JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
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.
CRISPR Gene Editing: Medical Breakthrough or Ethical Minefield?
Policy Brief #167 – Health and Gender
by Inijah Quadri
The promises of CRISPR are undoubtedly enticing, but the underlying concerns regarding its long-term implications, especially when it comes to tampering with the very fabric of life, are undeniable.
Biden’s New Office of Gun Violence Prevention is More Necessary than Ever
Brief #151 – Social Justice Policy Brief
by Arvind Salem
The purpose of the new office is to act as an enforcement mechanism for prior gun safety legislation: most prominently The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act enacted in 2022.
Democrats Should’ve Saved Kevin McCarthy
Brief #104 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Arvind Salem
The effort to oust McCarthy, spearheaded by Representative Matt Gaetz, was initiated after he compromised with Democrats to pass two compromise bills to raise the debt ceiling and avert a government shutdown.
The Oil from Fracking Flows Freely in a Fractured Society
Brief #162 – Environmental Policy Brief
by Todd J. Broadman
This need for carbon energy has led to thousands of new oil leases and the increased oil extraction has moved the U.S. ahead of Saudi Arabia as the globe’s biggest oil producer.
Will Airbnb Restrictions Save Renters?
Brief #100 – Technology Policy Brief
by Mindy Spatt
As Airbnb vacation rentals have proliferated in cities across the globe, local renters have seen rapidly rising prices and far fewer housing units available.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
Foreign Policy Brief #88 | By: Abran C | August 15, 2023
Photo taken from: nytimes.com
__________________________________
Amazon nations summit commits to safeguarding world’s largest rainforest
Early last week eight South American nations, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela ended the first Amazon nations summit in 14 years by signing a declaration to safeguard the world’s largest rainforest. The eight states came to an agreement to stop the rainforest from reaching a point of no return. The heads of state at the summit also challenged countries in the global north to do more to stop the rapid destruction of the Amazon, a task they say cannot fall to just a few countries when the crisis has been caused by so many. Colombian President Gustavo Petro urged world leaders to consider a radical rethinking of global economics, calling for a “Marshall Plan” style strategy in which developing countries’ debts are canceled in exchange for action to protect the climate. The summit itself is progress and a step towards ending deforestation and combating climate change, however, it stopped short of reaching the demands of environmentalists and Indigenous groups. These demands included for all member countries to adopt pledges to completely end illegal deforestation by 2030 and follow in Colombia’s pledge to halt all new oil exploration in the forest. Instead, participating countries will be left to pursue their own individual deforestation goals.
Russia and India go to the moon
Last week two spacecraft, one sent by Russia and the other by India, headed for the Moon’s South Pole, a location that no lunar lander has ever successfully touched down on. The Russian and Indian crafts are on opposing quests to search for water ice and any useful minerals that might be present in the lunar surface. The missions reflect the renewed interest in the Moon for space exploration by a now growing number of nations, not just the usual space powers such as the United States and Europe. National pride will likely also be a factor in pushing ahead as Russia is hoping to prove its continued capabilities in space given that the country’s space programme has been affected by sanctions following its invasion of Ukraine. The recent discovery of pockets of water ice on the nearest celestial body to Earth has caused excitement because hydrogen in the water could potentially be extracted to make rocket fuel on a future Moon base by whomever gets there first.
Migrant boat capsizes in the English channel
According to French maritime officials, last week six people died after a boat carrying migrants headed to Britain sank in the English Channel. It was stated that about 10 passengers were still missing, with 55 having been rescued from the capsized boat. More than 100,000 migrants have crossed the English Channel on small boats from France to England since public records on arrivals began being kept in 2018. As a result French authorities have stepped up patrols and other deterrent measures after London agreed in March to send Paris hundreds of millions of euros annually towards the effort to restrict asylum seekers. The deaths from the boat crossing stem from the lack of legal routes of entry into the UK and France for refugees seeking asylum and looking to reunite with family in the UK. The ruling conservative party in the UK has opted to rely on policies designed to deter people from making the journey through threat of deportation, a strategy that has received much criticism from human rights groups.
Do Trump’s Indictment Defenses Stand a Chance?
Do Trump’s Indictment Defenses Stand a Chance?
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #89 | By: Arvind Salem | August 15, 2023
Photo taken from: theday.com
__________________________________
Off the heels of a superseding indictment adding more charges to his classified documents case, President Donald Trump faces a third indictment: this time related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
On August 1st, President Trump was indicted on four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy to disenfranchise voters. The indictment specifically acknowledges that Trump had the right to speak about the election results and challenge them through lawful means, but argues that Trump’s actions were outside the bounds of legal conduct and amounted to a criminal conspiracy.
The specific actions that the prosecution, led by Jack Smith, argues were illegal include pressuring state officials to change results to disenfranchise millions of voters, assembling a state of fraudulent electors to change the electoral vote count, trying to weaponize the Department of Justice to conduct fake investigations to falsely claim that there was voter fraud, pressuring Mike Pence to change the outcome of the election, and lying to his supporters to get them to storm the Capitol and obstruct the proceedings.
The indictment also mentions six co-conspirators but leaves them unnamed. However, matching outside information with the descriptions in the indictment have allowed five of them to be identified: former Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and Sidney Powell, Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark and pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro who orchestrated the fake electors plot. The sixth co-conspirator, who the indictment states is a political consultant, is unknown.
Policy Analysis
The biggest question in any Trump indictment is what is the likelihood that Trump is found guilty and goes to prison. To answer this question, it is necessary to look at Trump’s likely legal defense and the circumstances surrounding the trial.
Trump has three main legal defenses. The first, and most obvious defense, is that Trump had the right to say whatever he wanted to about the election being stolen under the first amendment. While this is true, the first amendment does not protect coercing state officials to overturn election results, using fraud to recruit fake electors, or using the executive branch (the Justice Department and Vice President) to stay in power. The only question here is if the prosecution has enough evidence to prove that Trump did all of these things.
The second defense is that he did not explicitly order Mike Pence to overturn the election results, but he asked him in an aspiration sense (rather than ordering him). The distinction is that asking is protected under the first amendment whereas ordering in this situation would be illegal. To counter this defense, the prosecution could simply call Mike Pence to testify regarding how he understood Trump’s request (whether it was aspirational or an order). Additionally, Trump has other instances where he has ordered people to help him overturn the election such as his infamous quote where he pressured officials in Georgia to “find” him more votes.
The third defense is that Trump sincerely believed that the election was stolen from him. Trump’s lawyers argue that since he was acting on something he sincerely believed in, there was no criminal intent. However, prosecutors may not need to prove that Trump was insincere in his claims to prove criminal intent, but merely prove that Trump knew he was using illegal means. The prosecution could also attach the very premise that Trump thought the election was stolen by focusing on all the instances where his advisors, lawyers, intelligence agencies, the courts, and the Department of Justice all told him that there was no election fraud.
Another complication for Trump arises from the Judge overseeing the case: Tanya Chutkan. Judge Chutkan is known for being extremely harsh to January 6th rioters and called for the people who lied to them to be charged. In one sentencing hearing in 2021 she said, “You have made a very good point that the people who exhorted you and encouraged you and rallied you to go and take action and to fight have not been charged.” Out of the 31 January 6th defendants that have come before her, she has sentenced every single one to prison time, and is the judge most likely to go beyond punishments requested by the prosecution. Trump’s legal team has made it a priority to move the trial outside of Washington D.C., due to its Democrat leanings, to a state that leans Republican such as West Virginia. If such a motion is successful, it would also mean that Judge Chutkan would not be on the case. However it is worth noting that none of more than a dozen similar motions by riot defendants have succeeded due to the constitutional principle that defendants should be tried wherever the crime allegedly occurred.
Engagement Resources
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.
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 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 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.
The Impact of Culture Wars on Florida Universities
The Impact of Culture Wars on Florida Universities
Education Policy Brief #84 | By: Rudolph Lurz | August 10, 2023
Photo taken from: https://www.rollingstone.com/
__________________________________
Each year, US News & World Report and The Princeton Review release their rankings of higher education institutions. Practically nothing related to education escapes the quantitative analysis of these publications. They rank undergraduate programs, majors, graduate programs, schools of medicine and law, and even an institution’s reputation for partying. Universities care about these rankings, because higher institutional prestige leads to more applicants. When universities have a larger applicant pool to draw from, they get better incoming freshmen classes. More importantly, a higher ranking from Princeton Review or US News & World Report results in more donations to universities, improving an institution’s bottom line. A national ranking on a best colleges list resulted in a 61% increase in the number of million-dollar donations received, according to a study that evaluated nearly 1,500 colleges and universities. Colleges have even attempted to fudge the numbers which go into generating the annual rankings, with one exposed scandal at Columbia University resulting in a 16-place drop for the Ivy League institution. Following their precipitous fall, Columbia recently withdrew from the US News & World Report rankings, and criticized the “outsized influence” of the rankings system.
Despite the outcry against US News & World Report and Princeton Review, universities are quick to celebrate their rankings when they show improvement or excellence. The University of Florida recently took a victory lap after being ranked in the top five nationally for public research universities. Mori Hosseini, the chair of UF’s Board of Trustees, noted, “UF’s position in the rankings is reflective of our continual, rapid strengthening in teaching, learning and research performance — smaller class sizes, consistently high graduation and retention rates, and the increased value of each student’s degree after graduation—all of which in turn helps Florida be viewed as a national leader.”
The chair of UF’s Faculty Senate, Amanda Phalin, stated, “At the end of the day, our university’s reputation comes down not to what is happening around us, but what we do — our outstanding teaching and research…This ranking is a testament to the skills and passion, individually and collectively, of us, the UF faculty.”
State universities are an engine for economic growth and good jobs. As Phalin noted, the quality of a school’s faculty is an essential part of developing institutional prestige. That prestige is presently facing a threat from the ongoing battle against “wokeness” led by Governor Ron DeSantis. Andrew Gothard, state-level president of the United Faculty of Florida labor union, is predicting a 20-30% turnover rate among faculty at some state universities. Kenneth Nunn, who recently retired after 30 years at the University of Florida’s Levin College of Law, noted, “Florida is toxic…It has been many years since we last hired an entry-level African American faculty member. They’re just not interested in being in a place where something with the stature of critical race theory is being denigrated and attacked.”
Analysis
Rankings like US News & World Report and Princeton Review have long been criticized by academic professionals. They are seen as inaccurate at best, and reinforcing economic inequality at worst. US News & World Report, in response to the backlash from Columbia and other Ivy League institutions, revamped how it calculates its law school rankings, using only publicly-available data instead of the often-flawed internal reports submitted to the publication.
Regardless of the efficacy or ethics of these rankings, the de facto situation is that they are incredibly important for schools. They are a central element, and often the determining factor, of how students make their college choices. Since they are important, they cannot be ignored.
If high-quality professors and students actively avoid Florida’s schools because of a perceived toxic atmosphere, that will inevitably impact Florida’s position on future rankings in US News & World Report and Princeton Review. If the ranking of Florida institutions slips, and a “brain drain” of students and faculty results, the consequence will be a major economic loss for the state.
For Governor DeSantis, who won re-election because of Florida’s strong economic performance during his tenure, that is a direct threat to his viability as a national political candidate in the Republican Party.
The Governor’s culture war is popular with social conservatives, and has provided ample material for stump speeches during his run for the presidency. Social conservatives might be alarmed by CRT and think DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) offices are secret agencies to indoctrinate the youth into the so-called woke agenda. With each attack on LGBTQ+, CRT, DEI, or any other “woke” acronym, Governor DeSantis rallies his base. The issue with Florida’s brain drain is simple.
Scholars, professors, and academic professionals are what the Governor’s base would call “woke”.
These folks do not like the Governor’s policies and are quite alarmed by them. Many elite students from both inside and outside the Sunshine State, who would otherwise have attended schools like the University of Florida, are being scared away.
How many biology and chemistry PhDs are accepting different university jobs at this moment? What other states will reap the rewards of those scientists’ future patents and research grants? How many National Merit Scholars are choosing schools outside Florida? What kind of tax revenue will Florida lose once those graduates create start-up companies in Michigan or Maryland instead of Florida? Florida is already losing millions due to conventions selecting alternate locations. How many millions will it take before the Governor’s vaunted budget surplus begins to wither away?
Governor DeSantis likes to say, “Go woke, go broke,” on the campaign trail. He would be wise to revise that slogan. Higher education is not Bud Light. Scholars are leaving the state, taking their economic impact with them.
The coming brain drain will soon hit Florida’s rankings in US News & World Report, and then its economy. As Governor DeSantis ponders his next move in his culture war against wokeness, he should consider if the juice is worth the squeeze.
Engagement Resources
- Princeton Review: Best Colleges 2023 | College Ranking List | The Princeton Review
- US News & World Report: 2022-2023 Best Colleges | College Rankings and Data | US News Education
The Hijab in Sports
The Hijab in Sports
Foreign Policy Brief #87 | By: Reilly Fitzgerald | August 8, 2023
Photo taken from: fox4news.com
__________________________________
The hijab is an article of clothing that has sparked debate for years due to its connections to the Islamic faith for some, and for others a tie to a social and political landscape based in the Middle East. The hijab is a form of head covering that women either of Middle Eastern descent, or Islamic faith, might wear. Across the world, head coverings are used as a means to show modesty or commitment to faith or connection to a specific culture. The hijab has not gone without controversy, especially in the post-9/11 world. Many places have banned the wearing of a hijab, while hypocritically allowing other head coverings to be worn. The FIFA Women’s World Cup, ongoing in Australia and New Zealand, has just had the first ever women’s soccer player to wear a hijab in a game. The wearing of the hijab in sports has grown so much that even major sports retailers are designing sports hijabs (such as Nike and Adidas).
Analysis
Nouhaila Benzina is the first woman to ever wear a hijab while playing in the Women’s World Cup. She is a top player for the Moroccan National Team. Coincidently, French courts upheld the country-wide ban on athletes wearing the hijab while playing football (otherwise known as soccer). According to The Local France, the hijab is banned while playing soccer but is acceptable in any other public space in France. However, in 2010 a law passed that made entire full-face coverings, such as the niqab and burqa illegal to be worn in public in France. The colonial history between Morocco and France is significant and is a means of tension between North African countries and the European power. The two teams will be playing against each other on August 8th, 2023. It is also worth noting that the Moroccan men’s team was booted from the men’s World Cup last by France. The women’s team is heading into the French match-up after winning two of their three initial matches of the tournament, while the French women’s team has also won two matches and drew level against Jamaica.
Not all countries have dealt with the hijab the same as France, however. In fact, Finland’s Football Association hands out free sports hijabs to increase the diversity of the players in their country and to include people who may be otherwise excluded, according to Al Jazeera. It is interesting to note, that a Pew Research study found that out of 15 countries Finland held the most anti-Muslim sentiments out of the group. In another show of support for hijab wearing athletes, the state of Maryland passed a bill into law called the Inclusive Attire Act which allows student-athletes who wear a hijab to compete in their sport without fear of exclusion.
Nike began making athletic and sports hijabs in 2017, and other companies (Adidas, Lululemon, etc) have followed suit since then. Sports such as football (soccer), running, weight lifting, and even water sports like swimming are becoming more and more hijab friendly due to these products being made regularly. The argument for this type of athletic wear is that a traditional hijab would be impractical for sport – it would slow someone down while running, could even be a safety issue perhaps in other sports, and/or just plain uncomfortable to wear. These new hijabs are made with top-notch quality athletic fabrics and are designed for an athlete to wear in competition.
Though it is an incredible achievement for Nouhaila Benzina to be in the women’s World Cup and to wear her hijab, it must be noted that there are several other athletes before her that have worn hijabs in competition. According to an article in Rolling Stone, in 2016 at the Rio Olympics, the first women to wear a hijab and compete for the United States was fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad (she took home a bronze medal); she even has her own fashion line which includes hijabs, called Louella. Other notable athletes are Hajar Abdulfazl the captain of the Afghanistan Women’s National Team, and Kulsoom Abdullah the Pakistani weightlifter.
Engagement Resources
X Marks the Spot as Elon Musk Makes More Enemies
X Marks the Spot as Elon Musk Makes More Enemies
Technology Policy Brief #94 | By: Mindy Spatt | August 3, 2023
Photo taken from: rappler.com
__________________________________
Elon Musk’s neighbors in San Francisco are up in arms about X, and he takes on a formidable litigator with a lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
Analysis
Elon Musk’s rebranding of Twitter as X landed with a thud here in San Francisco, where he marked the event by installing an enormous glowing X on his mid-Market Street headquarters. Complaints poured in to the San Francisco Department of Building Inspections saying that the sign was unsafe and a nuisance, with flashing lights that interfered with neighbors’ sleep. It was quickly removed. Despite that, the Building Department announced that Musk would still have to pay fees for the installation and removal of the sign, both of which were unpermitted.
The move was perhaps part of a pissing match with Facebook, renamed with the shorter, punchier Meta, and its owner Mark Zuckerberg, who launched a new social media site Threads in a direct challenge to Twitter. Threads racked up over 100 million followers in its first week, and most industry analysts see it as a genuine threat to Twitter’s dominance.
Musk is also feeling challenged by a nonprofit advocacy organization that seeks to hold social media companies like X accountable for their impacts “by highlighting their failures, educating the public, and advocating action from other platforms and governments to protect our communities.”
On Monday July 30 X filed suit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) in federal court. X is accusing the CCDH of using data that it didn’t legally possess to “falsely claim it had statistical support showing the platform is overwhelmed with harmful content.”
Since Musk took over Twitter in late 2022, the CCDH has been studying and publishing research on what they say is a rise in hate speech, disinformation and incitement to harm on Twitter, a view that is certainly shared by other critics of the platform.
In a June 2023 report the Center said Twitter routinely failed to act on hate speech by deleting tweets or users’ accounts, citing these examples:
“The black culture has done more damage [than] the Klan ever did”
“The Jewish Mafia wants to replace us all with brown people”
“Trannies are pedophiles”
“Diversity is a codeword for White Genocide”
“Hitler was right”, accompanied by a montage of the former dictator
Black people belong “locked in cages at the zoo”
LGBTQ+ rights activists need “IRON IN THEIR DIET. Preferably from a #AFiringSquad”
In a letter threatening suit on June 20, X cited this report in accusing
the CCDH of “making inflammatory, outrageous, and false or misleading assertions about Twitter and its operations…” Although the suit alleges misappropriation of data, the letter seems to complain of its’ absence, claiming that CCDH labeled its analysis of the content as research, “despite failing to conduct (or even attempt) anything resembling the rigorous design process, analytical procedures or peer review that a reasonable person would expect to accompany research product …”
In a response, the Center’s lawyers termed the letter “ridiculous,” and noted that rather than trying to correct the problem the company was instead relying on intimidation and threats to silence critics. They demanded that X Corp “take immediate steps to preserve all documents and other information (including any and all text messages to or from Mr. Musk…) concerning disinformation and hate speech on Twitter….”
The suit could be an arrogant overstep by Musk. For one thing, it is bringing more attention to the CCDH’s message. For another, the Center is represented by Roberta Kaplan, whose recent work on behalf of E. Jean Carroll resulted in a $5 million verdict against Donald Trump. Her many other accomplishments include defeating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and a $26 million verdict against the white supremacists and neo-Nazis who conspired to commit racially-motivated violence in Charlottesville in 2017. She may prove a far more formidable adversary than Zuckerberg.
Engagement Resources
Toxic Twitter: How Twitter Makes Millions from Anti-LGBTQ+ Rhetoric by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, March 28, 2023CCDH, https://counterhate.com/research/toxic-twitter-anti-lgbtq/
Path for Democrats to Regain the House Runs Through New York
Path for Democrats to Regain the House Runs Through New York
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #88 | By: Ian Milden | August 3, 2023
Photo taken from: time.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 New York state, 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, New York Democrats did not have a great performance statewide in 2022.
Incumbent Governor Kathy Hochul (D-NY) won her race by less than six percentage points. The closer than expected margin may have hurt Democrats chances to hold win in a few close races. Republicans won in New York’s 22nd District and 17th district by less than 3,000 votes. These districts will likely be targets for Democrats again this year. Mike Lawler flipped the 17th District by defeating former DCCC chairman Sean Patrick Maloney and Brandon Williams won the open seat vacated by John Katko (R-NY). The 22nd district is in upstate New York while the 17th district is in southern New York.
Next to the 22nd district in New York is the 19th district. The 19th district is a swing district in the Hudson Valley. Marc Molinaro (R-NY) won the open seat in 2022, which was open due to redistricting. Antonio Delgado (D-NY) won a version of this seat in 2018 and was re-elected in 2020, but he vacated the seat to become the lieutenant governor of New York. Pat Ryan (D-NY) won a special election in 2022 under the old district lines, but the redistricting process moved him to the 18th district where he now represents in Congress. Congressman Ryan remains in a competitive district and House Republicans have indicated that they will try to win his seat this fall.
There are also some competitive seats based in Long Island that Democrats will target. The third district has already gotten a ton of attention from both parties due to the scandals and subsequent indictment of newly-elected incumbent George Santos. The seat was recently held by Tom Suozzi (D-NY) who vacated the seat in 2022 to run for Governor, so it is a seat where Democrats have a recent history of winning. Santos may not be a participant in the General Election since New York Republicans are looking for ways to push him out of Congress, and Santos’ various legal problems could also complicate his ability to remain in Congress. Santos’ first quarter FEC report shows his campaign lost money due to refund requests, which suggests his reelection campaign is politically unviable. Federal prosecutors have moved rather quickly with his criminal case, so he is likely to face trial or strike a plea deal before the midterm elections.
In addition to George Santos’ seat, Democrats should also target the neighboring fourth district, where Anthony D’Esposito (R-NY) won a seat that was vacated by Kathleen Rice (D-NY). This area of Long Island has a history of voting for Democrats in recent decades at the Congressional and Presidential level. Democrats could also target the first and second districts, which are also based on Long Island, but these districts lean more towards Republicans and Democrats have not had success there recently.
One additional variable that could help Democrats gain seats is a mid-decade redistricting. This is a possibility due to a technicality in the law, and the process for drawing maps for the 2022 elections. The Independent Redistricting Commission did not take a second attempt to draw new maps, which resulted in a court-appointed special master drawing the maps after a court ruling. Democrats are arguing that the maps should be redrawn because the process determined by the law was not followed.
While New York State provides the exact number of competitive districts held by Republicans that Democrats need to win in order to gain control of the House majority, it would be a surprise if Democrats successfully flipped all five of these districts. In addition, Democrats will likely need to win additional seats outside of New York in order to get the majority since there are likely to be losses elsewhere. These Congressional Districts will be ones to keep an eye on as Democrats recruit candidates and start raising money for the 2024 general election.
Engagement Resources
DCCC Website, Official Campaign Arm of House Democrats, https://dccc.org/
The Week That Was: Global News In Review
The Week That Was: Global News In Review
Foreign Policy Brief #86 | By: Abran C | August 3, 2023
Photo taken from: fox4news.com
__________________________________
Coup in Niger
Last week Niger’s democratically elected President Mohamed Bazoum was overthrown by the country’s military leaders. The leaders of the coup have warned against any armed intervention in the country. This comes as West African leaders are set to gather for an emergency summit to discuss how to restore constitutional order to Niger. As the largest country in West Africa, it’s an important country for the region. Politically, it was seen as an example of relative democratic stability, as its neighbors in the region, Mali and Burkina Faso, have already succumbed to military coups. Strategically for the West, it hosts French and US military bases as a key partner in the fight against armed insurgents in the Sahel region. Economically, Niger is one of the poorest countries in the world, receiving close to $2 billion a year in official development assistance, but it is rich in raw materials like uranium, producing 7% of all global supplies. The US has called for president Bazoum’s immediate release. Meanwhile the African Union, the West African regional bloc Ecowas, the EU and the UN have all spoken out against the coup.
Floating border wall
Last week the United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas, calling for the removal of a floating border barrier that has raised territorial and humanitarian concerns. Mexico filed a complaint with the US government earlier this month, accusing the structure of violating border treaties signed in 1944 and 1970. The razor-wired floating border is one of the latest examples of extremist efforts by the Texas Republican governor to repel asylum seekers. The barrier is a part of Operation Lone Star, a Texas initiative launched in 2021 under Governor Abbott. It includes bussing and flying migrants and asylum seekers to predominantly Democratic cities, and deploying troops from the state National Guard and the Texas Department of Public Safety to guard the border. The number of irregular crossings from Mexico into the US has been on the decline since the ending of Title 42, a controversial COVID-era policy that allowed border officials to turn away asylum seekers without processing their claims. The floating border and other Texas policies for dealing with migrants have sparked human rights concerns, and asylum groups denounce the militarisation of the border and heavy-handed policies.
Russia writes off $23 billion debt for Africa
Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week, at the second ever Russia- Africa summit that his country has written off $23 billion of Debt for African countries. Russia also offered assistance to Africa in countering threats such as terrorism, piracy, and transnational crimes, saying it would continue to train personnel from African countries. Putin assured African leaders that Russian businesses have a lot to offer partners from Africa. Russia is now pushing harder to move closer to African nations as it looks for friends, allies, and markets to help support it against Western states opposed to its aggression in Ukraine. Moscow was a crucial player in Africa in the Soviet era, but its influence has waned heavily over the past few decades. Putin is trying to rekindle that influence and win over the countries in the global south to back him in an ever increasing polarized world.
Russian Bombing Can’t Break the Spirit of the Citizens of Odessa
Russian Bombing Can’t Break the Spirit of the Citizens of Odessa
Foreign Policy Brief #85 | By: Yelena Korshunov | August 1, 2023
Photo taken from: Collage by author Yelena Korshunov, Transfiguration Cathedral in Odessa, Ukraine, before and after Russia’s shelling.
__________________________________
On the night of July 18th Raisa woke up from a terrible roar and heart-rending children’s screams. It seemed like their house was exploding and this is the end. This family was lucky enough to stay alive that night; just the deep crater from the explosion in front of their building and glass shards from broken windows became that night’s gift of “Russian peace”.
It was a quiet night when a massive shelling of Odessa began. The Russian side justified it as “retaliation strikes” for the explosion on the Crimean bridge. Night after night, Russian missiles not only damaged the infrastructure of the local port, but also destroyed many historical buildings and the Transfiguration Cathedral that was rebuilt in the last century after already being destroyed by the Soviet authority in 1936. Many people died and were injured, including children.
The Russian army launched its attacks immediately after their withdrawal from a UN-brokered grain agreement with Ukraine, which implied guarantees for the safe export of grain from the port of Odessa. On Sunday, July 16, the last vessel with Ukrainian grain left the port, and two days later Russia carried out a large-scale mortal shelling. The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation stated that the targets of the “precision weapons” were some facilities where “terrorists” prepared acts against the Russian Federation, fuel storage facilities, and a ship repair plant that produces boats which “terrorists” would use for their acts. In fact, the beautiful small port temple, a hotel, a restaurant, and private houses were the target of Russia’s missiles. Next night heavy shelling ruined the grain and oil terminals and other port infrastructure. According to the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food of Ukraine, 60 tons of grain were destroyed, which, as President Volodymyr Zelensky later clarified, the country was going to send to China. The shelling also left 3,000 people without electricity that night.
On the night of July 23, Russia resumed strikes. This attack was the most destructive yet since the beginning of the war. Russian missiles hit the port infrastructure again and destroyed six residential apartment buildings. The historical center of Odessa was also damaged. Among Russia’s targets were 29 architectural monuments under the protection of UNESCO. These buildings survived the violent destructive revolution of 1917 and World War II, but they apparently bothered the Kremlin too much. The Chinese consulate in Odessa also suffered from that attack. On July 29th a UNESCO mission arrived in Odessa to assess damage.
In the days after the night horror Odessa residents have been leaving their homes and shelters to help the municipal services with the elimination of the shelling’s ramifications. People go out to sort out the rubble, clean streets, and remove debris from the areas of the tragedy.
After massive attacks on the center of Odessa, the mayor of the city, Gennady Trukhanov, addressed the citizens of Russia in Russian language: ”If you knew how Odessa hates you. Not only hates, but also despises. You are fighting with little children and with churches. Your rockets fly even to cemeteries. During this war, you were called differently: rashists, orcs, scum, nits. But it’s still sweet. You are just creatures without family and tribe, morality and values. And with no future. You don’t know us Odessans very well. You will not break us, but only anger us even more. The strength of our defenders, multiplied by the anger and pain of ordinary people, will be your death sentence.”
Carbon Taxes: Balancing Climate Change Mitigation with Sustainable Economic Growth
Navigating the Information Jungle: Social Media, Disinformation, and Political Polarization
Environmental Policy Brief #157 | By: Inijah Quadri | July 31, 2023
Photo taken from: internationaltaxreview.com
__________________________________
Addressing climate change is a pressing concern that demands comprehensive policy responses. Among various climate policies, carbon tax implementation has emerged as a pivotal tool for promoting a transition towards a greener economy. A carbon tax imposes a fee on the carbon content of fossil fuels, thus financially incentivizing businesses and individuals to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
While the carbon tax is perceived as a practical strategy for curbing emissions, it is a contentious policy area in the United States, where concerns about economic competitiveness, equity, and efficacy of the tax are prevalent. Potential repercussions on low-income households and certain industries are a particular source of debate. However, evidence from other nations and a few localized examples within the U.S. illustrate the viability of a carbon tax as a tool for climate action while maintaining economic growth.
Analysis
Studies suggest that carbon taxes can effectively reduce GHG emissions. Countries like British Columbia and Sweden have experienced significant emission reductions following carbon tax implementation, without inhibiting economic growth.
a. British Columbia, Canada: The province implemented a revenue-neutral carbon tax in 2008. Years later, per capita fossil fuel consumption decreased by over 15% in British Columbia relative to the rest of Canada, with minimal impact on overall economic performance.
b. Sweden: Implemented in 1991, Sweden’s carbon tax is one of the highest in the world. Despite this, Sweden’s economy has grown year upon year since the tax’s inception, challenging the belief that environmental regulations necessarily harm economic growth.
Closer to home, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) – a cooperative effort among the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states that implements a regional cap-and-trade program (a market cousin of a carbon tax) – has seen success in reducing emissions while generating economic benefits. However, for broader application across the U.S., concerns over economic and social implications require careful design of a national tax policy.
Another key U.S. initiative in carbon pricing is California’s Cap-and-Trade Program. This program sets a statewide limit on GHG emissions while permitting entities to buy and sell emission allowances. The program has contributed to California’s progress in reducing emissions and has generated billions in revenue for climate and clean energy programs.
Addressing equity issues is vital. Potential regressive impacts of a carbon tax can be offset through tax rebates or by directing revenue to fund social programs. The idea of a revenue-neutral approach, like that in British Columbia, where tax revenues are returned to citizens through other tax reductions, may be appealing.
Tackling climate change necessitates a comprehensive suite of policy measures, with a carbon tax potentially playing a significant role in the U.S. context. The implementation of such a tax demands ongoing refinement, transparency, and a focus on fairness to ensure that the tax burden is appropriately shared.
Engagement Resources
- Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/): The CPLC supports and encourages successful carbon pricing implementation worldwide.
- Environmental Defense Fund (https://www.edf.org/): The EDF focuses on key environmental issues, including climate change and carbon pricing.
- Citizens’ Climate Lobby (https://citizensclimatelobby.org/): A grassroots organization advocating for national climate change policies, including carbon pricing.
- World Resources Institute (https://www.wri.org/): A global research organization turning ideas into action to preserve our natural resources.
- Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (https://www.c2es.org/): This center promotes robust policy and action to address energy and climate change challenges.
- Resources for the Future (https://www.rff.org/): An independent, nonprofit research institution in Washington, DC, focusing on environmental, energy, and natural resource issues.
Navigating the Information Jungle: Social Media, Disinformation, and Political Polarization
Navigating the Information Jungle: Social Media, Disinformation, and Political Polarization
Technology Policy Brief #93 | By: Inijah Quadri | July 31, 2023
Photo taken from: www.aa.com.tr
__________________________________
Social media has emerged as a pivotal platform for communication, entertainment, and information dissemination in the 21st century. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube command billions of users, profoundly influencing global culture, policy debates, and political discourse. While the rise of social media has undoubtedly democratized access to information, it has also become a fertile ground for disinformation and political polarization.
Disinformation—the deliberate creation and sharing of false information with the intent to deceive or mislead—is not just misinformation or rumors. It is an orchestrated campaign designed to propagate lies, distortions, and half-truths, ultimately impacting public opinion, aggravating political division, and undermining democratic processes.
Significant evidence points to the role of social media in propagating disinformation, with repercussions visible in landmark political events, such as the 2016 US Presidential Election and the Brexit referendum. A 2019 report from Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Research Project disclosed organized social media manipulation in 70 countries, a substantial increase from 48 the previous year and 28 the year before that. The gravity of these findings suggests that unchecked disinformation can destabilize societies and impede democratic processes.
Analysis
Political polarization—intense divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes—isn’t a novelty. However, social media has catalyzed and amplified its effects by creating echo chambers and filter bubbles, where algorithms curate content that aligns with a user’s existing beliefs and interests.
These algorithms are essentially complex computational procedures designed to present users with content that they would likely find engaging. By analyzing data like previous likes, shares, and time spent on different types of posts, they make educated guesses on what a user might want to see next. This, however, can often lead to the amplification of misinformation as controversial and sensational content tends to generate high engagement. This selective exposure to information bolsters cognitive biases, with a 2022 study demonstrating how these echo chambers can foster extremism by reinforcing and amplifying partisan views.
Disinformation thrives in these digitally-fueled environments. Its seeds are sown deep and spread rapidly within the echo chambers, often remaining unchecked or contested. The 2020 US Presidential Election stands as a stark testament to this, as false narratives about election fraud circulated widely on social media platforms despite the claims being thoroughly debunked by fact-checkers. The aftermath—an unprecedented attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021—laid bare the dangerous repercussions of this disinformation.
Addressing the role of social media in fanning the flames of disinformation and political polarization is a challenging task. Policymakers are navigating a tightrope between the need for information integrity and the preservation of freedom of speech. However, steps can be taken. Greater transparency from tech companies about their algorithms, stronger and more proactive fact-checking measures, education focused on media literacy, and potential regulation of social media platforms are strategies currently under consideration.
But the key is fostering a multidimensional approach that involves all stakeholders—governments, tech companies, civil society, and users—to ensure that the digital public square can support a vibrant, yet responsible, exchange of ideas. More specifically, stakeholders need to converge on the adoption of standards and guidance to address the spread of disinformation effectively.
As an example, the recent legislation proposed by Elizabeth Warren and Lindsey Graham can serve as a pivotal reference. This law attempts to introduce stricter rules for social media platforms in curbing the spread of misinformation, thereby holding them more accountable. As such, stakeholders must critically examine, discuss, and build upon such legislative efforts to achieve a more comprehensive and resilient approach against disinformation.
Engagement Resources
- Center for Humane Technology (https://www.humanetech.com/): Advocating for the redesign of technology to better align with human interests, focusing on the harmful effects of social media and disinformation.
- The Poynter Institute (https://www.poynter.org/): An international leader in journalism, promoting the responsible production and sharing of news, with significant resources on fact-checking and combating disinformation.
- Digital Forensic Research Lab (https://www.digitalsherlocks.org/): An entity dedicated to the study and exposure of disinformation and misinformation on social media, providing digital tools to discern truth in the digital age.
- The Media Manipulation Casebook (https://mediamanipulation.org/): A digital research platform combining theory, methods, and practice for mapping media manipulation and disinformation campaigns.
- First Draft (https://firstdraftnews.org/): A nonprofit that provides resources and training for journalists in the digital age, including a focus on verification and fact-checking to combat misinformation and disinformation.
- Stanford Internet Observatory (https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/io): The observatory conducts research on abuse in current information technologies, with a focus on social media and the integrity of information.