JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
An Analysis of the Presidential Immunity Ruling By The Appeals Court
Brief #219 – Civil Rights Policy Brief
by Rodney A. Maggay
On February 6, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in ‘United States of America v. Donald J. Trump,’ rejecting the former President’s defense against allegations of inciting the January 6th riot, affirming the principle of legal equality for all, regardless of office.
A Guide to Third (3rd) Party Candidates
Brief #122 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by: Courtney Denning
Independent and third party politicians have a long history of impactful campaigns even though they rarely win. Because of the controversiality of both the Democratic and Republican frontrunners in the 2024 presidential elections, many voters are looking towards a third option.
Ceasefire Resolutions Roil Local and National Politics
Brief #120 – Foreign Policy Brief
by : Mindy Spatt
US advocates for a Gaza ceasefire face resistance, even in liberal enclaves. While the resolutions’ impact on the war is uncertain, there’s no question that they will have an influential impact on upcoming elections and politicians’ futures, even at the presidential level.
How Conservatives Are Trying To Block Voters From Voting On Abortion Rights
Brief #218 – Civil Rights Policy Brief
by Rodney A. Maggay
After Roe v. Wade was overturned, seven states held votes on abortion rights. Both red and blue states had measures to expand protections. Following victories for pro-abortion activists, GOP-led legislatures are seeking to tighten referendum rules to hinder ballot qualification.
Bridging Borders: Tala’s Journey
Brief #119 – Foreign Policy Brief
by : Aziza Taslaq
As the world grapples with ongoing conflicts and divisions, stories like Tala’s offer a beacon of hope, illustrating the transformative power of empathy, collaboration, and human connection.
Police Reform in Two Cities: Baltimore and Minneapolis
Brief #155 – Social Justice Policy Brief
by Inijah Quadri
In the United States, the path to police reform has been a complex and diverse journey, significantly influenced by local contexts and challenges. By examining the police reform efforts in two cities—Baltimore and Minneapolis—we can gain insights into the differences in approach and outcomes in these cities.
A Primer on Our Housing Crisis
Brief #59 – Economic Policy Brief
by Devyne Byrd
Although the United States is a global economic force, its economic prosperity has not extended to those citizens who are suffering from a dire housing crisis. As wages have not risen to align with these issues, many Americans have been priced out of both the homebuying and rental process, leading to mass evictions, foreclosures, and homelessness.
A Hard Road for a Young Palestinian Mother
Brief #118 – Foreign Policy Brief
by : Aziza Taslaq
In the heart of Bethlehem, where echoes of history resonate through the cobblestone streets, lived Salma, a 33-year-old mother devoted to her young daughter. Salma’s life, once painted with the hues of contentment, took a dark turn on April 17th, 2023 – a date etched in her family’s memory as Prisoner’s Day.
Trump and the E. Jean Carroll Case
Brief #121 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Arvind Salem
On January 26, 2024, a New York jury ruled that Trump was responsible for paying journalist Elizabeth Jean Carroll (usually referred to as E. Jean Carroll) $83.3 million in damages: a huge legal setback for Trump as he faces a total 91 state and federal charges.
Sweating on the Treadmill of COP28: Will COP29 Deliver on Crucial Emissions Cuts?
Sweating on the Treadmill of COP28: Will COP29 Deliver on Crucial Emissions Cuts?
Environment Policy Brief #163 | By: Todd J. Broadman | December 21, 2023
Photo taken from: https://www.ecocemglobal.com
__________________________________
POLICY
The United Nations sponsored COP (Conference of Parties) was kicked-off in 1995 with its stated goal to “stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses at levels that would prevent ‘dangerous’ human interference with the climate system.” Since then, concentrations of CO2 have gone up each year. The data for 2023 indicates that it will be the hottest year on record, surpassing 2016, which was 1.29 degrees centigrade above the pre-industrial baseline. Greenhouse gases will tally to a record 36.8 billion metric tons in 2023. Ocean temperatures are at all-time record highs as is sea level rise. There is a record low: Antarctic Sea ice. There has been, as summed-up by World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Prof. Petteri Taalas, “a deafening cacophony of broken records.”
Fast forward 28 years and “COP” was appropriately dubbed “COP28” and was held in Dubai. Since 1995, what was foretold in COP’s original prognosis has come to pass: catastrophic floods, droughts, species extinction, human death along with forced migration. The earth has been an increasingly hazardous place to reside, and there is the scientific basis for a tipping point.
The frustrations of COP28 attendees have been in line with the lack of concrete commitments each year, and this year was no different. The original draft of COP28’s concluding text was met with widespread disappointment – there had been no mention of “fossil fuels.” Last minute negotiations saw the phrase inserted, yet even the final version of the text made no mention of phasing out fossil fuels, the very plot of the climate change story so to speak. Saudi Arabia insisted that there be no firm end to fossil fuels in the text. No surprise.
In attendance at COP28 were some 1300 representatives from oil and gas industry, the American Petroleum Institute among them, who lobbied for an emphasis on carbon capture and renewables. President Biden was conspicuously absent. Al Gore attended and commented that the draft text looked to be “dictated by OPEC word for word.” The biggest users of coal, India and China, were concerned about any mention of phasing out coal and ensured the commitment for coal use – if it can be called that – echoes the vague language of COP26: “an acceleration of efforts towards phasedown.” There is a “net zero” clause inserted, with a 2050 timeline “in keeping with science.” Use of the term “transition fuels” was of concern as well because it may serve as cover for natural gas.
A “loss and damage” fund was established with pledges of $666 million dollars to help fund climate-related damage and destruction in the poorest countries. The fund will be managed by the World Bank who could charge up to 30% for its trusteeship. Worth a mention is that pledge amounts are a fraction of what is needed. U.S. contribution to the fund was a paltry $17.5 million; that, from a country whose defense budget exceeds $2 billion dollars a day. Germany and the UAE each pledged $100 million.
ANALYSIS
The edge of the “climate cliff” was defined eight years ago at the Paris Agreement as a warming of the earth’s temperature to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. Sultan Al Jaber, the acting president of COP28, said that 1.5 degrees Celsius is his “North Star.” Jaber’s daytime job is that of chief executive of the United Arab Emirates’ national oil and gas company and has made it clear that “at the end of the day, it is the demand that will decide and dictate what sort of energy source will help meet the growing global energy requirements.” There are conflicting interests and multiple “North Stars” out there.
Leading scientists agree that there is a strong likelihood that in one of the next five years the global average temperature will reach or exceed 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The COP28 agreement does practically nothing to avoid this immediate consequence. The U.S.’s John Kerry admitted as much, describing that the language on fossil fuels in the text “does not meet the test” of keeping 1.5 alive, and went as far as to say he “refused to be part of a charade.” Small island nations who will soon be under meters of water echoed that sentiment: “[We] did not come here to sign our death warrant,” said John Silk, from the Marshall Islands.
Referencing the large corporate oil and gas presence at COP28, its president among them, Uganda’s Vanessa Nakate, quipped that, “Some people might say that if you are discussing how to cure malaria, you don’t invite the mosquitoes.” With vague language and unenforceable commitments, COP28’s bottom line is: “We will try.” We are left to imagine the state of our global environment next year when COP29 will be hosted in Azerbaijan and what can happen between now and then to motivate an ending to carbon based energy.
__________________________________
Engagement Resources:
- https://council.science/ works at the global level to catalyze and convene scientific expertise, advice and influence on issues of major concern to both science and society.
- https://insideclimatenews.org/ is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that provides essential reporting and analysis on climate change, energy and the environment.
- https://www.ipcc.ch/ is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
Foreign Policy Brief #107 | By: Ibrahim Castro | December 21, 2023
Photo taken from: https://blog.microsoft.com
__________________________________
Earthquake in China
Last week a 6.2-magnitude earthquake struck one of China’s poorest regions, the northwestern Gansu province. In Gansu, 113 people have been found dead with 782 injured. More than 207,000 homes were wrecked and nearly 15,000 collapsed, affecting more than 145,000 people. The death toll is the highest since an August 2014 quake that killed 617 people in southwest China’s Yunnan province. Many of the affected families are Hui people, an ethnic minority mostly found in western Chinese provinces and regions such as Gansu, Ningxia and Shaanxi. Survivors of the quake face uncertainty in the coming freezing months ahead without suitable shelter. Roads, power and water lines and agricultural production facilities have also suffered damage, and will compound the effects of the quake on the population.
EU Agreement to Overhaul Migration System
The European Union has reached an agreement on a series of reforms designed to limit the numbers of people coming into the bloc after years of discussion on how to overhaul its asylum rules. The reform includes speedier vetting of irregular arrivals, creating border detention centers, accelerated deportation for rejected asylum applicants and a solidarity mechanism to take pressure off southern countries experiencing big inflows of migrants.
Multiple refugee rights groups have said the deal will create a cruel system that is unfeasible and will cause what would amount to prison camps at the EU’s borders. They warn of the deal allowing increased immigration detention, including for children and families, increased racial profiling within EU member states, the use of the ‘crisis’ procedures to enable pushbacks, and return individuals to so called ‘safe third countries’ where they are at risk of violence, torture, and arbitrary imprisonment.
Argentina’s Milei Signs Decree to Boost Exports, Deregulation
Last week libertarian Argentine President Javier Milei signed a decree outlining economic reforms including an end to limits on exports, and measures to loosen regulations as his new government attempts to combat a severe economic crisis that has gripped the country for years. His government, which has already devalued the Argentine peso by over 50%, has said it plans to impose tax hikes for Argentina’s grains exports – a key source of global supply for processed soybeans, corn and wheat. Among the reforms are plans to privatize state-owned companies, such as the privatization of the country’s state-owned oil company. Since his inauguration on Dec. 10, Milei has pledged and is now carrying out his vision of “shock” therapy for the economy which will also include austerity cuts in an effort to tame the country’s triple-digit inflation.
Is Biden’s New Executive Order on AI Enough?
Is Biden’s New Executive Order on AI Enough?
Technology Policy Brief #104 | By: Christopher Quinn | December 20, 2023
Photo taken from: https://cybernews.com
__________________________________
On October 30, 2023, President Joe Biden issued an Executive Order to ensure that the United States leads the way in seizing the promise and managing the risks of Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI relies on machine learning algorithms that are trained on specific datasets and learn to make predictions based on that data. These algorithms are limited by the quality and quantity of the data they are trained on, and they cannot understand concepts that are not represented in that data.
Analysis
The Executive Order establishes new standards for AI safety and security, protects Americans’ privacy, advances equity and Civil Rights, stands up for consumers and workers, promotes innovation and competition, advances American leadership around the world, and more. The Order is an initial effort by the executive branch of government to address the complicated issues related to AI. However much more needs to be done, including at some point Congressional regulatory legislation. Biden’s Executive Order will be implemented by a variety of Federal Agencies by the end of 2024.
AI is already helping the government better serve the American people, including by improving health outcomes, addressing climate change, and protecting federal agencies from cyber threats. In 2023, Federal Agencies identified over 700 ways they use AI to advance their missions, and this number is only likely to grow. AI has already been successfully deployed by the Federal Government in departments ranging from NASA to the Department of Homeland Security. The new Executive Order will further strengthen support the efforts or federal agencies to make productive use of AI.
The Executive Order fails to address a number of pressing issues. For instance, it doesn’t directly address how to deal with killer AI robots, a complex topic that has recently been debated recently at the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Pentagon is developing swarms of low-cost autonomous drones as part of its recently announced Replicator program. Ukraine has developed homegrown AI-powered attack drones that can attack Russian forces without human interaction. The Executive Order only asks for the military to use AI ethically but doesn’t stipulate what that means. Unless strict controls are implemented, we risk living in a world where nothing you see or hear online can be trusted.
Frontier Models
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the executive order is that which addresses the potential harms of the most powerful so-called “frontier” AI models. Frontier models are large-scale machine-learning models that exceed the capabilities currently present in the most advanced existing models, and can perform a wide variety of tasks. Some experts believe these models – which are being developed by companies such as Open AI, Google and Anthropic – pose an existential threat to humanity. Experts say it’s going to be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to police the development of frontier models. Biden’s Executive Order on AI does not explicitly target frontier models, but it does address some of the issues and challenges that they pose. For example, the Executive Order requires that developers of the most powerful AI systems share their safety test results and other critical information with the U.S. government.
Engagement Resources
- https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/10/30/fact-sheet-president-biden-issues-executive-order-on-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-artificial-intelligence/
- https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/exploring-government-action-ai-state-attorneys-general-define-priorities-2023-11-09/
- https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/opinion/openai-silicon-valley-superalignment.html
SUGGESTIONS FOR A BIDEN ADMINISTRATION MIDEAST PEACE PLAN
SUGGESTIONS FOR A BIDEN ADMINISTRATION MIDEAST PEACE PLAN
OP ED | By: U.S. Resist News | December 18, 2023
Photo taken from: https://www.vox.com
This is the 4th in a series of U.S. RESIST DEMOCRACY NEWS recommendations of platform positions for use by 2024 Democratic Party candidates.
__________________________________
The world needs voices of reason, compromise, and settlement to extricate us out of the quagmire of the Israel-Hamas conflict. The main combatants—Israelis and Hamas— are too invested to sort things out on their own. They need help.
Hamas’s October 7th terrorist attack may have set off this most recent round of hostilities but the resentments and suspicions between Jews and Palestinians go back millennia as these two semitic tribes have struggled to coexist in this region. To put more blame on one side than the other is a waste of time. However, at this point neither side is willing to accept a position of shared responsibility and are going to need the intervention of a third party to assert this and coordinate the way forward. With the UN being sidelined by dysfunction, and other Arab nations embroiled in their own intra-religious disputes, the US is a likely suspect to step into this leadership gap.
So what should the US do: first it needs to form a coalition of allies interested in the redevelopment of Gaza and a two-state solution. The EU and other European nations would probably be interested; as would neighboring Middle Eastern countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco.
Secondly, The Coalition needs to declare Gaza a demilitarized zone where warfare, the use of military weapons and the existence of terrorist organizations is prohibited. The Coalition can recruit, train, and manage a small interim police force to keep the peace.
Third, The Coalition should raise funds and manage an effort to redevelop Gaza. This will include the rebuilding of roads, buildings and infrastructure (including water, fuel, and electricity) and the re-establishment of essential social services such as hospitals and schools. Consideration should be given to providing small reparation grants to families who have lost loved ones as a result of the conflict. Further consideration should be given to provide all Gazans with access to a basic income for a limited period of time.
Fourth, The Coalition should supervise elections in Palestine (West Bank and Gaza together) for candidates and parties that offer proposals for leading a unified, democratic Palestine committed to a Two-State Solution. Terrorist organizations, such as Hamas, or organizations supporting hatred of Jews and Israel, would be prohibited from participating. Israel would be encouraged to support its own similar elections.
Finally, the Coalition would support the organization of a Palestinian state, consisting of the West Bank and Gaza, that would co-exist with the state of Israel. Israel would keep its present territory but the development of any new settlements would be prohibited. Jerusalem would be divided between West (Israeli) and East (Palestinian). The Coalition, perhaps in collaboration with the UN, would supervise the implementation of the 2-State Solution for an initial 10 year period. A special judicial panel would be established to adjudicate any disputes between the 2 countries.
Mark Meadows
Mark Meadows
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #115 | By: Abigail Hunt | December 18, 2023
Photo taken from: https://www.nbcnews.com
__________________________________
Mark Meadows looks hungover in his mugshot, taken August 24, 2023, at the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office. His bloodshot eyes leer into the camera – it is not a good look. One of Trump’s 18 co-defendants, indicted in October 2023 on charges for attempting to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia, Meadows has good reason to drink. Among the evidence cited against him is a text sent to a state official that reads: “Is there a way to speed up Fulton county signature verification in order to have results before Jan 6 if the trump campaign assist financially.” It is almost impressive how thoroughly he provided damning evidence against himself in a single message. The central theme of the text is clear – it is an attempt to subvert the election process.
In 2012, Mark Meadows was first elected to Congress at the age of 53 as a U.S. Republican Representative for North Carolina’s 11th Congressional District. Before that, he earned an associate degree from the University of South Florida in 1980, which may be the last time we know for a fact he read – or was at least supposed to have read – a book. Meadows’ history is a study in unremarkable-ness – he developed real estate, owned a sandwich shop, and worked as a manager for a Tampa-based electric company.
Meadows filed in 2015 to remove John Boehner as Speaker of the House. He backed the wrong horse with Ted Cruz in the 2016 Presidential election. Since the group’s founding, Meadows has been billed by media as a leader of the far-right wing of the GOP, The Freedom Caucus. However, there’s no membership list to this huge and influential group with all of a rumored 29 members, so attributing that to Meadows is just speculation. What else? He advocated defunding health care. He sat on some committees. He is married with a couple of kids, staunch in his conservatism, and is unnecessarily vocal about his Christianity (Christians are the majority, y’all. Calm down.). Today, Meadows has traded that track record – rather stellar in its beige-ness – for billing as co-defendant to one of the most notorious political criminals in U.S. history. What a rise.
Now Trump’s co-defendant but once his White House Chief of Staff, pundits say Meadows is potentially Trump’s Achille’s heel. Meadows’ personal knowledge of Trump’s behavior and communications could be damaging if the testimony of Meadows’ own top aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, is any indication. Hutchinson’s testimony against Trump during the 2022 January 6th House committee hearings included the roles that Meadows played in aiding Trump. Hutchinson has remarked that Meadows’ clothes often smelled like a bonfire (because he is alleged to have helped Trump burn documents). She also described how Meadows told her Trump privately confided to Meadows that he had lost.
In September 2023, Meadows’ attorneys filed an order in federal court requesting that court to assume jurisdiction over his case. The federal judge denied Meadows’ request, writing, “Assuming jurisdiction over this criminal prosecution would frustrate the purposes of federal officer removal when the state charges allege – not state interference with constitutionally protected federal activities, but – federal interference with constitutionally protected state actions.” As is standard practice, Meadows’ attorneys filed an appeal to the judge’s ruling, which will be heard by a three-judge panel on Dec. 22, 2023.
Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and Meadows are considered by prosecutors to be the “key three” of the laundry list of defendants and, as such, will not be offered plea deals. Will Meadows be Trump’s comeuppance? At this point, there are few who can answer that question – Meadows, Trump, and possibly their attorneys. It is likely that even the district attorney has no idea of what information Meadows has socked away. Prosecutors requested the deadline for plea deals be set for June 2024. As each of the lesser co-defendants takes a deal, it is another card falling, but it is the trials of the key three that look to bring the house down.
Engagement Resources:
- Ballotpedia’s record on Mark Meadows, https://ballotpedia.org/Mark_Meadows_(North_Carolina)
- Federal Judge Rejects Meadow’s Removal Request, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/federal-judge-rejects-meadow-s-removal-request
- Direct link to the denial ruling, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23945272-govuscourtsgand319225690?responsive=1&title=1
The Medium is the Manipulation, Part 3: How Politicians Use Social Media to Spin Falsehoods
The Medium is the Manipulation, Part 3: How Politicians Use Social Media to Spin Falsehoods
Technology Policy Brief #103 | By: Steve Piazza | December 17, 2023
Photo taken from: stimson.org
__________________________________
This series looks to explore the extent to which campaign ads and speeches as well as policy setting of political candidates employ deliberate strategies of disinformation and fallacy to not only discredit their political opponents but also add to the continued abusive miseducation of the U.S. populace and thus further increase the national divide. Campaign ads are not in and of themselves policy, but their message reflects a candidate’s or party’s policy of sorts, namely on how far it is willing to go to get what it wants.
Policy Summary
Republicans have long accused social media platforms of exhibiting a bias to the left and thus have taken their fight to court. Over the past 18 months, the party has been defending laws that have been attempting to curb what they claim is a tendency for social media companies to favor their opponents.
Though Democrats feel that social media is ripe with hate speech, they downplay the talk of bias. The party describes Republican litigation as an attack on legislation preventing hate speech that continues to divide the country and erode the already crumbling foundations of democracy.
But this has not stopped either side from investing heavily in social media ads, which allows for them to reap many of the platforms’ intrinsic benefits, particularly the movement of disinformation that leads to confused and misled voters.
Policy Analysis
It isn’t difficult to see why political campaigns are drawn to social media platforms.The rapid messaging allows for candidates to stay in sync with opponents and potential voters. The 200% return on investment doesn’t hurt either.
But perhaps one of the most important attributes is that posts are difficult to identify as formal advertisements. Because they are embedded within videos or threads, there’s often very little to distinguish messaging made by campaigns from those of the average user. Campaigns can be more negative and perhaps take more liberty with the truth than they would on television and radio.
This is huge, when you consider the number of users. The top two social media platforms, YouTube and Facebook each have over 2 billion users, while Instagram and TikTok have 1 1/2 billion and 1 billion respectively.
Such extraordinary numbers explain why so much has been spent on social media political campaigns during the last several election cycles. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton spent $72 million on Facebook and Instagram in 2016, and then an astonishing $217 million in 2020. In fact, they posted nearly 3.4 million tweets, or 14,000 a day, in October alone that year.
But the number of posts alone does not explain the movement of disinformation. In no small part that is left up to the ability of average users to interact and share what they come across, and often without verifying sources.
It’s also the adverse nature of the ads themselves. As anybody remotely familiar with the way information travels, negative material spreads at the speed of light in comparison to anything not so provocative.
It’s understandable that blatant, harsh criticism of opponents makes for good social incendiary effects. Donald Trump’s use of his own platform, Truth Social, provides plenty of evidence of this. But it’s the less subtle ways social media is being used that make deluding people harder to detect.
For example, Presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy begins a Tok Tok message stating “The GOP establishment does NOT approve of this message & it’s pathetic I’m the only candidate with the stones to say it:….” But soon after baiting viewers with simple nuance, he tries to have it both ways by switching to typical Republican criticism of select elements of the Democratic platform.
Social media platforms are also an opportunity for less popular candidates, mainstream or otherwise, to easily promote themselves as more viable than perhaps they are. Marianne Williamson, who is a longshot Democrat, creates a presidential-like presence on TikTok. Even those already elected can increase celebrity status. Take Representative Jeff Jackson, a Democrat from North Carolina, who boasts 1.6 million users on Tik Tok. He’s been called by Roll Call the most popular Congress person on the platform, notwithstanding that he’s stated publicly TikTok should be banned.
And then there are political advertisements that do not look like political advertisements. For example, META’s ad library searches indicate that the Trump Store is extremely popular, making it a convenient way to peddle merchandise that helps spread political viewpoints. Or, some items in the form of simple, matter of fact memes are prolific and gain traction, like the hoax perpetrated on Facebook that President Biden was promising $6400 to anybody over 25 years old. It’s difficult to discern who or what was behind the disinformation, but it is one more example of how voters are easily deceived.
To their credit, social media companies have developed policies to address political advertising in an attempt to combat disinformation. These include the use of watermarks (Microsoft) and disclaimers (META).
To their discredit, language in guidelines and esoteric identifiers are not enough to enlighten unsuspecting users. These actions haven’t been as effective as they ought be, and amount to continued abuse of each platform’s own membership.
Lets’ just hope we don’t find ourselves endlessly chasing our tails and losing precious time attempting to expose the relentless falsehoods in political statements while reality tiptoes by and presents dire consequences for all people.
Engagement Resources:
- To get a sense of how popular political messaging is on social media, you can check out select data on individual platforms. Click here for an example of a Meta filtered search.
- Detecting ads is one thing, verifying the validity of what’s being said is another. Here is a list of fact checking projects, like the popular University of Texas at Arlington’s Claim Buster, compiled by the Credibility Coalition: https://credibilitycoalition.org/credcatalog/project/claim-buster/
Trump’s Support Among Black Voters
Trump’s Support Among Black Voters
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #114 | By: Abigail Hunt | December 17, 2023
Photo taken from: npr.org
__________________________________
Recent poll results published in the New York Times claim Trump’s support among Black voters has increased to more than 20 percent. The Times, in conjunction with Sienna College, polled voters from potential swing states and report their findings that 22 percent would vote for Donald Trump, while about 70 percent of those polled backed a re-election of President Biden. If those numbers are accurate, that is almost triple the number of Black supporters Trump had in 2020, a strong indication that Trump is not out of the running, at least in the minds of those disillusioned with the current administration. Such a change would be recorded in history books – the last time a Republican earned more than 20 percent of the Black vote was decades ago.
The alleged shift of support of POC from Biden to Trump may be more likely a shift from one party to another – disillusioned with the status quo maintaining their own interests, Black voters may simply just be fed up with inaction and hopeful that Trump, even with his temper tantrums, will be more proactive in passing legislation from which they might benefit. Trump was President when we received COVID relief payments, which lifted millions of children out of poverty during the period of disbursement. Pandemic-era financial relief programs expired under Biden, and it is no stretch of the imagination to understand how those facts might influence how any citizen feels about their President.
Philip Marcelo, with AP News reported in July 2023 that Trump has a documented history of racism dating back to the 1970s when the federal government sued Trump for discrimination against black apartment owners. The following decade, Trump made headlines by stirring up racist fervor over the “Central Park Five” case, helping influence the public opinion of the defendants in the case. The defendants, five young Black men, are now known as the Exonerated Five after DNA evidence proved them innocent. The perpetrator was a convicted rapist who confessed in 2002. Each of the young men served between five and 13 years in prison. In 2008, Trump was a mouthpiece for the birther movement questioning Barack Obama’s legal right to the presidency. Trump and his cohorts at that time claimed President Obama falsified his birth certificate and was from Kenya. Of course, who can forget Trump’s grand claims that all illegals crossing the border “are rapists!”
CNN reported in August that rumors of Black voters abandoning Biden in favor of Trump were unfounded, and in December 2023, Juan Williams with The Hill reiterated the same, reporting that most polls show Black voters prefer Biden over Trump at an “eight-to-one ratio.” Information is easily manipulated. The 2024 election is just under a year away. While one poll or another may set a tone and provide an early indication, the first real signs we will see of who supports who come in mid-January 2024 in Iowa. What matters is not what Donald Trump’s favorite skin type is (we all know it’s deep fried and comes in a bucket from KFC), it is what kind of legislation he will enact and how that legislation affects people. That is what matters for any candidate, and in particular Biden and Trump, who each have served a term in the White House. Everything else is just noise.
Unveiling the Path to Peace: Insights from Post-Conflict Palestine
Unveiling the Path to Peace: Insights from Post-Conflict Palestine
Foreign Policy Brief #106 | By: Aziza Taslaq | December 14, 2023
Photo taken from: https://arabcenterdc.org
__________________________________
In the West Bank city of Jericho, I engaged in a meaningful dialogue with Sanad, a member of The Palestinian General Intelligence Services. He shared perspectives on the aftermath of the Israeli-Palestinian war, offering insights into the challenges of reconstruction, the evolving political landscape, and the persistent efforts toward a peaceful resolution.
Sanad highlighted the significant obstacles in reconstructing Gaza after the war. The widespread destruction and immense losses have left a lasting impact. Despite the tough road ahead, he remains hopeful that international support can breathe new life into Gaza. However, he pragmatically acknowledged that reconstruction is a lengthy process.
The governance of Gaza emerged as a delicate issue. Sanad clarified that the Palestinian Authority (PAU) has no interest in controlling Gaza at present. With Hamas in charge, the PAU prioritizes stability, opting to avoid internal conflicts that could compound post-war challenges.
Sanad then emphasized the PAU’s steadfast commitment to the two-state solution. He stressed the need for both Palestine and Israel to dedicate themselves to this vision. The PAU envisions a sustainable and peaceful coexistence, aligning its goals with ongoing international efforts to resolve the longstanding conflict.
Gender equality became a central theme in our conversation. Sanad passionately highlighted The PAU is dedicated to advancing gender equality across legal, political, economic, and social realms. This commitment involves enacting legal reforms to eliminate discrimination in family and employment laws, promoting equal opportunities for both genders. Through empowering programs, the PAU equips women with education and resources for active participation in education, the workforce, and leadership roles. Priority is given to ensuring equal access to education and addressing gender disparities. Efforts extend to fostering workplace equality, combating gender-based violence, and increasing women’s representation in decision-making processes. Collaborating internationally, the PAU seeks to exchange best practices and collectively address global challenges, ultimately working towards a society where men and women enjoy equal rights, opportunities, and freedom from discrimination.
Discussing future elections, Sanad acknowledged the uncertainty due to the current situation. While welcoming all parties to participate, he personally favored Fateh as the most eligible candidate. This perspective offered a nuanced glimpse into the diverse opinions within Palestinian politics.
Our conversation then shifted to the Colonization & Wall Resistance Commission, a pivotal entity in Palestine. Sanad explained its role in implementing international decisions on settlements, walls, and occupation. Under Minister Muayad Shaban’s leadership, the commission aspires to a future free of walls and settlements, advocating fervently for Palestinian rights and confronting challenges posed by occupation.
Navigating the delicate matter of recognizing Israel’s right to exist, Sanad clarified the PAU’s nuanced position. Framed within the principles of a two-state solution, the PAU’s recognition reflects a careful balance between acknowledging Israel’s existence and advocating for Palestinian rights.
In conclusion, Sanad’s insights provide a comprehensive understanding of post-conflict Palestine. The intricate challenges demand a nuanced approach, and the PAU’s commitment to a two-state solution, gender equality, and active engagement with international bodies underscores a strategic pursuit of peace and prosperity. As the region navigates these complexities, the shared vision of a homeland free of walls and settlements stands as a beacon of hope for a brighter future.
Proposals For Enforcement Of The Supreme Court’s New Ethics Code
Proposals For Enforcement Of The Supreme Court’s New Ethics Code
Civil Rights Policy Brief #215 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | December 11, 2023
Photo taken from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/
__________________________________
On November 13, 2023 the United States Supreme Court announced that it would be adopting an ethical code for the Court for the first time ever. While the set of ethical canons is similar in many respects to a code that many lower court federal judges have to abide by, the code adopted by the Supreme Court differs in one significant way – there is no enforcement mechanism. What would likely happen in practice at the high court is that enforcement of the new code would be up to each individual member of the Court, in effect a situation where each Justice would be policing his or her own conduct.
However, a number of proposals have been put forth to remedy this gap in the new Supreme Court ethics code. Glenn Fine, an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, has proposed a permanent investigative office be created to investigate complaints at the court, similar to an inspector general office. The non – profit group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has proposed a panel of retired judges to review ethical issues and recusal motions. And, just this past summer before the high court adopted an ethical code a Senate bill named the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency (SCERT) Act was introduced in the chamber. The bill is much more comprehensive and addresses more issues and imposes additional requirements (e.g., requirement for a panel to issue a report explaining their findings, rules on gifts). The bill, introduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, was actually approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee by an 11 – 10 vote. However, passage by the full Senate chamber on the SCERT bill seems unlikely. LEARN MORE
Analysis
While there has been much uproar on the lack of an enforcement mechanism in the Supreme Court’s new ethical code, the fact of the matter is that there are numerous proposals out there that could fill in this glaring hole in the new code. The lack of a way to enforce any ethical code on the Supreme Court was a known flaw that had been discussed even before the Supreme Court made their announcement. Sen. Whitehouse’s SCERT bill in the summer of 2023 even predated the Supreme Court’s announcement in November so government officials knew that this issue was one they were going to fight over. But with numerous proposals out there, the fight does not have to be a lengthy or protracted one.
A common theme found in the proposals supported by Professor Fine, the non – profit group CREW and the SCERT bill is that there be an independent panel to review the ethical scenarios faced by the justices. The proposals may differ in the details but it is the composition of panels and staffing by non – sitting Justices that make these proposals stand out. This is important because what the proposals are trying to do is eliminate the Justices from policing their own conduct and determining for themselves whether their course of conduct is ethically proper or not. Under the proposal supported by Professor Fine, the Justices would be subject to a review from an inspector general like office. Under the proposal supported by CREW, it would not be a permanent investigatory office but a panel of retired judges convened by the Chief Justice (or another non – Justice official to ensure another layer of neutrality). And under the SCERT Act, the bill proposes that a rotating panel of chief judges from the federal appeals court be convened to review ethical complaints. These proposals are similar on one major point – that an independent office or panel made up of non – Justices should review complaints in order to enforce a code of professional responsibility on the high court. Until individual Justices are removed from policing themselves, any ethical codes or standards will be meaningless.
All of these proposals also offer different standards and obligations and even if neither of the proposals were adopted it would still be good sense to pick bits and pieces of the best aspects of each and try to include them in a final version. The proposal of a permanent investigative office similar to an inspector general’s office is one that needs to be seriously considered and one that could help restore the reputation of the high court. By having a permanent office, the public would be assured that there would always been an office ready to go at a moment’s notice to investigate ethical complaints instead of waiting for a panel to be convened which could be delayed by weeks or months. The report requirements of the SCERT Act could also be implemented as the statutory obligation to write a report on why they accepted a gift or why they did or did not recuse themselves from a case would force a Justice to put their thinking officially down on paper and let the public know their legal rationales for why they took the action they did. The Supreme Court may be hesitant to adopt these proposals but even if they resist, these proposals can be implemented by Congressional action. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to determine what cases the Court may hear and the number of Justices that sit on the high court so there is no question that Congress can also impose additional requirements such as an ethical code. While the SCERT bill so far is the only proposal that has come from Congress, adding the other proposals supported by Professor Fine and the non – profit group CREW to a Congressional bill would be a way for Congress to make those proposals mandatory should Congress find a way to get it approved by both legislative houses.
Regardless of what a final ethical code with enforcement mechanisms would look like, there are numerous proposals floating around out there and enough options for a full and robust enforcement mechanism to be pieced together and grafted on to the new code adopted by the Supreme Court. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) – non – profit group’s analysis of the Supreme Court’s new code of ethics and what is lacking in the code.
- Brennan Center for Justice – non – profit group’s analysis of the new code of ethics for the Supreme Court and why they deem it likely to fail.
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.
The Week That Was: Global News In Review
The Week That Was: Global News In Review
Foreign Policy Brief #105 | By: Ibrahim Castro | December 10, 2023
Photo taken from: https://netivist.org
__________________________________
Venezuela-Guyana territorial dispute
Tensions between neighboring states, Venezuela and Guyana have shot up in recent weeks over a long-running territorial dispute. Last weekend Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro got the victory he sought in a referendum on whether to claim sovereignty over an oil-rich area of neighboring Guyana. In dispute is a 62,000-square-mile border territory around the Esequibo river, an area which is mainly jungle, and an offshore site where massive discoveries of oil and gas have been made. Both countries claim ownership of the territory, which is sparsely populated and whose border was agreed in a 1899 decision when Guyana was still part of the British Empire. Companies such as Exxon Mobil, China’s CNOOC and US Hess already began oil production in Guyana back in 2019.
Maduro said last week he would authorize oil exploration in the Esequibo and that all companies already operating offshore Guyana have three months to leave. Exxon has said border disputes are for countries and relevant international bodies to solve. Maduro’s government still has not explained what actions it might take to enforce results of the vote.
Putin’s visit to the Middle East
Last week Russian President Vladimir Putin made a rare tour to the Middle East during which he visited Saudi Arabia after a short trip to the United Arab Emirates. The meeting was part of Russia’s quest to stake out a more influential role in the Middle East, with oil cooperation and the Israel-Hamas war on the agenda. Both Saudi Arabia and Russia, called for all OPEC+ members to join an agreement on output cuts in order to curb a recent drop in oil prices. The Russian leader has made very few international trips after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for him in March, accusing him of illegally transporting Ukrainian children into Russia. Neither the UAE nor Saudi Arabia have signed the ICC’s founding treaty, and thus are not obligated to arrest Putin when he enters their territories.
Maori protests in New Zealand
Thousands of Maori protesters took to the streets across New Zealand last week, objecting to policies of the new government that the Maori say will unravel decades of indigenous progress. The country’s new conservative government, which was sworn in last week, has said it will scrap the Maori Health Authority, repeal legislation designed to prevent the removal of Maori children from their families and minimize Maori language use in public service. The government has also said it would review the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, which upholds Maori rights, including their right to autonomy as they are the country’s original inhabitants. The treaty was an agreement reached in 1840 between the British and indigenous Maori. While it is not a formal legal document, it forms the basis of New Zealand’s constitution, which includes the protection of Maori interests. Critics say the moves are an attack on four decades of legislative decisions and the new government will likely face many legal challenges in its attempt to undo Maori gains.