a factor in gun violence.
Conversely, President Joe Biden has pushed for more stringent gun control measures, including a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Biden’s legislative efforts have aimed at enhancing background checks and closing loopholes that allow individuals deemed dangerous to purchase firearms.
The shooting incident at the Trump rally has intensified calls from gun control advocates for renewed legislative action. Organizations like Brady: United Against Gun Violence and prominent activists such as David Hogg continually demand a reassessment of current gun laws, emphasizing the potential for such laws to prevent future tragedies. Studies, such as one from Northwestern University, suggest that an assault weapons ban could significantly reduce the number of mass shootings and casualties.
However, legislative efforts face substantial opposition. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has made it challenging to enact new restrictions, requiring that any new laws align with the nation’s historical tradition of gun ownership. This interpretation creates a high bar for passing modern gun control measures, complicating efforts to address the issue comprehensively.
The attempt on Trump’s life underscores the urgent need for a nuanced debate on gun ownership laws in the United States. Policymakers must navigate the complex landscape of constitutional rights, public safety concerns, and political realities. While there are strong arguments on both sides, the primary goal should be to develop policies that effectively reduce gun violence while respecting the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Engagement Resources:
- The Giffords Law Center (https://giffords.org/lawcenter/): Provides comprehensive information on gun laws and advocacy for policy change.
- Everytown for Gun Safety (https://www.everytown.org/): Focuses on campaigns to end gun violence and promote safer communities.
- NRA-ILA (https://www.nraila.org/): Defends Second Amendment rights and provides resources for gun owners and advocates.
- Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – Violence Prevention (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/index.html): Offers data and research on gun violence and prevention strategies.
Wanna stay in-the-know? Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to ‘Keeping Democracy Alive’ by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.
Who is JD Vance?
Who is JD Vance?
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #133 | By: Arvind Salem| July 25, 2024
Featured Photo: www.cnn.com
__________________________________
After possibly the best month of his political career, complete with heroically surviving assassination and a triumphant debate performance spurring calls for his opponent to leave the race, Donald Trump had one last major political task: selecting a vice-president. Dissatisfied with Mike Pence for his refusal to help Trump overturn the 2020 election, Trump turned to a new candidate, one that has publicly expressed he would do what Pence wouldn’t on January 6th: JD Vance.
JD Vance burst into the spotlight after the publication of his memoir Hillbilly Elegy. The memoir was even taken up by Hollywood and made into a movie. Taken as a narrative, the memoir tells the inspirational story of how J.D. Vance grew up in a poor, broken household yet still managed to rise to the highest echelons of American society. The book was a very product of his rise to this level of society, as it was Yale Law Professor Amy Chua that encouraged Vance to write it in the first place. The book was published in 2016, before Vance would be selected for Vice-President or even win his election to the Senate (which he won in 2022). However, Hillbilly Elegy received backlash from many members of Appalachia as overly critical of Appalachia’s culture and history, and they argued that Vance was using his anecdotal experience to make unsubstantiated, broad statements about Appalachia as a whole. The broader, controversial, argument of Hillbilly Elegy that Vance explicitly states is that culture and laziness are the root cause of poverty rather than uncontrollable economic circumstance. Politically, Hillbilly Elegy became significant as a way to justify Trump’s appeal to formerly blue collar, Democrat industrial towns in 2016, leading to the collapse of the “Blue Wall” in Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton.
Analysis:
As a person, JD Vance has a deeply inspiring story. However, in terms of policy, JD Vance’s positions represent dangerous chameleon tendencies (also observed by JD’s mentor David Frum, a speechwriter in the George W. Bush administration, who helped Vance early in his career).
There is no clearer example of this, than JD’s position on Donald Trump, where he first called him a “fraud,” “a moral disaster” and “cultural heroin” but then sought Trump’s endorsement in a crowded Republican primary in Ohio and has been one of his loyalists ever since. Since then, he’s mirrored and even extended many of the right’s political positions. In the Senate, he “introduced a bill seeking to establish English as the official national language” and has called for the deportation of “every single person who invaded our country illegally.” On abortion, he’s more extreme than even Trump himself, who wants to leave it to the states, saying that he would support a national abortion ban after 15 weeks. He supports halting aid to Ukraine and cracking down on dissidents at universities.
Some of these positions are well within the acceptable window of common public discourse, namely halting aid to Ukraine, but the root of the problem stems from JD’s obsequiousness towards Donald Trump on issues that should not be in the realm of discussion (such as overturning a democratic election in 2020). Before January 6th, in modern history, there has not really ever been a choice between following a President or protecting democracy. JD made clear that given that choice: he would choose Trump and ask the states to explore multiple slates of electors, which is a power left to the states and not the vice-president: an ironic turn of events for the party of devolution.
Engagement Resources:
- Brennan Center; The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School is an organization that promotes reforms to American democracy and argues against many practices today such as gerrymandering and mass incarceration. Readers who are concerned about the health of democracy in light of this pick may wish to donate to this organization.
- Act for America; Act for America is an organization that seeks to educate and mobilize Americans against foreign and domestic threats, and advocates for bills to achieve these aims. Those who feel that this pick constitutes a breakdown of justice may wish to support this organization.
- ActBlue; ActBlue allows people to donate to a host of Democratic organizations, candidates, and causes. Readers are likely to find organizations that are opposing the Trump -Vance ticket on this site and may wish to donate money to further that cause.
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.
Political Violence in America: A Troubling Trend
Political Violence in America: A Troubling Trend
Social Justice Policy Brief #167 | By: Morgan Davidson | July 22, 2024
Featured Photo: npr.org
__________________________________
Much has been made about political violence in America, with the most recent event being the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. Was the attempted assassination simply due to recent campaign rhetoric, or is it indicative of a larger issue? From the Congressional Baseball Shooting, racially motivated shootings like in El Paso and Buffalo, the BLM riots, January 6th, and now with the attempted assassination of a former president, the evidence is undeniable that political tensions and violence are on the rise. This Brief covers what political violence is, why it happens, historical and recent trends, what can be done to decrease the threats, and concludes with some final thoughts.
Instances of political violence include verbal intimidation, harassment, physical abuse, property damage, and assassinations motivated by politics. Although verbal violence is less severe than physical violence, it affects political processes and mental health, potentially leading to further violence. Non-physical violence, like the Brooks Brothers Riot, can disrupt political processes. Defining violence this way aligns with how people perceive and experience political violence.
Analysis
When violence occurs in political contexts, it often stems from feelings of distrust, anger, being forgotten, beliefs the government does not care about me, a lack of familiarity with political counterparts or government processes, and viewing violence as a justifiable way to achieve political ends. Political violence is also subject to tit-for-tat episodes and cycles of retaliation. Ending this violence is challenging as in-group members tend to support and perpetuate violence against the out-group.
Historically, much of the political violence in America has been driven by racial tensions, with events such as Bacon’s Rebellion, the Civil War, the Tulsa Massacre, and Jim Crow-motivated assaults highlighting this trend. These tensions persist today, evidenced by shootings in Buffalo and El Paso linked to the far-right’s embrace of replacement theory.
Various factors in the socio-political environment influence acts of political violence, such as encouragement by political leaders, existence of political support groups, and an individual’s motivation and capacity. Political violence can be spawned by so-called support groups and militias. For example, groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers played prominent roles in the violent insurrection at our nation’s capital on January 6th.
There are growing growing laws and norms that can be used to help curtail political violence, such as hate crime and gun regulation laws, but their effectiveness varies.Outside of legal options to decrease violence, people must understand each other on a personal level and understand how the government works. Returning to where people see their neighbors as neighbors, not partisans, is vital to decreasing violence. Further, fostering a better understanding of government functions and promoting non-violent ways to voice political grievances and drive change can help diminish violence.
Instances like the attempted assassination of Donald Trump provide us as Americans with an inflection point. While polarization will almost certainly plague American democracy for the foreseeable future, there is work that can be done to mitigate the violent effects of hostility and hatred stemming from such steep polarization. If we silo citizens with partisan information, they will be operating under a limited set of facts and views. It is crucial to communicate with and understand the people in your community who may not align with your political identity. We are all Americans and have a vested interest in achieving outcomes together that better all of us.
Engagement Resources:
- The Violence Project researches violence, including political violence, to understand its causes and develop strategies for prevention. https://www.theviolenceproject.org/
- CSIS analyzes and researches political violence, extremism, and related issues, including domestic and international aspects. https://www.csis.org/
- SPLC tracks hate groups and extremist activities in the U.S. and conducts research on political violence and its root causes. https://www.splcenter.org/
Wanna stay in-the-know? Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to ‘Keeping Democracy Alive’ by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.
Slowing Down Fast Fashion
Slowing Down Fast Fashion
Environment Policy Brief #171 | By: Allie Amato | July 17, 2024
Featured Photo: hellomackies.com
__________________________________
It takes about 700 gallons of water for the fashion industry to produce one, solitary, cotton shirt. The amount of water used in jean production is even more exorbitant, needing roughly 2000 gallons to churn out just one pair. The reality of fast fashion is that about 87% of these garments ultimately end up in landfills. Clothing manufacturers like Shein, Zara, and H&M are labeled as fast fashion brands due to their quick turnaround of low-cost garments to keep up with the latest trends. These energy-intensive practices come at a high price, creating a significant amount of waste, and polluting the atmosphere, water, and wildlife habitats. Congress, however, is starting to take notice with the conception of the Slow Fashion Caucus, the first-ever effort of its kind. At its helm is House Representative, Chellie Pingree of Maine. In late June, Pinegree announced the caucus, the Democrat saying the aim is to develop “climate-smart policies” to reduce the fashion industry’s outsized consumption of natural resources.
Analysis:
While most industries are highly regulated, the fashion industry goes almost entirely unregulated. Legislation to curb fast fashion has already passed in rare unanimity through the lower house of the French Parliament. On the other hand, the United States has been lagging in terms of public policy. With a topic as polarizing as climate change at the center of this issue, it will likely be an uphill battle for American lawmakers to get the fashion industry in check. Representative Pinegree’s efforts though are backed by notable lawmakers including New York Democrats, Jerry Nadler and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. The Slow Fashion Caucus also has the support of sustainable fashion industry leaders, like Patagonia, thredUP, L.L. Bean, and the RealReal. The caucus hopes to jump-start change through incentives and circular economy policies. Considering fashion is one of the world’s biggest manufacturing industries and the second-largest consumer of water, Pinegreen believes brands “have the power to be part of the solution”
On top of excessive water consumption, apparel manufacturers in fast fashion account for as much as 10% of greenhouse gas emissions. The United Nations predicts that by 2030, emissions from textile manufacturing will surge to 6 times that amount. Textiles made using fossil-derived synthetics like polyester shed microplastics too. This pollutes our waterways and leads to marine animals ingesting the non-biodegradable debris. The shedding of microplastics threatens biodiversity for animals in every ecosystem. A circular economy could be a great start, as it promotes the reuse, repair, and recycling of textiles. It’s one of the main principles the Slow Fashion Caucus has adopted in hopes of ensuring less pollution and waste. The Fibers Fund is another backer of the Slow Fashion Caucus. They provide financial support for small American natural textile producers, focused on creating an equitable alternative to fast fashion. The fund’s managing director, Sarah Kelly champions the caucus calling it a “Collaborative action towards an equitable and regenerative textile industry.” A circular economy model would also force the industry’s hand to reduce the strain on egregiously underpaid and overworked garment workers in the global south and beyond.
Among fast-fashion’s biggest players are Temu, Shien, Zara UNIQLO, Forever 21, and H&M. It can be daunting to realize the Earth and its inhabitant’s livelihood relies heavily on the actions of huge, seemingly untouchable companies. Hope remains, as there are ways to play a part in change through voting, supporting environmental organizations, and educating others through climate activism.
Engagement Resources:
- The Ethical Brand Directory features companies that value sustainability and hold themselves accountable for where their garments end up.
- The Climate Reality Project was founded by former Vice President and climate activist, Al Gore. Their goal is net zero and they want to accomplish that through leadership training by renowned scientists and policymakers to help advocates lead the charge in their own communities.
- American Circular Textiles (ACT) is a coalition aiming to reduce textile waste and establish circular fashion policies.