ANAHEIM — Dodgers infielder Alex Freeland punctuated his case to make the opening day roster with a home run in the team’s last Cactus League game Saturday.

Then on Sunday, before the first game of the Freeway Series with the Angels, the Dodgers announced the results of the spring training position battle between Freeland and Hyeseong Kim: the team optioned Kim to Triple-A Oklahoma City.

“It’s one of those things that you could argue both sides of either decision, as far as Alex or Hyeseong,” manager Dave Roberts said Friday. “And so I just don’t think it’s clear cut. We still haven’t seen Hyeseong a bunch. Alex, I think he’s taken great at-bats, the numbers, the surface line certainly isn’t there, but it’s still spring training. There’s just deeper conversations that are going to be had.”

Kim started off the spring swinging a hot bat. But he went 1-for-12 in the World Baseball Classic. Freeland finished Cactus League play with a .116 batting average.

Utility player Tommy Edman’s offseason ankle surgery left open the roster spot. He’s progressing but set to start the season on the injured list.

The Dodgers also reassigned utility man Nick Senzel, outfielder Jack Suwinski and catcher Seby Zavala to minor-league camp.

Follow the build-up, analysis and live text commentary of the Madrid derby as Real host Atletico at the Bernabeu.

“Whatever we do, we do together, and as far as possible, in confidence.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to back US strikes on Iran’s power grid if Tehran does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz, as he visited the site of an Iranian strike in Arad. He urged world leaders to join the war effort as US-Israeli attacks on Iran have killed more than 1,500 people and injured thousands.

Scream queen Samara Weaving has an extraordinary yell: shrill, feral and ferocious, like a mongoose before it goes on the attack. Its vibrato fury bursts out only when she’s fighting for her life. Otherwise, her newly wed (and newly widowed) Grace MacCaullay stays quiet when being hunted, hence surviving a killer game of hide-and-go-seek in Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett’s 2019 hit “Ready or Not,” only to be forced to play again in their echoey sequel “Ready or Not 2: Here I Come.”

In the tradition of “Halloween II,” this one picks up the very second the last one ended. Grace, her white lace dress blackened with blood, is smoking a cigarette outside of an incinerated mansion that belongs to her in-laws, the Le Domas, who are all dead. On this bride’s wedding night, her groom permitted his relatives to sacrifice her to a demon, believing the lore that a wicked spirit named Le Bail gave the family its staggering fortune. They failed; she triumphed.

The first film teased the idea that the family might be superstitious crackpots only to merrily reveal at the climax that the devil is actually real — and that, when disappointed, he makes his minions explode like a shaken bottle of Dom Pérignon. That gag no longer comes as a total shock, but returning screenwriters Guy Busick and R. Christopher Murphy find that the suspense of who is going to pop, and when and why, works just as well. “It’s always surprising,” Grace says with grim humor. (Between this and “Sirāt,” human combustion is the morbid punchline of the year.)

This very silly slasher doesn’t take much seriously, although I appreciated that once Grace exhales her tobacco, passes out and comes to in a hospital bed, she’s been handcuffed to the railing by a detective (Grant Nickalls) who wants to arrest her on suspicion of arson and murder. One real-world rule holds true: Someone’s gotta take the fall when this many rich people die, even if it’s their victim.

Now, four more posh families want to get in good with Le Bail by competing to see who can kill Grace first. Did the screenwriters toss around a dozen other playground games — killer dodgeball, killer cornhole, killer freeze tag — before sticking with the same hide-and-seek set-up? The only change is that there’s more of everything, including more prey as Grace’s estranged sister Faith (Kathryn Newton) gets yoked into the action, grousing that her sibling’s “negative” energy has once again upended her life.

The host of the massacre is the powerful tycoon Chester Danforth (filmmaker David Cronenberg), a hotel and casino impresario, who entrusts the actual event planning to his adult children, twins Ursula and Titus (Sarah Michelle Gellar and Shawn Hatosy). The director of “The Fly” and “Videodrome” isn’t in the film long, but he bequeaths prestige upon these splat-hijinks that they don’t quite deserve. The paterfamilias of gut-wrenchingly emotional body horror would never make a movie like this himself, although I do think he’d be impressed when the visual-effects team makes a human face dissolve like a bath bomb.

The rest of the ensemble represents titans of some vague industry or another from around the globe: the Rajans of London, the El Caídos of Madrid and the Wans of Shanghai, each arriving with multiple family members as backup. A mobbed-up type, Wilkinson (Kevin Durand) of Atlantic City, also pursues Grace as a solo renegade. There’s not much comic zing in the idea that a handful of selfish families rule the world. Still, it’s amusing to watch these soulless ghouls refer to Grace and Faith as “things” and shrug off each other’s deaths, too. Generation by generation, this greedy lot appears to be getting lazier, intoning “Hail Satan” as offhandedly as ordering their butler to fetch them a martini.

Individual characters don’t pop (except, of course, when they quite literally do). The movie would be a bit more interesting if we knew something about each family’s backstory. The one teasing bit of historical intrigue comes when Le Bail’s lawyer (Elijah Wood) insists that the rules state each clan must attack Grace and Faith using weapons from the era in which their ancestors made their satanic pact. It never gets mentioned again, but I spun restless fictions seeing the Danforths stab the girls with railroad spikes while Olivia Cheng’s more modern Chinese heiress chased them with a drone.

There’s still an awful lot of random gunfire and not much enticement to hang onto, nor any sort of a story in this dashed-off, deadly spin on “Succession.” I’ll note that the demon is a more honest and fair negotiator than his vassals, who occasionally cheat and are punished in exactly the way you’re hoping to see.

Hatosy’s Titus is the Danforths’ disappointing fail son and the actor keeps his face in a delightfully foolish little pout. But Titus’ fever to prove that he’s his own man makes him unpredictable and dangerous — and makes him the only villain with more layers than one. Still, my favorite of the ensemble is Maia Jae’s Francesca El Caído, the jilted former lover of Grace’s late husband, who struts into the film like a hellcat, fighting for her own ego as much as Le Bail’s tempting offer of world domination. Her sloppy showdown with Grace is the action highlight.

None of this is scary. The directors, who have also dabbled in the “Scream” franchise, would rather get a laugh than a gasp. Their favorite move is a gasp-laugh, as when they flash a gruesome image on screen that’s so disgusting you can’t help but giggle.

Yet, the prankish tone keeps Grace from having much of a personality, other than a rebellious screw this. Whenever a scene gives her a chance to catch her breath, it squanders it on a go-nowhere running joke about her desperate search for a cigarette.

At least Weaving has her scream and Newton, her impressive ability to take punishment. While new to this particular series, Newton is a skilled cartographer of comedy-horror terrain as the star of “Freaky,” “Lisa Frankenstein,” and the directors’ previous film, “Abigail.” Her kooky chipmunk moxie lets her get through any script relatively unscathed, including this one. And she has one of the best laugh lines in the movie when she bats her eyes at the baddies and tries to placate them with, “You guys seem like good people.”

The sisters’ mutual antagonism has a few clever beats, like when they bicker over who had the superior working-class restaurant job, Grace waiting tables or Faith as a hostess. But the few times they’re forced to play their hurt feelings sincerely are as forced as the moment when Grace zips her gory wedding gown back on before it’s even been washed.

Nevertheless, kudos to the costume team for a different outfit that Grace wears in the second half of the film that’s an absolute jaw-dropper of goth couture with black netting and a tiara. It pairs majestically with Weaving’s defiant chin and gleaming eyes. Despite this sequel’s thin and rote stretches, it once again closes strong with a few images that will stick in your head for at least a week or two. No spoilers, but it’s no coincidence that “Here I Come” finally gets more interesting once it tires of hide and seek. Finding a fresh plot twist is the only way it ekes out a draw.

This is the April 21, 2021, edition of the Essential Politics newsletter. Like what you’re reading? Sign up to get it in your inbox three times a week.

Outgoing presidents often leave decisions for their successors to take on.

Over the last two decades, and four presidents, how to end America’s longest war — in Afghanistan — has been among the largest open questions. President Biden inherited it from President Trump, who inherited it from President Obama, who took it from President George W. Bush. Unpopular, seemingly unending and unwinnable, the war is a case study in how the choices of one administration echo into the next.

Last week, Biden formally announced a deadline of Sept. 11 — the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks that provoked the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan — to end military involvement in the country.

“War in Afghanistan was never meant to be a multigenerational undertaking,” he said.

The prospective exit also has been years in the works. Obama promised to scale back U.S. involvement, but first he sent a surge of troops. Trump vowed several times to withdraw all troops, making chaotic progress that stopped short of a full exit. Biden is now the third president to make a similar commitment.

Whether he will follow through remains to be seen. My colleagues David S. Cloud and Tracy Wilkinson have extensively covered the American involvement in Afghanistan, from Trump’s growing tensions with the Pentagon over withdrawal to the lives of Afghanistan’s youngest generation, which was born into U.S. occupation.

Taken together, their work over the last few years reveals the deep roots of Biden’s promise, and the complicated history that will color his path forward.

The long path to leaving

January 2017: A president who promised peace leaves office after eight years of war

During his first presidential campaign, Obama pledged to end the war in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq. He ended his presidency as the first two-term president to see U.S. forces at war for all eight years.

Experts saw his legacy as mixed. He did reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan, cutting their ranks to 8,400, and his administration reduced American deaths — if not Afghanis’ — by relying on diplomacy and on drones to launch airstrikes. Yet intelligence officials said the U.S. faced more threats in more places than the country had seen since the Cold War. “We’re now wrapped up in all these different conflicts, at a low level and with no end in sight,” one expert told The Times.

August 2017: Trump presides over a stalemate and negotiated settlement

Trump the candidate ran as a tough-on-the-Taliban leader, promising a hard-fought and fast victory to end U.S. engagement. But Trump the president softened when it came time to reveal formal plans, Cloud and Wilkinson wrote with former Times reporter W.J. Hennigan. Fighting continued — to show U.S. forces could not be pushed out — while Trump promised that the 16-year war might end “some day” in a negotiated settlement. It was an acknowledgment that victory would elude a president who loved to win and refused to concede defeat.

“This entire effort is intended to put pressure on the Taliban, to have the Taliban understand you will not win a battlefield victory,” then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said. “We may not win one, but neither will you. So at some point, we have to come to the negotiating table and find a way to bring this to an end.”

By February 2018, the Trump administration proposed a defense budget that increased spending in Afghanistan by almost $2 billion, for a total of $48.9 billion in the next fiscal year.

December 2018: Trump presses for peace talks and announces a withdrawal of half of troops

That month, a series of announcements signaled Trump’s growing dissatisfaction with involvement in Afghanistan. Increased Taliban attacks had caused hundreds of Afghan civilian and military casualties a month, prompting Trump administration officials to press for a cease-fire agreement, but with dim prospects, Cloud wrote.

Less than two weeks later, administration officials announced a drastic plan: withdraw up to half of the 14,000 American troops serving in Afghanistan, potentially by summer. The backlash was swift from U.S. lawmakers, allies and even the Pentagon. Defense Secretary James N. Mattis was so furious that Trump would abandon allies in Syria and Afghanistan that he resigned in protest, as Cloud reported.

February-May 2020: A truce and a landmark agreement to withdraw

With 12,000 troops still in Afghanistan, the Trump administration brokered a temporary deal with the Taliban to reduce violence for a week in February, Wilkinson reported. The test was a success, and on Feb. 29, U.S. and Taliban officials signed an accord to end the war. The Taliban would prevent Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups from using Afghan territory to threaten the U.S., without renouncing its terrorist ties. In return, the U.S. would withdraw its troops within 14 months, setting a deadline of May 1, 2021.

The plan again drew backlash, from former Trump and Obama administration officials, who warned a complete withdrawal could backfire, Cloud, Wilkinson and Stefanie Glinksi reported. Even as conflict continued between the Taliban and the Afghan government into May, the Trump administration remained committed to removing troops.

November 2020: Hopes of exiting before the election dashed

Trump, hoping that a full exit in 2020 would boost his reelection prospects, made clear to advisors that he cared little about conditions in Afghanistan, Cloud and Wilkinson reported. He wanted out, period. By July, the number of troops on the ground had shrunk to 8,600.

But as the peace talks the U.S. hoped to broker struggled to get off the ground, administration officials said about 4,000 troops would have to remain into November. The Pentagon said too rapid a withdrawal would doom the talks, invite violence and cause American forces to have to abandon valuable equipment. Trump said he wanted a withdrawal by the end of his term in January, and in November — as he refused to concede his loss to Biden — he ordered troop levels reduced in Iraq and Afghanistan, to 2,500 in each country.

Trump’s relationship with Congress further deteriorated in December, in part over the bipartisan pushback to his withdrawal plans. It was among the reasons he cited in vetoing the annual National Defense Authorization Act, Cloud and Jennifer Haberkorn wrote.

April 2021: Biden says it’s “time to end the forever war.”

When Biden took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2,500 troops remained in Afghanistan. But the new president faced the decision of whether to honor Trump’s May 1 deadline for withdrawing them — the final exit from the war, Cloud wrote. Once again, Defense Department officials pressured the president to delay a full withdrawal as the deadline the Trump administration negotiated with the Taliban approached.

On April 14, Biden made his decision public: The drawdown would proceed, but not so quickly. The U.S. would fully exit by Sept. 11, Cloud and David Lauter wrote.

“I am now the fourth United States president to preside over an American troop presence in Afghanistan. Two Republicans. Two Democrats,” Biden said. “I will not pass this responsibility onto a fifth.”

The top half of the front page of the Los Angeles Times on Oct. 9, 2001.

(Los Angeles Times)

Policing, policy and the Minneapolis verdict

— The conviction of former Police Officer Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd reenergized a push for sweeping criminal justice reform by President Biden and leading Democrats, who said Tuesday’s verdict was just the first step on the path to national healing, report Evan Halper, Eli Stokols and Sarah D. Wire.

— Anticipating an uproar, Facebook said it would crack down on violent content, hate speech and harassment ahead of the Chauvin verdict. But as Brian Contreras reports, critics are wondering why the platform doesn’t take those precautions all the time.

The latest on the environment

— China, Japan and South Korea are the world’s biggest funders of coal-fired power plants around the globe — and the Biden administration is looking to win their agreement to deep cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the decade, write Anna M. Phillips and Wilkinson.

— Biden will convene leaders from around the world on Thursday and Friday as he marks the United States’ return to the global fight against climate change, Chris Megerian writes. Three people with knowledge of the White House plans say Biden will pledge to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions at least in half by 2030.

— Solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars will go far in helping California and the Biden administration meet their aggressive climate goals — but not far enough. As time runs short, scientists and government officials say the moment to break out the giant vacuums has arrived, Halper writes.

More from Washington

— Vice President Kamala Harris traveled to North Carolina on Monday to talk about economic opportunities and electric school buses as part of the Biden administration’s efforts to promote its roughly $2-trillion infrastructure, clean energy and jobs plan, Noah Bierman writes.

— The Supreme Court is weighing whether immigrants granted temporary protected status can get green cards — and if the Biden administration will make that decision, David G. Savage reports.

— The Justice Department has brought charges against hundreds of people who stormed the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot, but one of its most pivotal potential cases involves a man who never set foot inside the building, writes Del Quentin Wilber.

— After Jan. 6, many of the nation’s largest corporations pledged that they would suspend donations to elected officials who opposed the certification of Joe Biden’s victory, hindered the peaceful transfer of power or incited violence. The vast majority kept their word, report Seema Mehta, Maloy Moore and Matt Stiles.

— What is there left to say about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? Plenty, it turns out. In a new biography, Pelosi dishes on chiding Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and using the nickname “Moscow Mitch,” writes Wire.

Coaching high school basketball since the 1979-80 season and being the second-winningest coach in state history with 1,127 victories, Mike LeDuc is one of those old-school coaches who likes to push his players forward and fade into the background when team success comes.

This season at Damien, LeDuc can take a bow for guiding the Spartans to the state Division I championship with little size but a group of players who loved to shoot threes, never stopped hustling on defense and executed close to perfection on the biggest stage at Golden 1 Center and during his team’s playoff run.

For turning a group of players he fondly called “overachievers” into champions, LeDuc is The Times’ boys’ basketball coach of the year.

Through his many years of coaching at Damien and previously at Glendora, he’s mentored such outstanding players as Tracy Murray, Casey Jacobsen and Cameron Murray. Now Cameron’s sophomore son, CJ, plays for Damien. It’s a full circle moment for LeDuc, who was holding his granddaughter at the awards ceremony in Sacramento.

As the years go by and the game keeps changing, LeDuc continues to adapt, adjust and power on.

LeDuc‘s answer is, “Basketball is a real simple game. It’s a game of repetition and if you do it over and over, you expect it to be done perfectly.”

During the Gaza war, protesters have flooded the streets of major British cities, calling on their leaders to cut off the supply of weapons and other military hardware to Israel.

The United Kingdom’s relationship with its ally is under scrutiny. Jeremy Corbyn, a British MP, set up the Gaza Tribunal to examine whether the UK’s support for Israel amounts to complicity. Doctors and aid workers gave emotional accounts of the horrors they saw while working in the Gaza Strip, and journalists presented evidence of weapons shipments and spy flights allegedly operating from a nearby British air force base. All were making the case that the UK’s unwavering support for Israel is no longer legally or morally justifiable.

In its final report, published on March 16, the Gaza Tribunal said the UK has failed in its duty to prevent genocide and has been complicit in atrocities. It also recommended that the UK end all military cooperation with Israel.

The UK government has yet to comment on the allegations.

Iranian missiles have struck the towns of Arad and Dimona near an Israeli nuclear research centre in what Iran says was a response to an Israeli attack on its Natanz nuclear facility in Isfahan province.

At least 180 people were wounded in Saturday’s attack, and hundreds of people have been evacuated from the strategic towns as the Israeli-United States war on Iran is seemingly entering a new, more lethal phase of fighting.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his country had a “very difficult evening in the battle for our future”. There have been at least 4,564 people wounded in Israel, according to the Ministry of Health, since the start of the war on February 28.

Analysts said that while Israel has regularly waged military campaigns on Gaza, the occupied West Bank, Lebanon and elsewhere, it is rare for the Israeli public to feel the effects of war like it has over the past three weeks.

In Palestinian territory, including Gaza, Israeli forces have used disproportionate force against armed groups, who use rudimentary rockets to fire at Israel. Israel’s war on Gaza has been called a genocide by scholars and rights groups.

With Saturday’s high casualty count, the attacks in Arad and Dimona raise a question: Has Israel underestimated Iranian military capabilities?

What weapons is Iran using?

Defence analysts described Iran’s missile programme as the Middle East’s largest and most varied. Developed over decades, it contains ballistic and cruise missiles and is designed to give Tehran reach even despite its lack of a modern air force.

Iran has short- and medium-range missile systems and longer-range land-attack and antiship cruise missiles.

Iran’s short-range ballistic missiles have a range of roughly 150km to 800km (93 to 500 miles) and are built for nearby military targets and rapid regional strikes.

Their core systems include the Fateh variants: Zolfaghar, Qiam-1 and older Shahab-1/2 missiles. Their shorter range can be an advantage in a crisis. They can be launched in volleys, compressing warning times and making pre-emption harder.

Those medium-range systems include the Shahab-3, Emad, Ghadr-1, the Khorramshahr variants and Sejjil. They also have newer designs like Kheibar Shekan and Haj Qassem.

Iran’s land-attack and antiship cruise missiles include the Soumar, Ya-Ali and the Quds variants, Hoveyzeh, Paveh and Ra’ad.

The longest reaching ballistic missiles, the Soumar, have a range of 2,000km to 2,500km (1,243 to 1,553 miles). However, it was reported that two Iranian missiles were fired late on Thursday or early on Friday on Diego Garcia, the site of a joint US-United Kingdom military base in the Indian Ocean that is 4,000km (2,485 miles) from Iran. The UK said the attack failed, and an Iranian official denied firing the missile.

Former Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had previously limited Iranian missile ranges to 2,200km (1,367 miles) but removed that limit after Israel’s 12-day war on Iran in June. The US joined Israel in that war as well, carrying out one day of attacks on Iran’s three main nuclear facilities.

“Iran has also used cluster munitions in its attacks on Israel. Each kind of warhead the Iranians have also uses a cluster warhead,” Uzi Rubin, founding director of Israel’s missile defence programme and a senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, told the US news agency Media Line.

What is a cluster munition or warhead?

Instead of a single explosive payload, a cluster warhead disperses multiple bomblets.

“The tip of the missile, instead of containing a big barrel of explosives, contains a mechanism which holds on to a lot of small bombs. And when the missile approaches the target, it opens its skin, it peels off and it spins around and the bomblets are released and released into space and fall on the ground,” Rubin told Media Line.

He added that Iranian cluster warheads may contain 20 to 30 bomblets or 70 to 80, depending on the missile.

These munitions are not new for Iran either. Iran reportedly also used cluster munitions in the 12-day war.

Amnesty International called Iran’s use of cluster munitions during that war a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law while Israel has also been accused of using cluster bombs in Lebanon.

Cluster munitions were banned in 2008 when the Convention on Cluster Munitions was adopted. Neither Iran nor Israel are signatories to the convention.

Why are they making an impact now?

An Israeli military spokesman said Israel’s air defence systems failed to intercept some of the Iranian missiles that hit Arad and Dimona despite being activated. He said Iran’s weaponry was not “special or unfamiliar” and an investigation was under way.

So why are these cluster munitions now making an impact? There are a few reasons.

For a ballistic missile equipped with cluster bomblets to be intercepted, it must happen before the payload opens and releases the submunitions. After the payload opens, the missile goes from a single point of attack to multiple points, making it difficult to stop.

On Thursday, The Times of Israel reported that the Israeli air force will start conserving interceptors. Military officials reportedly said at the time that Iranian cluster bombs are unlikely to cause significant harm if people have taken shelter and, therefore, may avoid shooting down some of them.

What is next?

In the next stage of the war, Iran, the US and Israel may continue to target important infrastructure.

The US and Israel struck Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility on Saturday, according to the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation. This facility in central Iran is one of the country’s most important uranium enrichment sites, about 220km (135 miles) southeast of Tehran.

In response, Iran launched the attacks on Arad and Dimona, home to Israel’s main nuclear facility.

Israel previously struck fuel storage facilities in Tehran, leading to vast, toxic smoke over the Iranian capital. For its part, the US previously hit Kharg Island, Iran’s oil export hub, and threatened to do it again.

Iran has essentially closed the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for global shipping and oil transport, and has targeted military bases and crucial energy infrastructure across Arab Gulf countries.

US President Donald Trump demanded the reopening of the strait and threatened to begin hitting energy infrastructure should Iran not comply.

“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST,” Trump wrote on Truth Social at 23:44 GMT on Saturday.

JESSIE J has been rushed to hospital following a car injury which left her with fears she’d ‘broken her neck’.

The singer, 37, has undergone an MRI scan following the incident as she updated fans on her health scare.

Jessie is currently in China for her No Secrets Tour and suffered an unlikely injury after hitting her head on the roof of a car. 

Taking to Instagram, the Price Tag hitmaker shared a clip of her climbing into a black vehicle at her latest concert, whilst admitting she “didn’t mind squashing in the back”.

The video then cuts to Jessie in hospital undergoing an MRI scan after suffering the neck injury.

In an additional update, whilst backstage at one of her shows, Jessie goes on to relay the severity of her condition. 

SNOW JOKE

Jessie J forced to cancel gig over extreme weather

JESSIE’S ADVICE

Jessie J shares breast cancer update and advice to Davina McCall

She said: “Yeah, I just can’t move my head. I’m alright. I’ll just have to take some painkillers and march right through it.”

“I thought I’d broken my neck, but I haven’t. But I have really hurt my neck and my back.”

Later, shots show the star trying on a stunning gold jumpsuit and embracing her young son Sky. 

Jessie didn’t let the injury stop her putting on a stellar performance as she’s filmed singing her iconic tracks on stage.

Fans flocked to the comments with messages of love and well wishes for the singer.

One user penned: “Take care of yourself (heart emoji)”

“And yet nobody noticed until you told us you hurt yourself!! POPSTARRRR mode was activated,” added another.

A third chimed: “Feel better soon girl you are such a vibe even if you are in pain such an awesome human being.”

“Sending you lots of love and light (heart emoji)” wrote a fourth.

The music star was diagnosed with breast cancer last year and shared news of her early-stage diagnosis publicly via social media in June 2025.

Jessie underwent two surgeries during her health battle, which included a mastectomy that same year.

In August, she was taken to hospital with an infection and fluid on her lungs six weeks post-surgery.

But the star now seems to be doing well and is back performing shows just under a year since her diagnosis.

In 1994, then House Speaker Newt Gingrich promised to post all congressional proceedings on the Internet as a way of launching what he called a “civilizational upheaval” in which “regular people in little towns”–not well-moneyed lobbyists–would manage affairs in Washington. In 1996, the representative from Georgia, swayed by the futurism of writer Alvin Toffler, helped pass the Electronic Freedom of Information Act, which required federal agencies to grant Americans prompt access to any information in their databases that could help “ensure an informed citizenry.”

Three years later, Gingrich’s revolution, far from online, is nowhere in sight. Rather than complying with the 1996 law, most parts of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government stand in blatant violation of it.

While the Supreme Court of Mongolia has its own official Web site, the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t, forcing Americans to search through unofficial Web sites in hope of finding its briefs and opinions. While the Congressional Research Service makes its reports on vital issues like HMO reform instantly available online to legislators, taxpayers, who fund those studies, can get them only through the mail from their members of Congress.

If you are a soldier who believes he was made ill by the military’s anthrax vaccine, for example, you might want to know what was said in Tuesday’s hearing of the House Committee on Government Reform, in which Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) and leading scientists discussed how the government should weigh a vaccine’s risks against its benefits. The full text of the hearing was available Tuesday to anyone who could afford a subscription to a private online data service.

Those hoping to access such supposedly public information on the Web, however, were out of luck. The House Government Reform Committee’s Web site lists transcripts from only a hodgepodge of committee hearings. The most recent transcript available at that site is from June.

Today, Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) plan to hold a press conference in which they will release a study by two Washington public-interest groups on how federal agencies have failed to comply with the 1996 law. McCain and Leahy, along with David E. Price (D-N.C.) and Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) in the House, have introduced similar bills to require Congress to put Congressional Research Service documents online within 30 days. The measures currently are in the House and Senate rules committees.

Fundamental change won’t occur until national leaders like President Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) call upon all government agencies to honor the letter and spirit of the 1996 law.

Reforming the Congressional Research Service is only a baby step toward the revolution that legislators promised so bombastically. But it’s as good a place as any to start.

To Take Action: Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas), chairman, House Committee on Rules, (202) 225-2305, www.house.gov/dreier, click on “Feedback”; Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), chairman, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, (202) 224-2541, e-mail, senator@mcconnell.senate.gov

Kaleena Smith averaged 31 points, seven assists and four steals a game this season while playing for the No. 1 program in the Southland, but her expanded leadership role is what earns her the honor of The Times’ girls’ basketball player of the year.

The 5-foot-6 junior point guard marshaled Ontario Christian to the CIF state championships in Sacramento for the first time in the program’s history and along the way her voice spoke almost as loudly as her game — surprising for someone who is not talkative by nature.

“Her numbers speak for themselves but the biggest difference in Kaleena this season has been her leadership,” Knights coach Aundre Cummings, said. “She’s always coming to practice first and leaving last, which teammates respect, but also knowing when to speak up.”

Smith has been nicknamed “Special K” for her talent and charisma, traits that make her one of the top national recruits in the class of 2027. She is garnering attention from multiple college programs. USC women’s coach Lindsay Gottlieb was even on hand to witness Smith score 23 points and contribute six assists in the Southern California regional semifinals against Etiwanda on March 8 and the state championship game against Archbishop Mitty at Golden 1 Center in Sacramento.

“I’m being more vocal, yes, because I’m gonna have to do that in college,” said Smith, who spent countless hours refining her mid-range jumper this winter. “As captain it’s one of my responsibilities.”

One hundred games into her high school career, Smith is living up to the hype thrust upon her when she was named MaxPreps’ national freshman of the Year in 2024. She passed the 2,000-point plateau when she scored 51 points against Esperanza in November.

Smith paced Ontario Christian to the Southern Section Open Division title as a sophomore and although the Knights were denied a repeat (she had 30 points and five assists in a finals defeat to Sierra Canyon) her stats are better in every significant category. Intertwined with her competitive spirit and winning mindset is the maturity and confidence of an upperclassman.

“Her leadership is what stands out,” sophomore teammate Tatianna Griffin said. “She’s a very quiet person. I’m not sure it comes naturally or not but when she says something we listen.”

Griffin’s own game has blossomed because of Smith’s willingness to give her the ball in clutch situations, and Smith has been a mentor to freshman Chloe Jenkins, who led the team in rebounds (11.3 per game).

Adding leadership to her basketball IQ, court vision, defense, quickness, shooting, passing and dribbling has made Smith a complete player, one who is poised for a senior season worth talking about.

As the United States-Israeli war on Iran enters its fourth week, the conflict seems to have escalated beyond President Donald Trump’s control.

The Iranian government has been able to endure the killings of its top political and military leaders and has launched retaliatory attacks on Israel and Gulf countries despite weeks of air strikes.

Tehran has also been able to impose a de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas supplies pass, sending oil prices soaring. Analysts said the conflict risks unleashing a global recession. And that has put pressure on Trump, prompting his administration to allow the sale of sanctioned Russian oil to try to ease the energy crisis and pressure allies to police the strait, so far unsuccessfully.

Trump’s response in how to deal with the situation has been anything but coherent.

On Saturday, Trump upped the ante, issuing a threat to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants if Tehran does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours. This came a day after he said the US was “winding down” its military operations in Iran.

Analysts said Trump launched the war without a clear goal and misjudged how Tehran would respond. The conflict has expanded across the Middle East.

So is Trump looking to exit the war – or escalate it?

Trump’s mixed messaging on the Iran war

Here’s a brief look at the changing statements from Washington:

Is the war winding up or widening?

While one statement from Trump signalled that the US is considering “winding down” the war on Iran, another one indicated that the conflict would widen in the coming days.

On Saturday, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that Washington was “very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran”.

Trump listed the goals of the war as: completely degrading Iran’s missile capability, destroying its defence industrial base, eliminating the Iranian navy and air force, never allowing Iran to get even close to having nuclear weapons, protecting Middle Eastern allies, and guarding and policing the Strait of Hormuz.

Both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have claimed repeatedly in the past few days that Iranian military capabilities have been “completely destroyed” even as Tehran continues to retaliate against Israel and strike countries in the region.

US military officials said they have carried out heavy bombardments of Iran’s coast, including with bunker buster bombs, but still have not been able to limit Tehran’s capacity to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz.

On Saturday, Trump said the US “has blown Iran off of the map” and insisted that he has “met my own goals … and weeks ahead of schedule!” He also reiterated that Iran’s “leadership is gone, their navy and air force are dead, they have absolutely no defense, and they want to make a deal”.

Iranian leaders have consistently denied reaching out to the US with a ceasefire offer.

Just an hour later, Trump returned to his Truth Social platform with a warning for Iran.

“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!” Trump wrote.

Iran has since responded by saying it will hit energy sites across the Middle East if its power facilities are targeted. It has already fired hundreds of missiles and drones on Gulf countries, targeting US assets as well as energy facilities.

Between Trump’s claims to be “winding down” operations and upping the ante later, his administration announced it is sending three more warships to the Middle East with about 2,500 additional Marines.

The US military said about 50,000 military personnel are already deployed for the war against Iran.

When will the war on Iran end?

That has been among the foremost questions posed to US officials, including Trump, since the war on Iran was launched on February 28.

The next day, Trump told the Daily Mail that “it will be four weeks or so. It’s always been about a four-week process.” A day later, Trump said at the White House: “We projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that.”

On March 8, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told the CBS TV network’s 60 Minutes programme: “This is only just the beginning.” The next day, the US president told the same channel that he thinks “the war is very complete, pretty much.” And the US military operation was “way ahead of schedule”.

Then, on March 9, Trump said one could say the war is “both complete and just beginning”. Later the same day, the president said: “We’ve already won in many ways, but we haven’t won enough” and promised to go further and harsher against Iran.

On March 11, Trump said: “We don’t want to leave early, do we? We’ve got to finish the job.”

Why did US and Israel launch strikes on Iran?

Responses to this question are perhaps the most telling about US posturing in the war against Iran.

On March 2, Hegseth said the attacks were aimed at ending “47 long years” of war by “the expansionist and Islamist regime in Tehran” and were launched because Iran refused to negotiate with the US.

Hours later, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, told reporters the US knew Israel was about to strike Iran, adding that the Trump administration believed the US needed to launch a pre-emptive strike before Iran’s retaliation potentially targeted US forces. “We went proactively in a defensive way to prevent them from inflicting higher damage,” he said.

This sparked a massive row in Washington with critics saying Israel had forced the US into war with Iran. Soon Trump rebutted his top diplomat, saying: “They [Iran] were going to attack. If we didn’t do it, they were going to attack first. … So if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand.”

The next day, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, concluded that Trump just had a “good feeling” that Iran would strike so Washington attacked Tehran.

The launch of the war came as Washington and Tehran were scheduled to meet for another round of talks that were started late last year. Before the war, their Omani mediator said a deal was “within reach”.

The US and Israeli assertion that Tehran was on the verge of making a nuclear bomb has not been backed up by the United Nations nuclear watchdog. Last week, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also told Congress that Iran was not in a position to make an atomic bomb.

Some analysts said the Trump administration was convinced to go to war by Netanyahu, who has been seeking US military intervention in Iran for decades. They said Trump was buoyed by a swift US military operation in Venezuela and did not think through Iran’s strengths before going into the war. In January, the US military abducted President Nicolas Maduro in a military operation in Caracas that took two and a half hours.

What does the conflicting messaging mean for US strategy?

Analysts said the moving goalposts in the Iran war show the policy limits of the current Trump administration as well as its strategy, to some extent, of keeping off-ramps available.

Zeidon Alkinani, a Middle East analyst at the Arab Perspectives Institute, told Al Jazeera that in the earlier days of the hostilities, there appeared to be clearer targets and limited objectives.

“There now seems to be a more chaotic reaction,” he said. He described the attacks as increasingly reciprocal, suggesting strikes on oil or energy facilities could prompt further escalation.

Last week, Iran attacked energy facilities in Qatar and caused “significant damage”, knocking out  17 percent of Qatar’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity. Qatar produces 20 percent of global LNG supplies. Iran said the attack was in retaliation for Israeli attacks on a gas plant.

Paolo von Schirach, president of the Global Policy Institute, told Al Jazeera that Trump changes his mind “very quickly” and it is hard to predict what his next step could be in the war on Iran.

The analyst said it was unclear to him what “tools” Trump has to end the war.

“We look at his message saying the war is winding down. OK, good. Things are quiet. Maybe there is an off-ramp somehow. But now he says that if the Iranians don’t open the Strait of Hormuz, then we [the US] are going to unleash hell and what have you,” von Schirach noted.

“It is not quite clear to me what he wants and what the tools are to accomplish this.”

Von Schirach added that it would be difficult to predict whether the US could force Iran into submission, given its size and population. Using as a reference Iraq, where 150,000 American soldiers were deployed during the Second Gulf War, the analyst predicted that the US might need as many as half a million soldiers if Trump “wants to take over Iran”.

Tehran, Iran – Military and political authorities in Iran are projecting a message that “victory” is near as war with the United States and Israel continues to escalate, and air strikes and assassination attempts are reported across the country.

Massive joint US-Israeli air raids were recorded in multiple areas of the capital Tehran overnight into Sunday, and in central Iran’s Isfahan city in the morning, a day after Dezful and Andimeshk in western Khuzestan and several other cities were hit.

Israeli warplanes also conducted two separate sets of precision strikes on privately-owned residential units located in small towns in the green provinces of Gilan and Mazandaran to the north on Saturday, which appeared to be assassination attempts on officials.

Local authorities confirmed that several people were killed, but did not elaborate. Israeli and US media said a senior drone commander is believed to have been killed.

Nevertheless, top officials in Tehran said they were unyielding and focused on retaliatory attacks.

Parliament speaker and former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said the fact that Iranian missiles struck Israel’s Dimona overnight shows that a “new stage of battle” has started where “Israel’s skies are defenceless”.

Majid Mousavi, aerospace commander of the IRGC, echoed the same statement about control over Israeli skies in a post on X on Saturday night, which came in response to the US and Israel declaring dominance over Iranian airspace.

“Pinpoint precision Seyed Majid, hit Dimona again,” chanted flag-waving pro-establishment supporters shown on state television broadcasts, calling on Mousavi for action.

Israel said more than 180 people were injured in Dimona, a southern city where its key nuclear facilities are also located, in addition to nearby Arad.

Ahmad-Reza Radan – Iran’s hardline police chief, who has been cited by Israeli media as being a target for assassination along with Mousavi, Ghalibaf and others – was seen briefly addressing a group of supporters in Tehran on Saturday night.

“Trump first threatened the European Union, then begged. Today, he has said he will come take Greenland if the Europeans don’t come. I want to tell the European Union that if they can’t hold on to Greenland, then send a request and we will come preserve it,” he said, followed by chants of “Alla akbar” (God is greatest).

Defence Ministry spokesman Reza Talaei-Nik said in a statement that attacks across the region will continue “until the complete halt and surrender of the enemy”.

The taunts are in line with the state’s messaging in recent days, including a written statement attributed to Mojtaba Khamenei, who was selected as the supreme leader after his father Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was assassinated on the first day of the war, but who has not been seen or heard.

The message said Iran’s enemies were being “defeated” and there is “particular unity” among supporters of the theocratic establishment.

Over the past week, the country’s top security official, commanders of the paramilitary Basij force of the IRGC, the government’s intelligence minister, and a number of other military and security personnel have been among those killed.

The government reports that a large number of residential buildings, hospitals, schools and other civilian facilities have also been impacted during the war, as state supporters control the city streets, squares and mosques to counter potential anti-government protests.

‘Say goodbye to electricity!’

The Iranian rhetoric quickly escalated on Sunday after US President Donald Trump issued a 48-hour ultimatum for Tehran to reopen the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a key water route for global energy export, or face strikes on its power plants.

In response, Iranian politicians and armed forces said they would strike back harder against the region’s energy facilities.

The IRGC-affiliated Mehr news agency released a map with graphics that showed power plants across the region, including in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, that could be attacked if Iranian facilities are hit. An accompanying message read, “Say goodbye to electricity!”

On Saturday night, state and IRGC-affiliated media circulated a different map, showing Doha and also marking the central offices of Al Jazeera network as potential targets, and said all residents of the Qatari capital were advised to evacuate immediately.

State television quickly issued a retraction and cited unnamed sources as saying the map was not official, but no explanation was provided about who circulated the image and why.

The all-around promises of escalation, particularly around bombing electricity facilities and other critical civilian infrastructure, have created additional concerns among many Iranians about the impact on daily lives and implications on the country’s future.

“If the main power plants are bombed, it’s not going to be just a brief disruption; it could stop the flow of everything from water to gas,” a Tehran resident told Al Jazeera, asking to remain anonymous due to security concerns. “It would be foolish to just punish the population like that.”

The US-Israeli forces have also struck natural gas facilities in southern Iran and bombed fuel reserves across Tehran, but authorities said fires and damage were contained quickly without creating major disruptions.

In an Instagram post to mark Nowruz, the Persian New Year, iconic footballer and nationally respected figure Ali Daei said this year’s celebrations were different because Iran is grieving for its people killed in the war.

“Wishing for a prosperous and free Iran, away from war and bloodshed, all about welfare and calm,” he wrote, drawing the ire of a number of state media, including the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim, which criticised Daei for not specifically condemning the US and Israel.

Proclamations, warnings under blackout

Meanwhile, the internet remains cut for more than 92 million Iranians for a 23rd day, becoming the longest shutdown in the country’s history, trailed only by a 20-day blackout imposed during the killing of thousands of anti-government protesters in January.

State media outlets continue to focus on successful IRGC attacks and present Iran as a country on the brink of being recognised as a world power, as they refrain from communicating details about the US and Israeli attacks or significant damage sustained.

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a member of the national security committee of Iran’s parliament, told the state television on Sunday that the IRGC’s overnight attacks against Israel “opened a new page in shifting the balance of power and showed the victory of the Islamic Republic in this imposed war”.

The parliamentary committee’s spokesman, Ebrahim Rezaei, stretched the same line of thinking even further, and said in a post on X that Iran should demand to become a veto-yielding permanent member of the United Nations Security Council as a condition for ending the war. The lawmaker did not say how or when he expected that to happen.

Iran’s government has also demanded war reparations and guarantees against future aggression, but the US and Israel have been pushing to overthrow the Islamic Republic that came to power in a 1979 revolution.

Intelligence authorities advised the Iranian population on Saturday that even being a member of foreign-based news and war footage channels on Telegram and all other social media outlets banned by the state could violate national security laws.

The Iranian judiciary said that such channels are considered “terrorist” outlets and that sending any videos of impact sites or armed state checkpoints on the streets to them could carry maximum penalties like confiscation of assets and even execution.

State security authorities have emphasised that anyone who engages in anti-establishment protests will be treated as an “enemy”.

It’s not the first time the comedian has spoken out about his friendship with Britain’s Got Talent judge Amanda Holden, after fans raised the same question

Amanda Holden‘s co-star and friend Alan Carr has set the record straight about their on-screen chemistry. The duo front a BBC travel series, in which they help renovate properties across Greece, Italy, and Spain. Along with their hard work, viewers have warmed to the pair’s humorous ways and heartfelt conversations – including a recent sad discussion about Amanda’s stillborn son Theo.

Joining Alan on the latest edition of his podcast, Life Is A Beach, Bob Mortimer discussed what it was like working with his co-star Paul Whitehouse on their series Mortimer and Whitehouse: Gone Fishing.

After admitting that they couldn’t present in a traditional way, he said the duo decided to take a more natural approach – one that has worked well over the years. “They just like it when we’re chatting,” he told Alan, to which he agreed.

“Yes, that’s true – it’s the chemistry people want, and you can’t fake that,” he went on to say.

Alan added that he’s often asked whether he genuinely likes Amanda, despite their obvious camaraderie on TV. “I mean, people go, ‘Do you really like Amanda?’ I couldn’t be in 40-degree heat in Greece knocking down a partition wall with someone I hate.

“Why would I sign up for that? You have to actually like the person, more than like, you have to really go, ‘Oh hello Amanda, right let’s have a laugh, what have you been up to?’ And I think you can’t actually fake that,” he clarified.

This isn’t the first time Alan has addressed questions about their friendship. On a previous episode of the show, Amanda was surprised that fans had doubted their chemistry.

Alan joked that viewers often comment on her distinctive laugh and ask how he “puts up” with it, to which she quipped: “This is an outrage!”.

Clarifying any lingering doubts, Alan added: “No, no, no. We couldn’t do this job if we didn’t like each other – it would be hell.” Amanda added: “There’s not a single other person I could do it with,” to which he replied: “No, it would have to be you.”

While the pair have enjoyed a successful run on the BBC show, they recently snubbed the idea of presenting Strictly Come Dancing together.

Amid speculation that they might replace Tess Daly and Claudia Winkleman, Amanda confirmed on her Heart Radio Breakfast Show with Jamie Theakston: “I want to say now that me and Alan are 100 per cent not doing Strictly. We’re so flattered to be in that mix, but we both are not doing it.”

Speaking to The Daily Mail, the Britain’s Got Talent judge insisted she also wouldn’t be able to fit the role into her already busy schedule juggling family life and her career.

“You see, I am already part of a big show, and I’ll happily carry on watching Strictly from the comfort of my lounge, but it takes up too many weekends, I’ve got to remember that I have children and a husband,” she revealed.

“But I just hope that they still have two females doing it, that’s my big thing. They need somebody super funny, and somebody that you wouldn’t expect.”

Putting forward who she believes could be good for the positions, she suggested The One Show’s Alex Jones, BBC Radio star Zoe Ball and comedians Katherine Ryan and Daisy May Cooper.

WASHINGTON — In session for rare weekend votes with the election fast approaching, Congress acted Saturday to keep the government running for another 24 hours but made little apparent progress in breaking a budget impasse.

Despite the action of the House and the Senate on the eighth stopgap spending measure since the fiscal year began Oct. 1, a weird limbo enveloped the Capitol as neither Republicans nor Democrats predicted a quick deal. Gone for the time being was the usual year-end pressure to adjourn. Instead, both sides seemed willing to wait to see who would blink first.

Negotiations focused on the handful of issues still dividing the parties, issues that might or might not influence voters at the polls Nov. 7. Among them were tax credits for school construction, proposed workplace safety regulations and measures to ease immigration law.

President Clinton, who forced the weekend votes by insisting that lawmakers pass daily stopgap budget measures, urged the Republican-led Congress to wrap up its budget work and include an increase in the federal minimum wage.

“I’m not trying to harass [Congress],” Clinton said at a news conference. “I’m just trying to get them to finish their job and go home.”

Clinton cited an agriculture spending bill he signed Saturday as a model of bipartisanship. The president said he signed the bill–which included milestone language easing a decades-old trade embargo on Cuba to allow U.S. agricultural exports–even though he was critical of provisions that would limit the effect of the trade opening.

In a GOP radio address, New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman called the budget showdown “a case in point” of Washington gridlock that voters will punish.

“I think we are ready for a change,” Whitman said. “And the difference between the parties is striking. Republicans at all levels of government work with people to accomplish results–not make excuses for why we can’t even try to solve them.”

Republican congressional leaders note that they wrapped a minimum-wage increase Clinton supports into tax legislation that he is holding up with a promised veto. And they accuse the White House of constantly shifting its goals on the two government spending bills for fiscal 2001 that have not been finalized.

“I tell you, I’ve reached the end of my rope,” said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. To illustrate his frustration, Stevens said in an interview on the Capitol steps that the administration had sought $3.5 billion in extra spending on a bill containing $106.8 billion for discretionary spending on education, health and other programs. Then $4 billion. Then $4.1 billion. And now, he said, the demand is up to $4.5 billion.

“What can you do?” Stevens asked.

To register his protest, Stevens was one of two senators to vote against the daily budget resolution. The other was Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). Sixty-seven senators voted for the resolution.

Thirty-one senators–11 Democrats and 20 Republicans–were absent for what the chamber regarded as a ritual vote. Many missed it because of campaign events, a few for health reasons. California’s Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein–who is running for reelection–and Barbara Boxer, were both absent.

The House vote for the stopgap measure was 339 to 7. All seven dissenters were Democrats, including Rep. George Miller of Martinez. Of the 86 representatives who were absent, 42 were Republicans and 44 Democrats.

Twelve of California’s 52-member House delegation did not vote. They were Feinstein’s opponent in the Senate race, GOP Rep. Tom Campbell of San Jose, and Reps. Brian P. Bilbray (R-San Diego), Ken Calvert (R-Riverside), Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach), Matthew G. Martinez (R-Monterey Park), Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-Santa Clarita), George P. Radanovich (R-Mariposa), Joe Baca (D-Rialto), Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles), Tom Lantos (D-San Mateo), Pete Stark (D-Hayward) and Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles).

The roll call showed the political importance of the vote to many House members–all wary of the potential charge that their absence would reflect an insensitivity to the possibility of a government shutdown.

Bilbray was the only California absentee in a tough reelection race. Other California incumbents in contested races, such as Reps. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale), Steven T. Kuykendall (R-Rancho Palos Verdes), Calvin Dooley (D-Visalia), Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara) and Stephen Horn (R-Long Beach), all eschewed campaign events to remain in Washington for the vote.

More stopgap budget votes were expected today.

Thailand’s Thepchaiya Un-Nooh produced the snooker of his life, firing in a maximum 147 break and finishing with three consecutive centuries to beat Ronnie O’Sullivan 10-7 in the final of the World Open in Yushan.

The 41st seed toppled world number one Judd Trump in the semi-finals and came back from 4-0 down to beat arguably the sport’s greatest ever player in the final.

O’Sullivan hit the sport’s highest ever break of 153 on his run to a 66th ranking final and the 50-year-old Englishman had looked back to something approaching his best as he hunted down a 42nd ranking title – and first since January 2024.

“I just wanted to try my best because I didn’t know when I might be in another final again,” said 40-year-old Un-Nooh, whose only previous title came in the 2019 Shoot Out.

Seven-time world champion O’Sullivan had started the final quickly, reeling off the opening four frames in a run that included a 124 break, but the Thai world number 39 rattled off six consecutive frames thanks to some heavy scoring that included five breaks over 50.

O’Sullivan countered with three consecutive century breaks – 114, 116 and 136 – to regain the lead in a match of the highest quality, only for his opponent to level with a break of 77 then score three centuries of his own to clinch victory.

Un-Nooh’s unbelievable burst of scoring included breaks of 132 and 131, either side of his nerveless 147 in the penultimate frame, to provide a fitting climax.

The performance earned Un-Nooh a £175,000 purse in a season when he had failed to make it past the last 16 in any other tournament, while O’Sullivan had to be content with a £75,000 prize for the highest break.

“I just want to say well done to Thepchaiya who played unbelievable snooker,” O’Sullivan told the Yushan crowd.

“I watched him play against Judd Trump last night and he made the number one player in the world look second best. I was hoping he wouldn’t play like that today but he did – he gave me a good hiding, really.”

Under the guise of preserving secularism, this law allows the exclusion of people based on their religious identity.

On Monday, the Supreme Court of Canada will begin a four-day hearing for one of the most consequential constitutional cases in the country’s recent history. At issue is Quebec’s so-called “secularism law”, known as Bill 21 – a law enacted in 2019 that prohibits certain public sector workers from wearing visible religious symbols at work.

It bars many public sector employees, including teachers, prosecutors, police officers, and judges, from wearing religious symbols such as hijabs, turbans, kippahs, and other visible expressions of faith while at work.

There is much at stake in this case that raises fundamental questions about religious freedom, equality, and the limits of state power in a constitutional democracy. In addition, another significant issue is that to get the bill passed, Quebec’s government had used the “notwithstanding clause”, a unique provision in Canadian law that allows it to override fundamental rights and freedoms. No other constitutional democracy in the world has a similar blanket override of fundamental rights and freedoms.

The Quebec government claims that the law is necessary to preserve the religious neutrality of the state. Yet Bill 21 does the opposite: by forcing some individuals to choose between their profession and their religious identity, the Quebec government is not remaining neutral – it is effectively excluding people of faith from public sector employment.

The use of this extraordinary, and until recently rarely used, constitutional mechanism has turned the spotlight on Bill 21 beyond the borders of Quebec and the debate over secularism and religious freedoms. It has become a test of how far a democratic government can go in limiting fundamental rights and freedoms.

Evidence before the courts shows that Bill 21 affects religious people of many faiths, including Jewish men who wear kippahs and Sikh men and women who wear turbans; but its impact falls particularly heavily on Muslim women who wear the hijab. For many Muslim women who wear headscarves, teaching and other public service careers have effectively been closed off.

The message of exclusion that this law sends to young people is especially troubling. Generations of young people in Quebec are being told that their full participation in public life requires abandoning visible aspects of their identity.

This is why the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association launched the constitutional challenge against Bill 21. The Supreme Court of Canada must consider the implications, and possible limitations, of allowing governments to sidestep rights protections through pre-emptive use of constitutional override powers. The court’s decision will help determine whether constitutional rights in Canada remain meaningful constraints on government power, or whether they can be suspended whenever politically convenient.

These questions extend far beyond Canada. Across Europe and elsewhere, debates about secularism have increasingly centred on restrictions targeting religious expression, often impacting Muslim women in particular.

Canada often prides itself on being a model of multicultural democracy, one that accommodates diversity. Bill 21 challenges that reputation by testing whether neutrality can coexist with policies that effectively exclude people of visible faith from public service.

True secularism does not demand the erasure of religious identity. A neutral state does not require citizens to shed visible expressions of belief in order to participate fully in public life.

The Supreme Court of Canada now has the opportunity to reaffirm these principles and clarify that constitutional rights cannot be easily set aside. At a time when countries around the world are grappling with questions of belonging, pluralism, and the rights of minorities, the Canadian court’s ruling will send an important signal about whether liberal democracies are willing to uphold their commitments to freedom and equality.

We say this is not an abstract idea, but an imperative to demonstrate that commitments to freedom and equality are more than mere words.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Neil Sedaka, the singer and songwriter whose signature hits include “Calendar Girl” and “Breaking Up Is Hard to Do,” died of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The condition is caused by the buildup of plaque — meaning fats, cholesterol and other substances — in and on the artery walls, which can lead to events such as heart attacks, strokes and aneurysms. According to the American Heart Assn., atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide.

The musician’s death certificate, published Wednesday by the New York Post, also listed kidney failure as a contributing factor.

Sedaka died Feb. 27 in Los Angeles at age 86. The songwriter’s family previously told The Times that his death was sudden.

“Our family is devastated by the sudden passing of our beloved husband, father and grandfather, Neil Sedaka,” their statement read. “A true rock and roll legend, an inspiration to millions, but most importantly, at least to those of us who were lucky enough to know him, an incredible human being who will be deeply missed.”

Born and raised in Brooklyn, N.Y., Sedaka was a Juilliard-trained classical pianist who translated his skill to pop stardom in the 1960s. His popularity as a performer waxed and waned over the years, but he maintained a steady career writing hits for other artists for decades, collaborating with lyricists such as Howard Greenfield.

“Songwriting is a difficult undertaking that gets harder and harder because you have to top your past work,” Sedaka told The Times in 1996. “You have to keep proving yourself. … It’s wonderful to sing ‘Calendar Girl’ and ‘Breaking Up Is Hard to Do,’ but you need more than that. You have to break new ground. As an artist, I have to choose what I feel is good and hope that the public will go along with it.”

Sedaka is survived by his wife Leba; children Dara and Marc; and three grandchildren.

The provided text serves as an informational overview regarding Bihar Divas, an annual event commemorating the establishment of the Indian state of Bihar. This holiday traces its roots back to 1912, when the territory was officially separated from the Bengal Presidency during British rule. Beyond its administrative history, the source highlights the region’s rich cultural heritage, noting its significance to both Buddhists and Hindus through ancient landmarks and symbols. Modern celebrations involve large-scale festivals and government-sponsored cultural showcases designed to foster public participation and honor local traditions. Overall, the article functions as a historical and cultural guide  … 

NEW YORK — Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton acknowledged Sunday that he had experimented with marijuana while a 22-year-old student in England in the late 1960s, an admission that could raise doubts about his past candor in answering questions about his personal conduct.

For five years, the 45-year-old Clinton has answered questions about whether he had ever used drugs by saying he had never broken a U.S. law. During a televised debate here with Democratic presidential rival Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr., a questioner for the first time asked Clinton explicitly whether he had ever broken either a state, federal or a foreign drug law.

“When I was in England I experimented with marijuana a time or two,” he answered on the WCBS-TV broadcast, “and I didn’t like it. I didn’t inhale and never tried it again.”

Asked the same series of questions, Brown answered bluntly: “No.”

Clinton’s disclosure, which overshadowed one of the most substantive exchanges of the political season between the two rivals, is hardly unusual for a person of Clinton’s generation. Two of the Democratic presidential candidates in 1988 acknowledged similar behavior. And nothing Clinton said about his use of marijuana contradicted what he had said before.

But his decision until now to fend off drug-use queries with a narrow response, which could mislead voters into thinking he had never used drugs of any kind, was likely to add to concerns of those who regard him as less than straightforward.

Clinton said he did not believe the episode would hurt his candidacy, noting that other politicians had admitted to using marijuana and had suffered no apparent electoral consequences. He defended his previous denials by saying he had seen no need to volunteer a reply to something he had not been directly asked.

“Nobody’s ever asked me that question point blank,” he said, adding: “I said I’ve never broken the drug laws of my country, and that’s the absolute truth.”

It was the second time in a week that Clinton found it necessary to clarify previous statements on drugs.

On Thursday, a Clinton campaign aide, Betsey Wright, volunteered to the Los Angeles Times that the governor had never used cocaine or knowingly been around it.

The Times had contacted Wright to ask about a state police drug investigation in the mid-1980s of Clinton’s half-brother and a political contributor. After answering the questions, Wright said: “I assume from the questions that you were implying guilt by association in a state where everybody is associated. For that reason, when I verified with Gov. Clinton the answers to some of the questions, I asked him the following questions:

“ ‘Bill, have you ever used cocaine?’

“He replied, ‘No.’

“I said, ‘Bill, have you ever been in a room where you were aware there was cocaine?’

“He replied, ‘No.’ ”

When asked Friday why she had posed questions never asked by The Times, Wright said she had heard “rumors” that reporters were trying to place Clinton at parties where cocaine had been used. “I decided it was best to go ahead and put the issue on the table,” she said. (Interviews by The Times with some people said to have been in attendance at those parties have produced no evidence linking Clinton to the drug.)

Later Friday, Clinton called The Times to say that the campaign had not intended to provoke a story quoting him as denying cocaine use. Senior Clinton campaign officials said they feared such a story might be seen by the public as raising yet another question about his personal life.

Clinton’s Sunday acknowledgement of marijuana use while a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford came only three days after Clinton was asked by a member of the editorial board of the New York Daily News whether he had been asked previously about his drug use.

Clinton said that he had been asked such questions, and that his answer had always been that he had never violated a U.S. law.

Clinton campaign officials later described the new admission as an “elaboration” of Clinton’s previous comments and suggested that it and the earlier, narrow denials were merely two ways of looking at the same issue.

“Bill Clinton told the truth at every step of the way,” his chief strategist, James Carville, said. “It’s like the old saying about the guy who’s being sworn into office and he’s asked, ‘Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?’ and he answers, ‘Which one do you want?’ ”

Carville and other senior Clinton aides nevertheless expressed concern that the issue would be given undue prominence and further tar their candidate at a time when polls show that a large number of Democratic voters still harbor questions about Clinton’s personal record.

For his part, however, Brown chose not to make an immediate issue either of Clinton’s marijuana use or his handling of questions about it.

After denying that he had violated any drug laws, Brown demanded of a questioner: “Why don’t you lay off this stuff? What you did 10 or 20 years ago is not really relevant.”

But Brown himself was forced during the debate to respond to a new suggestion of impropriety in a Washington Post story detailing his ties to a company that paid a $400,000 settlement to the federal government after being accused of making exaggerated claims about a product said to help treat AIDS.

Brown, who served on the board of directors of a subsidiary to the company, Costa Mesa-based ICN Pharmaceuticals Inc., until he began his presidential campaign, said he had had “nothing to do” with the episode. He said his position gave him “no responsibility and no contact” with the parent firm.

Clinton did not press the issue during the debate, saying his own experience made him wary of “piling on.” But he suggested later in the day that justice was being done as he told a Bronx audience that “the press is finally starting to look at” a rival he believes has been treated too gently.

Clinton framed his response to the drug question during an era when the issue rose to political prominence.

In 1987, Supreme Court nominee Douglas H. Ginsburg was forced to withdraw his name from nomination after it was learned that he had used marijuana when he was a law-school professor.

But other politicians, including Sen. Albert Gore Jr. of Tennessee and Gov. Bruce Babbitt of Arizona, both 1988 Democratic presidential candidates, acknowledged using marijuana while in college and suffered no apparent political consequences.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has also admitted to having used marijuana, but the issue was given only passing attention during his confirmation hearings.

Clinton, by contrast, has steadfastly refused to answer “have you ever” questions about drug use, adultery or other matters of personal conduct on grounds that they are not legitimate subjects of inquiry.

He has said it is legitimate, however, for an officeholder or a candidate to be questioned about violations of law, and has always responded to questions about his drug use by stating that he had adhered to U.S. drug laws.

Earlier in the morning, Clinton delivered what amounted to an impassioned political sermon to the enthusiastic congregation of an African Methodist church in a mostly black neighborhood in Queens.

But faced with continued criticism of his periodic use of an all-white country club to play golf–conduct that Clinton has said was a mistake–his message Sunday was in part a plea for redemption from a black community from which he has so far drawn deep support.

“I have seen myself turned into a cartoon character of an old Southern deal-maker by the tabloids and television in a total denial of my life’s work,” he said.

He told the congregation he had made “a foolish mistake.” And as he cited Scripture later, the congregation joined him in a sympathetic chorus to murmur “those who are without sin should cast the first stone.”

The hourlong debate here between Clinton and Brown, who participated via satellite from Wisconsin, was one of the better illuminations of the differences between the Arkansas moderate and the California populist-liberal.

Again and again, the two candidates clashed on issues ranging from economic policy to capital punishment to labor issues to Middle East strategy.

On economic issues, Brown advanced his proposal to overhaul the current tax systems and replace them with a 13% flat-tax as a “progressive tax” whose simplicity would “jump-start the economy.”

But Clinton, who favors a more conventional middle-class tax cut and an increase on taxes for the wealthy, again derided Brown’s idea as a plan that would benefit only the wealthy and would “triple taxes on the poor and raise taxes on the middle class.”

In answer to a question, Clinton said he favored capital punishment as well as a proposal to accelerate what is now the time-consuming process under which a death-row inmate may appeal his sentence.

But Brown described Clinton’s decision earlier this year to order the execution of a man whose lawyer claimed he was retarded as a “moral abomination.” He contended that the proposal to limit death-penalty appeals was part of a “systematic erosion of civil liberties” and said: “I would oppose it with every ounce that I have.”

Brown said he would favor a five-year moratorium on the manufacture of handguns. But Clinton, while describing himself as an advocate of gun control, said he was unsure whether he could embrace such an approach.

On Israel, Clinton defended what he described as a longstanding U.S. willingness to “wink” at Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank and criticized the Bush Administration’s recent get-tough policy. But Brown bluntly said he regarded the settlements as “a problem.”

Asked about an issue important to labor unions, the two candidates made clear that their allegiance pulled them in different directions.

Clinton said he would favor placing young people in jobs of all kinds as part of a civilian corps to give them training for the future.

But Brown warned that the low wages paid to such employees would undermine working people and suggested that any such corps be limited to outdoor conservation efforts.

Huddersfield Giants have sacked head coach Luke Robinson after a poor start to the 2026 Super League season.

Giants have lost all of their opening five matches, leaving them without a point and bottom of the table.

Robinson began his second spell as Giants boss in September 2024, replacing Ian Watson, and went on to lose his first nine matches in charge before finally tasting success with a narrow victory against Hull FC at Magic Weekend last May.

Hampered by financial limitations, Robinson eventually guided the club to 10th in the final Super League standings last year.

This season, the 41-year-old has had to deal with a number of injuries to key players, including star full-back George Flanagan Jr, one of 16 first-team members who were unavailable during an injury crisis labelled as “unprecedented” by the club earlier this month.

Robinson was left looking a forlorn figure following his side’s defeat by Bradford Bulls on Friday night, which has ended up being his final match in charge.

He previously, but briefly, acted as interim head coach of Giants during the end of the Covid-affected 2020 season after Simon Woolford resigned, taking charge of the final eight matches of the campaign.

Director of rugby Andy Kelly will take charge of the first team until Robinson’s successor is appointed.

Huddersfield continue their Super League campaign with a trip to league leaders Wigan on Saturday [15:00 GMT].