JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Politics of Passion, Courtesy of The Ink
SPECIAL GUEST OP ED
by: Anand Giridharadas
In an era defined by Big Feelings and societal upheaval, Anand Giridharadas delves into the dichotomy between the politics of passion embraced by the right and the cerebral approach adopted by today’s electoral left. As millions grapple with anxiety, fear, and existential questions, Giridharadas warns against dismissing the power of emotion and passion in political discourse, highlighting its potential to address the deep-seated uncertainties of our time.
Congress Struggles to Regulate Social Media Content
Brief #108 – Technology Policy Brief
by : Mindy Spatt
In the ongoing struggle for social media regulation, Congress grapples with complex challenges and CEO resistance, while state-level initiatives present contrasting approaches. In the midst of skepticism towards Mark Zuckerberg’s apology, urgent calls for comprehensive legislative action resonate against a backdrop of legal battles and heightened Supreme Court scrutiny.
Checking in on 14 Years of Obamacare: Part 1
Policy Brief #170 – Health and Gender
by Geoffrey Small
In its fourteenth year since enactment, the ACA, or Obamacare, aims to improve healthcare accessibility, affordability, and innovation. Despite premium increases, studies show significant progress in reducing uninsured rates, particularly among minorities and the LGBTQ community, highlighting strides towards healthcare equity since its implementation.
Addressing the Modern Refugee Crisis in the US: Policies and Solutions
Brief #157 – Social Justice Policy Brief
by: Inijah Quadri
In the face of the modern refugee crisis, the United States faces complex challenges in providing sanctuary to those fleeing persecution and violence. Recent policies and solutions propose increasing refugee admission caps, streamlining resettlement processes, and ending harmful border policies to uphold humanitarian obligations while balancing security concerns.
Israel-Gaza War Updates
Brief #124 – Foreign Policy Brief
by: Abran C
Amidst the relentless onslaught in the Israel-Gaza conflict, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vow for ‘total victory’ exacerbates the humanitarian crisis, with international condemnation mounting. As airstrikes escalate and regional tensions simmer, calls for ceasefire intensify amidst fears of broader Middle East escalation.
The Unequal Effects of Climate Change on Vulnerable Communities
Brief #165 – Environment Policy Brief
by : Devyne Byrd
Delve into the connection between environmental injustice and climate change in low-income areas, where discriminatory zoning perpetuates pollution and vulnerability. From Cancer Alley’s toxicity to the unequal impact of climate disasters, marginalized communities struggle to access vital environmental and healthcare resources.
2024: The Year of Elections
Brief #123 – Foreign Policy Brief
by: Abran C
In 2024, the world witnessed a surge of elections, yet the outcomes reveal a concerning trend of democratic backsliding and authoritarian resurgence, challenging the very essence of global foreign policy.
The Top 5 Worst GOP Bills: A Closer Look at Troubling Legislation
Brief #125 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by: William Bourque
Dive into the political fray with a closer examination of the top five GOP bills stirring controversy and debate. From futile attempts to impeach cabinet members to misguided efforts to roll back progressive policies, witness the stark divisions within Congress unfold in this analysis.
“Alexei’s Death is a Murder Organized by Putin…”
Brief #122 – Foreign Policy Brief
by: Yelena Korshunov
Alexei Navalny’s death in the Polar Wolf colony sparks global outrage and suspicion, with many alleging it as a calculated murder orchestrated by Vladimir Putin’s regime. As investigations unfold and protests erupt worldwide, Navalny’s demise raises profound questions about human rights and democracy in Russia.
How Colorado and Maine Decisions Bolster The Efforts To Bar Trump From The 2024 Primary Ballots
How Colorado and Maine Decisions Bolster The Efforts To Bar Trump From The 2024 Primary Ballots
Civil Rights Policy Brief #216 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | January 2, 2024
Photo taken from: www.cnn.com
__________________________________
Policy Summary: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
“No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … as an officer of the United States … 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.”
In the last year, a number of efforts in multiple states have started to try and use the text of this clause to disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the Republican primary ballot of the state for the 2024 Republican nomination for President of the United States. The efforts have been mixed. Initially in some states, petitions were created to ask Secretaries of States to keep Trump off the primary ballots. However, when some of these officials declined to take such a momentous step without more legal clarity, many of these citizens and non – profit groups took their efforts to the courts. All told, including petitions and court cases still pending, there are a total of thirteen states that could decide this particular issue.
In Florida, a case was filed seeking to disqualify Trump. However, the case was eventually dismissed on procedural grounds with the federal district court reasoning that a citizen in Florida did not have standing to bring the case. In Minnesota, another case was filed to disqualify Trump although the case never addressed whether Trump had actively incited a rebellion or insurrection as mentioned in the text of Section 3. The court simply reasoned that Minnesota law permitted political parties to place whomever they choose on the state’s primary ballot. And in Michigan, a petition was brought to disqualify Trump there that eventually became a lawsuit in the Michigan Court of Claims. The case was dismissed. Appeals were made to the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court and both affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, allowing Trump to appear on Michigan’s primary ballot. All of these cases denied Trump’s disqualification for a variety of reasons.
But in two states, Colorado and Maine, activists achieved their first victories in seeking to bar the former President under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. A lawsuit was filed in Colorado and a trial was held in the case. The trial court found that Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6th, 2021 but reasoned he should still remain on the primary ballot. The case was then appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, which affirmed that Trump had engaged in insurrection. The high court then went further and in a 4 – 3 decision stated that Trump was ineligible to be on the Colorado 2024 primary ballot because of his actions on January 6th.
In Maine, three registered voters challenged Trump’s eligibility to be on the ballot as they are permitted to do under Maine law. That then triggered a process requiring the Secretary of State to hold a public hearing, hear evidence and issue a ruling on the matter. After hearing the evidence provided at the public hearing Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows issued her ruling disqualifying Trump from the Maine primary ballot. In her ruling Sec. Bellows found it easy to conclude that Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6th and that his action were “intended to incite lawless action” in order to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The two decisions from the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Department of the Secretary of State are significant decisions that could have far – reaching consequences for the 2024 election. After a string of legal defeats in other states where some cases were decided on procedural grounds or where some justices were hesitant to address the topic head – on the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Department of the Secretary of State got it right on a number of issues that activists had sought.
The Colorado Supreme Court made six key findings that could be focused on in other states where Trump’s eligibility is still to be decided. In its decision, the court found 1] Colorado state law permits voters “standing” to challenge Trump’s eligibility (contrary to the case in Florida that sought to bar Trump from the primary ballot there), 2] Colorado can enforce a ban on a candidate without approval from Congress, 3] the insurrectionist ban applies to presidential candidates, 4] the January 6th, 2021 attack was an insurrection, 5] former President Trump engaged in the insurrection and 6] Trump’s January 6th 2021 speech inciting the rioters was not protected speech under the First Amendment. And in the Maine decision in Sections D – 3 and 4, Sec. Bellows lays out the factual evidence that demonstrate that the actions of January 6th 2001 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it while refuting Trump’s arguments that he was not involved.
All of these findings are key because any uncertainty about these key facts could have been the basis to defeat the challenges to Trump’s eligibility and allow him to remain on primary ballots. Much of the discussion about Trump’s eligibility have been slanted depending on whether one supports or opposes Trump and that has often led to head – scratching conclusions. Right wing media has tried to characterize the January 6th attack as nothing more than a minor shouting match in order to avoid admitting what it really was – a violent attack to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power that resulted in death. By finding it really was an insurrection the Colorado Supreme Court can deny a key argument put forth by right wing media. Their finding also applies to whether Trump engaged in insurrection. Many pro – Trump supporters have tried to deny that Trump instigated the chaos at the Capitol that day. But the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Secretary of State’s ruling shows that this line of argument is false and disinformation used for nothing more than to protect a president who could not in good faith admit that he lost an election.
The other findings are important because it addresses presidential eligibility issues that have not been decided by any other court of law so far. Some legal scholars have opined that presidential eligibility must be decided by Congress and not the individual states. Additionally, some have even theorized that the insurrectionist ban from Section 3 does not apply to presidential candidates. And, Trump’s January 6th speech should be protected free speech. What the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Secretary of State decisions shows is that there are good and strong legal arguments to apply Trump’s actions to the text of Section 3 and bar him from 2024 primary ballots. Without these key findings made by the Colorado Supreme Court and Sec. Bellows, other states could simply decline to address the issue in their own states or even determine falsely that Trump was not responsible for some of the actions he is being accused of. Colorado and Maine have taken the first step toward accountability for a former President who refuses to be held accountable for trying to destabilize the democratic process, a crime that Section 3 was specifically written to prevent against.
It is the rule of law that is paramount in this country and both Colorado and Maine have demonstrated for all other states and the courts (even the Supreme Court where an appeal is likely) that an in – depth analysis of Trump’s actions shows that Section 3 can be applied to him to bar him from the ballot. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- LawFare – map tracker of 14th Amendment Trump disqualification efforts and results.
- Vox – good informational website on the 14th Amendment disqualification efforts and the legal arguments for and against a ban on Trump’s 2024 candidacy.
- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) – press release from non – profit group involved in the Colorado lawsuit.
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.
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.
A Wave of Congressional Departures on the Eve of a Highly Contested Election
A Wave of Congressional Departures on the Eve of a Highly Contested Election
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #115 | By: William Bourque | December 28, 2023
Photo taken from: www.democracydocket.com
__________________________________
In the turmoil of the past year, a historic number of Members of Congress have decided to leave their posts at the end of their terms. Many are seeking election to other offices, but the majority are simply retiring from the body. A lack of bipartisanship and overall sense that Congress just doesn’t get enough done is what is pushing many long-serving lawmakers out the door. One, of course, has already left the ranks, with Rep. George Santos (NY-03) being expelled in late November. Many of the members that are stepping down wielded significant power and authority in both chambers, and it will be incredibly interesting to see who fills that hole.
In the House, where far more members are taking flight, a vacuum on the right has opened up. The biggest absence is former speaker Kevin McCarthy, who will be leaving his post at the end of the year. House GOP sources said that McCarthy was unbearable as a rank-and-file member, clearly frustrated with having to sit and hold the same power as those who pushed him out of his speakership. McCarthy’s seat should be a safe Republican one, so he isn’t leaving his party in a crucial district. The ceding of power to the far right didn’t sit well with many other senior members, like interim speaker and Kevin McCarthy ally Patrick McHenry. McHenry was also the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, where he was one of the leaders in crypto regulation. He leaves behind a 20-year tenure in the House where he was, at one point, seen as a possible candidate for Speaker.
On the Democratic side, several Californian’s are vacating their seats to run for Senator—Adam Schiff, Barbara Lee, and Katie Porter are all vying for the Democratic nomination. Polls currently have Schiff with a slight lead over Porter, with Lee trailing both significantly. Also leaving the body from California is Representative Anna Eshoo, who is retiring after serving for 30 years. Her seat is considered a safe D seat and an open primary will take place in March to determine who will be running for the seat in November.
There are also a few members who are leaving to pursue municipal or statewide offices, with some notable ones being Abigail Spanberger (D-VA-7), Mike Braun (R-IN), and Jeff Jackson (D-NC-14). Spanberger, 44, is running for Governor in Virginia. She is running against Richmond Mayor LeVar Stoney for the Democratic nomination. Stoney has faced recent criticism in Richmond after a proposed casino, backed by Stoney, failed for the second time at the ballot box. Mike Braun, in Indiana, is facing off against Jennifer McCormick, a former state superintendent. Polls from August indicate Braun should win by double-digits. Jackson, a one-term lawmaker who rose to beltway fame via TikTok videos, was gerrymandered out of his district, prompting him to attempt a return to the statehouse as Attorney General. He faces several strong challenges in one of our races to watch next fall.
Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18) left office to run for Mayor of Houston, but has since filed for re-election following a loss. Jackson-Lee is known amongst House staffers for being an unforgiving and abrasive boss, often under fire for berating staff for no reason at all. She will likely be re-elected given the Texas gerrymander, but don’t be surprised to see a primary challenge. Also in Texas, Representative Allred is leaving his seat to run for Senate, challenging Sen. Rafael “Ted” Cruz. This race is likely to be closer than anticipated, as Cruz’s popularity in Texas has waned since he left the state for Cancun in the midst of disaster. Ken Buck, a freedom caucus member from Colorado, is also leaving, citing the inability of the body to make key decisions. Buck’s district will be a safe red seat in 2024.
This number of individuals leaving elected office to make headway in other offices or retire altogether is relatively unheard of. Many say that they are sick of the lack of legislation passed—while many in Republican circles say the infighting is what has driven them out. When Patrick McHenry and Kevin McCarthy first entered Congress, the Republican party was a much different party than we see today. Of course, McCarthy’s pride is what is really hurt here—no matter how much he categorically denies it. For others, the pursuit of higher office makes sense—the three Californian’s are all looking to cement their own legacies by capturing a Senate seat. But some are getting out of politics altogether, rare in a town where people grasp for power at every chance. As we enter the new year, look our for new faces emerging in key districts—as Democrats look to retake the House in what is due to be one of the most fearsome elections of all-time.
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.
An Interview About the Conflict with a Retired Israeli Brigadier-General
An Interview About the Conflict with a Retired Israeli Brigadier-General
Foreign Policy Brief #109 | By: Ester Avisror | December 28, 2023
Photo: Our reporter, Ester Avisror, and retired IDF Brigadier-General Arie Tsidon seated across from each other.
__________________________________
Retired Brigadier-General of the Israel Defense Forces, Arie Tsidon, was a prominent Senior Commander of Charuv and of Paratroopers Patrols, and served in the IDF for 25 years. Recently, I had the chance for an up-close and personal interview with him about some of his views on the war with Hamas.
The following are some highlights from Ester’s interview with retired Israeli soldier Arie Tsidon. All answers are purely opinion, based on his own experiences, and have been formatted to account for clarity and length.
Q: What are your views of the conflict? A: “This is not a simple answer because the matter is very complicated. I grew up in Haifa where many Arabs live, and my attitude towards them was acceptance. It doesn’t matter where they come from, they live in a very similar culture. My opinion is that whoever is a human, we have to treat them as one, and whoever wants to fight you, needs to be killed. On the 7th of October, the Old Soldier awakened in me, and I was horrified by all these brutal murders and inhuman acts on children, women, and the elderly, and now, we must take care of the situation in the toughest manner possible.”
Q: Is the goal of elimination of Hamas attainable? A: “I am not sure; because an absolute solution for the Arabs is what Asad did with Syria: You have gunshots with your opposition, you kill everyone, and those not killed become refugees in America, Europe, Canada, etc.; the city becomes empty. We are not fit to do such things because in Gaza, we do not want all civilians killed and nothing to be there. Also, I am not sure it is attainable because Hamas started as a charity organization in Gaza – opening schools, clinics, and cared for food and the human side of the poor society which is stuck there. Building this infrastructure helped Hamas purchase the audience of this region. Hamas also bought its audience against the corruption of Fatah politicians (Fatah is the ruling political party in the West Bank) who took all the money to their accounts in many places. As a result, Hamas has a place in many civilians hearts.”
Q: If the goal is attainable, then how, and how long will it take? A: “Although it is difficult to fight in Gaza, with underground tunnels with a million exits, the IDF has developed and built an advanced and more suitable fighting method focused on the use of armored tanks. Today the IDF also is shutting, bombing, or blocking all tunnels with materials like cement and others. This could take half a year or more to complete.”
Q: How will Gaza rebuild and be governed once the fighting is over? A: “We need to sit, perhaps with the help of United States, and some European Countries, together with Egypt, King of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates and tell them — see at the end of things, what the terrorism does to civilians disturbs you too, not just us. An Association of these countries needs to be established to help rebuild and manage Gaza.”
Check out usrenewnews.org/israel-hamas for more coverage, differing views and analysis of this conflict. Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.
Why Was Santos Expelled and What Happens Now?
Why Was Santos Expelled and What Happens Now?
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #114 | By: Arvind Salem | December 27, 2023
Photo taken from: www.truthout.org
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
On December 1st, George Santos became just the 6th member of Congress to ever be expelled, and only the third since the Civil War. Amid growing scrutiny ever since he entered Congress, few would have thought his offenses would reach a level warranting expulsion, especially since the standard for that has historically been actively supporting an insurrection or being convicted of a serious crime like bribery. However, as investigations were conducted in Santos’s past, it became abundantly clear that he met this standard and was a compulsive liar, even for a politician.
Initially heralded by Republicans for his victory in NY-03 in a district that Biden carried, contributing to the Republican’s razor-thin House majority, Santos quickly faced scrutiny for lies he told on the campaign trail. In particular, the New York Times reported that Santos lied about where he went to college and working for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, both of which Santos later admitted were false assertions.
Once reporters started examining Santos’s record, they uncovered violations of campaign finance laws, prompting the Campaign Legal Center and the Political Action Committee End Citizens United to both call for the Federal Elections Commission to investigate Santos. During this time Brazilian authorities reopened an investigation on Santos’s use of a stolen checkbook, which previously ended due to the authorities being unable to locate Santos. The mystery behind Santos’s background was prompting national scrutiny, yet Santos remained adamant that the most heinous accusations were false and that he planned to serve out his term amid early calls to resign.
Santos’s various scandals prompted the House Ethics committee to investigate Santos for his conduct during his 2022 election campaign, violating federal conflict of interest laws, and sexual misconduct. Eventually the report from this investigation would end up damning Santos and leading to his expulsion.
Beyond merely ethical violations and lies on the campaign trail, Santos was now attracting serious legal attention: federal prosecutors filed 13 charges against Santos (consisting mainly of wire fraud and money laundering). Santos pleaded not guilty to these charges, yet one of Santos’s campaign staffers pleaded guilty to conspiring with Santos to commit wire fraud, prompting a new federal indictment superseding the original one, which now accuses him of stealing the identities of campaign donors and using their credit cards, essentially embezzling money from his Congressional campaign.
The nail in the coffin for Santos was the House Ethics Committee’s report, which concluded that “Representative Santos sought to fraudulently exploit every aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal financial profit. “The report outlined how Santos stole from his campaign, deceived donors, and lied about his campaign finances. The Committee referred all of their evidence to the Justice Department, and it is extremely possible that the evidence will be used as ammunition for future prosecutions.
In the end, the vote to expel was 311-114, clearing the two-thirds majority required. House Republican leaders opposed removing Santos, as his expulsion would damage their already razor-thin majority, but 105 GOP lawmakers sided with nearly every Democrat to expel him.
Policy Analysis:
For Santos’s part, despite his legal troubles, he has recovered from his expulsion quite nicely: at least financially. Shortly after his expulsion, Santos joined the celebrity shout-out app Cameo. Cameo allows people to pay for a celebrity/influencer to record a custom message. This app has allowed Santos to capitalize on his previous cultural and political relevance since people are still willing to pay money for him to record funny messages. Politicians aren’t beyond using Santos for this purpose either, Senator John Fetterman paid Santos to record a message with advice for “ethically challenged” Senator Bob Menendez. With his growing popularity, Santos now charges $500 a message, yet has no shortage of buyers. He surpassed his $174,000 yearly Congressional salary within a week of joining the site.
As for Santos’s vacant seat, Governor Kathy Hochul announced on December 5th that the special election will occur on Tuesday, February 13, 2024. Since this is a special election, the party leadership selects the candidates directly rather than through a traditional primary. Democrats selected Tom Suozzi, who was a previous House member from this district, yet did not run in the House election last cycle, opting instead to run for Governor, where he lost in the Democratic primary to current governor Kathy Hochul. Republican candidate Mazi Pilip served in the Nassau County Legislature, and was born in Ethiopia before being evacuated to Israel due to a Civil War, where she completed her education, serving in the Israeli Defense Forces, before immigrating to the U.S. in 2005. The race is expected to be competitive and is categorized as a toss-up by the Cook Political Report. Of course, this race will be watched very closely due to its national implications for party control in the House, especially since 3 Republican House members have announced upcoming resignations.
__________________________________
Engagement Resources
- Mazi Pilip for Congress: Mazi Pilip is the Republican candidate running in Santos’s district in the special election. Readers who supported Santos’s policies but not his character may wish to explore this candidate.
- Tom Suozzi for Congress: Tom Suozzi is the Democratic candidate running in Santos’s district in the special election. Readers who disagreed with Santos’s policies may wish to support this candidate in the election.
- Campaign Legal Center: The Campaign Legal Center is a nonpartisan organization that fights for a fair political process. They were one of the groups scrutinizing Santos, and readers interested in their mission and that work may wish to explore this organization.
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.
Can You Trust AI News? The Risks of Automated Journalism
Can You Trust AI News? The Risks of Automated Journalism
Technology Policy Brief #105 | By: Mindy Spatt | December 26, 2023
Photo taken from: www.rollingstone.com
__________________________________
THE RANKS OF TRADITIONAL NEWS MEDIA HAS SHRUNK in the Internet age as news became easily available for free or at low cost online. Now that artificially created news content can be had for the taking will it become a go-to source for media and cause newsrooms to disappear altogether?
Analysis
My first experience with ChatGPT was asking it a version of the question above. I received a very bland and reassuring answer with just a tad of an ominous warning tacked onto the end. “While AI may automate certain aspects of journalism, it’s unlikely to replace journalists entirely. AI can assist in tasks like data analysis and content generation, but human intuition, ethics, and the ability to tell compelling stories remain essential. Journalists may need to adapt their skills to work alongside AI tools….”
My second question: How accurate is news created by AI? “The accuracy of news generated by AI largely depends on the quality of the underlying algorithms and the training data used,” the chatbot explained. “While AI can efficiently summarize information, it may still face challenges in interpreting context, bias or understanding nuanced details.” I was impressed with this humble tone. The response also warned that “It’s crucial to rely on reputable sources for critical news.” But how do I know if ChatGPT is getting its information from a reputable source?
According to Newsguard, a media misinformation watchdog, websites masquerading as news sites are finding it easier and easier to push out AI generated content to growing audiences. In a press release announcing its new AI Tracking Center, NewsGuard co-CEO Steven Brill said “…AI-generated ‘news’ websites are akin to the misinformation-spreading Macedonian content farms from a few years ago, with the distinction that these new sites cost even less to produce and can become even more prolific with the enhancements of artificial intelligence.”
At launch earlier this year the tracker featured 150 sites deemed unreliable. At latest count (Dec. 18), that number was 614, and included sites in Arabic, Chinese, Czech, Dutch, English, French, German, Indonesian, Italian, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish, Tagalog, Thai, and Turkish.
According to Newsguard, the offending websites often have generic names, such as iBusiness Day, Ireland Top News, and Daily Time Update, which obscure that they are created with “little to no human oversight” and publishing content “written largely or entirely by bots.”
In addition to being unsourced, the chatbot’s response to my question failed to reference or acknowledge industry concerns or trends. The Writer’s Guild is certainly worried; their new contract, won after a grueling 148 day strike, contains robust AI protections, including that studios will not be able to use generative AI to write or rewrite literary material and AI-generated content cannot be used as source material.
It is hard to gauge how deep AI’s inroads into newsrooms will be, but here too things are moving quickly. The New York Times, one of many news outlets that have blocked their content from ChatGPT, recently hired an editorial director of artificial-intelligence initiatives with the goal of learning “how we do and do not use generative AI.”
Axel Springer, the publisher of Business Insider and Politico, just announced a very high-profile deal in which ChatGPT will be allowed to summarize its content for users, who, using the free chatbot, will be able to access material otherwise blocked by a paywall with links to full articles.
Perhaps that deal was already in the works when Springer CEO Mathias Dopfner warned, in March 2023, that AI would be better at aggregating information than humans. The role of journalists, he said, would be to understand people’s ‘true motives.’ “Only those who create the best original content will survive,” Dopfner predicted. That sounds an awful lot like what the chatbot said, doesn’t it?
__________________________________
Engagement Resources
- Writers Guild Wins Protections Against Artificial Intelligence By: Tom Jones and Angela Fu, September 28, 2023
- Tracking AI-enabled Misinformation: 614 ‘Unreliable AI-Generated News’ Websites (and Counting), Plus the Top False Narratives Generated by Artificial Intelligence Tools
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.
What Do the Argentinian and Dutch Elections Mean for the United States?
What Do the Argentinian and Dutch Elections Mean for the United States?
Foreign Policy Brief #108 | By: Arvind Salem | December 26, 2023
Javier Milei & Geert Wilder: Photo by Indy Silva
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
It’s not often that political observers look to international elections to forecast outcomes in the U.S. presidential elections, yet wins from populist candidates Javier Milei in Argentina and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands are giving political observers on the left in the United States cause for alarm, especially coupled with Trump’s consistent advantage in the polls, especially in key swing states.
To start with the more famous of the two cases, Javier Milei’s victory in Argentina to become the country’s new President eerily resembles the very same themes that Trump himself rode to victory in 2016. Milei, a Libertarian economist with no government experience, won the decisive run-off round 56% to 44% against Sergio Massa, his left-wing opponent, on the back of railing against the “political elite” and campaigning on aggressively cutting back government spending. Despite his aggressive language, observers quickly noted that his party doesn’t have a majority in Argentina’s Congress, which will force him to work with the political elite he often disparaged. This is not to say that Milei’s election is completely inconsequential: in just one month he closed and merged several industries, reducing Argentina’s cabinet from18 to 9 in an effort to curb government spending. Highlighting the Trumpian nature of his proposed policies, President Trump himself celebrated Milei’s victory, saying that Milei would “Make Argentina Great Again”.
Yet while Milei’s victory was expected, the surprising part was the margin, Geert Wilders’s election was completely unexpected. If Milei mirrors Trump economically, Wilder made his name by mirroring Trump’s policies socially. Although far from an outsider, Wilder set up his own anti-migrant Freedom Party, known as the PVV in Dutch and has been a fixture in Dutch politics since he was elected to Parliament in 1998, Wilder has many populist policies, especially being fiercely anti-Islamic and anti-migrant. He has advocated for the “de-Islamization” of the Netherlands and has said that he wants no mosques or Islamic schools in the country. His current victory has been propelled by a strong anti-migrant stance, especially as the previous government coalition was forced to resign since they couldn’t deal with excessive immigration. In his party’s election manifesto it says that the Netherlands has, “has been seriously weakened due the ongoing asylum tsunami and mass immigration”. His signature proposals have to do with foreign policy, an area inextricably linked to immigration and asylum, calling for a binding referendum on leaving the European Union, for the Netherlands to withdraw from international climate obligations, and for the Netherlands to stop sending aid to Ukraine. It is worthy to note that Wilder is not guaranteed to secure the Prime Minister job, since his party is expected to win 37 seats, which is short of the 76 needed to secure a majority. In Dutch politics, many parties form a “governing coalition”, who elects the Prime Minister, so Wilder needs to secure the support of other parties to become Prime Minister. This system acts as a moderating force, making it very possible that Wilder doesn’t secure the top position. However, regardless of whether Wilder ends up being Prime Minister, his party has seen a surge in popularity: winning 37 seats this cycle, the most of any party, compared to 17 seats last election, an unmistakable trend towards the far-right.
Policy Analysis:
Pragmatically, the election of Milei is not a bad thing for the United States. Amid concerns that Argentina, the second biggest economy in South America, is turning more towards China, Milei’s Anti-Communist viewpoints make it clear that he is not keen on close ties with China beyond what is absolutely necessary. He has also made it clear that he seeks to form closer ties with the United States and Israel. Additionally, his signature economic policy of transitioning away from the peso and towards the U.S. dollar is a good thing for the United States, since our economic dominance is largely predicated on the fact that the U.S. dollar is such a widely used reserve currency. An economy of this size that is looking to transition to the U.S. dollar is especially valuable given the fact that foreign rivals such as China and Russia are looking to transition away from the dollar, most notably Russia is spearheading a new currency for BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) to use instead of the dollar.
As for worries about Milei’s populist appeal, observers ignore the fact that the appeal of “trust me because the previous establishment failed” only works once, which is why when Trump tried to make that same appeal in 2020 it didn’t work. Milei’s election now and Trump’s election in 2016 was a bet on a new way of thinking in the face of economic stagnation. And for Milei, his libertarian policies are quickly wreaking havoc on the economy: inflation, the very problem that Milei campaigned on fixing, is actually increasing ever since he came into office. This is due to the fact that the previous government had implemented a complex set of currency controls and consumer subsidies to artificially raise the peso’s value and keep the prices low, however with Milei’s libertarian approach, he rolled back these measures and Argentina is now paying the price. He is characterizing these woes as short-term ills that are necessary for Argentina’s economic revival, and only time will tell if he’s right, but so far his policies have been milder than promised and his extreme measures have failed. If anything, this election could provide valuable ammunition for why these types of policies don’t work. In fact, Trump himself likely doesn’t agree with some of these libertarian policies, considering one of his key promises in 2016 was instituting protectionism as a response to NAFTA, which is opposite of Milei’s promises of unshackling the economy through ending protectionism and promising free trade.
As for Wilder, while his election represents a rise in far-right sentiment, the only reason he is even close to being Prime Minister is due to the Dutch political system’s feature of coalition governments. If Wilder was in a two-party system like the United States, given the fact that he doesn’t control around 75% of the government, it is clear that these attitudes still do not possess majority support. Additionally, although Wilder’s better performance this cycle than last is worrying, it fails to account for the fact that anti-Islamic sentiment is at an all-time high due to the conflicts between Israel and Hamas, meaning that this time is likely the most effective this type of messaging will ever be and Wilder’s popularity should subside in later elections.
__________________________________
Engagement Resources:
- Joe Biden for President: Those who are concerned about the far-right populist sentiment in other countries and seek to avoid those types of policies being realized in the United States, should consider exploring this campaign.
- Asylum Seekers Advocacy Project: This organization advocates for the rights of asylum seekers in the United States. Readers worried about anti-asylum sentiment abroad and want to stop its spread to the United States should consider exploring this organization.
- FAIR: FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, is a nonpartisan, public-interest organization that seeks to evaluate policies and develop solutions to reduce the impact of excessive immigration on all facets of the nation including security, the economy, and healthcare. Readers who want to consider immigration in the United States after seeing Dutch struggles with the issue may be interested in this organization.
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: Abran C | 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.