 |
|
|
|||||
The National Governors Association is pulling out of an annual meeting at the White House after President Donald Trump declined to invite two Democratic governors, undercutting one of Washington’s few remaining bipartisan gatherings.Trump is still expected to meet with governors at the White House on Friday but the event will not be facilitated by an organization founded more than a century ago to help state leaders from both parties advocate for their interests in Washington. The Republican president had refused to include Democratic Govs. Jared Polis of Colorado and Wes Moore of Maryland and recently blasted them on social media as “not worthy of being there.”In a brief interview Thursday, Polis said he does not have “any ability to get in (Trump’s) head.” Polis said he was nonetheless meeting with governors from both parties while he is in the nation’s capital.“I’ve spent quality time with my colleagues this morning and really learning from one another and taking best practices that Republican or Democratic governors have launched in their state,” he said. “It’s really what these meetings are about.”The episode underscores the confrontational approach Trump has taken during his second term toward state leaders he does not like. He has at times threatened to withhold federal money or send in troops over the objections of local leaders. Now, even a ceremonial White House dinner has become a flashpoint and fellow Republicans openly acknowledge that Trump’s aim as president is not to unify the country.“He’s not putting his mind to it,” Gov. Spencer Cox, R-Utah, said at an event sponsored by Politico. “He’s said very clearly that that’s not who he is.”In an interview Wednesday, Moore said he has “no desire to have beef with the president of the United States.”“I didn’t run for governor like, man, I can’t wait so me and the president can go toe to toe,” said Moore, the NGA’s vice chair. “But the fact that he is waking up in the middle of the night and tweeting about me, I just, I pray for him and I just feel bad for him because that has just got to be a really, really hard existence.” Governors try to stay above the partisan fighting The dynamics are a far cry from the air of bipartisanship that Moore and Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican who chairs the NGA, sought to portray as governors began to assemble in Washington. Moore and Stitt shared a stage several times this week swapping jokes and praise.“I have gotten, through the National Governors Association, a really good chance to know the heart of this man and how much he is a great American, loves his country, loves his citizens and is just trying to do the best he can for Maryland,” Stitt said Thursday at the Politico event.After Stitt tried to resolve the standoff between the White House and the Democratic governors last week, Trump blasted him as a “RINO,” short for Republican In Name Only, and accused him of misrepresenting his position. Stitt struck a conciliatory tone Thursday, noting he would participate in White House events.“Politics has a way of just beating you down over time so I can’t imagine being president of the United States,” Stitt said. “He’s got a tough job to do.”Former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican who occasionally disagreed with Trump, said it was a “mistake” for the White House not to include all governors.“There never was a huge amount of real work that got accomplished but it was a nice thing annually to bring all the governors Republicans and Democrats together,” he said in an interview. “I know there’s a lot of friction but it just seems in everybody’s best interest even if you passionately disagree and you don’t like the other person or you’re mad about whatever, it can’t hurt to be in the same room together.”Beyond the White House meeting, some governors also shared pointed criticisms of the administration’s ever-expanding power. They bemoaned the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to limit Trump’s ambitions and they cast themselves as counterweights to the executive.“Presidents aren’t supposed to do this stuff,” Cox said. “Congress needs to get their act together. And stop performing for TikTok and actually start doing stuff. That’s the flaw we’re dealing with right now.”Cox added that “it is up to the states to hold the line.” Presidential buzz runs alongside the conference As governors cycled through panels and interviews, one question hovered: Who among them might seek the presidency in 2028?Moore and Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania were among the potential Democratic presidential contenders in Washington this week. Other Democrats, including Govs. Gavin Newsom of California and JB Pritzker of Illinois, were not in town.Stitt and Moore, during a panel discussion, both declined to rule out a future bid and emphasized their focus on their home states.Gov. Andy Beshear, D-Ky., took a more open approach. He arrived in Washington days after announcing he would release a book this fall and fielded questions at a Center for American Progress event about how he might campaign for president if he enters the race.Asked afterward about his timeline for a decision, Beshear said his focus this year remains on Kentucky and “then after that, I’ll sit down with my family and we’ll consider it.” Joey Cappelletti and Steven Sloan, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
The biggest drama in Hollywood in recent months hasnt been on the silver screen but in the boardrooms of two of the most powerful companies in the industry. In December, streaming giant Netflix announced its intention to acquire legendary Hollywood studio Warner Bros. after its planned separation from Discovery Global. The proposed merger has sparked heated debate in Hollywood about the future of the cinema industry, and now, one of the most successful filmmakers in the world, James Cameron, has entered the fray. Titanic director calls proposed merger disastrous Many in Hollywood have not publicly spoken out against the proposed Netflix-Warner Bros. merger, fearing it could hurt their future employment prospects should it go through. However, as one of the most successful and profitable filmmakers of all time, James Cameron doesnt have to worry about any potential blacklisting. On February 10, Cameron sent a letter to Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who is chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, and thus has significant sway over mergers the size of the one proposed by Netflix. In the letter, which was first reported by CNBC, the Avatar director did not mince words, saying “the proposed sale of Warner Bros. Discovery to Netflix will be disastrous for the theatrical motion picture business that I have dedicated my life’s work to. Camerons three main arguments against the megamerger Cameron’s letter is comprehensive in detailing his opposition to a Netflix-Warner Bros. merger, but most of his points center around three main arguments. First, Cameron says that if the Netflix-WB deal goes through, it will significantly harm the cinema industry. The business model of Netflix is directly at odds with the theatrical film production and exhibition business, which employs hundreds of thousands of Americans, he points out. He noted that Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos has in the past called cinemas “an outdated concept. Cameron argues that if Netflix acquires Warner Bros. and, as a result, pushes more of WBs films to streaming instead of a theatrical release, that will result in movie theaters having fewer films to show, which will not only hurt theater chains but also their employees and thus local communities. Cameron notes that while Netflix has committed to maintaining a theatrical window for releases for 17 days, that timeframe is ridiculously short compared to historic norms. Second, Cameron says the merger would likely result in fewer motion pictures being made, which would dramatically impact those who work in the film industry, from PAs to visual effects (VFX) artists to caterers. For instance, on a major film like Avatar, Cameron said that he frequently employs 3,000 people for up to four years. These types of job-creating big-budget films are highly dependent on a healthy exhibition community. If such films are no longer green-lit because the market contracts further, which the Netflix acquisition of Warner Brothers will certainly accelerate, then many jobs will be lost, Cameron wrote. Theaters will close. Fewer films will be made. Service providers such as VFX companies will go out of business. The job losses will spiral. Finally, the Aliens director contends that the Netflix-WB deal would hurt Americas soft power and cultural impact across the globe. At a time when the US trade deficit is a major concern, one of America’s largest export sectors will be negatively impacted,” Cameron wrote. “Which is to say nothing of the cost to our greatest cultural export: movies. “The US may no longer lead in auto or steel manufacturing, but it is still the world leader in movies,” he added. “That will change for the worse. Fast Company has reached out to Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery for comment. As industry awaits outcome, Netflix stock continues to sink While Camerons letter opposing the Netflix-WB merger likely gives a lot of weight to those who share his arguments, the outcome of the proposed merger is still far from certainnot least of which because Netflix isnt the only one interested in acquiring Warner Bros. Paramount Skydance has launched a hostile bid for Warner Bros. that would also include Discovery Global. Any final agreement would of course need to be approved by regulators. Yet one thing is clear: Since the proposed Netflix-WB merger was announced in December, Netflixs stock price (Nasdaq: NFLX) has taken a beating. On December 5, the day the deal was announced, Netflix stock closed at just above $100 per share. As of market close yesterday, NFLX shares were trading at $77. Thats a 23% drop. On the other hand, shares of Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (Nasdaq: WBD) have leapt in the same timeframe. The day before the proposed merger was announced, WBD shares were trading at around $24.55. As of yesterdays close, those shares are sitting at $28.53, a jump of more than 16%.
Category:
E-Commerce
In a stretch of Louisiana with about 170 fossil fuel and petrochemical plants, premature death is a fact of life for people living nearby. The air is so polluted and the cancer rates so high it is known as Cancer Alley.“Most adults in the area are attending two to three funerals per month,” said Gary C. Watson Jr., who was born and raised in St. John the Baptist Parish, a majority Black community in Cancer Alley about 30 miles outside of New Orleans. His father survived cancer, but in recent years, at least five relatives have died from it.Cancer Alley is one of many patches of America mostly minority and poor that suffer higher levels of air pollution from fossil fuel facilities that emit tiny particles connected to higher death rates. When the federal government in 2009 targeted carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as a public health danger because of climate change, it led to tighter regulation of pollution and cleaner air in some communities. But this month, the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency overturned that “endangerment finding.”Public health experts say the change will likely mean more illness and death for Americans, with communities like Watson’s hit hardest. On Wednesday, a coalition of health and environmental groups sued the EPA over the revocation, calling it unlawful and harmful.“Not having these protections, it’s only going to make things worse,” said Watson, with the environmental justice group Rise St. James Louisiana. He also worries that revoking the endangerment finding will increase emissions that will worsen the state’s hurricanes.The Trump administration said the finding a cornerstone for many regulations aimed at fighting climate change hurts industry and the economy. President Donald Trump has called the idea “a scam” despite repeated studies showing the opposite.Growing evidence shows that poor and Black, Latino and other racial and ethnic groups are typically more vulnerable than white people to pollution and climate-driven floods, hurricanes, extreme heat and more because they tend to have less resources to protect against and recover from them. The EPA, in a 2021 report no longer on its website, concluded the same.The finding’s reversal will affect everyone, but “overburdened communities, which are typically communities of color, Indigenous communities and low-income communities, they will, again, suffer most from these actions,” said Matthew Tejada, senior vice president for environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Council and a former deputy with the EPA’s office for environmental justice.Hilda Berganza, climate program manager with the Hispanic Access Foundation, said: “Communities that are the front lines are going to feel it the most. And we can see that the Latino population is one of those communities that is going feel it even more than others because of where we live, where we work.” Research shows the unequal harms of pollution, climate change A study published in November found more than 46 million people in the U.S. live within a mile of at least one type of energy supply infrastructure, such as an oil well, a power plant or an oil refinery. But the study found that “persistently marginalized” racial and ethnic groups were more likely to live near multiple such sites. Latinos had the highest exposure.The EPA, in that 2021 report, estimated that with a 2-degree Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) rise in global warming, Black people were 40% more likely to live in places with the highest projected rise in deaths because of extreme heat. Latinos, who are overrepresented in outdoor industries such as agriculture and construction, were 43% more likely to live where labor hour losses were expected to be the highest because of heat.Julia Silver, a senior research analyst at the University of California, Los Angeles’ Latino Policy and Politics Institute, found in her own research that California Latino communities had 23 more days of extreme heat annually than non-Latino white neighborhoods. Her team also found those areas have poor air quality at about double the rate, with twice as many asthma-related emergency room visits. Other research shows that Latino children are 40% more likely to die from asthma than white children in part because many lack consistent health care access.“What we’re risking with a rollback like this at the federal level is really human health and well-being in these marginalized groups,” Silver said. Experts say the disparate impacts will be significant Armando Carpio, a longtime pastor in Los Angeles, has seen firsthand how vulnerable his mostly Latino parishioners are. Many are construction workers and gardeners who work outside, often in extreme heat. Others live and work near polluting freeways. He sees children with asthma and elders with dementia, both linked to exposure to air pollution.“We’re regressing,” he said. “I don’t know how many years back, but all of this really affects us.”It is difficult to quantify how much more communities of color could be impacted by the finding’s revocation, but experts who spoke with The Associated Press all said it would be significant.“You will see statistically significant increases in excess morbidity and mortality when it comes to climate impacts and health impacts associated with co-pollutants” in communities of color, said Sacoby Wilson, a University of Maryland professor and executive director of the nonprofit Center for Engagement, Environmental Justice and Health INpowering Communities.Beverly Wright, founding director of the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice in New Orleans, said at least four Black communities in Cancer Alley no longer exist because of the expansion of industrial facilities. The repeal will bring more pollution, higher cancer rates, more extreme weather and the disappearance of more historic communities, she said.“It has us going in the wrong direction, and our communities are now at greater risk,” she said. The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment Dorany Pineda and Seth Borenstein, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
You can put a lot of different things in fried rice, but certainly not glass. Unfortunately, that might be an ingredient in certain packages of Trader Joes chicken fried rice. Frozen food manufacturer Ajinomoto Foods North America is recalling more than three million pounds of chicken fried rice products due to potential glass contamination. The recall includes products with both Ajinomoto and Trader Joes branding. The manufacturer, based in Portland, Oregon, notified the U.S. Department of Agricultures (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) after it received four customer complaints of glass in the rice. As of Thursday, February 19, no related injuries have been reported. Here’s what you need to know. [Photos: via USDA] What products are affected? The recall concerns two types of frozen not ready-to-eat (NRTE) chicken fried rice. They were produced between September 8, 2025, and November 17, 2025, with each item containing establishment number P-18356 in its USDA inspection mark. Below are their full names and best-by dates: 1.53-kilogram cardboard packages with six bags of frozen Ajinomoto Yakitori Chicken with Japanese-Style Fried Rice. Their best by dates range from September 9, 2026 to November 12, 2026. 20-ounce (1 pound and 4 ounce) plastic bag packages with frozen Trader Joes Chicken Fried Rice with stir fried rice, vegetables, seasoned dark chicken meat and eggs. Their best by dates range from September 8, 2026 to November 17, 2026. Pictures of the impacted products are available here. Where and when was the product sold? Ajinomotos fried rice was exported exclusively to Canada and not sold in U.S. stores. The Trader Joes fried rice was sent to retail locations across the United States. What should I do if I have this product? The FSIS stresses that anyone who has this product should not consume it. Instead, the item should be thrown away or returned to the store. Fast Company has reached out to Trader Joes for comment and will update this post if we hear back. This is far from the first recall to impact Trader Joes. Products sold by the popular retailer have seen everything from rocks in cookies to risks of food-borne pathogens like listeria.
Category:
E-Commerce
As the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games unfold, something is unmistakable: Women are driving the moment. Theyre leading highlight reels. Headlining broadcasts. Powering the storylines fans are sharing and following in real time. From figure skating to freestyle skiing to hockey, women athletes arent a side stage to the Gamesthey are the main event. And the data backs up what were all seeing. In new international research from Parity and SurveyMonkey surveying nearly 12,000 adults across the U.S., Canada, the UK/Ireland, and Australia, womens events are as popular asor more popular thanmens events in the majority of Winter Olympic sports. High-profile women athletes, including Lindsey Vonn, Eileen Gu, and Marie-Philip Poulin, account for 55% of named competitors fans say theyre most excited to follow. And 25% of adults who are excited about the Olympic Games plans to follow more womens events this year than they have in the past. This raises a more nuanced question: If fans say womens sports matter, why is the U.S. less emphatic about demanding equal treatment for women athletes? And why is the U.S. defining equality differently than the rest of the world? FANS ARENT ASKING FOR PARITY, THEY EXPECT IT The most striking finding from the research isnt just interest. Its expectation. Across political affiliations and demographics, a majority of U.S. adults say its important that men and women athletes be treated equally at the Olympic and Paralympic Games. That includes everything from sponsorship investment and marketing dollars to media coverage, resources, and overall visibility. But heres where the U.S. story gets complicated. When we compared attitudes internationally, Americans lagged behind their peers in the strength and depth of their conviction. In the UK and Ireland, nearly 80% of adults say equal treatment is important. In the U.S., that drops to 59%. And the real gap is among adults across countries who describe it as very important that men and women athletes are treated equally. That gap matters. At a time when women athletes are delivering some of the most compelling performances of the Games, that hesitation matters. In Canada, the UK/Ireland, and Australia, adults most often felt that equal funding support from their countries exemplified equalitya structural, institutional commitment that ensures women athletes have the same resources to train, compete, and win. In the U.S., however, the top measure wasnt funding. It was the amount of media coverage. Globally, equality is viewed as an investment decision. In the U.S., its still often treated as a visibility problem. Across every country, equal rules or judging criteria and offering the same sports for men and women rounded out the top four ways to achieve equality at the Games. However it manifests, audiences want equalityand they expect brands to reflect that standard. Fifty-one percent of U.S. adults say Olympic and Paralympic sponsors should invest marketing dollars equally between men and women athletes. Yet 43% believe Olympic and Paralympic brands arent spending enough on womens sports today. Consumers see the gap. And when expectations outpace action, trust erodes. THIS IS NO LONGER A GROWTH BET, BUT A GROWTH ENGINE For years, womens sports were framed as something brands should support, after the audience showed up. That argument doesnt hold anymore. The audience is already here. Womens events are matchingand often exceedingmens in popularity. Women athletes are generating outsized engagement and cultural relevance. And younger fans, especially, expect brands to reflect their values. At Parity, we have the privilege of working with more than 1,400 professional women athletes, including hundreds of Olympians and Paralympians, and over 50 of our athletes are in action in Milan-Cortina. We consistently see that partnerships with women athletes drive stronger trust, deeper community connection, and more authentic storytelling. In a fragmented world where attention is scarce, trusted voices matter more than ever. Women athletes are some of the most credible and relatable storytellers in sports. Brands that recognize this are gaining share of heart, and share of market. THE GAMES ARE A GLOBAL STAGELEADERSHIP IS VISIBLE The Olympics and Paralympics arent just sporting events. Theyre cultural mirrors and megaphones. They show the world what we value, and who we value. When coverage, sponsorship, and storytelling skew unequal, it sends a message. So does equal investment. Audiences outside the U.S. are expressing stronger expectations around gender equality. As the worlds largest sports and advertising marketand with the 2028 Summer Olympics coming to Los Angelesthe U.S. should be setting the standard, not trailing it. Especially when women athletes are already delivering some of the most electric moments of the Games. THE OPPORTUNITY Progress doesnt require patience, it requires priority. Today, brands can choose to fund women athletes equally, tell their stories more prominently, and show up where fans already are. Because the audience has spoken. The momentum is real. The upside is obvious. And midway through these Games, one thing is undeniable: Womens sports arent catching up. Theyre leading. And its time for the rest of the ecosystemespecially here in the U.S.to lead with them. Leela Srinivasan is CEO of Parity.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] next »