Latest news with #TheConversation
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Yelp's ‘Black-Owned' Tag Was Meant To Help — In Detroit, It's Doing The Opposite, Finds Report
Yelp's introduction of a 'Black-owned' tag for its listings coincides with a decline in ratings for the Detroit area, according to a new report. The introduction of the tag seemingly increased visibility for Black-owned establishments, The Conversation reported. More reviews mentioning Black ownership were posted. Yet, the influx of reviews coincided with a reduction in overall ratings in Detroit. Local and non-local users that acknowledged Black ownership in the reviews tend to leave a lower rating, 3.03 stars. Patrons that indicated no awareness of the owner's race left higher reviews, 3.78. In Detroit, Black-owned restaurants saw a slight decrease in their star ratings. Those businesses went from an average of 3.91 stars to 3.88 after the introduction of the tag. Researchers Mathew Bui and Cameron Moy gathered 250,000 surveys from the Detroit and Los Angeles areas. Then, identifying the mention of 'Black-owned' reviews they were able to narrow their field of scope. The originators of the study believe the outcome stems from Yelp's user base dynamics. Yelp is largely used by primarily white, educated and affluent customers. The study suggests that increased visibility for the Black-owned business may have produced more 'cross-cultural' interactions. This sometimes led to reviews referencing slow and rude service. Researchers stress that digital interventions, despite good intentions, are not universally beneficial and can sometimes inadvertently worsen existing dynamics. Though Bui and Moy's general research points to trends beginning in 2020, the trend of Black businesses lagging continues today. On June 28, the State of Black Business report reveals that, reviews aside, Black businesses are struggling. Despite the initial 30% rise in Black business from 2018 to 2021, Black businesses are being shut out. Black businesses are less likely to receive venture capital investment 0.5% of venture capital funding went to Black founders in 2023, the National Urban League stated. With the active and targeted dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives Black businesses are struggling financially. Yelp's attempt to highlight those businesses has seemingly backfired, adding to the already difficult path owners face. RELATED CONTENT: TSP Live, The 'HBCU Homecoming For Black Businesses,' Returns To Atlanta
Politico
13 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Politico
Playbook: Republicans ready to floor it on the megabill
Presented by With help from Eli Okun, Bethany Irvine and Ali Bianco Good Saturday morning. This is Garrett Ross in the driver's seat. Let me know what's going on. POD RAVE AMERICA: President Donald Trump has UFC CEO Dana White to thank for his campaign's podcasting blitz on his way back to the White House, Trump media adviser Alex Bruesewitz tells Playbook's Dasha Burns in an interview for this week's episode of 'The Conversation.' 'Dana was actually the first person to introduce the president to podcast circuits, or podcasting, when Dana set up an interview between the president and the Nelk Boys in early 2022,' Bruesewitz said. Barron Trump, the president's son, also played a big part in the evolution, Bruesewitz said, when he set up an interview with popular streamer Adin Ross. From there, Bruesewitz and Susie Wiles, then Trump's campaign chief, agreed that they needed to do more. 'She sent me an email that Dana White had sent her previously with a few other podcast personalities that he recommended we sat down with, and she asked me to chase down the list and get in touch with the hosts. And the first guy I called was Theo Von.' Watch the clip on YouTube On the Trump-Elon Musk breakup: 'There's, I think, tremendous disappointment in how that went down. But maybe one day we can all be a big happy family again.' Watch the clip DRIVING THE DAY RECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES: Republicans' sprawling reconciliation bill is finally set to get its day in the Senate. The chamber is pushing forward with an initial vote on the Senate floor today, so that senators can eventually send the bill back to the House as GOP lawmakers race to deliver the legislation to Trump's desk by their self-imposed July 4 deadline. Follow along all day with our POLITICO Congress colleagues' liveblog Timeline tracking: Despite some murmurs from the Hill and the White House yesterday that the deadline might slip, Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson appear to be on track to drag the bill over the line and avoid canceling the coveted holiday recess. But that's not to say there aren't still a handful of sticking points. Text message: Following an extensive 'Byrd bath,' the updated text is in — er, most of it, at least. 'While the legislation, released by Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), includes updates for most committees that reflect finalized text blessed by Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, the Finance Committee language is not fully updated to reflect her rulings,' POLITICO's Jordain Carney writes. SALT on the table: The new text 'keeps House Republicans' plan to increase the deduction from $10,000 to $40,000, but it would snap back to current levels after 2029,' POLITICO's Benjamin Guggenheim reports. 'The new language likely shaves off at least $100 billion from the approximately $350 billion price tag of the House plan.' But it's still unclear if it'll pass muster. Johnson knows he still has at least 'one holdout' — an apparent reference to Rep. Nick LaLota, the New York Republican who said yesterday that if there was a deal, he wasn't part of it. Still, Johnson told reporters he believes that the Senate will sign on. The Medicaid compromise: Throwing a bone to GOP moderates who are teetering on the fence, Senate Republicans are 'planning to provide a $25 billion stabilization fund for rural hospitals over five years,' a significant bump up from the $15 billion previously offered by GOP leadership, per Benjamin. 'Senate Republicans would also delay planned cuts to provider taxes that fund state obligations to Medicaid. The changes would still incrementally lower the allowable provider tax in Medicaid expansion states from 6 percent down to 3.5 percent.' A significant caveat: 'The text for the Finance committee, which has jurisdiction over tax policy and Medicaid, could still see major changes' as we await the final language reflecting all of the rulings from the parliamentarian. What else is in: There are sharp cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act's solar and wind tax credits, per POLITICO's Kelsey Tamborrino and James Bikales, the inclusion of which follows a direct push from Trump himself, as our colleagues scooped. What's out: Republicans are set to strip out 'one of the most controversial elements in their plan to steeply hike annual taxes on private colleges' and universities' annual investment income: the exclusion of international students from how the endowment wealth of a school is calculated,' WSJ's Juliet Chung and Richard Rubin report. The updated text also cut out a section that 'would have limited the ability of federal courts to issue preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders against the U.S. if a bond had not been posted,' per POLITICO's Hailey Fuchs. And the parliamentarian knocked out a provision that would have instituted a minimum $1,000 fee for asylum applicants, Hailey reports. Call to action: A group of 17 GOP governors sent a pleading letter to Thune and Johnson, urging the duo to remove a 10-year moratorium on enforcing state and local AI laws from the bill, POLITICO's Anthony Adragna reports, noting that it amounts to the biggest show of Republican resistance to the provision so far. First in Playbook — The sticky wickets: There are still a handful of serious outstanding issues that the chambers need to work out to avoid further delays. In a must-read piece up this morning, Jordain and Meredith Lee Hill lay out the obstacle course that leaders still need to navigate — and how the deadline could still fall by the wayside. Getting personal: First and foremost, members 'continue to fight jealously to keep personal priorities in the bill — including parts of a $4 trillion package of tax cuts set to affect virtually the entire U.S. economy.' Then there's the segment of lawmakers whose rhetoric has essentially turned the megabill 'into an ideological litmus test on federal spending and budget deficits' and are now 'facing a put-up-or-shut-up moment after repeatedly drawing red lines and then moving forward with the legislation anyway.' The ripple effect: The vote is particularly prickly for a handful of lawmakers 'facing what could be existential political stakes as they brace for tough reelection contests in next year's midterms. Many are balking at having to vote on cutbacks to safety-net programs, clean-energy projects and other federal assistance their states and constituents rely on.' To sum it up: These messy factors have 'turned the megabill's endgame into a high-wire act — and Thune is keeping the pressure on, expecting his members will want to stay on the rope.' Quote of the day: 'We've cussed it. We've discussed it,' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said. 'But we're gradually going from thoughtful, rational deliberation into the foothills of jackassery. I mean, we're talking about the same thing over and over and over.' What to watch today: 'GOP leaders are making serious efforts to lock down votes,' Meredith writes in. 'We're expecting further changes on Medicaid and several other outstanding items that could shore up several holdout votes. Leaders are also adding additional SNAP grants aimed at Alaska after the state's two GOP senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, protested, as we scooped.' More mood music: As Congress barrels ahead with votes on the behemoth bill, lawmakers are 'preparing to back a measure that they fear gives their constituents little to love and lots to hate,' NYT's Carl Hulse and Catie Edmondson write. Republicans are essentially 'going into the process in a defensive crouch, with many conceding that the final product is far from ideal.' In the end, it all comes down to preserving the GOP's tax cuts. Oh, and the looming specter of drawing Trump's rage if they can't deliver. (More on that in a moment.) The antidote? Plenty on both sides of the Capitol have complained that the bill doesn't do enough. Enter Johnson, who yesterday told senators that he wants to do another reconciliation bill — giving them another pass at spending cuts and provisions that got axed from the megabill. THE VIEW FROM 1600 PENN: As we hit crunch time, Trump's involvement in the corralling of reluctant lawmakers as the closer is a big point of interest. At this stage, the president is in a position of fielding calls rather than proactively making them, a senior White House official tells Playbook's Dasha Burns. Trump isn't yet whipping individual votes but is very involved in the process and recently met with Johnson and Thune — a meeting that originally was set to be just the speaker, but expanded to include the Senate chief because it was going long and in-depth, per the White House official. The bottom line: Those in the West Wing still believe this gets done by July 4. And here's the word of warning for potential defectors: 'You can vote to end your career or not,' the senior White House official said. 9 THINGS THAT STUCK WITH US 1. THE CRACKDOWN ON CIVIL SOCIETY: Trump secured a major scalp in his effort to bend American institutions to his will, as University of Virginia President James Ryan announced he'd resign under pressure from an investigation into its diversity practices, NYT's Michael Schmidt and Michael Bender report. DOJ forced him out as it pursued a civil rights probe into consideration of race in decision-making. Ryan said he couldn't prioritize his own job over the ramifications for others — like the loss of funding or visas — that would ensue if he didn't comply. The strong-arming of one of the nation's top public universities takes the administration's pressure campaign on higher education to a new level. Meanwhile in Cambridge: The Trump administration appealed a federal judge's ruling that barred the government's attack on Harvard foreign students, The Crimson's Matan Josephy and Laurel Shugart report. I fought the law and the law won: Trump's losing streak against law firms in court continued as a federal judge struck down his effort to retaliate against Susman Godfrey, per Bloomberg. The judge ruled that Trump's executive order was unconstitutional. That makes it four for four among firms that have sued over Trump's squeeze, though nine others struck deals with him. 2. FRIDAY NIGHT MASSACRE: 'Justice Department abruptly fires 3 prosecutors involved in Jan. 6 criminal cases, AP sources say,' by AP's Alanna Durkin Richer: 'Those dismissed include two attorneys who worked as supervisors overseeing the Jan. 6 prosecutions in the U.S. attorney's office in Washington as well as a line attorney who prosecuted cases stemming from the Capitol attack … The terminations marked yet another escalation of norm-shattering moves that have raised alarm over the Trump administration's disregard for civil service protections for career lawyers and the erosion of the Justice Department's independence.' 3. TRADING PLACES: Trump's trade war with Canada suddenly roared back to life as the president said he'd ended all negotiations with the U.S.' northern neighbor, per the WSJ. The trigger was Ottawa's digital services tax affecting American tech companies, from which initial payments are set to begin Monday. As Canada wouldn't back off the tax in trade talks, 'Trump had grown furious.' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent threatened a Section 301 trade investigation into Canada. But PM Mark Carney's government isn't retreating yet. 4. WAR AND PEACE: 'Congo and Rwanda sign a US-mediated peace deal aimed at ending decades of bloody conflict,' by AP's Chinedu Asadu and colleagues: 'Secretary of State Marco Rubio called it 'an important moment after 30 years of war.' … While the deal is seen as a turning point, analysts don't believe it will quickly end the fighting because the most prominent armed group says it does not apply to it. Many Congolese see it mainly as an opportunity for the U.S. to acquire critical minerals.' Speaking of ceasefires: Trump dangled the prospect of striking an Israel-Hamas ceasefire within the next week, per Bloomberg, though details were scarce. Meanwhile, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres urgently called for a ceasefire and warned that the U.S.-supported humanitarian aid mechanism in Gaza is 'unsafe' and 'killing people,' per Reuters. 5. IRAN FALLOUT: As expected, the Senate voted down Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-Va.) war powers resolution to assert a greater congressional role in Trump's strikes against Iran, per CNN. The procedural vote failed largely along partisan lines, with only Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and John Fetterman (D-Pa.) breaking with their parties. Prospects for negotiations: The vote came after Trump warned that he'd be willing to bomb Iran again if necessary, per Reuters. 'Without question, absolutely,' he said, warning that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's continued belligerence had prompted Trump to stop considering sanctions relief for Iran. Trump's comments seemed to dampen the prospects for negotiations, which House Republicans had celebrated as a crucial outcome of Trump's strikes, POLITICO's John Sakellariadis and colleagues report. At the same time, Iran's ambassador to the U.N. told Al-Monitor that Tehran could be open to moving its enriched uranium out of the country in a deal with the U.S. — in exchange for 'yellowcake' powder. Inside the administration: Trump has steered through this fraught Iran period with a much-diminished NSC, now down to under 50 policy experts, NOTUS' John Seward and colleagues report. That has raised questions about the depth of his briefings. Meanwhile, isolationist DNI Tulsi Gabbard's pivot to try to align herself with Trump's hawkish moves could damage her credibility within her agency, The Atlantic's Isaac Stanley-Becker and Shane Harris report. Astonishing: A forthcoming book from Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager and Isaac Arnsdorf reveals that Iran 'nearly succeeded' in assassinating Mike Pompeo in 2022, WaPo's Emily Davies reports. The former secretary of State only 'narrowly escaped' the attempt at a Paris hotel. Trump revoked Pompeo's security detail early in his second term. 6. IMMIGRATION FILES: DHS announced it will end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians, placing about half a million people at risk of deportation come September, the Miami Herald's Jacqueline Charles and Nora Gámez Torres report. The department claimed that Haiti was now safe enough for people to go back, despite ongoing chaos from widespread gang violence: Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said just two days ago that 'public order there has all but collapsed.' The news stunned the large Haitian community in South Florida; DHS' move will likely face legal challenges. More immigration news: The U.S. is trying to block refugees from countries affected by the travel ban, even as it plans to admit 1,000 white South Africans, WaPo's Silvia Foster-Frau reports. … The coming 'Alligator Alcatraz' detention in the center, which could start housing migrants as early as next week, faced a new federal lawsuit from environmental groups, the Tampa Bay Times' Emily Mahoney reports. … NBC's David Noriega has the story of a Venezuelan disappeared into a Salvadoran mega-prison, who'd just had major surgery and now has been incommunicado for 100 days. DHS responds that he served prison time for homicide in Venezuela, though that wouldn't be relevant for the due process rights the U.S. denied him. 7. IN THE DOGE HOUSE: 'DOGE loses control over government grants website, freeing up billions,' by WaPo's Dan Diamond and Hannah Natanson: 'The U.S. DOGE Service has lost the power to control the government's process for awarding billions of dollars in federal funds, the latest sign of the team's declining influence … [O]n Thursday, federal officials were instructed to stop routing the [ grant-making process through DOGE.' 8. TRAIL MIX: Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) won't seek reelection, potentially giving Democrats a leg up in a swing district where they've long failed to unseat the rare Republican moderate, per Punchbowl's Jake Sherman. … Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) plans to announce a campaign for South Dakota governor, POLITICO's Meredith Lee Hill scooped. … California state Sen. Scott Wiener filed paperwork to run for Congress in Rep. Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) district — but not until 2028, per the S.F. Chronicle's Sara Libby. 9. SCOTUS' BIG FINALE, ONE DAY LATER: 'Trump adversaries see silver linings in his 'monumental' Supreme Court win,' by POLITICO's Kyle Cheney and colleagues: 'The 6-3 decision has a single headline holding: Federal district judges 'lack authority' to issue 'universal injunctions,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the conservative majority. It's a breathtaking pronouncement … But Barrett's 26-page opinion leaves a surprising degree of wiggle room. … Trump's opponents say they see alternative routes to obtain effectively the same sweeping blocks of at least some policies that run afoul of the law and the Constitution.' Still, these options 'could be slower and less potent,' WSJ's Ryan Barber and colleagues write. With friends like these: Despite the justices' frequent claims of camaraderie on the court, the last decisions of this term showed increasingly biting attacks between ideological camps, POLITICO's Josh Gerstein writes. Among others, Barrett and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson excoriated each other with opinions in the nationwide injunctions case that essentially traded accusations of undermining the rule of law. CLICKER — 'The nation's cartoonists on the week in politics,' edited by Matt Wuerker — 17 funnies GREAT WEEKEND READS: — 'Extreme Violence Without Genocide,' by The Atlantic's Graeme Wood: 'The plight of white South Africans is part of a much larger problem.' — 'How Foreign Scammers Use U.S. Banks to Fleece Americans,' by Cezary Podkul for ProPublica: 'The huge demand for accounts used for misbehavior gives banks a crucial, and not always welcome, role as gatekeepers … Yet from the U.S. to Singapore, Australia and Hong Kong, banks have consistently failed at that responsibility.' — 'It's Indian Mango Season, and the Cutthroat Selling Frenzy Is On,' by NYT's Priya Krishna: 'For a few short months, dozens of part-time importers in New Jersey relentlessly compete to get the fruit into the hands of an eager diaspora.' — 'Calculating the Damage of Vaccine Skepticism,' by The New Yorker's Rivka Galchen: 'It's clear that we're on the precipice of a surge in preventable diseases. But how bad will it get?' — 'Snake Venom, Urine, and a Quest to Live Forever: Inside a Biohacking Conference Emboldened by MAHA,' by Wired's Will Bahr: 'WIRED attended a biohacking conference filled with unorthodox and often unproven anti-aging treatments. Adherents revealed how the Make America Healthy Again movement has given them a renewed fervor.' — 'It Was Already One of Texas's Strangest Cold Cases. Then a Secretive Figure Appeared,' by Texas Monthly's Peter Holley: 'Jason Landry's disappearance confounded the state's top investigators. When thousands of online sleuths got involved, intrigue turned into obsession.' TALK OF THE TOWN Joe Biden paid his respects to Melissa and Mark Hortman as they lay in state in St. Paul. He also visited John Hoffman and his family in the hospital. Bobby Scott's family said Donald Trump's military parade had illegally played 'He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother' despite being told they didn't have permission. Thomas LeGro, a Pulitzer-winning video journalist at WaPo, was arrested on child pornography charges. PLAYBOOK REAL ESTATE SECTION — 'Sen. Tim Sheehy Lists Home on Montana's Flathead Lake for $10.25 Million,' by WSJ's Katherine Clarke: 'The property, known as Bird Point, is about 30 miles from Big Fork, Mont. It encompasses a roughly 7-acre peninsula at the south end of the lake. There are numerous structures, including a roughly 5,000-square-foot, five-bedroom main house, plus a cabin and a guesthouse.' OUT AND ABOUT — SPOTTED at Hamburger Group Creative's summer rooftop reception at their new Union Market office Thursday night: Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), Martin Hamburger, Claire Carlin, Kevin Walling, Alex Stroman, Liz Amster, Brooke Butler, Rob Bassin, Mac Deford, Matt Corridoni, Matt Fried, Jon Gonin, Tony P., J. Toscano, Emma Weir, Kim Devlin and Marty Stone. TRANSITIONS — Tim Carroll is now senior press secretary for the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. He previously was deputy associate administrator for public affairs at the EPA in the Biden administration. … Diana London is now president of the American Growth and Innovation Forum, a new organization that aims to advocate for and drive positive narratives about U.S. businesses. … … Casey Clemmons is now chief of staff at West Point Thoroughbreds. He previously was director of scheduling for then-Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. … Jasmin Alemán is now VP of U.S. government and regulatory affairs for BNP Paribas. She previously was a congressional affairs specialist at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and is a Ritchie Torres and Chuck Schumer alum. HAPPY BIRTHDAY: Elon Musk … Ziad Ojakli … POLITICO's Alex Keeney, Eli Reyes, Scott Waldman and Amelia Davidson … Erin McPike … FGS Global's Richard Walters … Carolyn Coda of Invariant … Paul Bonicelli … Allison Aprahamian of Senate Foreign Relations … Megan Bloomgren … Bill Hulse of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce … Pete Nonis … Kate Mills of Monument Advocacy … Rob Tappan … Al-Monitor's Elizabeth Hagedorn … Bill Greener III … former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta … Jesse Holland … former Reps. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) (8-0) and Donna Edwards (D-Md.) … Marc Kasowitz … Laura Tyson … Yaffa Fredrick THE SHOWS (Full Sunday show listings here): Fox News 'Sunday Morning Futures': President Donald Trump. POLITICO 'The Conversation with Dasha Burns': Alex Bruesewitz. NBC 'Meet the Press': Zohran Mamdani … Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) … Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). Panel: Courtney Kube, Stephanie Murphy, Amna Nawaz and Marc Short. ABC 'This Week': Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) … House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries … Fiona Havers. Supreme Court panel: Devin Dwyer and Sarah Isgur. Panel: Ramesh Ponnuru, Marianna Sotomayor and Faiz Shakir. FOX 'Fox News Sunday': Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) … Sen. Jim Banks (R-Ind.). Panel: Olivia Beavers, Richard Fowler, Katie Pavlich and Kevin Roberts. CBS 'Face the Nation': Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) … Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) … Amir-Saeid Iravani … Rafael Mariano Grossi … Scott Gottlieb. CNN 'State of the Union': Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) … Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.). Panel: Rep. Riley Moore ( Alyssa Farah Griffin, Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) and Ashley Allison. MSNBC 'The Weekend: Primetime': Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.). NewsNation 'The Hill Sunday': Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) … Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) … Carol Moseley Braun. Panel: Burgess Everett, Domenico Montanaro, Margaret Talev and Jason Willick. Send Playbookers tips to playbook@ or text us on Signal here. Playbook couldn't happen without our editor Zack Stanton and Playbook Podcast producer Callan Tansill-Suddath.
Scoop
a day ago
- Business
- Scoop
One Bad Rainstorm Away From Disaster: Why Proposed Changes To Forestry Rules Won't Solve The ‘Slash' Problem
Article – The Conversation Even when forestry companies fully comply with current standards, slash discharge and erosion can happen. New rules must set size and location limits on clear-felling. The biggest environmental problems for commercial plantation forestry in New Zealand's steep hill country are discharges of slash (woody debris left behind after logging) and sediment from clear-fell harvests. During the past 15 years, there have been 15 convictions of forestry companies for slash and sediment discharges into rivers, on land and along the coastline. Such discharges are meant to be controlled by the National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry, which set environmental rules for forestry activities such as logging roads and clear-fell harvesting. The standards are part of the Resource Management Act (RMA), which the government is reforming. The government revised the standards' slash-management rules in 2023 after Cyclone Gabrielle. But it it is now consulting on a proposal to further amend the standards because of cost, uncertainty and compliance issues. We believe the proposed changes fail to address the core reasons for slash and sediment discharges. We recently analysed five convictions of forestry companies under the RMA for illegal discharges. Based on this analysis, which has been accepted for publication in the New Zealand Journal of Forestry, we argue that the standards should set limits to the size and location of clear-felling areas on erosion-susceptible land. Why the courts convicted 5 forestry companies In the aftermath of destructive storms in the Gisborne district during June 2018, five forestry companies were convicted for breaches of the RMA for discharges of slash and sediment from their clear-fell harvesting operations. These discharges resulted from landslides and collapsed earthworks (including roads). There has been a lot of criticism of forestry's performance during these storms and subsequent events such as Cyclone Gabrielle. However, little attention has been given to why the courts decided to convict the forestry companies for breaches of the RMA. The courts' decisions clearly explain why the sediment and slash discharges happened, why the forestry companies were at fault, and what can be done to prevent these discharges in future on erosion-prone land. New Zealand's plantation forest land is ranked for its susceptibility to erosion using a four-colour scale, from green (low) to red (very high). Because of the high erosion susceptibility, additional RMA permissions (consents) for earthworks and harvesting are required on red-ranked areas. New Zealand-wide, only 7% of plantation forests are on red land. A further 17% are on orange (high susceptibility) land. But in the Gisborne district, 55% of commercial forests are on red land. This is why trying to manage erosion is such a problem in Gisborne's forests. Key findings from the forestry cases In all five cases, the convicted companies had consents from the Gisborne District Council to build logging roads and clear-fell large areas covering hundreds or even thousands of hectares. A significant part of the sediment and slash discharges originated from landslides that were primed to occur after the large-scale clear-fell harvests. But since the harvests were lawful, these landslides were not relevant to the decision to convict. Instead, all convictions were for compliance failures where logging roads and log storage areas collapsed or slash was not properly disposed of, even though these only partly contributed to the collective sediment and slash discharges downstream. The court concluded that: Clear-fell harvesting on land highly susceptible to erosion required absolute compliance with resource consent conditions. Failures to correctly build roads or manage slash contributed to slash and sediment discharges downstream. Even with absolute compliance, clear-felling on such land was still risky. This was because a significant portion of the discharges were due to the lawful activity of cutting down trees and removing them, leaving the land vulnerable to landslides and other erosion. The second conclusion is critical. It means that even if forestry companies are fully compliant with the standards and consents, slash and sediment discharges can still happen after clear-felling. And if this happens, councils can require companies to clean up these discharges and prevent them from happening again. This is not a hypothetical scenario. Recently, the Gisborne District Council successfully applied to the Environment Court for enforcement orders requiring clean-up of slash deposits and remediation of harvesting sites. If the forestry companies fail to comply, they can be held in contempt of court. Regulations are not just red tape This illustrates a major problem with the standards that applies to erosion-susceptible forest land everywhere in New Zealand, not just in the Gisborne district. Regulations are not just 'red tape'. They provide certainty to businesses that as long as they are compliant, their activities should be free from legal prosecution and enforcement. The courts' decisions and council enforcement actions show that forestry companies can face considerable legal risk, even if compliant with regulatory requirements for earthworks and harvesting. Clear-felled forests on erosion-prone land are one bad rainstorm away from disaster. But with well planned, careful harvesting of small forest areas, this risk can be kept at a tolerable level. However, the standards and the proposed amendments do not require small clear-fell areas on erosion-prone land. If this shortcoming is not fixed, communities and ecosystems will continue to bear the brunt of the discharges from large-scale clear-fell harvests. To solve this problem, the standards must proactively limit the size and location of clear-felling areas on erosion-prone land. This will address the main cause of catastrophic slash and sediment discharges from forests, protecting communities and ecosystems. And it will enable forestry companies to plan their harvests with greater confidence that they will not be subject to legal action. Disclosure statement Mark Bloomberg receives funding from the government's Envirolink fund and from local authorities and forestry companies. He is a member of the NZ Institute of Forestry and the NZ Society of Soil Science. Steve Urlich does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's attack on long-standing principle of birthright citizenship stands, as Supreme Court sidesteps constitutional issue − for now
(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) Carol Nackenoff, Swarthmore College and Julie Novkov, University at Albany, State University of New York (THE CONVERSATION) One of President Donald Trump's first executive orders relating to immigration and immigrants is a direct attack on the long-standing constitutional principle of birthright citizenship. That's the declaration in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen, regardless of their parents' nationalities or immigration status. Specifically, Trump's order says the federal government will stop issuing federal identification documents such as Social Security cards and passports to infants born in the U.S. unless at least one of their parents is either a U.S. citizen or a 'lawful permanent resident.' So it would deny paperwork to infants born to people who are in the U.S. by other, legal means, such as work, tourist or student visas, as well as to undocumented people. Several states have filed suit to block the move. Federal courts blocked Trump's order from taking effect across the U.S. But on June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court paused these blocks, ruling that the injunctions had to be reviewed to ensure that only the parties specifically named in suits who have standing are receiving relief. The court's ruling will likely trigger a wave of class action lawsuits seeking to extend protective orders to cover larger groups of individuals. But for now, the Trump administration has a green light to begin planning for its implementation of the order in 30 days. The justices did not rule on whether ending birthright citizenship is constitutional. This first step down a path to deny citizenship to some individuals born in the United States reflects a conflict that's been going on for nearly 200 years: who gets to be an American citizen. Debates in American history over who gets citizenship and what kind of citizenship they get have always involved questions of race and ethnicity, as we have learned through our individual research on the historical status of Native Americans and African Americans and joint research on restricting Chinese immigration. Nonetheless, even in the highly racialized political environment of the late 19th century, the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed an expansive view of birthright citizenship. In an 1898 ruling, the court decreed that the U.S.-born children of immigrants were citizens, regardless of their parents' ancestry. That decision set the terms for the current controversy, as various Republican leaders, U.S. Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, as well as Vice President JD Vance, have claimed that they will possess the power to overturn more than a century of federal constitutional law and policy and deny birthright citizenship. Citizenship by birth Most citizens of the U.S. are born, not made. Before the Civil War, the U.S. had generally followed the English practice of granting citizenship to children born in the country. In 1857, though, the Supreme Court decided the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, with Chief Justice Roger Taney declaring that people of African descent living in the U.S. – whether free or enslaved, and regardless of where they were born – were not actually U.S. citizens. After the Civil War, Congress explicitly rejected the Dred Scott decision, first by passing legislation reversing the ruling and then by writing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which specified that ' [a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' This broad language intentionally included more than just the people who had been freed from slavery at the end of the Civil War: During legislative debate, members of Congress decided that the amendment should cover the children of other nonwhite groups, such as Chinese immigrants and those identified at the time as 'Gypsies.' Still barring some people from citizenship This inclusive view of citizenship, however, still had an area judges hadn't made clear yet – the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' In 1884, the Supreme Court had to interpret those words when deciding the case of a Native American who wanted to be a citizen, had renounced his tribal membership and attempted to register to vote. The justices ruled that even though John Elk had been born in the U.S., he was born on a reservation as a member of a Native American tribe and was therefore subject to the tribe's jurisdiction at his birth – not that of the United States. He was, they ruled, not a citizen. The text of the 14th Amendment also became an issue in the late 19th century, when Congress and the Supreme Court were deciding how to handle immigrants from China. An 1882 law had barred Chinese immigrants living in the U.S. from becoming naturalized citizens. A California circuit court, however, ruled in 1884 that those immigrants' U.S.-born children were citizens. In 1898, the Supreme Court took up the question in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, ultimately ruling that children born in the U.S. were, in the 14th Amendment's terms, 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, so long as their parents were not serving in some official capacity as representatives of a foreign government and not part of an invading army. Those children were U.S. citizens at birth. This ruling occurred near the peak of anti-Chinese sentiment that had led Congress to endorse the idea that immigration itself could be illegal. In earlier rulings, the court had affirmed broad powers for Congress to manage immigration and control immigrants. Yet in the Wong Kim Ark ruling, the court did not mention any distinction between the children of legal immigrants and residents and the children of people who were in the United States without appropriate documentation. All people born in the United States were automatically simply citizens. Since the Wong Kim Ark ruling, birthright citizenship rules haven't changed much – but they have remained no less contentious. In 1900 and 1904, leaders of several Pacific islands that make up what is now American Samoa signed treaties granting the U.S. full powers and authority to govern them. These agreements, however, did not grant American Samoans citizenship. A 1952 federal law and State Department policy designates them as ' non-citizen nationals,' which means they can freely live and work in the U.S. but cannot vote in state and federal elections. In 2018, several plaintiffs from American Samoa sued to be recognized as U.S. citizens, covered by the 14th Amendment's provision that they were born 'within' the U.S. and therefore citizens. The district court found for the plaintiffs, but the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that Congress would have to act to extend citizenship to territorial residents. A new debate has ignited over whether Congress has the power to alter birthright citizenship, and even over whether the president, either through an executive order or through directing the State Department not to recognize some individuals as citizens, can change the boundaries around who gets to be a citizen. Efforts to alter birthright citizenship have already provoked legal challenges. Trump is just the latest in a long line of politicians who have objected to the fact that Latin American immigrants who come to the U.S. without legal permission can have babies who are U.S. citizens. Most legal scholars, even those who are quite conservative, see little merit in claims that the established rules can be altered. At least until now, the courts have continued to uphold the centuries-long history of birthright citizenship, dating back to before the Constitution itself and early American court rulings. The question seems likely to reach the Supreme Court again, with the fundamental principle hanging in the balance. This article, which includes material previously published on Jan. 15, 2020, was updated to include the June 27, 2025, U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
How Zohran Mamdani's win in the New York City mayoral primary could ripple across the country
(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) Lincoln Mitchell, Columbia University (THE CONVERSATION) Top Republicans and Democrats alike are talking about the sudden rise of 33-year-old Zohran Mamdani, a state representative who won the Democratic mayoral primary in New York on June 24, 2025, in a surprising victory over more established politicians. While President Donald Trump quickly came out swinging with personal attacks against Mamdani, some establishment Democratic politicians say they are concerned about how the democratic socialist's progressive politics could harm the broader Democratic Party and cause it to lose more centrist voters. New York is a unique American city, with a diverse population and historically liberal politics. So, does a primary mayoral election in New York serve as any kind of harbinger of what could come in the rest of the country? Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Lincoln Mitchell, a political strategy and campaign specialist who lectures at Columbia University, to understand what Mamdani's primary win might indicate about the direction of national politics. Does Mamdani's primary win offer any indication of how the Democratic Party might be transforming on a national level? Mamdani's win is clearly a rebuke of the more corporate wing of the Democratic Party. I know there are people who say that New York is different from the rest of the country. But from a political perspective, Democrats in New York are less different from Democrats in the rest of country than they used to be. That's because the rest of America is so much more diverse than it used to be. But if you look at progressive politicians now in the House of Representatives and state legislatures, they are being elected from all over – not just in big cities like New York anymore. Andrew Cuomo, the former governor of New York, ran an absolutely terrible mayoral campaign. He tried to build a political coalition that is no longer a winning one, which was made up of majorities of African Americans, outer-borough white New Yorkers and orthodox and conservative Jews. Thirty or 40 years ago, that was a powerful coalition. Today, it could not make up a majority. Mamdani visualized and created what a 2025 progressive coalition looks like in New York and recognized that it is going to look different than the past. Mamdani's coalition was based around young, white people – many of them with college degrees who are worried about affordability – ideological lefties and immigrants from parts of the Global South, including the Caribbean and parts of Africa, South Asia and South America. When you say a new kind of political coalition, what policy priorities bring Mamdani's supporters together? Mamdani reframed what I would call redistributive economic policies that have long been central to the progressive agenda. A pillar of his campaign is affordability – a brilliant piece of political marketing because who is against affordability? He came up with some affordability-related policies that got enough buzz, like promising free buses. Free buses are great, but it won't help most working and poor New Yorkers get to work – they take the subway. He has been very critical of Israel and has weathered charges of antisemitism. In the older New York, progressive politicians such as the late Congressman Charlie Rangel were very hawkish on Israel. What Mamdani understood is that in today's America, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party does not care if somebody is, sounds like or comes close to being antisemitic. For those people, calling someone antisemitic sounds Trumpy, and they understand it as a right-wing hit, rather than the legitimate expression of concerns from Jewish people. Some liberals think that claims of antisemitism are simply something done just by those on the right to damage or discredit progressive politicians, but antisemitism is real. Therefore, Mamdani's record on the Jewish issue did not hurt him in the campaign, but he needs to build bridges to Jewish voters, or he will not be able to govern New York City. How else did Mamdani appeal to a base of supporters? He got the support of 'limousine liberals' – including rich, high-profile, progressive people. His supporters include Ella Emhoff, a model and the stepdaughter of Kamala Harris, and the actress Cynthia Nixon, but there were many others. Supporting Mamdani became stylish – almost de rigueur – among certain segments of affluent New York. Mamdani is also a true New Yorker and the voice of a new kind of immigrant. His parents are from Uganda and India. But he is also the child of extreme privilege – his mother, Mira Nair, is a well-known filmmaker, and his father is an accomplished professor. Mamdani went to top schools in New York and knows how to play in elite circles and with white people. He is a Muslim man whose roots are in the Global South, but he is not threatening because he knows how to speak their language. To people of color and immigrants, Mamdani is also one of them. Because of Mamdani's interesting background, he brought the limousine liberals together with the aunties from Bangladesh. Finally, on the charisma scale, Mamdani was so far ahead of other Democratic candidates. Who is going to make better TikTok videos – the good-looking, young man whose mother is a world-famous movie producer, or the older guy who is a loving father and husband but gives off dependable dad, rather than hip young guy, vibes? Is New York City so distinct that you cannot compare politics there to what happens nationwide? I think that nationwide or at the state level there is a potential for something similar to a Mamdani coalition, but not a Mamdani coalition exactly. But in a place like Oklahoma, there are people who are in bad economic shape and who will also respond positively to an affordability-focused, Democratic political campaign. Mamdani remade a progressive New York coalition for this moment. Other progressives politicians should copy the spirit of that and reimagine a winning coalition in their city, state or district. When Trump was campaigning, he focused at least on making groceries cheaper. Mamdani is one of the few Democrats who took the affordability issue back from Trump and addressed it head on and in a much more honest and relevant way. Trump has the phrase, 'Make America Great Again!' That's a popular slogan on baseball caps for Trump supporters. If Mamdani wanted to make a baseball cap, he could just print 'Affordability' on it. Boom. Other Democratic politicians can take that approach of affordability and reframe it in a way that works in Kansas City or elsewhere.
