JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Navigating Identity and Strife: Hala’s Tale in the Israel-Hamas Conflict
Brief #100 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Aziza Taslaq
Unveiling the layers of her experiences, Hala sheds light on the impact of the ongoing conflict on her daily life, perspectives, and aspirations for a just resolution.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
Brief #99 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Ibrahim Castro
Growing conflict and escalating violence has now uprooted a staggering 6.9 million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
From a Square to a Triangle: An Analysis of Modern Issues in Education and Immigration
Brief #135 – Immigration Policy Brief
by Rudy Lurz
Education as a field typically distances itself from the activist rhetoric which plagues immigration reform efforts.
What to expect from Speaker Johnson
Brief #108 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by William Borque
The fourth-term Congressman out of Western Louisiana was not on many Bingo cards as the next speaker of the house…but here we are.
A Closer Look at Trump’s Criminal Defense
Brief #105 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Abigail Hunt
Former President Donald Trump faces federal charges for tampering with the 2020 election.
Examining Competitive US House Races in the South
Brief #107 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Ian Milden
The South has largely not been friendly to Democrats in recent election cycles due to Republicans’ control of the redistricting process and increasing hostility to the Democratic Party…
A Look at the Racketeering Case Against Trump in Georgia
Brief #106 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Abigail Hunt
In the state of Georgia, Trump is currently out on a $200,000 bond for 13 felony indictments.
An Orthodox Jewish View of the Israel-Hamas Conflict
Brief #98 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Ester Avisror
It matches Hamas’s use of Islam to justify the extinction of Jews with the use of old Testament scripture to justify whatever it takes to “exterminate” Hamas. Here is an edited version of a conversation with an Israeli orthodox rabbi.
In The Shadow of the Israel-Hamas Conflict: One Palestinian Perspective
Brief #97 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Aziza Taslaq
In this interview, we dig deeper into the experiences and perspectives of Sara, a young woman from the West Bank with roots in the city of Nablus, Palestine.
The Women’s Health Protection Act of 2023: An Effort to Push Back on the Supreme Court Dobbs Decision
The Women’s Health Protection Act of 2023: An Effort to Push Back on the Supreme Court Dobbs Decision
Health and Gender Policy Brief #164 | By: Carlos Avalos | September 18, 2023
Photo taken from: cnn.com
__________________________________
Bill H.R. 12, entitled the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2023 was introduced on 03/30/2023 by California Representative Judy Chu from the 28th District. On 4/7/2023 the bill was referred to the subcommittee on Health. Many times, after a bill is introduced, it is sent to a subcommittee for review and analysis. This is called the mark up period. Bills in the House of Representatives can only be released from committee with a proper committee vote by a discharge petition signed by most of the House sub-committee membership.
The Composition of a subcommittee is members who have expertise in a specific area of public policy, in this case it would be health care. There will most likely be hearings in the subcommittee on H.R. 12 being that the topic of Women’s reproductive rights is such a heavily debated American topic and partisan issue in Congress there is a very good chance the bill won’t leave the subcommittee on health care. For these same reasons and others, it might take months or more than a year for it to leave the House chamber and have the potential to enter the Senate.
This bill prohibits governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services. Specifically, before fetal viability, governments may not restrict providers from using abortion procedures or drugs, offering abortion services via telemedicine, or immediately providing abortion services if delaying risks the patient’s health. Fetal liability is the ability of a human fetus to survive outside the uterus. H.R. 12 makes it so, governments may not require a provider to perform unnecessary medical procedures, provide medically inaccurate information, or comply with credentialing or other conditions that do not apply to providers whose services are medically comparable to abortions. H.R. 12 also makes it so governments MAY NOT (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) After fetal viability, governments may not restrict providers from performing abortions when necessary to protect a patient’s life and health. The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may sue states or government officials to enforce this bill, regardless of certain immunity that would otherwise apply.
Analysis
The impetus to this bill is debatable but seems to center around a few key moments in recent American History. The first one being in the SCOTUS decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. This decision stripped away the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and paved the way for states to ban abortion outright.
In 2018, Mississippi passed a law called the “Gestational Age Act,” which prohibits all abortions, with few exceptions, after 15 weeks’ gestational age; about two months earlier than Roe and later decisions allow. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only licensed abortion facility in Mississippi, and one of its doctors filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the law and requesting an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO). The legal question asked in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was “Is Mississippi’s law banning nearly all abortions after 15 weeks’ gestational age unconstitutional”? The SCOTUS OPINION authored By Samuel Alito stated, “the Constitution does not mention abortion, the right is neither deeply rooted in the nation’s history nor an essential component of “ordered liberty.”
Further stated in the opinion was the notion that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, are overruled.”
Nearly 51 years ago SCOTUS legalized abortion in the U.S with its decision in Roe v. Wade. In this watershed moment and landmark decision, the Supreme Court established a constitutional right to abortion. This ruling struck down laws in many states that barred abortion, declaring that they could not ban the procedure before the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. Many states, since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, have reverted back to the pre-Roe days and implemented a total or severely excessive ban and curtailment on a women’s right to choose and women’s reproductive rights.
The Bill will have a hard time to pass the House where the Republicans have a majority. This Bill does have an OUTSIDE chance to pass the Senate and bestow hope for abortion rights nationally that has been curtailed after fifty years of reproductive progress. Currently in the U.S Senate there are 48 Democrats in the Senate and 49 Republicans with 1 Independent undeclared caucus affiliation, but the Democrats do have the ever so slight majority. Anything is possible in U.S politics and the bill could die in the Senate for a host of reasons. It could be talked to death by the ever-popular tactic of the Filibuster. Or some right leaning democrats might believe the bill is extreme like they did in H.R. 8296 and vote not according to party lines.
Most Americans do believe that abortion should be legal, at least in certain circumstances, and that it is in fact the women and only the women’s choice to make about her reproductive health. It should be noted, according to Gallup’s May 2023 update on Americans’ abortion views, 34% believe abortion should be legal “under any circumstances,” 51% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances,” and 13% say it should be illegal in all circumstances.
Engagement Resources:
- National Right To Life is the nation’s oldest and largest pro-life organization protecting all life. The Center for Reproductive Rights has been fighting for a women’s right to decide what happens to their bodies for 30 years.
The Medium is the Manipulation, Part 1: Misusing Campaign Ads to Fight Legal Battles
The Medium is the Manipulation, Part 1: Misusing Campaign Ads to Fight Legal Battles
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #94 | By: Steve Piazza | September 14, 2023
Photo taken from: news.yahoo.com
__________________________________
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.
Summary
What do Alvin Bragg, Jack Smith, Letitia James, and Fani Willis all have in common? Looking at their résumés, they all are members of the justice system. More specifically, their current titles are Manhattan District Attorney, Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, Attorney General of New York, and Fulton County District Attorney, respectively.
But if one only gets their information from a recent Donald Trump presidential campaign ad, they might be led to think that they are a “radical liberal New York prosecutor,” a prosecutor of “innocent Republican officials,” a “Socialist,” and “President Biden’s newest lackey,” also respectively. In fact, the ad refers to them as “The Fraud Squad.”
It is the platform, or policy, of the Trump campaign, and by association, the Republican Party, that the use of deceptive tactics is an appropriate means to a partisan end and is justified regardless of the harm it may cause to individuals, not to mention the overall justice system.
Analysis
Campaign advertising is hardly something new to this country. Political commentary on candidate platforms and opponents has appeared in speeches, journalistic prose, and cartoons for over two hundred years.
Neither is the use of negative campaigning novel, as even presidential candidates throughout the years have been branded adulterer (e.g. Andrew Jackson), traitor (e.g. Abraham Lincoln), and popish stooge (e.g. Martin Van Buren). Even attacking their families was not off limits.
Jump to today and not much has changed, besides how the increased reach of advanced media and technology has made political messaging ubiquitous. Muckraking is still too often the norm, and the more egregious the better, with any real basis in reality considered counterproductive.
2024 promises much of the same, as the recent Fraud Squad ad epitomizes. This tight, 60-second spot starts out simply enough by momentarily discrediting Trump’s key opponent, but that promptly reveals itself to be nothing more than an obtrusive red herring. After only 11 seconds, the attention abruptly turns to the four other subjects being spotlighted here, people who are not even political opponents he’s competing against but existing public officials taking legal action against him.
In other words, Trump is attempting to use a campaign for the U.S presidency to counter his mounting legal troubles. The legal process is being alarmingly conflated with his ambition for office, when the two cannot be any more disparate.
What may itself seem harmless coming right out of the school of commercial advertising and checking many technique boxes, one cannot avoid questioning the ad’s deceptive intent:
- Emotional response: The subjects, three out of four who happen to be African-American, are displayed while narrative tones designed to instill fear, skepticism, and hatred are audible.
- Body language: None of the public servants’ are pictured standing square to the audience or even looking directly in the eye of the viewer, which can lead to a sense of mistrust.
- Facts and statistics: The majority of the quotes come from highly biased sources (The Federalist, The Daily Mail, Washington Times), are taken out of context, and/or are just plain false.
The first two might be employed for their subtlety, and can be highly inflammatory. The last is clearly a blatant attempt to factually mislead . For example, the quote that’s heard about D.A. Bragg refusing to prosecute violent criminals is not even backed up by any source, and in fact is spoken over an entirely different quote about him releasing violent criminals while investigating Trump. In reality, his office promises to put more resources into fighting violent crime as per a memo on the Manhattan DA website.
This ad does not quite, though almost, employ subliminal advertising, which at one time was illegal. But showing one set of words and narrating another is no accident and is a powerful way to distract or confuse viewers into thinking something factual and substantive has been experienced.
Nonetheless, 90% of the ad is discrediting individuals who are doing their jobs upholding justice. It’s clear that this is about attempting to get people to lose faith in the justice system as the process plays out. Such misguided tactics become necessary when the intent is the indefensible rule of a majority by a desperate minority.
This gives credence to the argument that the former president is running again just so he can game the system to obtain the most votes and leave his legal problems behind. It conveys a concern more for his legal issues than the stability of the country. He’s also been accused of attempting to bring disorder and chaos into government institutions, and some will view this type of messaging as one more example where he is doing both.
Engagement Resources:
- Contact the Election Protection Hotline if you think there’s disinformation in a political ad: https://866ourvote.org/
- Legislation, like the proposed Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2018 to protect the public from information and propaganda, are needed.
- The Algorithmic Transparency Institute brings people and groups together to combat misinformation. You can find more information by clicking here.
- Political speech is protected by the First Amendment, but who pays for the ads can be confusing. Media outlets are required to be transparent as to the funding behind them, so for more information on what must be filed with the government, you can visit the Federal Communication Commission’s Public Inspection Files site: https://publicfiles.fcc.gov/
Situation Update: The Ukraine Crisis
Situation Update: The Ukraine Crisis
Foreign Policy Brief #90 | By: Ibrahim Castro | September 13, 2023
Photo taken from: foreignpolicy.com
__________________________________
Kim Jong Un and Putin meet
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un recently arrived in Vladivostok, Russia, for talks with President Vladimir Putin. The North Korean leader does not travel abroad frequently, making just seven international trips and twice stepping across the inter-Korean border in his 12 years in power. US officials say that the talks between the two heavily sanctioned nations are likely to discuss providing Russia with weapons for the war in Ukraine in exchange for food, fuel, and nuclear weapons secrets to North Korea. Though Pyongyang and Moscow have denied that North Korea would supply arms to Russia, which has expended its once vast stocks of weapons after more than 18 months of war. The North Korean delegation includes prominent members of the party who handle defense industry and military affairs, including Munitions Industry Department Director Jo Chun Ryong, an analyst said, which suggests the visit will focus on defense industry cooperation.On Monday, Washington renewed its warnings to Pyongyang not to sell arms to Russia that could be used in war, and the US State Department said any transfer of arms from North Korea to Russia would violate UN Security Council resolutions, which ban any arms transactions with North Korea.
Drone attacks and air strikes
Last week the Russian defense ministry said that it had shot down three Ukrainian drones on their way to attack Moscow. Drone attacks on Russian territory have become an almost daily occurrence in recent weeks and disrupted flights in and out of Moscow as well as caused damage to residential and commercial properties in the capital city and other parts of the country. The governor of Russia’s southern Belgorod region, which is near Ukraine and now comes under frequent attack, recently said a drone had hit a sanatorium in a village, while another had been shot down. It was the latest in a surge of similar incidents, and once again forced Moscow’s airports to briefly suspend flights as a precaution. While Russian state television has largely played down the strikes, instead reporting on the success of shooting down enemy aircraft and highlighting Russian attacks in Ukraine. Meanwhile late last week several people were killed and scores wounded in Russian air strikes in different locations in Ukraine, including a deadly attack in which a missile struck the village of Odradakamianka in the southern Kherson region
Death of Prigozhin
Two months ago, Wagner mercenary leader Yevgeny Prigozhin mounted a mutiny against Russia’s military, leading his mercenaries away from the war in Ukraine and turned toward Moscow. President Vladimir Putin decried his actions as treason and vowed punishment for those involved. Though the Kremlin instead strangely cut a deal with Prigozhin, saying he would be allowed to walk free without facing any charges if he were to resettle in Belarus. The question remained, however, about whether Prigozhin eventually would face consequences for the brief uprising that posed the biggest challenge to Putin’s authority in his 23 year rule. Late last month Prigozhin and his top lieutenants died in a plane crash. A preliminary US intelligence assessment concluded that an intentional explosion caused the plane to crash. The Kremlin has rejected these claims as a “complete lie”.Now with Prigozhins death and Wagner without its leader, fighters were offered a few options: to retire or enlist in Russia’s regular army and return to Ukraine as Russia looks to supplement its regular military ranks with fighters from the mercenary group.
Is Trump Barred From The 2024 Ballot By The Constitution’s Disqualification Clause?
Is Trump Barred From The 2024 Ballot By The Constitution’s Disqualification Clause?
Civil Rights Policy Brief #211 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | September 13, 2023
Photo taken from: cnn.com
__________________________________
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
On January 6, 2021, rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol building during the official certification of the electoral votes that was being presided by Vice – President Mike Pence. The certification would have declared Joe Biden the winner of the 2020 election over President Donald J. Trump. President Trump had previously rallied the crowd to march to the Capitol to try to persuade the Vice – President to reject some electoral slates from certain states in order to delay certification of Biden’s win. After the crowd marched to the Capitol and demonstrated outside, they became unruly and violently entered the Capitol building. The crowd smashed windows, broke down doors and forced their way through barriers forcing a temporary suspension of the certification proceedings and forcing Members of Congress and their staff to retreat for their own personal safety. Persons in the mob were heard chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” After a few tense hours, the Capitol building was cleared and Members of Congress were escorted back inside where the certification of electoral votes continued, ultimately ending with Joe Biden being officially declared the winner of the 2020 election.
Subsequently, hundreds of persons who were part of the mob that violently entered the Capitol to disrupt the certification proceedings were criminally prosecuted and handed varying sentences, including one person being sentenced to seventeen years in prison. Since leaving office, Donald Trump has been indicted four times although only one of those concerns the events of January 6, 2001. (The other indictments are about Trump’s business dealings, his handling of classified U.S. documents and Trump’s efforts to overturn the votes in Georgia about the 2020 election.) LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: While Donald Trump is in serious legal jeopardy on numerous charges across numerous states, a legal scenario is being actively discussed that could bar Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot in a number of states as a 2024 presidential candidate. Could Donald Trump be barred based on the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment “Disqualification Clause?”
The text of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is clear although legal scholars are split in their opinion as to whether the clause can be applied to the former President.
One legal theory states that the clause does not apply to Mr. Trump because the clause was aimed at former Confederate soldiers and politicians. The clause was added in the aftermath of the Civil War to prevent former Confederates from holding office and possibly trying to subvert the United States again if they were to become officers or politicians of the government again. The legal theory goes that since the clause was intended only for those persons in the mid – nineteenth century, the clause does not apply to anyone else. However, this is a strict reading of the text that would render the clause obsolete in today’s modern world if it only applied to persons alive in the late 1800’s.
Today, many groups in a number of states are looking to clarify the application of the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 with lawsuits, petitions and other legal avenues. In New Hampshire, Secretary of State David Scanlan recently requested legal guidance from the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office about whether Trump can be allowed on the ballot. In Colorado, six Republicans and other voters, represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), filed a lawsuit looking to bar the Colorado Secretary of State from allowing Trump on the ballot in 2024. And in Florida, another lawsuit was brought to bar Trump from the 2024 ballot although that case was dismissed on procedural grounds. It is becoming clear that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is going to become a focal point about whether the former President is going to have a shot at winning in 2024.
But application of the clause to Trump is still up in the air and the courts are going to have to decide, even if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court. While it is not clear how the courts will decide, some clues have begun to emerge. In New Mexico, the disqualification clause was used to remove a county commissioner from office based on his presence at the January 6th riot. This has been the only successful removal of a person from office based on the Disqualification Clause since 1869 and illustrates that the clause can be used in modern times to prohibit a person from holding office after participating in an insurrection. Additionally, that court declared that the incident of January 6th was an insurrection. That is key because some right wing news sites have tried to change the narrative by calling January 6th something else, like a peaceful protest, when it clearly was not. With a court already declaring the events of that day an insurrection, the ruling provides legal support that President Trump caused an insurrection and makes it more difficult to evade the specific words contained in the Disqualification Clause.
However, some have pointed out that Trump has also not been charged with causing an insurrection or rebellion. His charges are only for conspiracy. If a court were to follow a strict interpretation of words, they could require a person first be charged or convicted of actual incitement of insurrection or rebellion before being barred under the Disqualification Clause. Being charged with conspiracy or rebellion are separate and distinct crimes and it is possible a court could find being charged for conspiracy, like Trump, does not meet the wording contained in the clause. Right now, this is all speculation and a court will have to weigh in and clarify how the clause applies and whether it applies to Trump or not. And in a number of states the race for legal clarification has already started and will make for an interesting side story, or maybe the main story, of the 2024 election season.
Engagement Resources:
- The Hill – good discussion from news site discussing a candidate’s eligibility under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Politico – news site’s article on history of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Disqualification Clause.
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.
Medicare Negotiations on Drugs Save Money and Lives
Medicare Negotiations on Drugs Save Money and Lives
Health and Gender Policy Brief #163 | By: Geoffrey Small | September 11, 2023
Photo taken from: www.startribune.com
__________________________________
On August 29th, the Biden Administration announced a list of ten drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation. The Inflation Reduction Act, which was enacted last year, gives Medicare the authority to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. The targeted drugs cost seniors a total of $3.4 billion in out-of-pocket costs during 2022, and this price negotiation will provide much needed relief to Americans who are struggling to afford their medications. The drugs that were selected are the highest in total spending for Medicare Part D recipients. They also address some of the most life-threatening diseases impacting U.S. citizens.
| Drug Name | Commonly Treated Conditions |
| Eliquis | Prevention and treatment of blood clots |
| Jardiance | Diabetes; Heart failure |
| Xarelto | Prevention and treatment of blood clots; Reduction of risk for patients with coronary or peripheral artery disease |
| Januvia | Diabetes |
| Farxiga | Diabetes; Heart failure; Chronic kidney disease |
| Entresto | Heart failure |
| Enbrel | Rheumatoid arthritis; Psoriasis; Psoriatic arthritis |
| Imbruvica | Blood cancers |
| Stelara | Psoriasis; Psoriatic arthritis; Crohn’s disease; Ulcerative colitis |
| Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; [etc…] | Diabetes |
Policy Analysis
The JAMA Health Forum released an investigation, earlier this year, that details a hypothetical impact the Inflation Reduction Act would’ve had on Medicare drug prices, if the policy was enacted in 2018. A cross-sectional study using a policy simulation analysis between 2018 and 2022 revealed that recently mandated statutory ceiling prices would have reduced overall Medicare spending by 5%, or roughly $26.5 billion. The study noted that Medicare’s ability to negotiate drug prices has limitations. There are strict criteria that certain drugs must meet to be selected for negotiation. Also, drugs that have been reduced can become ineligible during the 2-year negotiation process it takes to go in effect. However, the reduced Medicare spending overall is still significant despite these issues.
Though cost reduction is the primary reason these drugs have been selected by Medicare for negotiation, the positive impact on healthcare for seniors is just as significant. The Whitehouse stated the targeted medications were vital treatments for diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. According to the CDC, two leading causes of death in 2022 were heart disease and cancer, and that rate has increased since 2021. Diabetes was also included in the top 10 underlying causes
of death.
A 2022 Health and Human Services report on “Prescription Drug Affordability among Medicare Beneficiaries” states that “more than 5 million [recipients] struggle to afford prescription medications.” Black and Latino adults over the age of 65 reported difficulties with affording their medications 1.5 to 2 times higher than white adults. It’s important to note that adults under 65 with qualifying disabilities or end-stage renal disease had significantly higher rates of affordability issues than adults over 65. The report also indicates that “Medicare beneficiaries with lower incomes and those under age 65 also had above-average rates of not taking needed medications due to cost.”
The Biden Administration has pursued an agenda to reduce medical costs for Medicare recipients since taking office. The Inflation Reduction Act is the cornerstone of the President’s efforts to deliver more affordable healthcare for Medicare recipients. The JAMA Network details the justification of these costs, based on scientific data, to inform U.S. citizens about the benefits of negotiating costs. Subscribing to their health forum can lead to better public awareness about the benefits of a more proactive Medicare system.
Engagement Resources:
Google Cloud’s AI Conference Draws Protestors
Google Cloud’s AI Conference Draws Protestors
Technology Policy Brief #97 | By: Mindy Spatt | September 7, 2023
Photo taken from: sfstandard.com
__________________________________
Although the lengthy agenda for Google Cloud’s AI conference didn’t include any workshops on Project Nimbus, it was at the top of the agenda for a few hundred protestors who converged in San Francisco to accuse Google of complicity with the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Project Nimbus, a 1.2 billion dollar contract won by Amazon and Google, is a project that will move Israel’s entire government computer system to the cloud. But that isn’t all it will do.
Policy Analysis
Workers first raised the alarm about Nimbus in an open letter in the Guardian newspaper in 2021, which was signed by “more than 90 workers at Google and more than 300 at Amazon” anonymously, out of fear of retaliation. They called for an end to the project, which they said would “allow for further surveillance of and unlawful data collection on Palestinians” and facilitate expansion of illegal settlements.
In July 2022 their fears were confirmed by a report in The Intercept that concluded “Google’s data analysis offerings could worsen the increasingly data-driven military occupation.” Documents uncovered by The Intercept showed that the plan for Nimbus “would give Israel capabilities for facial detection, automated image categorization, object tracking, and even sentiment analysis that claims to assess the emotional content of pictures, speech, and writing.”
It is easy to see why activists are alarmed. Israel already bombs the homes of “suspected terrorists” and arrests Palestinians without charging them with anything; the possibilities of the wider net that would be cast by these technologies, extending even to “emotional content,” could be devastating. And Palestinians aren’t the only ones at risk. Last year Haaretz reported that the Pegasus spyware first used for surveillance of Palestinians was being deployed to spy on Israelis including those protesting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The demonstrators were unavoidable on Howard Street outside of the Moscone Center where the conference was held. They locked arms across the wide street and dropped banners from a pedestrian bridge, heard from speakers including San Francisco Poet Laureate Tongo Eisen-Martin and chanted and cheered loudly. Many wore t-shirts proclaiming they were Google employees- and most of those who donned the T-shirts also wore masks. The fear of retaliation is understandable, as Google has been accused of retaliating against employee activists often past, for both union activity and other forms of political activism.
Ariel Koren, an organizer of the protest and former Google employee told U.S. Resist News “In spite of the culture of retaliation that we’ve seen countless workers subjected to, you see Google workers out here today putting their jobs on the line. Workers have been organizing for the past two years to send a clear message that we refuse to allow our labor to be used to fuel apartheid violence against Palestinian people.” Koren said Nimbus is a culmination of Google’s deep seated history of complicity with the Israeli government and that Google was sweeping worker’s concerns under the rug.
I stood with a group of protestors handing leaflets out at the conference exit. Some conference-goers looked bemused, many looked away and only a small number accepted the proffered information.
Judy Graboyes, another protestor, acknowledged that the protest was unlikely to have an impact on Google in the near term, but that it was an important step toward building a movement to stop the use of tech for surveillance of the general population or in the service of an apartheid regime. “Everything starts slowly, one person at a time,” she said. “But you have to do something. If you don’t speak out against it, you are complicit with it.”
Engagement Resources:
- Documents Reveal Advanced Ai Tools Google Is Selling To Israel, Sam Biddle, July 24, 2022, https://theintercept.com/2022/07/24/google-israel-artificial-intelligence-project-nimbus/
- We are Google and Amazon workers. We condemn Project Nimbus Anonymous Google and Amazon workers, Oct. 12, 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/12/google-amazon-workers-condemn-project-nimbus-israeli-military-contract
- Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory illegal: UN rights commission, 20 October 2022, https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129722
- No Tech For Apartheid, https://www.notechforapartheid.com
Examining Competitive US House Races in California
Examining Competitive US House Races in California
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #93 | By: Ian Milden | September 6, 2023
Photo taken from: latimes.com
__________________________________
Democrats lost their majority in the House of Representatives in the 2022 mid-term elections. However, the small size of the Republican majority leaves Democrats with a path to re-take the House majority. This brief will take an early look at some of the races in California, which has enough competitive races to affect the control of the House majority.
Analysis
Republicans shocked many pundits by only winning a four-seat majority in the House of Representatives during the midterm elections. While Democrats performed well nationally in 2022, there were several pickup opportunities for U.S. House seats that were missed during the 2022 campaign in California. If Democrats can successfully flip a few of these seats, then they have a good chance to re-take the House majority in 2024.
The seat that presents Democrats with the best pickup opportunity is held by John Duarte (R-CA) in the 13th district in the Central Valley. It was an open seat created during the redistricting process. Duarte is a moderate who won his seat in 2022 by less than 1,000 votes. Given that this was one of the closest races in the country last year, Democrats will likely put a lot of resources into flipping this district.
David Valadao in California’s 22nd District is also a vulnerable incumbent. His district is also in the Central Valley and south of Duarte’s. Valadao was initially elected in 2012, but he lost his seat in 2018 to TJ Cox. Valadao defeated Cox in 2020 after Cox became embroiled in a fraud scandal. Cox has since been indicted by federal prosecutors. State Representative Rudy Salas (D-CA) ran against Valadao in 2022, and Salas lost by about 3,000 votes.
Mike Garcia (R-CA) represents California’s 27th district in southern California. Garcia won his seat in a special election, which was held when Katie Hill (D-CA) resigned from Congress. Garcia won re-election in 2022 against the same challenger. Democrats within the district thought that Garcia could be defeated, but they needed more financial resources from outside groups since this is an expensive district to campaign in.
Ken Calvert (R-CA) currently represents the 41st district, which should be a competitive seat on paper, but Calvert has been reelected every year since 1992. Calvert won in 2022 by about 11,000 votes. Calvert has had some close races, so this race could be competitive if Democrats find the right candidate and put in substantial resources.
Young Kim (R-CA) and Michelle Steel (R-CA) represent two districts (the 40th and 45th districts respectively) that are part of the competitive Orange County area. Democrats won slightly different versions of these seats in 2018 but then lost them to Congresswoman Kim and Congresswoman Steel in 2020. The 47th district, which is currently represented by Katie Porter (D-CA), is another Orange County district that will be competitive this year, especially since Porter is vacating the seat to run for the U.S. Senate. Defending the open seat will likely be the greater priority for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee given that the 47th district is easier for Democrats to retain than trying to retake the 40th and 45th districts.
While it is unlikely for Democrats to win all of the competitive seats I mentioned in this brief, if they can flip two or three seats in California and hold the open seat in the 47th district, then Democrats stand a very good chance of retaking the House majority if things go well for the party in other states.
Engagement Resources
Donald Trump and Accountability
Donald Trump and Accountability
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #92 | By: Abigail Hunt | September 5, 2023
Photo taken from: nsjonline.com
__________________________________
Donald Trump is currently the leading candidate for the Republican party Presidential nomination – this man who openly bragged, on tape, about sexually assaulting strangers is somehow the person that many rural and misinformed Americans believe is their savior. Trump, who faces 91 criminal counts against him in New York, Georgia, and on the federal level. Trump’s indictments are mounting like the unpaid debts he accumulates. Indicted first in New York in spring 2023, Trump was hit with 34 counts of falsifying business records regarding his involvement in a $130,000 payment – of alleged hush money – to Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress. On the federal level, prosecutors indicted Trump in June for 40 charges of “willful retention of national defense information” regarding classified documents he took from the White House and stored in his shower in Mar-A-Lago, among other places.
On August 24th, Trump’s booking in Fulton County, Georgia where he faces 13 charges including fraud and racketeering was the first one of his his recent arrests to produce a mugshot. And what a mugshot. Trump leers into the camera like a movie villain. He and 18 other defendants face charges of attempting to manipulate the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia. Should a vocal and proud traitor to the federal government be allowed to run for the office of the President? Trump thinks so, but others are not so sure.
In late August, two Constitutional scholars, a retired federal U.S. Court of appeals judge and a nationally recognized professor of constitutional law from Harvard, argued in an article in The Atlantic that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, includes language that precludes Donald J. Trump from ever being President again.
Section 3 states: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies there of. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
One Florida lawyer agreed so strongly with the Constitutional argument that he filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court. Lawrence Caplan of Ft. Lauderdale, FL put forth the argument that Trump was ineligible to run again for President due to his part in the January 6, 2021 insurrection in the Capitol. Caplan requested the court bar Trump from running for President and from taking part in the 2024 Florida Republican primary.
Despite the article’s persuasive arguments and his own track record of abusive, illegal, and treasonous behavior, Trump persists in being successful among conservatives. Even when his own former cabinet members have turned on him, many of Trump’s supporters remain steadfast. After his mugshot was released, Trump himself shared it on “X” (formerly known as Twitter) with the title, “Mug Shot – August 24, 2023” and the caption, “ELECTION INTERFERENCE! NEVER SURRENDER! DONALDJTRUMP.COM.” If there is one thing you can say about Trump, it is that he never fails to make headlines. But how long can he avoid accountability for his actions? The coming year will tell us a lot.
The Increased Clout of Youth Climate Activists: The Case of Montana
The Increased Clout of Youth Climate Activists: The Case of Montana
Environmental Policy Brief #159 | By: Inijah Quadri | September 5, 2023
Photo taken from: thenation.com
__________________________________
In a world demanding urgent action on climate change, youth activists are going beyond marching with placards and are wielding constitutions as their weapons of choice. A recent landmark case in Montana involved a group of young environmental activists, supported by the organization ‘Our Children’s Trust,’ challenging state policies on constitutional grounds, asserting their right to a “clean and healthful environment.”
This strategy highlights the delicate dance between the drive for development and the pressing need for environmental conservation. The Montana lawsuit might not just be a one-off event—it could herald the dawn of “green amendments” across the legal landscape.
Analysis
The youth activists, ranging from ages 5 to 22, and represented by ‘Our Children’s Trust,’ argued that the government’s insufficient action on climate change violated their constitutional rights to a clean and healthful environment. They contended that the state’s policy of evaluating fossil fuel permits—without considering greenhouse gas emissions—was unconstitutional. This approach not only risked their futures but also threatened the integrity of Montana’s cherished ecosystems.
District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in favor of the activists, marking the first time a U.S. court ruled against a government for violating constitutional rights based on climate change. However, the immediate impacts of the ruling are limited as it is up to the Montana Legislature to determine how to bring the state’s policies into compliance.
The state, represented by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, decried the ruling as “absurd” and plans to appeal. Meanwhile, the youth group and ‘Our Children’s Trust’ hope that lawmakers will respect the state’s constitution and abide by the court’s decision, setting a precedent for similar cases worldwide.
While it is currently unclear if there are any other groups directly supporting the case, the outcome provides significant emotional support for various organizations and activists worldwide seeking to establish a public trust right, human right, or federal constitutional right to a healthy environment.
Broader Implications and Movement
The legal foray in Montana is interconnected with a larger, global youth-driven environmental thrust. There are stories of similar valiant efforts, from the courtrooms of the Netherlands to the streets of New Delhi to the EU. These shared narratives emphasize that we’re witnessing not just isolated events but a cohesive, worldwide youth-led revolution. The Montana case, with its intertwining of legal and environmental narratives, might just be a precursor to more such climate battles.
Conclusion
Youth-led legal actions highlight the delicate balance between developmental needs and environmental conservation. In other words, Children’s Trust argues that Montana’s government was supporting the state’s economic development without considering the impact of that development on the environment and people’s health. While the immediate impact of the Montana ruling remains to be seen, it sets an important legal precedent.
With the battle far from over, and as more states and countries contribute to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is clear that these youth-led legal actions have brought the balance between developmental needs and environmental conservation into the spotlight. Whether through the courts or the streets, more young voices are expected to reshape the discourse on climate change.
Are we on the cusp of a new era of environmental litigation?
Further Engagement Resources
- Sunrise Movement (https://www.sunrisemovement.org/): A youth-led movement advocating for political action on climate change.
- Environmental Law Institute (https://www.eli.org/): Offers resources and research on environmental law, including youth-driven legal actions.
- Our Children’s Trust (https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/): A legal team advocating for the rights of young individuals in the context of environmental challenges.
Is Donald Trump a Mob Boss? How Georgia is Using an Organized Crime Law to Prosecute Him
Is Donald Trump a Mob Boss? How Georgia is Using an Organized Crime Law to Prosecute Him
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #91 | By: Arvind Salem | August 30, 2023
Photo taken from: theweek.com
__________________________________
President Trump has been indicted once again for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election: this time in Georgia, which means even if he becomes President he can’t pardon away the punishment. The case focuses on his role allegedly spearheading a criminal enterprise and includes 18 other defendants including Rudy Guliani, one of Trump’s lawyers during his effort to overturn the election, and Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff at the time of the election.
The indictment details a sprawling conspiracy to overturn the election and includes 41 counts: 22 counts related to forgery or false documents/statements, 8 counts are related to impersonating or soliciting public officials, 3 counts are related to influencing witnesses, 3 counts are related to election fraud/defrauding the state, 1 count is related to racketeering, and 1 count is related to perjury. These counts roughly map to five main areas of illegality: deliberately disseminating false statements about the election to manipulate Georgia’s legislature, efforts to intimidate state officials (including Trump’s infamous phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger pressuring him to “find more votes”), breach of voting data, abusing and harassing state election workers, and attempting to send alternate electors to Congress to give Georgia’s electoral votes to President Trump.
Policy Analysis
Since it is so early in the case, many of the legal arguments have not yet been explored. One point of contention is the prosecution’s use of charges under the state’s RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, which are generally reserved for mobs and other forms of organized crime. Using RICO allows the prosecution to use actions outside of Georgia to make their case. For example, the indictment cites a meeting Trump had with Michigan legislators where he made false statements of election fraud as one of the events in his conspiracy. They also allow the prosecution to charge a host of people under the same conspiracy.
There are two main challenges related to Trump’s prosecution under this case.. First, the prosecution needs to prove that Trump acted with criminal intent, which means that they will have to prove that Trump was pushing these claims, even though he knew they weren’t true. This difficulty isn’t specific to this case: it also applies to the federal case against Trump for the same effort. The second difficulty is proving coordination. All of the defendants must have acted for a common goal for RICO to apply and they will likely argue that they were disparate actors each pursuing their individual objectives that just happened to align sometimes due to their similar political goals.
Another legal challenge associated with this case is Trump’s motion to move the trial to federal court. Courts have developed defendant friendly rules that generally allow federal officials to have their case heard in federal court. If successful, this could delay the trial (which is nearly always a good thing for Trump because it allows him to focus on campaigning) and give Trump a more friendly jury pool. Currently the jury pool is made up exclusively of people from Atlanta, a very Democratic city with jurors who are likely to be against Trump politically, but if the trial is moved to federal court, the jury pool would also consist of people in the areas surrounding Atlanta, which would likely be slightly more pro-Trump than a jury drawn of people just in Atlanta.
A final complication occurs from the relative timings of this case and Jack Smith’s federal case against Trump. Jack Smith’s case will likely go to trial earlier because it is more focused, while the Georgia case includes many defendants and attempts to prove a web of criminal conspiracy. Since they cover many of the same actions and issues, Trump’s defense team will have to be especially mindful of their strategy to ensure that anything they do in the first case does not provide ammunition for the Georgia prosecution.
Engagement Resources
- Winred
Winred allows people to donate money to Republican candidates to support their campaign. Readers interested in supporting President Trump or other members of the Republican party may find that this is a useful way to convey their support and help the Republican cause. - Brennan Center
The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School is an organization that promotes reforms to the 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 indictment may wish to support the Brennan Center and help it advance its proposed reforms. - 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 indictment 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 supporting the Trump indictment on this site and may wish to donate money to further that cause.