#The Gallup Independent

[webfactor]

Wikipedia editors push offensive language to delegitimize some Native American Tribes

Article Text As Follows:

Wikipedia editors push offensive language to delegitimize some Native American Tribes

By Sherry Robinson

Special to The Independent

ALBUQUERQUE — When Lily Gladstone won a Golden Globe and Oscar nomination for her role in “Killers of the Flower Moon,” the public recognized a Native American actress. But to Wikipedia readers, she is an American actress whose father was Blackfeet and Nez Perce and whose mother was white.

Three long-time editors at the online encyclopedia argued that even though Gladstone grew up on the Blackfeet reservation, she couldn’t be called Native American unless she was an enrolled member of the tribe. When Gladstone’s uncle weighed in to say she was enrolled, they dismissed his comments. She is still, in Wikipedia’s view, “an American actress.”

In recent years, outside of a national debate in Indian Country over fake tribes, a handful of Wikipedia editors have been deciding who is Native American and who isn’t.

Look behind the curtain of the sprawling site and you will find a network of 265,000 volunteer editors writing and editing within a Wiki universe that has its own rules, language, police and courts but no traditional hierarchy.

Wikipedia’s structure allows likeminded editors to work together, but it also permits editors with a bias to advance their agenda. The site has drawn criticism from media and academics for slanted articles on Blacks and Jews. Wikipedia documents its own systemic bias in an article by that name and attributes the problem to too few minority editors. The typical editor, it says, is a white male.

By Wikipedia's definition, the only real tribes are federally recognized; editors of Native American material denigrate state-recognized and unrecognized tribes and seem preoccupied with revealing fake Indians.

The fakes are out there, and they’re a problem. But there’s a big difference between people who invented a Native ancestry and people who have a long, documented heritage.

For this story, aggrieved tribal members didn’t identify themselves because they fear the site’s size and power – it reaches 1.8 billion devices a month – and some editors’ vindictiveness.

Behind the curtain

Wikipedia is transparent about its process. Click on “talk” at the top of each article and you find the (sometimes endless) debates among editors about an article and see the site’s rules in action.

Editors are anonymous because the Wikipedia Foundation has a strong commitment to privacy, says a spokesperson. However, readers don’t know what expertise editors have or whether they’re Native American.

Editors select their subject matter. With experience they can rise in the pecking order until they gain authority to reverse or eliminate the edits of others. They quote the site’s often arcane rules in Wiki-Speak to anyone who disagrees. While Wikipedia espouses objectivity, neutrality and civility, discussions can take the low road.

On Lily Gladstone’s talk page, a newish editor, user name Tsideh (Apache for bird), asked, “What are your sources supporting the idea that Native Americans are only those who are enrolled in a US recognized tribe?”

A Wiki editor, user name ARoseWolf, answered: “A notable subject can make a claim… but you must have that respective tribal nation’s acceptance as verification through enrollment."

Gladstone’s uncle wrote: “I’m a primary source for Ms. Gladstone’s tribal heritage. Her father is my brother. Through our father, we are both enrolled in the Blackfeet Tribe in the USA,” he wrote. “Our mother is enrolled Nez Perce. So Ms. Gladstone is a direct descendant of both Blackfeet and Nez Perce.”

ARoseWolf shot him down. “We can not use primary sources to verify such information and, you, as a claimed family member have a WP:COI which means we need an independent source.”

WP:COI is the Wikipedia rule on confl ict of interest. Wikipedia forbids primary sources, and yet they’re the gold standard for journalists and academics.

Tsideh challenged the position that only enrollment in a recognized tribe “entitles somebody to claim to be a Native American” as an unfounded, minority point of view that Wiki editors didn’t support with a citation or explanation.

ARoseWolf and others chastised Tsideh for violating Wiki rules on bullying, false accusations and arguing Wiki policy. Tsideh countered that Leonardo DiCaprio didn’t have to prove he was an Italian American, but Lily Gladstone had to prove she was a Native American.

As the back and forth continued, ARoseWolf slammed a new editor who "just happened to find this discussion,” a dig that implies one party enlisted another to join the debate. That too is a Wiki violation.

Bohemian Baltimore, another regular, insisted, “If she’s not enrolled, she may be a descendant, but she’s not a Native American.”

Who is Native American?

Terry Campbell, a Navajo born in Tuba City, Arizona, who lives out of state, has been studying Wikipedia for five months, after friends complained about poor treatment in trying to edit Wiki pages.

One friend wanted to add some facts to an article about a tribe. “These changes were rejected by a handful of editors who cited other Wikipedia pages as sources,” he said, “and I thought that was very, very odd.”

A friend citing sources that prove her tribe survived the Indian wars and received state recognition ran up against Wikipedia guidelines on determining Native American identities that were largely crafted by two editors, user names CorbieVreccan and Yuchitown. Wiki editors used the guidelines to reclassify dozens of state-recognized tribes as “heritage organizations” and removed “Native American” from biographies of prominent tribal members or, worse, called them a "self-identified Native American.”

The implication, Campbell explained, is that the tribe no longer exists and that its members are suspect or even “Pretendians.” Wikipedia has a page for that too.

The same group has shaped many articles on Native subjects. Campbell said he combed through references and found they were misrepresented, taken out of context, sourced from far-right academics, or unreliable.

“The scope of this issue is huge,” Campbell said. “It permeates all the Native articles I checked.”

Campbell recognized talking points from what he called a far-right movement in Indian Country intent on erasing state-recognized and unrecognized tribes. (New Mexico has no state-recognized tribes and six unrecognized groups or tribes.)

Some Native Americans and Anglos, he said, believe that Indigenous people outside the circle of federal recognition should be considered non-Native. They also want to prevent members of the disenfranchised groups from selling their art, receiving ancestral remains, accessing disaster relief or re-establishing their homeland.

Outside Indian Country, it’s not generally known that U.S. Indigenous groups live within a caste system based on government recognition, with 574 federally recognized tribes on top, dozens of state-recognized tribes second, and several hundred unrecognized tribes last.

In 2021, Yuchitown wrote, “The overwhelming majority of ‘List of unrecognized tribes in the United States’ are completely illegitimate.”

There are many reasons why groups aren’t recognized. Some avoided the reservation. Some lost their recognition during the termination era. Some were broken up and scattered during the Indian Wars. Some went underground, practicing their culture secretly while passing as Hispanic. Many simply stayed put.

When Wikipedia editors claim that “Native American” is a political status conferred by the U.S. government, that an individual can only be called a “descendent” until their tribe is recognized, they push this narrative, Campbell said. It’s a contradiction of federal Indian law and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, “As a general principle, an Indian is a person who is of some degree Indian blood and is recognized as an Indian by a Tribe and/or the United States. No single federal or tribal criterion establishes a person’s identity as an Indian. Government agencies use differing criteria to determine eligibility for programs and services. Tribes also have varying eligibility criteria for membership.”

Extreme points of view

Campbell has contributed to a lengthy report, as yet unpublished, that identifies biased editors. They include Yuchitown, CorbieVreccan, ARoseWolf, Indigenous girl and Bohemian Baltimore.

“It was like a tree with many interconnecting branches that had been created over time by the same small group of people pushing extreme points of view,” Campbell said.

Initially the group made changes slowly, he said, “but they started pursuing their agenda aggressively after November, when state-recognized tribes retained their voting rights in the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). Essentially, after the movement to delegitimize state-recognized tribes failed officially, the key players doubled down on altering and controlling the flow of information about Native Americans through Wikipedia.”

Campbell observed widespread violations of Wikipedia standards: “I found evidence that they blatantly misquoted and misrepresented sources to push extremist political beliefs; teamed up to manipulate the consensus system by voting in blocks; exploited Wikipedia rules, such as conflict of interest, to block outside editors from making changes to Native-related pages; excessively cited opinion pieces from fringe political figures, including those accused of racism and anti-semitism; blocked the use of legitimate primary and secondary sources that contradict their extremists beliefs, which violates Wikipedia’s rule against information suppression; posted originally researched, politically motivated essays instead of well-sourced articles; and harassed and defamed Native American tribes and living Native American people.”

Reacting in February to an early draft of the report posted on Google, the editors were incensed that anybody would voice complaints “off-Wiki.” ARoseWolf wrote that “we have been attacked, threatened with legal action and had misinformation/ false claims spread against us.” She and Yuchitown denied being part of a conspiracy against tribes or organizations and said they were just following Wiki rules. Yuchitown accused critics of being “meat puppets” of a person who objected to some Native content and enlisted others to back them up. In WikiSpeak this is meat puppetry.

“Volunteers on Wikipedia vigilantly defend against information that does not meet the site’s requirements,” the Wikipedia spokeswoman wrote. “These volunteers regularly review a feed of real-time edits to quickly address problematic changes; bots spot and revert many common forms of negative behavior on the site; and volunteer administrators (trusted Wikipedia volunteers with advanced permissions to protect Wikipedia) further investigate and address negative behavior. When a user repeatedly violates Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia administrators can take disciplinary action and block them from further editing.”

Inaccurate and insulting

In 2006, Wikipedia established the WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America to improve its Native-related content of 14,000 articles and more than 37,000 pages.

Recently, a hot topic on the project’s talk page was a proposal to change a category name from “unrecognized tribes” to “organizations that self-identify.”

On April 15 Melissa Harding Ferretti, chairwoman of the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe in Massachusetts, wrote, “The proposed renaming of the category on Wikipedia is not only inaccurate… but also insulting.”

Ferretti is one of the few Natives to take on Wiki editors openly.

Herring Pond was originally listed with other Wampanoag tribes. In 2022 Yuchitown stripped “state-recognized” from the page, even though the state Commission of Indian Affairs regularly engages with them. Last year Yuchitown created a separate page for Herring Pond. Wiki editors resisted attempts to make changes or corrections.

After Wikipedia called Herring Pond a “cultural heritage group" and a nonprofi t that "claims" to descend from Wampanoags, Ferretti wrote in a Wiki discussion, “There is no claim, it’s a fact! Might I add, nonprofit status was imposed upon Tribal nations in the ‘90s because we didn’t have our federal recognition yet.”

Her tribe has a well-documented history. “We still have care and custody of our sacred places, burial grounds and our 1838 Meetinghouse, one of three built for the Tribe after the arrival of the colonizers. Our continuous presence and stewardship of these lands are recognized by historical records, deeds and treaties.”

Ferretti wrote that tribes without federal recognition already face significant hurdles to gain recognition, "and being labeled as 'self-identified' can add to these challenges by casting doubt on our legitimacy.” Mislabeling unrecognized tribes “can lead to the spread of hate, misinformation and further marginalization.”

Some Wiki editors agreed. One wrote that “there are strong negative connotations to saying someone who is Native 'self identifies,' because the inference is that they are Native in name only or falsely claiming to be Native. A change like this will impact countless articles…” Bohemian Baltimore, ARoseWolf and Yuchitown insisted there were no negative connotations. They opposed calling an unrecognized group a tribe because it legitimized groups with unverified claims. ARoseWolf said, “If they had proof of their connection to the original people they would have gotten federal recognition.”

This is a frequent refrain among the insiders, who apparently think the application process is a slam dunk instead of the long, difficult, expensive journey it is.

Yuchitown noted that “all of the editors who actively contribute to and improve Native American topics on Wikipedia have voted to support the renaming.” It’s a remarkable declaration that he and his allies act in concert.

The insiders took even stronger action against Lipan Apaches in Texas.

Late in 2022, Yuchitown changed the entry of the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas to say that NCAI recognizes the tribe as state-recognized but the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) does not. In fact, NCSL took down its web page listing federal and state-recognized tribes because it couldn’t verify the accuracy.

In boilerplate that appears on all the Texas unrecognized tribes’ websites, Yuchitown said Texas has no legal mechanism to recognize tribes, citing an online article that in turn cites the discredited NCSL web page.

In 2022, a tribal member and Yuchitown fought back and forth, reversing each other’s edits. In WikiSpeak, it was edit warring. The tribal member informed Yuchitown that the NCSL page he quoted no longer existed. CorbieVreccan told the member she was up against “two experienced editors,” and Yuchitown accused her of conflict of interest and edit warring. His fellow travelers demanded to know if she had an official position with the tribe. She didn’t.

ARoseWolf wrote, “As Wikipedia is not a state or government-controlled entity it can make up its own rules for what content is allowed on its platform.”

The Wikimedia spokeswoman says that in some extreme cases the foundation relies on a trust and safety team that will investigate and may also take action.

Campbell wrote in the report that many Native American communities and people “have been targeted by the small group of propagandists in this complaint… And the thousands of people who make these communities have been slandered and assaulted on Wikipedia through the actions of these propagandists.”

Link to the original article:

[zvaigzdelasas]

55% of Americans disapprove of Israel's military response in Gaza, a 10-percentage point increase since November, according to the new poll.

About one in three (36%) of Americans approve of Israel's military actions in Gaza, according to the new poll.

That's down from the aftermath of Hamas' Oct. 7 attack, when a November poll found that half of Americans approved of Israel's actions.[...]

Among Republicans, the percentage who approve of Israel's actions has dropped from 71% in November to 64% in March, the poll found.

The dip is even sharper among among Democrats. Fewer than one in five (18%) say they approve of Israel's actions. That's down from 36% in November.

Among people who identify as independents, the approval rating has dropped from 47% to 29% in the span.[...]

This poll was conducted between March 1-20, 2024 with 1,016 adults. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

27 Mar 24

[ridenwithbiden]

A group of Democratic senators introduced a bill Thursday that would radically change the makeup of the Supreme Court, amid ongoing concerns over court ethics and its increasingly conservative makeup.

The legislation would appoint a new Supreme Court justice every two years, with that justice hearing every case for 18 years before stepping back from the bench and only hearing a “small number of constitutionally required cases.”

“The Supreme Court is facing a crisis of legitimacy that is exacerbated by radical decisions at odds with established legal precedent, ethical lapses of sitting justices, and politicization of the confirmation process,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said in a statement.

“This crisis has eroded faith and confidence in our nation’s highest court. Fundamental reform is necessary to address this crisis and restore trust in the institution.”

Only the nine most recently appointed justices would hear appellate cases, which make up a bulk of the court’s work. All living justices would participate in a smaller subset of cases under the court’s “original jurisdiction,” such as disputes between states or with foreign officials.

The bill was introduced by Sens. Booker, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and it was co-sponsored by Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).

Calls for Supreme Court reform grew louder this year after ProPublica revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas received hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of perks from conservative political donors. Further investigations have uncovered multiple significant and undisclosed gifts from politically connected friends over his time as a federal judge.

Justice Samuel Alito also took a luxury vacation paid for by an influential conservative donor while in the judiciary, another investigation found earlier this year.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill earlier this year along party lines that would require the Supreme Court to create and abide by a code of ethics. Unlike lower courts, Supreme Court judges are not beholden to an official ethics code.

“An organized scheme by right-wing special interests to capture and control the Supreme Court, aided by gobs of billionaire dark money flowing through the confirmation process and judicial lobbying, has resulted in an unaccountable Court out of step with the American people,” Whitehouse said in a statement.

“Term limits and biennial appointments would make the Court more representative of the public and lower the stakes of each justice’s appointment, while preserving constitutional protections for judicial independence.

“As Congress considers multiple options to restore the integrity of this scandal-plagued Court, our term limits bill should be front and center as a potential solution,” he added.

Attempts to reform the Supreme Court have been denounced by both Republicans in Congress and by some members of the court, namely Thomas and Alito.

Alito argued earlier this year that Congress does not have the authority to force any reform on the court without a constitutional amendment.

“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito told The Wall Street Journal. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

But Whitehouse’s office argued in Wednesday’s statement that the Constitution allows Congress to regulate how the court handles appellate cases from lower courts. That’s why all justices would still weigh in on “original jurisdiction” cases, avoiding the constitutional hang-up.

Trust in the Supreme Court remains near all-time lows, according to national opinion polling. A Gallup poll last month found that just 41 percent of Americans approve of how the Supreme Court is doing its job, with 58 percent disapproving.

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

Half of Americans in a recent survey indicated they believe national news organizations intend to mislead, misinform or persuade the public to adopt a particular point of view through their reporting.

The survey, released Wednesday by Gallup and the Knight Foundation, goes beyond others that have shown a low level of trust in the media to the startling point where many believe there is an intent to deceive.

Asked whether they agreed with the statement that national news organizations do not intend to mislead, 50% said they disagreed. Only 25% agreed, the study found.

Similarly, 52% disagreed with a statement that disseminators of national news “care about the best interests of their readers, viewers and listeners,” the study found. It said 23% of respondents believed the journalists were acting in the public’s best interests.

“That was pretty striking for us,” said Sarah Fioroni, a consultant for Gallup. The findings showed a depth of distrust and bad feeling that go beyond the foundations and processes of journalism, she said.

In one small consolation, in both cases Americans had more trust in local news.

Like with many other studies, Knight and Gallup found Democrats trust news more than Republicans. Over the past five years, the level of distrust has particularly spiked among independents. Overall, 55% of respondents said there was a great deal of political bias in coverage, compared to 45% in 2017.

The results are based on a Gallup study of 5,593 Americans aged 18 and older conducted between May 31 and July 21, 2022.

[mariacallous]

Last weekend’s negotiations in Cairo for a cease-fire in Gaza collapsed as both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas’s leadership refused to budge on key differences. An Arab official aware of the ongoing negotiations told Foreign Policy that the technical teams are meeting in Doha this week but that he didn’t expect a cease-fire “anytime soon.”

Both sides have been unrelenting. Despite coming under immense pressure from the families of hostages held in Gaza, Netanyahu insists on maintaining the Israeli military presence in Gaza and continuing the military operation against Hamas on the ground. Hamas, on the other hand, is refusing to hand over the hostages even as Palestinians, whose rights it claims to represent and fight for, are struggling to survive the deprivations inflicted by Israel’s incessant bombings. More than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed.

Yet while both Netanyahu and Hamas have made it a habit to walk away from the talks, the United States seems more desperate for a cease-fire and hostage release than either party to the conflict.

Experts say the political imperatives driving Netanyahu and Hamas and the Democratic leadership in the United States are vastly different and partly explain the conundrum.

While Washington wants an end to the killings in Gaza to assuage the concerns of voters at home, Netanyahu is likely waiting for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to win in November’s election to have a freer hand in how he handles the conflict. And Hamas wants to make sure that any deal ensures it isn’t exterminated and continues to rule the Gaza Strip.

Joost Hiltermann, the Middle East and North Africa program director for the International Crisis Group, said it is not that Netanyahu or Hamas don’t want a deal but that they want it “only on their terms, which are incompatible.” While Israel doesn’t want any deal that prevents it from continuing the war, Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar wants a complete Israeli withdrawal, returning to the status quo ante prior to the group’s Oct. 7, 2023, assault on Israel.

In contrast, the Biden administration “very much wants a cease-fire based on compromise, given the heightened political sensitivities before the U.S. elections,” Hiltermann said.

According to the latest Gallup poll, conducted in June, more Americans disapprove of Israel’s military action in Gaza than approve, even though public backing for Israel’s military operation has increased slightly since March, and a majority of Democrats and independents still disapprove of it.

The Democrats want—and want to appear to be making an effort—to save Israeli hostages and Palestinian lives, especially as it has a bearing on the vote counts in the five swing states where large communities of Arab Americans reside.

In May, U.S. President Joe Biden announced what he called an “Israeli proposal” split into three phases. In the first, six-week phase, hundreds of Palestinian prisoners would be exchanged for all women, older, and wounded hostages and in the second phase all remaining hostages. If all went to plan, the temporary cease-fire would become the “cessation of hostilities permanently.” In the third phase, reconstruction of Gaza would begin. But Netanyahu was never on board with this plan and never agreed.

Hiltermann said part of the Israeli establishment was willing to countenance the deal on the table—but Netanyahu was not. “This was a gambit to override Netanyahu through Biden’s imprimatur” and the U.N. Security Council endorsement of the “Israeli deal.” But “Netanyahu did not fall for it and successfully called Biden’s bluff.”

Hiltermann is probably right. Foreign Policy has learned that, over the last few months, the defense establishment in Israel has been calling for more flexibility to obtain a deal but there is a growing sense that Netanyahu is blocking it to appease his far-right allies.

A former high-ranking army officer who was until recently engaged in the military operations in Gaza told Foreign Policy that Netanyahu was beholden to far-right leaders Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir and was prioritizing Hamas’s defeat over the release of hostages on their behest.

“Netanyahu is speaking in three different languages: one to the Americans, one to families of the hostages, and one to his coalition allies,” the army officer said. “I think he is the truest to his allies.”

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was shipped off to the Middle East once again this month with a “bridging proposal,” to find a resolution to key sticking points including Netanyahu’s demand to keep Israeli soldiers in the Philadelphi Corridor, a narrow 9-mile stretch of land along Gaza’s southern border with Egypt, and the Netzarim Corridor, which splits the strip into northern and southern zones.

While the details of the bridging proposal have not been revealed, the New York Times reported that a reduced number of soldiers could placate both sides.

Eran Lerman, a former Israeli deputy national security advisor, told Foreign Policy that there was more room for flexibility. “There are two questions: prevent the Philadelphi Corridor from becoming a web of smuggling tunnels once again and prevent armed men in the south of Gaza from going to the north with arms and rockets,” he said. “The defense establishment believes that we can install technical monitoring systems on both corridors, that means no humans, and reserve our right to go back in if we see or sense danger.”

“Earlier, it took much longer, but now with paved roads, the soldiers can be there in 20 minutes,” Lerman added. “Defense authorities say they can handle it.”

The former high-ranking army officer who is aware of the thinking in the defense establishment suggested that Netanyahu was pinning the responsibility of eliminating Hamas on the defense forces while ignoring his own political duty to find or create an alternative to Hamas in Gaza.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have “been telling the government for a while that any military action is only to serve a political plan, but if that’s not developed, then what’s the point? Let’s agree to a cease-fire now and get the hostages back, as long as we can go inside Gaza to carry out raids, if and when needed,” said the army officer.

“Like we do in the West Bank now,” Lerman added.

Jonathan Conricus, a former IDF spokesperson now at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Foreign Policy that wars are not won only by killing the enemy “but by killing the enemy and breaking his will to fight and forging a diplomatic deal to create conditions you want on the ground.”

The differences between Netanyahu and the defense establishment are slowly coming to the fore, while Hamas, too, hasn’t received the kind of backing it hoped for from its allies.

Iran and its militias have struck Israel but not with the ferocity Hamas expected. Hezbollah in Lebanon has regularly carried out strikes in Israel, including an attack last week, yet not strong enough to rattle the Israeli forces. There hasn’t been a regional war, at least not yet, and many of Hamas’s own key leaders have been assassinated. But it is holding out against a deal and hasn’t surrendered as some in Israel expected.

“Hamas is unlikely to agree to Israel’s demand of continuing its presence in Gaza, especially not on the Philadelphi border,” the Arab official aware of the negotiations said. But they will also not leave.

At the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago last week, one of the most anticipated moments was nominee Kamala Harris’s statements on the Israel-Hamas conflict.

She said she will “always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself” and always ensure it has the ability to defend itself, implying that she would not cut off weapon supplies. But she also called for an immediate cease-fire. Now is the time, she said, and backed Palestinians’ right to “dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination.”

That is incomparably more than what Palestinians can expect from Trump. In fact, he has threatened to cut off all U.S. aid to Palestinians, expel immigrants who sympathize with Hamas—which activists believe could be misused and used against anyone who supports the Palestinian cause—and extend his Muslim ban to refugees from Gaza. In his last term in office, his solution to the intractable conflict was not support for a two-state solution but Israeli rapprochement with Saudis.

Even though he has warned Israel to “finish up” and “get the job done” as it loses the battle of global perception, or the “PR war,” as he described it, his call for peace appears to be more a reflection of growing opposition in the United States to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza—that goes against the incumbent Democratic Party—and less a marker of genuine empathy for Palestinians’ strife.

Harris may be better than Trump when it comes to offering U.S. support for a two-state solution and protection of the rights of Muslim Americans at large in the United States. Yet her balancing act on Gaza is too reminiscent of Biden’s policy and hasn’t fully succeeded in assuaging the concerns of uncommitted voters.

Michigan is a key swing state and the birthplace of the Uncommitted National Movement—a kind of a mutiny among Democrats to coalesce the protest vote to compel their party to not only achieve a cease-fire but also cut off weapon supplies to Israel.

Abbas Alawieh, a Michigan delegate and one of the leaders of the movement, was quick to express disappointment when a Palestinian was not allowed to address the convention. An Israeli American couple whose son is being held hostage in Gaza spoke at the gathering.

“We didn’t go to the DNC only to request a speaker. We went to push for lifesaving policy change: stop sending the weapons the Israeli govt is using to kill precious Palestinian babies + loved ones,” Alawieh wrote on X on Aug. 23. “DNC chose to discriminate. Their loss. Our movement is growing #NotAnotherBomb.”

[nordickies]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but could you tell us more about Åland? 😅 What even is it? Is it a country, a state/province, or something else? (sorry, I have never heard of it before joining the Hetalia fandom)

I love your art, and I would love to see more of your OCs in the future!😊

Hello, anon! Don't worry, that's not a stupid question at all! I'm willing to bet most people are in the same situation as you, so I'd love to help out.

Åland Islands are an autonomous and demilitarised region of Finland. This self-governing region is made up of over 6,700 islands; only of which 65 are inhabited.  In addition, there are around 20,000 smaller islands and skerries! The biggest island on the archipelago, and where 90% of the population lives, is Fasta Åland; which is only 45 km long and 55 km wide. The Åland Islands are connected to mainland Finland via the Finnish archipelago and its island clusters. But Åland's easternmost point is only 40 km away from mainland Sweden. The capital, Mariehamn, is located at an almost exact midpoint between Turku and Stockholm.

Up until the 19th century, roads were sparse, in bad shape, and thus practically useless in Nordic countries. The fastest way to transport resources, people, and information was by waterways. Thus, Åland acted as a vital connection between Sweden and Finland, especially when those two countries used to be one massive kingdom. Over the centuries, the islands developed a unique identity, shaped by the isolating harsh nature and influences from both the West and East.

Even though Åland is part of Finland, its only officially recognized language is Swedish. Since 1921, The Åland islands have had special privileges provided by the hembygdsrätt, which roughly translates to "home regional right." Simply put, a person is required to obtain this right before it's possible for them to own property on the island, vote in the local elections, or run a business - having Finnish citizenship is not enough. These rights were created to protect Ålandic identity during a time when Sweden and Finland fought over who the islands should belong to.

To be granted hembygdsrätt, certain conditions must be met; you must have Finnish citizenship, have satisfactory Swedish language skills, be registered in the Åland islands, and have lived in Åland for at least 5 years. Alternatively, if one of the parents has this right, it is also inherited by their child. However, you can also lose hembygdsrätt if you lose Finnish citizenship or live outside of Åland for more than 5 years.

Due to its location in the middle of the Baltic Sea, Åland has always been critical, and powers in the area have wanted to control it; it has been occupied by Swedes, Finns, Danes, Germans, Russians, French, and the English. This geopolitical importance is a reason why the islands have been demilitarized since the 1850s after the events of the Crimean War. Also, while Finland is a military conscription country, Ålandic men (with hembygdsrätt) are exempted from this duty.

Åland is not a sovereign country, but it has self-governing rights and its own government. Åland joined the Nordic Council in 1970 and has two representatives in it. Åland also held a separate referendum, and in 1995, it joined the EU at the same time with Sweden and Finland. Åland has a special status in the European Union, as it's considered a "third territory," meaning it's not part of the EU's value-added tax (VAT) or excise duty area.

Ålanders have a strong and separate national identity, even though they have a Finnish passport and speak Swedish as their native language. However, the separatist movement barely exists nowadays, and Ålanders generally don't see a reason to change the status quo. All the granted special laws and privileges by Finnish and international law are perhaps more helpful and prospering to this tiny island than seeking full independence.

As of December 2019, in a survey conducted by Åland Gallup, 78% of island residents supported Åland continuing to be a self-governing region of Finland. It has been a trend in gallups for decades at this point. Being part of Sweden was the least popular option, only getting 4% support, and becoming a fully integrated part of Finland got 5% of the support. 9% of respondents would support the full independence of Åland. In a survey by the Statistics and Research Institute of Åland (ÅSUB, 2008), 90% of the respondents stated that they were Ålandic and 60% felt that they were "completely Ålandic." On the other hand, only a quarter of the respondents considered themselves "completely Finnish," and one-fifth considered themselves "Swedish at some level." The option "European" was more popular than "Finnish," "Swedish," or "Finnish-Swedish". In the ÅSUB 2018 survey, most responders also felt a higher sense of belonging to "Nordic countries" than they did to "Finland" or "Sweden." Another interesting statistic: In Åland Gallup's May 2019 survey, 80.4% of Åland's residents said they would support Finland, and 19.6% said they'd support Sweden if Finland and Sweden were facing each other in an ice hockey match.

I could go on about the Ålandic history and what makes its identity unique, but let this be a quick introduction to this place! Feel free to ask more if you're interested. I could have simply answered it's not a country, but I think that would leave out a lot of important context. Maybe this also explains why I think Åland should have a separate personification from Finland. I hope this helps even a little bit!

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Markos Moulitsas (kos) at Daily Kos:

Last week, a friend called me with concerns about the presidential race, something that repeats often during a typical week. We all have legitimate reasons to be terrified of a second Donald Trump presidency. In response, I sketched out the reasons why I think President Joe Biden currently has a narrow but real advantage. Now, I’m sharing it with you all. 

1) TRUMP IS TIED IN POLLING, EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE AREN’T PAYING ATTENTION

It’s an old political adage that voters do not start paying attention to campaign season until after Labor Day. A Gallup poll fielded this past April found that 71% of Americans have given “quite a lot” of thought to the race, which means that a third haven’t. And the numbers were most pronounced among independents, with just 61% giving it a lot of attention. This is noteworthy because, for one, a significant number of potential voters haven’t seen Trump’s latest erratic, grievance-addled performances. Also, a Siena College poll for The New York Times found that 17% of voters blamed Biden for the loss of federal abortion rights. As more people begin to tune in, those misconceptions will be corrected.  And yet, despite those challenges, the polling is still essentially tied. In fact, take a look at the numbers in some of the polling, and the share of undecided voters is ludicrously high. An Ipsos poll for Reuters has it at 41 to 39 in Trump’s favor. YouGov is at 42 to 40 for Trump. A Civiqs poll for Daily Kos puts it even, at 45 to 45. And Morning Consult shows 44 to 43 for Biden. Given that Trump has never hit 47% in his two elections and that there’s no evidence he’s expanded his base of support, the biggest challenge is getting reluctant Biden voters to show up. That will happen when the race begins in earnest. 

[...]

3) AS PEOPLE LEARN THAT TRUMP’S RESPONSIBLE FOR DOBBS, IT’LL BLEED SUPPORT

Already mentioned above, but worth underscoring. Abortion and democracy were the two issues that propelled Democrats to an atypical, ahistorical victory in the 2022 midterm elections, despite Biden’s enduring unpopularity. Abortion was so powerful and dominant an issue that it overcame voter frustrations about inflation at a time when inflation was significantly worse than current rates.  Nothing in the two years since has lessened the impact of losing federal abortion rights. To the contrary, more people have learned that abortion is, indeed, health care thanks to stories like this one in People magazine, which is read by tens of millions of people. This is no longer a niche issue in the political press. It’s gone mainstream, which explains why the pro-abortion-rights side has won every ballot initiative—even in deep-red states, like Kansas and Kentucky—since Roe v. Wade was overturned.   And instead of laying low, Republicans are gunning hard to restrict or eliminate in vitro fertilization and birth control, and GOP lawmakers are helpless to stand in the way. Rather than defang the issue, Republicans are digging deeper. 

4) TRUMP’S CONVICTION WILL TAKE ITS TOLL OVER TIME. POLLING WAS BRUTAL FOR HIM ON THAT

I wrote up the numbers here. In short, Trump can’t afford to bleed any of his support in a tied race. What does his conviction do? Bleed support.  And three weeks after I wrote that story, polling is still showing how Trump’s convictions are causing lasting damage to his campaign. A recent Ipsos poll for Politico found that 9% of Republicans and 32% of independents are “less likely to support Trump” because of his conviction. Additionally, 23% of independents said the conviction was “very important” to their vote, and another 7% said it was “somewhat important.”  Remember, Trump needs to expand his support. Right now, this is costing him. 

5) DEMS ARE OVERPERFORMING IN SPECIAL ELECTIONS, WHICH ARE ACTUAL ELECTIONS—NOT POLLS

POLLS POLLS POLLS DID YOU SEE THE LATEST POLL? I’m on record saying that pre-Labor Day polls are interesting but not determinative. But you know what is better than polls? Actual election results. Last year, Daily Kos’ own Daniel Donner did the research and found that “special elections have indeed proven to be useful in analyzing the election environment. There is still a good long-term correlation between the results of special elections and November elections.”  And what do this cycle’s special elections tell us? The same thing they were telling us in 2022 when they presaged that year’s unlikely Democratic victories: Democrats are outperforming Biden’s 2020 benchmark numbers.  Some corners of the political punditry are heavily invested in discrediting this theory, mostly by arguing that a presidential electorate doesn’t look like a special election electorate. But it does demonstrate which party is more energized, activated, and likely to turn out—all critically important factors in any general election. Of course, as far as the media is concerned, Democrats always lose. Are Republicans more energized? That’s bad for Democrats. Are Democrats more energized? Bad for Democrats.  But I’ll be consistent, and Donner’s data backs it up: The more energized party has the better chance to win. This isn’t rocket science. It’s (data-supported) common sense. 

6) TRUMP UNDERPERFORMED HIS POLLING NUMBERS IN PRIMARIES

I love this Daily Kos headline: “Polls still love Trump more than voters do.” And it’s true. During the early part of the Republican primary campaign, Trump consistently underperformed his poll numbers. In February, The New York Times’ Nate Cohn has some theories on why that’s the case. My guess? It’s something we’ll see further down the line: People who support Trump are less scared of the alternative than those who are terrified of him.  But if nothing else, the notion that polls are missing some kind of hidden Trump vote isn’t borne out by the facts. 

Markos Moulitsas (kos) underlines the 11 reasons why Joe Biden is going to win come November.

Some of those include: Trump’s role in getting Roe overturned, 34 (and counting) felony convictions, underperformance in much of the GOP primaries even after Nikki Haley dropped out, and is currently tied, slightly trailing, or slightly leading in polling with the race not yet in full swing.

[tomorrowusa]

Democratss haven't been this enthusiastic since February of 2008.

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are largely driving the surge in enthusiasm nationally. In March, 55% of Democrats and Democratic leaners said they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting; now, 78% are. Republicans and Republican leaners, who held a slight edge in enthusiasm in March, now trail Democrats by a significant margin, with their current 64% enthusiasm score up slightly from 59% in the spring. [ ... ] Democrats’ current level of enthusiasm is one percentage point shy of the group’s high in Gallup’s trend since 2000. That was the 79% measured in February 2008, when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were engaged in a spirited battle for the party’s presidential nomination. Enthusiasm subsided later that year, but by the end of the campaign, consistently more than seven in 10 said they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting. Democratic enthusiasm was also elevated during the 2004 and 2020 presidential campaigns.

Republican enthusiasm has increased too, but much less than that of Democrats.

Enthusiasm is bound to spike when you have somebody to be enthusiastic about. With Republicans, they are just pushing a stale rerun which was bad the first time it was aired.

Enthusiasm is nice, but it's votes which win elections. Ask people you know if they're registered to vote. If they aren't, guide them through the process. Remind them that if they have moved since the last election that they need to register at their new address.

[warsofasoiaf]

How much do you think a Kamala presidency would differ from Biden's, if any? Would there be a difference with the foreign policy (Israel)?

From a foreign policy perspective, while I do think Harris would be rhetorically harsher on Israel, ultimately I don't see a large change in US foreign policy toward Israel. Public polling in the US favors Israel over Palestine by a significant degree, according to Gallup and Pew at least. Her likely electoral strategy will be to pivot toward centrists, independents, and swing voters (she's going to probably pick Josh Shapiro for her running mate if she believes she needs to secure PA's electoral votes, or Mark Kelly if she thinks she has them already), so I don't predict a substantive change for something that would be so unpopular.

She has said that top foreign policy officials are not likely to return, so no Blinken, Austen, or Jake Sullivan, and she's likely to tap Gordon as her NSA. Whether this means ending the Jake Sullivan school of thought - the absolute fear of Russian escalation that allows Russia to largely commit acts against the West with the tepidest of finger wags is unknown. Russia tried to target US personnel in France according to Le Monde and no one has done much of anything. She's likely to be at least a mild hawk on China and Russia, but that means little.

In the coming days, you'd probably expect her to release policy papers and vision statements to get a grasp of her 2024 policy ideas, which would include foreign policy.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[fandomtrumpshate]

2024 Supported Org: Bellingcat

Over the past two decades, the American public's faith in mainstream news organizations has dropped precipitously -- in a Gallup survey last year, more than half of respondents indicated that they believe news organizations actively mislead the public. The major organs of mainstream media have made many choices that have cost them the public's trust, often relying on the "both sides" model of reporting at the expense of a full and truthful picture and treating politics as a horse race.

But these organizations are also under significant pressure as they struggle to adapt to the radical technological shifts in our media environment. These shifts have cut into traditional revenue streams, driving news organizations toward the sort of reporting that will generate revenue. They have also created both the possibility of and the need for new approaches to reporting, and many legacy news outlets have struggled to adapt.

Bellingcat is an independent investigative collective of researchers, investigators and citizen journalists that uses cutting-edge technology to engage in fact-checking and open-source intelligence investigation outside the apparatus of major journalistic publications. In addition to doing their own reporting, Bellingcat designs and shares verifiable methods of ethical digital investigation. By publishing walkthroughs to open source research methods and holding tailored training sessions on their use for journalists, human rights activists, and members of the public, they’re broadening the scope and application of open source research. Their research is regularly referenced by international media and has been cited by several courts and investigative missions.

Operating in a unique field where advanced technology, forensic research, journalism, transparency and accountability come together, Bellingcat believes in the need for collaboration and has partnered with news organisations across the globe. Likewise, Bellingcat’s Global Authentication Project (GAP) seeks to harness the power of the open source community by nurturing and encouraging a network of volunteer investigators. Their Justice & Accountability unit, meanwhile, seeks to demonstrate the viability of online open source information in judicial processes.

You can support Bellingcat as a creator in the 2024 FTH auction (or as a bidder, when the time comes to donate for the auctions you’ve won.)

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Jeff Arnold

Published: Apr 4, 2024

Before U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman “came out” as a secular humanist, those closest to the California congressman warned separating himself from the rest of Capitol Hill could produce disastrous results.

Yet, Huffman, D-C.A., remains part of a super minority of U.S. politicians who remain uncommitted to a specific faith group.

Among the 118th Congress, 88% of Congress identifies as Christian at a time when almost 30% of Americans are characterized as “religious nones,” according to a 2023 Pew Research poll. Only Huffman and Arizona independent Kyrsten Sinema check the box of religiously unattached or unbelieving — making up 0.2% of the 535-member lawmaking body.

Many candidates and lawmakers alike are leery to identify as anything but Christian, Huffman says, fearing political backlash. He says it makes him the only legislator “the only one dumb enough” to become what he refers to as a “religious oddity.”

“That really puts me in a league of my own,” Huffman told NewsNation.

To believe or not to believe

Huffman was once devoutly Mormon and even a member of the denomination’s priesthood.

But after checking the Humanist box, the Democrat says he is among a quietly growing number of politicians who are uncomfortable with being forced into a religious box, which he finds limiting while the majority of his congressional colleagues represent a Christian category that has several denominational sectors.

New Jersey state Sen. Andrew Zwicker has stepped out even further.

Zwicker considers himself a “multi-generational atheist” who jokes he has been in more churches, temples, synagogues, and other houses of worship since he was elected than ever before.

Yet, his standing as a non-believer and blue state representative has not cost him in ways it might in more conservative parts of the country.

“It’s not about what I believe or don’t believe in,” Zwicker told NewsNation. “It’s more about, we are a country of … all faiths and the freedom to have any faith or no faith at all.”

Huffman initially had concerns about how voters would react to what he jokingly refers to as his “leap of faith.”

A 2020 Gallup poll of voters showed that 40% said they would not vote for an atheist for president, which ranked as one of the largest percentages among several categories. It only trailed “socialists” — of which 55% of voters indicated they would not support.

But in a progressive district, Huffman captured 72% of the vote in the California primary election this March. He faces Republican Chris Coulombe in November.

Does being a believer equate to trust?

Azhar Majeed, the director of government affairs for the Center For Inquiry, told NewsNation that politicians who identify as persons of faith have become co-mingled with being a decent person who will do the right thing and choosing to classify as an unbeliever can often be met with negativity.

“The question, I think in many voters’ minds is, ‘Is this a trustworthy person? Is this somebody who will do the right thing and have my interests in mind as a voter?'” Majeed said.

In the 1970s, Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority carried a significant Washington influence. In the 1980s, one of President Ronald Reagan’s most important speeches came before religious broadcasters.

NewsNation political contributor George Will says in 2024, however, the political tide has turned in matters of faith.

Will, a self-identified atheist who “doesn’t make a deal of it,” says that among the most important questions to be asked is whether a political candidate cares about potential constituents.

“Very few people, it seems to me, say (a candidate) is unchurched, therefore, he’s ungodly, and therefore, he’s untrustworthy, unworthy, and disagreeable,” Will said. “I don’t think many people reason like that anymore.”

Yet, for many politicians, identifying as Christian means that “you’re not offending very many people and you’re pleasing a lot more people.”

Sinema, Congress’ other 0.2 percenter, was raised Mormon. But since leaving that faith group, she has stopped short of considering herself an atheist. When she was sworn into office, she did so by holding a bound copy of the U.S. Constitution rather than the Bible.

A spokesman told CBS News that Sinema’s choice had more to do with her fondness for the Constitution rather than a defiant act of non-belief.  Sinema’s office did not respond to NewsNation’s interview request.

Huffman, the card-carrying Humanist, technically considers himself an atheist.

Humanists believe in “good without God” and base their beliefs on science and rationality, Huffman said. They also are committed to a moral obligation to those around them as human beings and do not subscribe to incentives for an afterlife or a penalty toward hell.

Atheism, meanwhile, is not an affirmative belief there is no god, but instead, a rejection of the assertion that there are gods, according to the website for American Atheists.

Huffman agrees that there is still a clear stigma linked to the word which he calls an “incomplete label” that prioritizes atheists don’t believe rather than what they’re for.”

While Zwicker isn’t shy about his atheism, he says he doesn’t lead with it either, avoiding a trap that some conventional wisdom suggests may exist, experts say.

“It kind of becomes low-hanging fruit,” Majeed said. “I just think it becomes a line of attack that you are opening yourself up to.”

A growing population

In 2007, only 16% of Americans did not identify with religion while 78% considered themselves Christian, Pew reported.

By 2023, 28% identified as religiously unaffiliated. Among that group, 17% were atheists, 20% were agnostics, and 63% said they believed in “nothing in particular.”

Shortly after coming out, Huffman co-founded the Congressional Free Thought Caucus along with Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin in 2017. The group started with just four members but has since grown to 23, Huffman said.

Despite the group’s growth, Huffman says that politicians tend to lag behind what is “happening in the real world.”

With more Americans choosing to lose their religion, Will and Majeed insist lawmakers will eventually do the same as they are a governmental institution that is representative and broadly reflects the contours of the country.

“Progress has been slow and it’s not necessarily going to be a 1-for-1 change,” Majeed said. “But with each succeeding generation, you’re going to have a higher percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated. I don’t think that’s going to go in the other direction any time soon.”

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Mike Luckovich

* * * *

In Donald J Trump's CPAC speech, the United States is a dark and menacing place: violent crime is rampant, the economy is in free fall, people are starving in the street, and our military has collapsed in corruption and mismanagement. We are ripe for conquest by Vladimir Putin, who does everything right. But every factual claim Trump made isn't a fact; indeed, the situation is the diametric opposite of the one that Trump claims.

Here are the facts on crime. Starting in the early 1990s, crime dropped rapidly in the United States. The causes were complex — owing much to improving economic conditions and innovations in policing strategy. Following a decades-long decline, violent crime rose during the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2020, President Trump’s last year in office, murder rates climbed by nearly 30 percent and assault rates by more than 10 percent.

Here, too, the reasons are complex, but may have much to do with the pandemic. Covid-19 proved to be a generational disruptor in America, instigating social and economic hardships at all levels of society. For example, the country saw an economic decline and increases in unemployment due to businesses that were negatively impacted by shutdowns. We saw a surge in firearm ownership and shooting incidents, at least in the cities that track this data. It was also a period of tremendous isolation. After-school programs and other critical services and interventions that cities relied on to confront violence were shut down.

But since 2021, violent crime has started to fall. According to the FBI, as of 2022 violent crime rates had fallen by 4 percent and murder rates by roughly 7 percent since 2020. Preliminary data suggests those declines accelerated in 2023. In his Saturday speech to conservatives, Trump also spoke a good deal about an immigration crisis in America, making misleading statements about what he referred to as migrant crime and noting it will be “far more deadly than anyone thought.” Here, again, the former president was not truthful. There is no evidence of a migrant crime wave, including in New York City, which the former president referred to in his remarks today. To the contrary, statistics indicate that there has been no surge in crime since April 2022, when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott began bussing migrants to New York. Additionally, research reveals that undocumented immigration is associated with a decrease in property crime and additional research finds that Fentanyl is primarily trafficked by U.S. citizens.

Although violent crime appears to be receding across the nation, the American public is not fully aware of this trend. Most Americans believe that crime is rising, including 78 percent of independent voters. This gap between crime and perceptions of crime is not new — it’s a decades-long trend. Gallup routinely asks voters whether they believe crime is higher or lower than the previous year. Even in the midst of the decades-long decline in crime, between 1990 and the mid-2010s, Gallup records only two years when a majority of voters did not believe crime had risen. Although the reasons why crime increases and decreases are complicated, we know that various social, economic, and environmental factors, such as growth in income and an aging population, are significant drivers of crime rates. We also know that investing in our communities through funding after school programming, anti-violence initiatives, and safe “third places” — like parks and community centers — helps build long-term safety.

Creating thriving and safe communities are goals we can all embrace. But misleading the American public about the truth and distorting reality is not the way to deliver public safety.

[Brennan Center For Justice]

[absolxguardian]

A reply on this post

@crypticdoe Legal weed being technically unconstitutional has nothing to do with drug legislation itself. Rather it has to do with the Supremacy Clause of the constitution. If something is a valid federal law- not violating the constitution and given federal jurisdiction either through being an enumerated power or an implied power (the Wikipedia article on the Commerce Clause explains it pretty well, and specifically includes the justification for drug laws)- federal law preempts state law. Weed is still federally illegal, so the state laws legalizing weed are unconstitutional.

The executive branch of the federal government is currently executing prosecutorial/administrative discretion by not having the FBI/DEA arrest everyone involved in legal weed across the country. That's the same as a state prosecutor choosing not to press charges. They can change the situation at any moment if they wished. Congress probably also has the power to pass a 'actually do your job' law, but that's the kind of thing where it has to actually happen and have the constitutionality decided to be able to say if it would be valid.

I learned this from my AP Gov class, so here's what the textbook said:

The 1970 Controlled Substances Act remains federal law. What happens, then, when a state legalizes marijuana while the drug remains illegal at the national level? The answer depends on whom you ask, which level and branch of government are being asked, and the political mood of the nation and states. As the legalization movement was under way, but before it had crossed a tipping point, federal authorities in Republican President George W. Bush’s administration began a crackdown on marijuana growing operations and medical marijuana dispensaries in California. Legalization advocates and patients sued the federal government, arguing that states had the authority under the Tenth Amendment and the police powers doctrine to determine the status of the drug’s legality. However, on appeal, in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution’s commerce clause entitles Congress to determine what may be bought and sold. Thus, federal marijuana crimes were upheld.

Though that precedent still stands, the Justice Department under Democratic President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder took a different approach. Through his eight years as president, eight states—those laboratories of democracy—legalized recreational marijuana. In 2014, the attorney general announced the Obama administration’s revised approach to enforcing marijuana violations. In doing so, he did not rewrite the law. Holder did, however, declare that the Justice Department would not use federal resources to crack down on selling or using the drug in states where voters had democratically deemed marijuana legal. Ultimately, federal arrests for marijuana became nearly nonexistent.

Until recently, Democrats and Independents supported legalization more than Republicans. However, as Gallup reports, most Republicans now support legalizing marijuana. The policy debate on legalization and how federal law would be enforced surfaced in the 2016 primary and general elections for president with a variety of responses from candidates in both parties. After Donald Trump took office and Attorney General Jeff Sessions—an anti-drug conservative—was sworn in, pot users and medical marijuana proponents watched closely. During the Trump administration, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Jeff Sessions declared that local U.S. attorneys—those presidentially appointed prosecutors who bring federal crime cases to court in their districts across the country shall be the local determiners of how federal marijuana policy is handled. In fact, the Justice Department attorneys and the FBI deal with a variety of federal crimes on a daily basis and decide whether to prosecute and which crimes are higher on their priority list. This inconsistency from administration to administration may be confusing and destabilizing to some, but it is an inevitable element of administrative discretion.

[mariacallous]

In politics, the “gender gap” is the difference in the percentage of women and the percentage of men voting for a given candidate.1 The political gender gap has appeared in one way or the other in every election since 1980 with women tending to vote for the Democratic Party and men tending to vote for the Republican Party. But the apparent gender gap among young voters also appears in measures other than politics and points to some deeper and potentially even more concerning issues among young people.

In politics, we are seeing a gender gap amongst today’s youngest voters—aged 18 to 29—with young women being significantly more Democratic in their political leanings than young men. For instance, a recently released national poll by the Institute of Politics (IOP) at Harvard Kennedy School finds that among 18 to 29-year-olds, President Biden’s lead with women is +33 points in contrast to young men where his lead drops to a mere six points. When compared to this stage of the 2020 campaign, Biden’s lead among women was nearly identical (+35), while his lead with men stood at +26, representing a steep drop in just the past four years.

When it comes to party identification, Democrats have again lost significant ground with young men. In 2020, 42% of young men in Harvard’s poll identified as Democrats versus 20% who identified as Republican. Now, 32% are Democrats and 29% are Republicans, with the number of independents remaining relatively unchanged. Women over the same period have not moved as much. In 2020, 43% of young women in Harvard’s poll identified as Democrats, and 23% were Republicans. Now, 44% are Democrats, and 18% are Republicans.

Meanwhile, a recently released Economist/YouGov survey shows a staggering rise in support for Donald Trump among young people. In fact, the rise in Trump favorability among the young outstrips the rise in favorability among all other groups in the population except Democrats and liberals. We should view these polls with caution, especially because the subgroups are often too small to be statistically significant.

There are other indications of a growing gender divide among young people that goes deeper than just politics. For instance, a longitudinal analysis by international research agency Glocalities between 2014 and 2023 highlighted the growing rift in Gen Z. It found that young women have become significantly more liberal and embraced “anti-patriarchal” values over the last decade, while young men have stayed relatively the same. Additionally, it showed that young men have been the slowest among all groups to move towards more liberal values over the nearly 10-year period.

Glocalities found young women are most concerned about issues like “sexual harassment, domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, and mental health problems.” Men were generally more focused on “competition, bravery, and honor.” The study found young men have become more patriarchal in their orientations overall when compared with women and even older men.

The analysis further linked “feelings of despair and societal disillusionment, a focus on patriarchal values, and rebelling against cosmopolitan liberal values” to the growing rise of the radical right. This leads many to fear that as young men are resisting the tides of change, they may be vulnerable to far-right groups and movements who promise a return to more patriarchal systems which offer a break from the social developments which they believe have begun to unfairly work against their societal interests.

Gallup recently studied the gender divide and found roughly 25% of men aged 18 to 29 identify as “liberal,” versus 40% of women in the same demographic—up from 28% in 2003. Men were found yet again to be relatively unchanged in their self-identification during that timeline.

The Survey Center on American Life’s findings also support a divide in self-identification, with young women being much more likely to identify themselves as “feminists” than young men. Only 43% of Gen Z men identify in this way, much less than Millennial men, while 61% of Gen Z women describe themselves as feminist compared to 54% of Millennial women and 49% of Generation X women.

The study also shows young men increasingly feel as though they are experiencing discrimination over the past four years. Nearly half of all men aged 18 to 29 said they felt this way, the highest of all male age groups surveyed.

Men in particular feel isolated. Brookings nonresident senior fellow, Richard Reeves, has studied the issue arguing in his book “Of Boys and Men” that rapid societal changes combined with a market shift from brawn to brain have left many men feeling bereft and without purpose. Reeves, a self-described “feminist”, does not make the argument that the liberation of women is a bad thing but instead suggests finding new roles for men and a redefinition of “masculinity” in this changing world.

Young men have repeatedly been found in recent years to be apathetic towards voting, with young women in recent election cycles constantly turning out to vote at higher rates than young men. Politically, this is good news for Democrats. After all, there are more women than men in the country, they make up a larger portion of the electorate, they are more motivated to vote, and vote blue. From a societal perspective, it could signal potential danger if young men feel less tied to democracy and feel no need to participate in the democratic process while increasingly becoming disheartened with their social status. The incentive for change and action may be there, but not through democratic means. This is made more disconcerting by the fact that this is coming at a time when democracy could yet again be in peril this election year. But what exactly are men experiencing which could make this scenario a potential reality? Well, young men are overwhelmingly the loneliest demographic, with 63% of men aged 18 to 29 reporting being single, compared to 34% of women in the same age group.

Suicide rates among men in 2021 were four times higher among males than females. Men commit almost 96% of the mass shootings in the country, demonstrating how men are very likely to act upon their social isolation in extremely violent ways. In education, women now receive 58% of bachelor’s degrees and 61% of master’s degrees, representing yet another area where men are increasingly falling behind.

The social isolation of men creates major ramifications for women as well. Based on Census Bureau historical data and Morgan Stanley forecasts, 45% of prime working age women (ages 25 to 44) will be single by 2030—the largest share in history—up from 41% in 2018. The social bonds of previous generations appear to be eroding among young people, and this has serious consequences for coupling, future birth rates, and social cohesion.

There are also darker concerns about the potential backlash to recent social developments. History is littered with examples of nations suffering from the consequences of young men finding themselves idle without purpose.

We may be in the opening stages of a social backlash to the progressive social movements of the past decades. When significant societal change occurs, some may feel left behind or cheated. Right now, young men fall into that camp. The challenge now will be ensuring that the backlash does not transform into real damage, especially for women. If the aim is to build a fairer equitable future where all feel they have a role and are respected, the polling of Gen Z appears to show we are moving in the opposite direction.

[sule-skerry]

This Gallup poll has really been getting me down. Basically they ask a sample of Americans whether they think a bunch of activities are morally acceptable and not only has support for queer people had the largest decline since they started asking that question in 2001 but great news guys, we're ranked blow gambling (an addictive behavior that can lose you your house) but we're still above the death penalty!

And the drop holds true across the political spectrum – Republicans, Democrats, and independents!

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Gertz at MMFA:

Fox News hosts like Ainsley Earhardt are overjoyed about notorious anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s purported ability to help former President Donald Trump’s campaign appeal to “moms” concerned with public health. “I think moms around the country appreciate his stance for trying to make our children healthy again,” she said on Monday. Earhardt noted that in Kennedy’s speech last week endorsing Trump, “he talked about how 75% of the budget from the FDA comes from pharmaceutical companies” and “said it's very profitable when a child is sick,” adding that Kennedy’s condemnation of “corruption in health care” is “music to every mom’s ears."

The culture warriors at Fox aren’t typically invested in talking about public health issues. But in one key health-related fight on which the network aligned with Kennedy — COVID-19 vaccines — the results have proved disastrous. Their combined assault on what Kennedy falsely termed “the deadliest vaccine ever made” helped trigger plummeting levels of support for childhood vaccinations among Republicans, with ongoing consequences for America’s kids. Fox’s unique pull with its right-wing audience gave it a moral responsibility to encourage viewers to take the life-saving COVID-19 vaccines. Instead, the network — led by stars like Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity — pandered to anti-vaxxers like Kennedy. Fox conducted a yearslong campaign to undermine the vaccines, which the network falsely portrayed as ineffective and dangerous, while talking up the potential of fake cures for the virus. Its hosts were particularly scathing about public health efforts to require vaccination at schools and workplaces, which Ingraham described as a “crime against humanity.” The right-wing assault on the COVID-19 vaccines led to lower rates of vaccinations among Republicans — and consequently higher death rates. But the anti-vaccine sentiment unleashed by the likes of Fox and Kennedy was not limited to COVID-19: There have been broader impacts on GOP support for the full range of childhood vaccinations.

Gallup reported earlier this month that the percentage of Americans who say it is important for parents to get their children vaccinated has tumbled since the COVID-19 pandemic — and that Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are responsible for that decline. [...]

The result is skyrocketing outbreaks of preventable and dangerous diseases among children — but things can still get so much worse. Trump is more than willing to prioritize his political future over your kids. Playing to his base, he all but disavowed the COVID-19 vaccines his administration helped bring to fruition, and he vows that his administration “will not give one penny” to schools that require their students to be vaccinated. He sought Kennedy’s endorsement and is dangling the prospect of rewarding him with a plum post — potentially secretary of Health and Human Services, where the anti-vaccine activist would wield incredible power. Far from trying to hold him back, Fox hosts like Earhardt and MAGA princes like Charlie Kirk are celebrating Kennedy’s supposed health bona fides.

Right-wing media outlets, including Fox “News”, are championing anti-vaxxer extremist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s anti-vaccine worldview as part of their war on vaccine mandates and the COVID-19 vaccine.

Kennedy Jr. recently dropped out (but will remain on ballot in non-swing states) and endorsed anti-vaxxer enabler Donald Trump. Trump, despite signing off on the beginnings of COVID vaccine distribution with Operation Warp Speed, has appealed to anti-vaxxer extremists with his “not one penny” pledge to schools with vaccine mandates.

According to a Gallup poll conducted between July 1st and 21st, the decline in support for childhood vaccinations and vaccine mandates came almost exclusively from Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.