After wildfire devastation, California seeks public input with new program
After wildfire devastation, California seeks public input with new program
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Los Angeles fire officials fielded questions, concerns in town hall
Emotions ran high inside a packed theater in Malibu, California, as Palisades Fire victims had a chance to press officials.
On the heels of the devastating fires in Los Angeles County last month, California is unveiling a new digital town hall that will initially address recovery efforts before expanding into other major issues.
The platform, known as Engaged California, is meant to give residents a forum to interact with each other about policy priorities and to directly reach government officials to pursue action on them.
Gov. Gavin Newsom is hailing the pilot program as a venue for Californians to 'share their perspectives, concerns, and ideas geared toward finding real solutions.''
Modeled after Taiwan's digital democracy, the initiative seeks public participation and is currently focused on helping those affected by the January fires.
'The platform is the intersection between technology, democracy, and state government,'' said a statement announcing the new program. 'The end goal is to encourage more discussions as a new way to find common ground, a process known internationally as deliberative democracy.''
Here's what to know about Engaged California:
Why is California doing this?
The widespread impact of the fires, which displaced tens of thousands of people in an area with a severe shortage of affordable housing, created an extraordinary need for government services. From shelter to health care to filing insurance claims, residents haven been clamoring for help.
The Newsom administration had been working on a plan for enhanced public engagement for two years. The crisis presented by the fires made it even more urgent to have such a tool.
How will it work?
The state says it wants to hear what residents think about 'pressing issues,'' so this probably won't be the forum to complain about potholes. The Engaged California website asks members of the public to opt in to a topic via e-mail, and once invited, they're encouraged to offer their thoughts. That input, Newsom's office said, will help determine new government services and policies.
The first subjects for discussion are the two major L.A. blazes that erupted Jan. 7, the Palisades and Eaton fires, but respondents can also check a box for future topics.
'We're using an online platform to let you and other Californians have a voice in government. This helps us shape policy – together,'' the site says.
Is this any different from a social media site?
Organizers hope so, given the level of discourse on platforms like X. A certain number of snarky comments are expected, but officials hope a consensus of valuable public opinions will emerge and help guide policymaking.
Academic institutions like Stanford, Harvard and UC-Berkeley, along with the American Public Trust, the Berggruen Institute and the San Francisco Foundation, were involved in developing the initiative.
'The launch of this program and our first deliberation will help us hear from the people we serve,' said Jeffery Marino, director of the California Office of Data and Innovation.
How damaging were the fires?
The firestorm that engulfed parts of the nation's most populous county – most directly the communities of Pacific Palisades, Malibu, Altadena and Pasadena – caused 29 confirmed deaths and destroyed more than 16,200 structures.
The UCLA Anderson School of Management estimated the property and capital losses at between $95 billion and $164 billion, with an additional $4.6 billion in diminished gross domestic product for L.A. County in 2025.
Newsom, who has said the fires may go down as the costliest natural disaster the nation has ever seen, requested almost $40 billion in recovery funds from the federal government. The Trump administration has indicated it may impose conditions on any future aid.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Harvard author Steven Pinker appears on podcast linked to scientific racism
The Harvard psychologist and bestselling author Steven Pinker appeared on the podcast of Aporia, an outlet whose owners advocate for a revival of race science and have spoken of seeking 'legitimation by association' by platforming more mainstream figures. The appearance underlines past incidents in which Pinker has encountered criticism for his association with advocates of so-called 'human biodiversity', which other academics have called a 'rebranding' of racial genetic essentialism and scientific racism. Pinker's appearance marks another milestone in the efforts of many in Silicon Valley and rightwing media and at the fringes of science to rehabilitate previously discredited models of a biologically determined racial hierarchy. Related: Revealed: International 'race science' network secretly funded by US tech boss Patrik Hermansson, a researcher at UK anti-racism non-profit Hope Not Hate, said that Pinker's 'decision to appear on Aporia, a far-right platform for scientific racism, provides an invaluable service to an extremist outlet by legitimising its content and attracting new followers'. He added: 'By lending his Harvard credentials to Aporia, Pinker contributes to the normalisation and spread of dangerous, discredited ideas.' The Guardian emailed Pinker for comment using his Harvard email address but received no response. Nor did he reply when approached through his university press office or his publishers. In the hour-long recording published this week, Pinker engaged in a wide-ranging discussion about economic progress, artificial intelligence and social policy with host Noah Carl. During the podcast, Pinker expressed agreement with claims made by Charles Murray, the author of The Bell Curve, a prominent figure in the 'human biodiversity' movement that seeks to promote race-based theories of intelligence, and like Pinker a one-time participant in a human biodiversity email list convened by Steve Sailer. When Carl cited 'evidence collected by sociologists like Charles Murray suggesting that part of the family breakdown in some communities in America seems to be attributable to the state taking over the traditional function of the father', Pinker responded: 'I think that is a problem.' He added: 'It is a huge class-differentiated phenomenon, as Murray and others write it out.' Reporting last October in the Guardian revealed that Aporia operates within a broader network of groups and individuals seeking to mainstream racial pseudoscience. The initiative had been secretly funded by US tech entrepreneur Andrew Conru until he was contacted for comment on the reporting, and Aporia's editors are connected to far-right extremists, including Erik Ahrens, whom German authorities have designated a 'rightwing extremist' posing an 'extremely high' danger. The investigation also found that Aporia was owned by the Human Diversity Foundation, a Wyoming LLC founded in 2022 by Emil Kirkegaard, a Danish self-described eugenicist and race scientist who has spent years attempting to access genetic datasets, and maintaining publishing platforms including OpenPsych and Mankind Quarterly that serve a network of race-science researchers. The same reporting revealed that in secretly recorded conversations, Aporia co-founder Matthew Frost expressed ambitions for it to 'become something bigger, become that policy, front-facing thinktank, and bleed into the traditional institutions'. He also said that the publication had recruited mainstream writers for the purposes of 'legitimacy via association'. Carl, listed as editor on Aporia's masthead, was dismissed from a Cambridge fellowship in 2019 after an investigation found that he had published articles in collaboration with far-right extremists. He spoke at least twice at the eugenicist London Conference on Intelligence and in a 2016 paper wrote that anti-immigrant stereotypes were 'reasonably accurate' in relation to their propensity for crime. The 2016 conference program, which Carl attended, featured a quote from early 20th-century psychologist Edward Thorndike stating: 'Selective breeding can alter man's capacity to learn, to keep sane, to cherish justice or to be happy.' Aporia's podcast has previously featured prominent white nationalists including Helmuth Nyborg, a Danish psychologist who was suspended and reinstated in 2006 as a professor at the University of Aarhus over his research linking gender and intelligence, and who in 2017 spoke to the white nationalist American Renaissance conference. In his Aporia appearance, Nyborg connected immigration and crime, claiming that 'the more genetically inhomogeneous a population is, the more critical it becomes in terms of social unrule, or what you'll call that social disturbance, criminality and so on'. Another former guest, Jared Taylor, is American Renaissance's founder. Pinker is world famous as the author of bestselling books including The Better Angels of Our Nature and Enlightenment Now. His work has emphasized themes including universal human cognitive abilities and the decline of violence over time, and has previously advocated for 'colorblind equality'. His appearance on Aporia, however, follows a recent pattern of controversy around his connections to figures promoting eugenics and scientific racism, including Steve Sailer. Pinker included a Sailer essay in a collection of American science writing. According to science writer Angela Saini's Superior, a history of the revival of race science, Pinker was in turn an early participant in Sailer's Human Biodiversity email discussion group. His ties to Sailer drew criticism from other writers including Malcolm Gladwell. The Guardian has previously reported on the recent revival of Sailer, a 'white supremacist' and a 'proponent of scientific racism', by the far-right publisher Passage Press. A 2021 academic study led by UCLA academics identified Pinker as one of the 'political centrists' who have 'played a role in legitimizing the ideas of the human biodiversity movement' in a way that has benefited white nationalists, despite not being core proponents themselves. Hermannson, the Hope Not Hate researcher, said: 'Considering the coverage Aporia has received and its long list of racist contributors, it's hard for Pinker to argue he engaged with it unknowingly.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump Reprises One of the Worst Things He Did in His First Term
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Donald Trump won the presidency in part on promises to deport undocumented immigrants with criminal records. But his earliest executive orders—trying to undo birthright citizenship, suspending critical refugee programs—made clear he wants to attack legal immigrants, too. In our new series, we'll track the Trump administration's attempts to exclude an ever-growing number of people from the American experiment. One of President Donald Trump's defining moments during his first term was a travel ban against Muslim-majority countries. Now in his second term he's reprised that policy, introducing a new travel ban on Wednesday night that bars nationals of 12 countries from entering the U.S. starting on Monday. That announcement came on the heels of the administration's assault on international students, banning them from enrolling at Harvard University. The State Department is also looking to revoke Chinese students' visas while also pausing all upcoming interviews for international students scheduled to study here in a few short months. Meanwhile, the government's legal defense has taken a beating in the case of the migrants unlawfully deported to El Salvador—and, separately, a Maryland man who was wrongfully sent there is now headed back to the U.S. Here's the immigration news we're keeping an eye on this week: After ordering the secretary of state to come up with a list of countries that pose national security threats to the U.S., Trump made it official: We have a new travel ban. Starting on Monday, people from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen will be restricted from entering the U.S. Nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela will also be partially restricted from entering the country. The order says that admitting people from these countries would be 'detrimental' to U.S. interests for varying reasons: It claims they have 'deficient' vetting and screening information of their citizens, 'significant' terrorist presence, and a high 'visa-overstay rate,' and they do not cooperate when the U.S. government deports their nationals. On Truth Social, the president shared a video explaining the new travel ban and cited the recent attack in Colorado, where an Egyptian man threw Molotov cocktails at people participating in a march for Israeli hostages. The suspect was an Egyptian national who had overstayed his visa but had applied for asylum. (Egypt is not on the travel ban list). Immigration authorities also arrested his wife and five children with the intention of deporting them—all of them are Egyptian nationals who were part of the same asylum application—but a federal judge has temporarily blocked that move. There are some exceptions, including green card holders, dual citizens, certain athletes traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup and Olympics, Afghans who worked for the U.S. government and are holders of a special immigrant visa, and close relatives of U.S. family members and diplomats. Taken all together, the American Immigration Council estimated the 19 countries listed in the travel ban have populations of over 475 million people. They are predominantly Muslim and African, reminiscent of Trump's 2017 travel ban, which was challenged in court before the Supreme Court ultimately let a revised version stand. 'The latest travel ban will have devastating consequences for tens of thousands of people,' said Elora Mukherjee, clinical law professor at Columbia University and director of the school's Immigrants' Rights Clinic. 'Resulting in family separations, harming refugees and asylum-seekers, and throwing the lives of prospective international students who intended to study in the U.S. into disarray.' It's been more than two months since over 260 immigrants were accused of being members of foreign gangs, forced onto planes and summarily deported to El Salvador, with no notice, evidence, or court hearing. The Trump administration has been defending their deportation in a messy legal battle that took a new turn this week: U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg ordered the federal government to offer each deportee a court hearing. The Trump administration deported these men within roughly 24 hours of the president signing an executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Though these men are no longer on American soil, Boasberg's most recent order grants them class-action certification so they can still sue the Trump administration over violations of their due process rights. That's significant because throughout this legal battle, the Trump administration has argued the men are completely under the custody of El Salvador now and the U.S. government's hands are tied. Boasberg acknowledged that but affirmed that none of the plaintiffs were granted habeas corpus—a Constitutional right allowing anyone to contest the legality of their detention—before being shuttled on to a plane and deported to El Salvador, so the federal government must 'fix its legal wrongs.' Even the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration had violated their due process rights and declared that immigrants are entitled to them under the Fifth Amendment. Boasberg's order will force the Trump administration to come before a judge with any and all evidence they have indicating that each deportee is in fact a member of a foreign gang. (Court documents indicate the evidence is nothing short of thin.) Then on Friday, another big development dropped: ABC News reported that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man the Trump administration admitted was deported in error to El Salvador, was on his way back to the U.S. He's been at the heart of the Trump administration's legal battle over the Alien Enemies Act, with the Supreme Court ordering the federal government to 'facilitate' his release from El Salvador's custody. That hard-fought moment arrived Friday, but at the same time a two-count indictment was also revealed against Abrego Garcia. It alleges that he participated in a conspiracy to transport undocumented migrants through the U.S., though Abrego Garcia has not yet responded to the new charges. The Trump administration has been pulling all the levers it can find to limit entry of international students at college campuses around the country. Harvard has been in the president's crosshairs ever since it refused to accept a list of demands from the administration and sued the federal government. The Trump administration retaliated by announcing it was cutting off Harvard's ability to enroll international students. A federal judge blocked that order and it's currently being hashed out in court. Secretary of State Marco Rubio jumped in to announce he had instructed U.S. embassies and consulates around the world to stop processing any new student visa appointments. In an internal cable viewed by Politico, Rubio said the State Department is taking a closer look at the existing screening process of student visitors and would develop new guidance in the coming days—it's not clear if it's been issued yet or not. Rubio also announced he would be 'aggressively' revoking visas of Chinese students specifically who are currently studying in the U.S., targeting 'those with connections to the Chinese Community Party or studying in critical fields.' The new action prompted over 30 higher education groups to come together and send a letter to Rubio, noting that in the 2023–24 academic year there were over 1 million international students in the U.S., which resulted in $44 billion worth of nationwide economic impact. Over the last few weeks, the Trump administration has deployed a new strategy in pursuit of the president's mass deportation goals. Undocumented immigrants will show up to court hearings in an effort to follow the rules and find a way to remain in the U.S. legally. But as they stand before a judge, they learn that the government has dropped their immigration case. As they go home, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents ambush them and promptly arrest them. Historically, ICE has avoided immigration enforcement at and around courthouses, especially over noncriminal proceedings, because they want to encourage people to follow proper immigration procedure. However, under the law, they are technically allowed to make arrests in federal courthouses. And that's exactly what's been happening over and over again around the country, in Chicago, San Francisco, New York City and Phoenix. A similar situation happened to Carol Mayorga, an undocumented immigrant from Hong Kong whose legal name is Ming Li Hui. Mayorga came to the U.S. on a tourist visa 20 years ago, but she's remained here ever since. She became a mother of three children and is a waitress at a local diner in a rural Missouri farming town. During a routine appointment to renew her work authorization, Mayorga was detained for hours, then shackled and transported to a Missouri jail. She remained there for over a month, while her community rallied support to push for her release. The diner where she was employed raised over $20,000 for Mayorga and her children, garnering a story in the New York Times about how the largely Trump-supporting community was questioning his deportation policies in cases like Mayorga's. 'I voted for Donald Trump, and so did practically everyone here,' said a friend of Mayorga's. 'But no one voted to deport moms. We were all under the impression we were just getting rid of the gangs, the people who came here in droves.' This week, Mayorga was finally released from jail after ICE determined she was eligible for the Deferred Enforced Departure program, which applies to certain residents of Hong Kong. It's only valid until February 2027, and Mayorga still has a deportation order against her.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
The ‘Trump did it' defense: Colleges' and companies' new excuse to roll back wokeness
'Trump made me do it.' Across the country, this is a virtual mantra being mouthed everywhere from businesses to higher education. Corporations are eliminating woke programs. Why? Trump did it. Universities are eliminating DEI offices and cracking down on campus extremism. Trump did it. Democratic politicians are abandoning far-left policies. Trump did it. For those who lack both courage or conviction, the claim of coercion is often the next best thing. The 'TDI defense' is born. They did not invent Trump, but they needed him. For years, schools like Harvard and Columbia ignored warnings about the rising antisemitism on campuses. They refused to punish students engaged in criminal conduct, including occupying and trashing buildings. These administrators did not want to risk being tagged by the far-left mob for taking meaningful action. Then the election occurred, and suddenly they were able to blame Trump for doing what they should have been doing all along. Administrators are now cracking down on extreme elements on campuses. At the same time, hundreds of schools are closing DEI offices around the country. Again, most are not challenging the Trump administration's orders on DEI or seeking to adopt more limited responses. They are all in with the move, while professing that they have little choice. In other words, schools are increasingly turning to TDI to end DEI. The legal landscape has changed with an administration committed to opposing many DEI programs as discriminatory and unlawful. However, it is the speed and general lack of resistance that is so notable. In most cases, the Trump administration did not have to ask twice. Trump seemed to 'have them at hello,' as if they were longing for a reason to reverse these trends. Many will continue to fight this fight surreptitiously. For example, shortly before the Trump election, the University of North Carolina System Board of Governors voted to ban DEI and focus on 'institutional neutrality.' But then UNC Asheville Dean of Students Megan Pugh was caught on videotape, saying that eliminating these offices means nothing: 'I mean we probably still do anyway… but you gotta keep it quiet.' She added, 'I love breaking rules.' The Board, perhaps not feeling the same thrill, reportedly responded by firing her. However, Pugh's approach to rules in general has long been followed by college administrators. After the Supreme Court declared that universities like Harvard and UNC were engaging in racial discrimination in admissions, some schools set out to eliminate the overt uses of race while seeking to achieve the same results covertly. The same pattern is playing out in businesses. Over the last few weeks, companies ranging from Amazon to IBM have removed references to DEI programs or policies. Bank of America explained, 'We evaluate and adjust our programs in light of new laws, court decisions, and, more recently, executive orders from the new administration.' Once established, these DEI offices tended to expand as an irresistible force within their institutions and companies. Full-time diversity experts demanded additional hirings and policies on hiring, promotion, and public campaigns. Since these experts were tasked with finding areas for 'reform,' their proposals were treated as extensions of that mandate. To oppose the reforms was to oppose the cause. While some executives and administrators supported such efforts, others simply lacked the courage to oppose them. No one wanted to be accused of being opposed to 'equity' or being racist, sexist, or homophobic. The results were continually expanding programs impacting every level of businesses and institutions. Then Trump showed up. Suddenly, these executives and administrators had an excuse to reverse this trend. They could also rely on court decisions that have undermined longstanding claims of advocates that favoring certain groups at the expense of others was entirely lawful. This week, the Supreme Court added to these cases with its unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, to remove impediments to lawsuits by members of majorities who are discriminated against. For many years, lower courts have required members of majority groups (white, male, or heterosexual) to shoulder an added burden before they could establish claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In a decision written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court rejected that additional burden and ordered that everyone must be treated similarly under the law. Many commentators noted that the ruling further undermined the rationales for disparate treatment based on race or other criteria within DEI. In other words, more of these programs are likely to be the subject of federal investigations and lawsuits. Of course, if these executives and administrators were truly committed to the programs in principle, they could resolve to fight in the courts. The alternative is just to blame Trump and restore prior policies that enforce federal standards against all discriminatory or preferred treatment given to employees based on race, sex, religion, or other classifications. Former Vice President Hubert Humphrey once observed that 'to err is human. To blame someone else is politics.' That is evident among politicians. For years, many moderate Democrats voted to support far-left agendas during the Biden administration, lacking the courage or principles to oppose the radical wing of the Democratic Party. Now, some are coming forward to say that the party has 'lost touch with voters.' Rather than admit that their years of supporting these policies were wrong, they blame Trump and argue that the party must move toward the center to survive. The calculus is simple: You never act on principle when you can blame a villain instead. It is not a profile of courage but one of simple convenience. No need for admissions or responsibility — just TDI and done. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.'
