March 16 (UPI) — Senate Republicans are trying to pass the SAVE America Act this week, as both the GOP and Democrats are gearing up to fight over the election reform bill that would require those registering to vote to show proof of citizenship with passports or birth certificates.
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act already has broad public support, but Democrats are strongly against it. Republicans and President Donald Trump want a prolonged fight, forcing Democrats to defend their opposition.
Republicans say it will make elections safer, but Democrats call it a “voter suppression act.”
The bill would force people registering to vote to show proof of citizenship with a passport or certified birth certificate. People who have legally changed their name, including transgender people and most married women, would have a more difficult time.
According to State Department statistics, around half of Americans have a valid passport, and a first-time applicant would have to pay $165 to get one. The University of Maryland’s Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement said that 2.6 million Americans do not have a government-issued photo ID.
A recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll showed that 71% of voters support the SAVE Act.
House Republicans passed a version of the bill along party lines in February. But the Senate needs 60 votes to avoid a filibuster. Right now, Republicans have a 53-47 majority, and Sen. John Fetterman, I-Pa., who usually votes with the GOP, has said he’s against the bill.
On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he wants to bring the bill to a vote to “put Democrats on the record.”
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told The Hill that Trump wants to see an epic fight, similar to the two-month battle to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
“What I want to do is try to maximize the period of time in which we debate it,” Lee said.
“They faced a 32-vote cloture deficit at the time it came over from the House in March of ’64,” Lee told The Hill. “They were able to close a 32-vote cloture deficit. It took them 60 days, but they got there.”
He said taking a longer time gives lawmakers clarity.
“Debating a bill that continues to get more popular even as people are trying to slow it down and stop it and obstruct it sometimes sharpens the minds of individual lawmakers and makes them more amenable in the end to negotiation,” Lee added. “That’s what we’re looking at here.”
Trump and other conservative Senators want to force Democrats to do a talking filibuster, but Thune has said there just aren’t enough votes to do so. He said the Republicans aren’t unified enough to table potential Democratic amendments.
“The votes aren’t there, one, to nuke the filibuster and the votes aren’t there for a talking filibuster. It’s just a reality,” The Hill reported Thune said last week. “I’m the person who has to deliver sometimes the not-so-good news that the math doesn’t add up but those are the facts and there’s no getting around it.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats are prepared for the battle.
“We don’t yet know what Thune is doing … but we’re prepared for every possible scenario,” Schumer told reporters Sunday.
“My caucus really feels strongly that this would be a horror … one of the worst things that’s happened in the history of this country in terms of allowing people to vote,” he said.
President Donald Trump speaks during an event celebrating Women’s History Month in the East Room of the White House on Thursday. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
Thursday’s protest ended at the National Assembly in Caracas. (Archive)
Caracas, March 14, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan workers, activists, and trade union organizers held marches in several cities on Thursday to demand wage increases and respect for labor rights.
A coalition of labor organizations staged protests in Caracas and over 25 other cities across the country. In the Venezuelan capital, around 1,000 demonstrators marched from Plaza Morelos and broke through a police cordon to reach the National Assembly in the city center.
“Mobilizations like the one we had today will continue and grow until the government changes its salary policies,” José Gregorio Afonso, president of the Central University of Venezuela (UCV) professors’ association, stated. “We believe the economic conditions allow for the establishment of a minimum wage as determined by the Constitution and the Labor Law.”
Afonso added that the Constitution mandates the government adjust the minimum wage at least once a year to keep up with inflation, but the last increase was in 2022. He likewise pointed to recent official figures of economic growth and prospects of increased oil revenues.
Thursday’s rally consisted largely of education sector trade unions, as well as public sector retirees. A commission met with a group of legislators at the end of the march to deliver a list of 17 demands signed by over 200 trade unions.
A similar document was delivered to the Labor Ministry following prior nationwide rallies on February 26. The labor organizations’ demands include raising the minimum wage in accordance with the Constitution and labor legislation, the release of workers and trade unionists allegedly arrested for defending labor rights, and the repeal of statutes such as the 2792 Memorandum that suspended several collective bargaining rights.
Activists have also voiced opposition to plans to implement a pro-business reform of the country’s Organic Law of Labor and Workers (LOTTT) that would cut benefits, social security contributions, and other employer responsibilities.
The historic 2012 law, approved by former President Hugo Chávez, prohibits unfair dismissal and outsourcing, enshrines the world’s third-longest maternity leave, guarantees the right to work for both women and people with disabilities, and extends retirement pensions to all workers, including full-time mothers and the self-employed.
Later on Thursday, the ruling Socialist Party (PSUV) held its own march in Caracas along the same route, with spokespeople urging the defense of the country’s peace and sovereignty, as well as calling for the release of kidnapped President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.
Labor Minister Eduardo Piñate told reporters that the rally was in “firm backing” of the Maduro and Rodríguez government’s labor policies.
Gov’t increases bonus amid salary debates
On Friday, unofficial channels reported that the acting Rodríguez administration had raised the monthly “economic war bonus” by 25 percent, from US $120 to $150. Coupled with a $40 food bonus, the move brings the monthly income floor for public sector workers to $190. The amount is paid in bolívars at the official exchange rate.
Venezuelan government officials have not commented on the increase. It is not presently known whether public sector retirees and pensioners, who receive $70 and $50 economic war bonuses, respectively, will benefit from similar hikes.
Venezuela’s monthly minimum wage was set at 130 bolívars (BsD) in March 2022 and has not been adjusted since. At the time, 130 BsD amounted to around US $30, but with the Venezuelan currency’s devaluation, it is now equivalent to $0.29. With the Venezuelan economy heavily battered by US sanctions, the Nicolás Maduro government prioritized non-wage bonuses as the main income source for workers and pensioners.
Trade unions and leftist organizations have criticized the policy for violating the country’s labor laws and favoring business sector interests by reducing labor costs and making dismissals more flexible.
In recent weeks, trade union coalitions have put forward proposals for a minimum wage adjustment. Center-right and right-wing alliances such as the Independent Union Alliance (ASI) and the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV) have urged authorities to set the monthly minimum salary at $200 before pegging it to a cost-of-living index.
For its part, the government-aligned Bolivarian Socialist Union of Workers (CBST) proposed that the minimum wage be raised by $50 each quarter, though it did not specify a time frame. The CBST added that, should the government deem the salary increase unfeasible, it should implement a similar increase in non-wage bonuses.
Liberal economists, including Asdrúbal Oliveros and José Guerra, have argued that minimum wage increases beyond $100 and $150 a month, respectively, might place too high a burden on the state’s budget. At the same time, business sector representatives have called for a flexibilization of labor protections and benefits.
Leftist economists, including former PSUV congressman Tony Boza, Pasqualina Curcio, and Juan Carlos Valdez, have proposed raising wages and pegging them to inflation as is currently done by private banks with interest rates.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren has earned a rare rebuke by the Senate for — believe it or not — quoting Coretta Scott King on the Senate floor.
The Massachusetts Democrat ran afoul of the chamber’s arcane rules by reading a 30-year-old letter from Dr. Martin Luther King’s widow that dated to Sen. Jeff Sessions’ failed judicial nomination three decades ago.
The chamber is debating the Alabama Republican’s nomination for attorney general, with Democrats dropping senatorial niceties to oppose Sessions and Republicans sticking up for him.
King wrote that when acting as a federal prosecutor, Sessions used his power to “chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens.”
Quoting King technically put Warren in violation of Senate rules for “impugning the motives” of Sessions, though senators have said far worse stuff. And Warren was reading from a letter that was written 10 years before Sessions was even elected to the Senate.
Still, top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell invoked the rules. After a few parliamentary moves, the GOP-controlled Senate voted to back him up.
Now, Warren is forbidden from speaking again on Sessions’ nomination. A vote on Sessions is expected Wednesday evening.
Democrats pointed out that McConnell didn’t object when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called him a liar in a 2015 dustup.
“I’m reading a letter from Coretta Scott King to the Judiciary Committee from 1986 that was admitted into the record. I’m simply reading what she wrote about what the nomination of Jeff Sessions to be a federal court judge meant and what it would mean in history for her,” Warren said.
Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, one of the top Democrats running for California governor, on Friday blasted USC and the ABC affiliate in Los Angeles for hosting a debate that he argues purposely excludes all candidates of color.
Becerra said he and the other candidates were excluded from the televised debate unfairly, a decision that he said “smells of election rigging” in a hotly contested race less than three months before the June primary.
“My father used to tell me of the days when he would encounter signs posted outside establishments that read ‘No Dogs, Negroes or Mexicans Allowed,’” Becerra wrote in a public letter to USC President Beong-Soo Kim. “USC’s actions may not seem so transparent. But, you have deliberately chosen to selectively filter the voters’ view of the field of gubernatorial candidates in what all observers characterize as a wide-open race.”
The university said in a statement that it authorized a political expert to create the formula to determine who would be included in the debate.
“At the request of the Center for the Political Future, Dr. Christian Grose, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, independently established the methodology that determined eligibility for the debate,” according to a statement from the center. “No one in the USC administration had any role in developing, reviewing or approving those criteria.”
The center later said in a statement on Friday that it reiterated the criteria that determined which candidates were invited to participate in the debate, and that nothing had changed since the forum was first planned.
The criteria for gubernatorial candidates to participate considered opinion polling and campaign fund raising. Six candidates were asked to participate in the March 24 debate, which is cosponsored by ABC7 Los Angeles and Univision.
There was conflicting information about USC’s stated criteria, however. The methodology says that the fundraising totals considered were based on semi-annual reports campaigns filed with the California Secretary of State’s office. However, the document later says that the fundraising figures also includes large donations that campaigns are required to immediately report.
This is a critical difference, because San José Mayor Matt Mahan did not enter the race until late January, and thus far has not been required to file any semi-annual fundraising disclosures with the state. However, he has received significant donations since he entered the race.
Mahan agreed with Becerra, saying that he ought to be part of public forums about who will lead the state.
“The former Secretary is absolutely correct, he should be included in the debate,” Mahan said in a statement. “His long record of service to California has earned him a place on every debate stage in this campaign for Governor.”
USC officials said they are clarifying how they selected candidates to participate in the race.
“We are reissuing the criteria to make clear that they include current fundraising totals, including semi-annual and late reports, which were always part of the formula,” the Center for the Political Future said in a statement. “We are not changing the criteria. We have updated even as of today and the rank order includes the same top 6 candidates.”
Grose said that the selection of candidates was based upon polling and fundraising numbers, and that the sentence about semi-annual fundraising reports was inaccurate.
“It was just a wording issue. It’s not a methodology issue,” he said.
Six candidates are scheduled to appear at the debate: Republicans Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton; and Democrats Northern California Rep. Eric Swalwell, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer and Mahan.
The kerfuffle occurs after Democratic candidates of color accused state party leaders of trying to oust them from the race in favor of white candidates, who have more support in opinion polls.
In addition to Becerra, other prominent Democratic candidates excluded from the debate include former state Controller Betty Yee, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who also condemned the candidate-selection formula.
“Californians deserve a fair process, and voters deserve to hear from all qualified voices,” Villaraigosa, who taught public policy at USC for three years after leaving office, said in a statement. “But this biased and bigoted action by USC to manipulate the data to exclude every qualified Black, Latino, and API candidate in favor of a less qualified white candidate is shameful.”
Becerra said USC went to great lengths to justify the candidates that were excluded, but the bias was clear.
“You can’t escape the detestable outcome: you disqualified all of the candidates of color from participating while you invited a white candidate who has NEVER polled higher than some of the candidates of color, including me,” he said.
Becerra was clearly referring to Mahan, who recently entered the race and has received millions of dollars of support from Silicon Valley leaders. Becerra noted that veteran GOP strategist Mike Murphy, co-director of the USC Center for the Political Future, which is a sponsor of the debate, is assisting an independent expenditure committee backing Mahan.
Murphy said he had recused himself from anything involved in the debate, and that he was a volunteer for the outside group backing Mahan. If he becomes a paid advisor to the independent expenditure committee, he said he has requested unpaid leave from the university through the June 2 primary.
“I’ve been transparent that I’m personally a Mahan supporter,” Murphy said. “I’ve had zero to do with the debate.”
Universal Pictures will now keep its new films in theaters for at least five weekends, a reversal from the studio’s previous policy of at least 17 days that was set during the pandemic.
The change takes place immediately, the studio said Thursday. That means it will apply to its newest film, the Colleen Hoover romance “Reminders of Him,” which is out in theaters this weekend. Other upcoming films include Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey,” which will be released in July.
“Our windowing strategy has always been designed to evolve with the marketplace, but we firmly believe in the primacy of theatrical exclusivity and working closely with our exhibition partners to support a healthy, sustainable theatrical ecosystem,” Donna Langley, chair of NBCUniversal Entertainment, said in an email to the New York Times, which first reported the news.
Focus Features, Universal Pictures’ specialty film arm, will keep its existing theatrical exclusivity policies, which vary on a case-by-case basis. Chloé Zhao’s “Hamnet,” for instance, was in theaters for 99 days, while 2024’s “Nosferatu” played for 58 days. The minimum is 17 days.
That debate ramped up during the pandemic, when some studios shortened theatrical exclusivity periods in order to move films to release for video on demand or streaming.
Prior to the pandemic, those windows could be as long as 90 days. Now, the average is around 30 days.
Theater owners have argued that shorter windows cut into box office profits and train audiences to wait to watch a movie at home. Distributors have countered that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t necessarily work for smaller or mid-budget films, which may find a bigger audience via at-home viewing.
At last year’s CinemaCon trade conference, top theater lobbyist Michael O’Leary called on distributors to establish a minimum 45-day window, arguing there needed to be a “clear, consistent starting point” to set moviegoers’ expectations and affirm commitment to theatrical exclusivity.
The debate has become even more fierce as box office profits still have not recovered from the pandemic. Last year, theatrical revenue in the U.S. and Canada totaled about $8.87 billion, just 1.5% above 2024’s disappointing $8.74-billion tally.
A driver refuels a vehicle at a gas station in Seoul on Saturday as global oil prices rise amid instability in the Middle East. According to the Korea National Oil Corporation’s Opinet system, the nationwide average gasoline price was 1,893.3 won ($1.41) per liter at 9 a.m., up 3.9 won from the previous day. Diesel averaged 1,915.4 won ($1.43) per liter, up 4.8 won. Photo by Asia Today
March 8 (Asia Today) — Gasoline prices in South Korea are approaching 2,000 won per liter as rising global oil prices linked to tensions in the Middle East push fuel costs higher, prompting debate over additional government tax cuts.
According to the oil price monitoring system operated by the Korea National Oil Corporation, the nationwide average gasoline price stood at 1,889.40 won ($1.41) per liter as of Friday.
In Seoul, the average price reached 1,941.71 won ($1.45) per liter, nearing the psychologically significant 2,000 won ($1.49) level and increasing pressure on consumers.
Fuel prices typically reflect international oil market changes with a delay of about two to three weeks. However, the recent sharp increase has raised expectations that the government may expand existing fuel tax reductions.
The government has already extended temporary tax cuts through the end of April. Gasoline currently benefits from a 7% fuel tax reduction, while diesel and liquefied petroleum gas butane receive 10% reductions.
Fuel taxes are one of the government’s most direct tools to ease inflation, as adjustments can quickly influence consumer prices.
South Korea previously expanded fuel tax cuts during earlier energy price surges. In 2022, when oil prices spiked following the Russia-Ukraine war, the government increased the reduction rate from about 30% to the legal maximum of 37%.
Officials are reportedly reviewing whether additional tax reductions are needed. Because fuel tax rates are set by enforcement decree, the government can implement changes relatively quickly after approval at a Cabinet meeting.
Bae Jun-young of the conservative People Power Party said fuel tax cuts should be expanded to provide meaningful relief for consumers.
“If tensions in the Middle East persist, the government should also consider raising the ceiling on the flexible fuel tax rate,” Bae said.
A chart outlines key legislative proposals promoted by South Korea’s ruling Democratic Party, including expanding the Supreme Court, abolishing the prosecutor’s office and revising criminal statutes. Graphic by Asia Today and translated by UPI
March 4 (Asia Today) — A series of legislative proposals by South Korea’s ruling Democratic Party has sparked debate over judicial independence, as critics argue the measures could affect ongoing criminal cases involving President Lee Jae-myung.
The legislation includes proposals to expand the Supreme Court, introduce constitutional review of court rulings and abolish the crime of breach of trust. Legal experts say the bills, combined with calls to drop certain prosecutions, raise concerns that lawmakers could influence judicial proceedings.
Five criminal cases involving Lee are currently paused while he serves as president. As the National Assembly moves forward with legal revisions, some members of the legal community warn the changes could intersect with those trials.
National Assembly inquiry targets prosecution investigations
According to political sources, the Democratic Party has launched a parliamentary committee seeking a national investigation into what it calls politically motivated prosecutions under the previous administration.
The committee plans to examine several high-profile cases involving political figures, including the Daejang-dong development case and allegations involving transfers of funds to North Korea.
Party officials have also urged prosecutors to withdraw indictments in cases involving Lee.
The move has prompted criticism from legal observers who say the National Assembly should not interfere in criminal proceedings.
Judicial reform bills move quickly through parliament
The Democratic Party has advanced three major judicial reform bills in recent weeks.
The legislation would expand the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 26, allow the Constitutional Court to review final court rulings through a judicial complaint system and introduce a new criminal offense for officials who deliberately misapply the law in judicial decisions or investigations.
Supporters say the reforms are aimed at addressing structural issues within the judiciary.
However, some legal analysts say the proposals could alter the balance of power within the court system and influence the legal environment surrounding ongoing cases.
Breach of trust law could affect corruption cases
Another proposal under discussion involves abolishing the criminal offense of breach of trust, which has been used in several major corruption investigations.
If the law were repealed, legal experts say it could affect cases related to development projects in Daejang-dong and Baekhyeon-dong as well as allegations involving misuse of a provincial government corporate credit card.
Under South Korean law, when a criminal statute is repealed after an alleged offense, courts may dismiss charges related to that statute.
Concerns raised over separation of powers
Some lawyers say the pace and scope of the legislative initiatives raise broader concerns about the balance between the legislative and judicial branches.
“The outcome of trials should be determined in court,” one attorney who previously served as a senior prosecutor said. “If lawmakers change laws in ways that directly affect ongoing cases, it raises questions about the separation of powers.”
Supporters of the legislation argue the reforms are necessary to improve accountability within the justice system.
Debate over the proposals is expected to continue as the National Assembly reviews the measures during the current parliamentary session.
He replied: “That’s what proper Shepherd’s Pie is-” Cutting him off, Susanna replied: “No, Shepherd’s Pie is with lamb mince. You made a cottage pie!”
Ed added: “If we did a poll of our viewers, in their lives, was Shepherd’s Pie made with beef or lamb’, 70% of people would say beef.”
Wanting to settle the debate, Good Morning Britain’s official X account asked their viewers in a poll.
They asked: “@edballs has revealed that he made a shepherd’s pie with beef mince last night, but @susannareid100, @Kevin_Maguire and Kwasi Kwarteng say Ed made a cottage pie. Help us settle the debate: Is it OK to make shepherd’s pie with beef mince?”
However, it was clear people weren’t thrilled with the question, as many flocked to comment on the topic.
For the latest showbiz, TV, movie and streaming news, go to the new **Everything Gossip** website.
One person said: “What utter garbage for a news or even a current affairs programme.” Another reeled: “Is this even a newsworthy debate: how or what Balls cooks for dinner?”
Someone else commented: “That’s your take on world news.” As another shared: “This is taking up airtime. Wtf.”
However, some fans were thrilled to take part in the debate, as one person commented: “Morning, I’m with Ed. I don’t eat Lamb, but I’ve had many tasty Shepherds pies, made with beef.”
Later on in the show, Susanna remarked: “We are losing sleep this morning on whether a pie topped with potato and mince is a Shepherd’s Pie, if it’s made with beef mince.
“My view is that it’s clearly a cottage pie, your view is that it’s clearly a Shepherd’s Pie, despite the fact that Shepherds don’t look after cows.”
While Ed insisted that he was correct, there are some people who are a ‘bit fussy’ over what is correct.
Speaking about the poll, Susanna added: “Obviously, we’re in the middle of conflict, and there are, as we understand, more important things to talk about. But, we’re on air for three and a half hours every morning, so real life does go on, doesn’t it?
“We put a Twitter poll up, help us settle the debate: is it OK to make Shepherd’s Pie with beef mince? No, 63.4%, of course it isn’t.”
Good Morning Britain is available to watch weekdays on ITV from 6am.
Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source.** Click here to activate**** or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.**
A major airport sparked debate around airport dress codes when it announced it wanted to become the “world’s first Crocs-free AND pyjama-free airport”, and travellers have been left divided by the X post
16:43, 27 Feb 2026Updated 16:44, 27 Feb 2026
The post has sparked debate about airport clothing(Image: Getty)
A major airport has ignited controversy over appropriate airport clothing with an X post declaring “We’ve had enough.” Tampa International Airport took to X (formerly Twitter ) yesterday (February 26) with an announcement claiming it aspired to become the “world’s first Crocs-free AND pajama-free airport”.
The post opened with the declaration “We’ve seen enough. We’ve had enough.” before stating “The madness stops today.” The airport took aim at travellers sporting pyjamas in broad daylight, encouraging people to have a “difficult conversation” with relatives who might be guilty of such a fashion misstep, reports the Express.
While the airport went on to confirm to USA Today that the post was lighthearted, it nevertheless triggered a discussion about appropriate flying attire and whether dress codes ought to be enforced.
Its statement explained: “Tampa International Airport regularly shares lighthearted, satirical social media content as part of our ongoing effort to engage with our followers. Today’s post about ‘banning’ pajamas was another playful nod to day-of-travel fashion debates. We encourage our passengers to travel comfortably and appreciate our loyal followers who enjoy the online humor.”
While airports typically don’t enforce dress codes, there have been cases where passengers have been refused boarding or removed from planes based on their attire. In 2024, two women sporting crop tops were removed from a Spirit Airlines flight leaving Los Angeles after declining to cover up with their jumpers.
In 2025, the budget carrier updated its contract of carriage, warning that travellers who are “barefoot or inadequately clothed” could face boarding refusal or removal from the aircraft. Spirit’s terms and conditions specify this includes “see-through clothing; [being] not adequately covered; exposed breasts, buttocks, or other private parts”.
The airline also prohibits clothing and body art deemed “lewd, obscene, or offensive in nature” and states it may refuse boarding to passengers with “an offensive odor unless caused by a qualified disability”.
British airlines and airports haven’t yet introduced clothing regulations, apart from suggestions to dress comfortably, though certain airport lounges do have dress codes. No1 Lounges, which operates facilities at major hubs including London Gatwick and Heathrow, states on its website: “Yes, we have a dress code in place. We ask all our guests to wear smart-casual clothing.
“Our dress code stipulates that we reserve the right to refuse admission to anyone wearing clothing which we deem to be unsuitable. This includes themed or fancy-dress outfits, clothes with slogans that may cause offence, sports shirts, beach flip flops, vests, and clothing that exposes midriffs or upper thighs.
“Our My Lounge spaces are designed to be a little more relaxed and informal, encouraging guests to dress comfortably and express their individuality. Casual clothing, trainers, flip flops, and athleisure are welcome at My Lounge.” The policy does clarify, however, that unsuitable items such as fancy dress are still banned in these areas.
Despite its tongue-in-cheek tone, Tampa International Airport’s social media post ignited discussion about appropriate flying attire. One commenter enthused: “I love this! Let’s go back to the way it was in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s!”, accompanied by vintage photographs showing impeccably dressed passengers from bygone eras.
Another countered: “I’ll dress nice again when we’re not treated like cattle at the airport and on the plane.” While contributor questioned: “How are you even classifying clothing as pajamas to begin with? Are sweatpants, yoga pants, children wearing soft clothes pajamas?”.
Would you back dress codes at airports and on airplanes? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Ensure our latest stories always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.
We made it! After this weekend, when the Producers Guild of America and Screen Actors Guild hand out their highly predictive precursors, the final shape of the Oscar race should be (reasonably) clear — and nominees worn out by months of campaigning will be breathing a sigh of relief.
Before I share highlights from this week’s issue, one programming note: This will be my last letter from the editor until our inaugural Cannes issue drops in May. (Don’t worry, I will be plenty busy in the interim catching up on this year’s top Emmy contenders.)
Thanks as always for following along, and may you triumph in your Oscar pool!
Cover story: Rose Byrne
(Ryan Pfluger / For The Times)
Times columnist Mary McNamara and I don’t agree on everything, but we do agree on this: “Damages” deserves to be ranked alongside “Mad Men” and “Breaking Bad” in any discussion of the Golden Age of TV.
That’s thanks in one part to a gripping flash-forward narrative structure now so common it could be considered a cliché, and in another to Glenn Close’s indelible performance as ruthless litigator Patty Hewes. But it’s also a testament to the multifaceted talents of Rose Byrne, who went “toe-to-toe” with Close in what would become her breakthrough role — and then confidently pivoted to projects like “Insidious,” “Bridesmaids” and “Spy.”
“Byrne is something of a creative chameleon, moving easily from drama to comedy to horror, film to television to stage and back again,” McNamara writes in this week’s cover story. “In many ways, her gut-wrenching, darkly funny performance as a woman pushed beyond all endurance in “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” is a culmination of all the characters she brought to life before it.”
Inside Warner Bros.’ dominant Oscar haul
(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)
Whether you come down on the side of “Sinners” or “One Battle After Another” in the best picture race may be perfect fodder for debate with friends over a few small beers, but for Warner Bros. executives Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy it would be akin to choosing a favorite child. After all, both projects emerged from the pair’s desire, as contributor Gregory Ellwood writes, to make WB “a destination where filmmakers of all varieties, including auteurs, bring their projects for ‘white glove’ treatment.”
As De Luca explains, “Everything was original once… If you don’t refresh the coffers with new IP to create new franchises, at some point you get to Chapter 10 or 11 and people start to move on.”
The many faces of ‘The Secret Agent’
(Ryan Pfluger/For The Times)
The moment Tânia Maria arrives onscreen as Dona Sebastiana in “The Secret Agent,” you can’t help but ask yourself, “Who is that?!” (Star Wagner Moura had the same reaction.) But the real feat casting director Gabriel Domingues pulls off in the Oscar-nominated Brazilian thriller is to make you ask yourself the same question, over and over, every time a new character appears.
How did Domingues find a range of actors to represent the country’s endless diversity? It’s part of his process, writes contributor Carlos Aguilar: “He prides himself on doing the shoe-leather work of looking for fresh, compelling faces in cities where others might not think to look — those without a prominent arts scene, for instance.”
PHILADELPHIA — In the first one-on-one debate of the 1988 Democratic presidential campaign, front-runner Michael S. Dukakis and his sole remaining adversary, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, both contended Friday night that it was too soon to discuss whether Dukakis should ask Jackson to be his running mate.
But the fact that the subject came up several times during the hourlong televised encounter, in advance of Tuesday’s presidential primary here in the Keystone State, reflected the degree to which Gov. Dukakis’ victory in the contest is widely considered all but assured. At the same time, the questions about Jackson’s becoming the first black to run on the national ticket of a major party were a measure of the impact the civil rights leader has had on the Democratic campaign.
‘Are You Interested?’
For their own differing reasons–Jackson because he is unwilling to have his presidential candidacy written off and Dukakis because he is leery of overconfidence–both men sought to dismiss the idea. Nevertheless, Dukakis twice during the debate leaned over to Jackson when the subject of the vice presidency was raised and asked: “Are you interested?”
While his comments brought laughter, as they were intended to, they also will inevitably fan speculation about what is certain to become the preoccupation of the two candidates and other Democratic leaders until the Atlanta convention in July is concluded.
When he was asked if he would accept an offer from Dukakis, Jackson said: “It’s a bit premature to be giving out coronation roses for the governor and taps for me.”
Jackson asserted that he and Dukakis were really in a “neck-and-neck contest,” contending that he trailed the governor by only about 170,000 votes after weeks of campaigning and made plain that he was not prepared to call it quits.
Pride of Accomplishment
“We’re sitting here side by side,” Jackson said of himself and Dukakis at one point, signaling not only his pride at what he had accomplished but his determination to press on. “But we’re not equal because I’ve come from furthest back to get here.”
And when Dukakis was asked about his ability to run well in the South, as a Northeastern governor, Jackson interjected: “With Mike Dukakis on my ticket we will win the South.”
Dukakis, when asked if he would choose Jackson to be his running mate, said: “My job right now is to work hard to win this nomination, and it is by no means won.”
In their first encounter since last Tuesday’s New York primary effectively eliminated Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr. from the race and significantly fattened Dukakis’ lead in the race for delegates, both candidates aimed most of their shots past each other at the Reagan Administration and at the presumptive Republican standard-bearer, Vice President George Bush.
Thus when he was questioned about his plans to expand industry in Pennsylvania and other states that are in worse economic shape than his own Massachusetts, Dukakis criticized Reagan for threatening to veto the trade bill passed Thursday by the House because of its provision requiring a 60-day advance notice of plant shutdowns or layoffs.
Hits Reagan on Terrorism
And he also used a question on terrorism to condemn the Reagan Administration for trying to trade arms to Iran in the hope of gaining the release of U.S. hostages as “the worst possible thing we could have done.”
And Jackson attacked the Reagan Administration for its dealings with Panamanian strongman Manuel A. Noriega, whom he denounced as a drug dealer, and for what he charged was its general ineffectiveness in combatting drugs.
In one of the rare occasions that either of the two Democrats challenged each other, Jackson pressed Dukakis on whether the governor would apply his terrorist policy to South Africa after Dukakis said he would never negotiate with terrorists, even to save the lives of hostages and also said that if necessary he would order military strikes against terrorist base camps and support bases in other countries.
“If we are serious about international terrorism,” Dukakis said, the United States might have to launch such strikes. “I think a President who is serious about this,” Dukakis said, “can work with our allies and the international community to mount a very serious effort against terrorism.”
Questioned on South Africa
Jackson then contended that South Africa had committed aggression against several of the “front-line” African states on its borders and, declaring that such tactics amounted to “state terrorism,” asked Dukakis what his response would be.
Dukakis said he would be “very tough” on South Africa and would impose economic sanctions against that country but refused to say whether he would take military action.
Jackson also subtly needled Dukakis after the governor took credit for the prosperity in Massachusetts, which he referred to as “an economic miracle.”
Jackson noted that Dukakis and Massachusetts had the advantage of substantial federal investment and said that Democratic Gov. Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania, who was in attendance at the debate sponsored by the state Democratic Party, “could have a boom too” under similar conditions.
In this episode of The Envelope video podcast, Teyana Taylor describes the “slingshot” of success that’s come with “One Battle After Another” and shares her insights as to why fictional revolutionary Perfidia Beverly Hills does what she does in the film.
Kelvin Washington: Hello, everyone, and welcome back to The Envelope. Kelvin Washington, Yvonne Villarreal, we have Mark Olsen as well. Hopefully you all have been great since the last time I saw you. Everybody been good?
Mark Olsen: Of course.
Washington: Well, I tell you what, there’s a list of folks who’ve been very good because they’ve been nominated for an Oscar. And obviously, you kind of get the usual suspects, if you will. And then you get some surprises out there. Some folks you go, “Whoa!” So I want to start with you. Either of you can jump in on this. Is there someone that maybe surprised you, a film or something that you were just excited about or maybe someone said, “Them again?” or “That film again?”
Olsen: I think it was very exciting that “Sinners” got the most nominations of any film ever with 16 nominations. It was nominated in every category that it was eligible for. To see a movie that has had commercial success and felt like a cultural moment now being recognized somewhere like the Academy Awards, it’s just exciting to see that all coming together and rolling along for that film, regardless of how it turns out at the show.
Villarreal: I was very excited to see Rose Byrne get acknowledged for “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You.” Because I was worried about that movie losing steam after all the raves it got at Sundance [in 2025] and it’s a smaller movie. I wasn’t sure, “Are people going to remember it?” But I just think she’s so great in that film.
I was sort of surprised that Chase Infiniti didn’t get nominated.
Olsen: Because of the nature of the movie, the whole lead/supporting business was tough, and also it being her first movie, it’s a little harder to get that nomination — especially in lead actress, faced with, say, Kate Hudson, someone who’s been in the business for a long time, is much beloved in the industry, has obviously family historical ties to Hollywood. It’s interesting to see even in the nominations this sort of alchemy of like, “a little of this, a little bit of that” as far as who the academy was choosing to recognize.
Washington: You know, I go back to something you said, Mark, when you go to “Sinners.” You mentioned the blockbuster feel of it, getting people’s butts to the theaters, spending money. And also kind of original. We’ve had vampire movies before, but, you know, you get the “Transformer 12’s” and “Expendable 32’s.” I think a lot of folks were excited to see something original that also had commercial success as well.
Another film that had a bunch of success is “One Battle After Another.” You had a chance to speak with a star from that film, who’s been a star in her own right musically, but now into the film world, with Teyana Taylor.
Olsen: That’s right. It’s so exciting. She’s nominated for best supporting actress. This is a long movie, it’s over two and a half hours long. She more or less exits the picture about 30 minutes in. So I think it says something about the strength of her performance that her character kind of hovers over the rest of that movie. You feel her in the movie, even though she’s actually not onscreen. So at the Oscar nominees luncheon recently, we had a chance to sit down with Teyana and she was just so vibrant, so full of energy, really has a great attitude about this moment for herself. I mean, she just recently won a Golden Globe, she hosted “Saturday Night Live.” So much is like happening for her, seemingly right now and she’s just got this real like, taking it all in, very open to it [attitude]. It was really an exciting conversation.
Washington: A culmination of all her hard work. Here is Mark’s conversation with Teyana Taylor.
Teyana Taylor.
(Ian Spanier / For The Times)
Mark Olsen: You were just at the Super Bowl. About a week before that, you were a nominee at the Grammys. About a week before that you hosted “Saturday Night Live.” About a week before that you won a Golden Globe. And you’re here today as an Academy Award nominee. I’m sure I’m leaving some things out. I would say what’s the last year been like for you, but I feel like, what’s the last month or two been like for you? It feels like the rocket ship has really taken off.
Teyana Taylor: Yeah, it’s really taken off. I’m so blessed and I’m so honored and I’m filled with so much gratitude to just see so many prayers get answered all at once, where I’m also OK with one at a time. But it’s all happening, you know? And I’m just beyond blessed. And like we were talking about earlier, just how much fun I’m having with it. I’m really having a good time and I’m taking it all in because life is short and life is so fragile. So I just try and take time to enjoy life and enjoy my blessings and enjoy just being alive and well.
Olsen: Has there been a moment that felt the most surreal, like a “What is happening to me right now” moment?
Taylor: Honestly, all of it, because it reminds me of a slingshot, you know what I’m saying? It’s just like, here’s the way, here’s the way, here’s the way, here’s the way, here’s the work, here’s the prayers, here’s the tears, just here, here, here, here, here. And then whoosh — whatever the ball hit, it knocked down everything at once. And that’s what this feels like. It feels really good because literally everything is happening at the same time. So it’s not like only one moment or only two moments that’s making me feel this way. It’s everything. The small wins, the big wins, the medium wins. Every single win and every single blessing is a big deal to me. You know what I’m saying? Even my Ls. I’m not gonna win everything and I’m not gonna get everything, and some things are not even meant for me. But even those are blessings. It’s preparation for something that is in store for me and something that is meant for me, because all of this is already written. What’s for you is for you and will be for you, because that’s just what’s written. So I have that mindset.
Olsen: You’ve been doing this since you were a teenager, at first as a choreographer and a dancer, a singer, an actor, you’re going to direct your first feature soon. What keeps you moving through all of this, through these different disciplines and pursuits?
Taylor: My babies. My support system. My village. My community. I love to make my people proud. I love to make my peers proud, my family. I just love to make everybody proud and that’s what keeps me going. Even right now, I’m also in culinary school. So it’s just juggling that, but taking out the little moments to just be quiet and cook and feed my people. So it’s a push. It’s understanding it’s a marathon and that it’s not a sprint. It’s a part of the faith walk. And I think that’s what keeps me going, to wake up and feel so blessed, how could I ever complain? How could I ever be like, “Oh, this is too much”? It is everything I’ve ever asked for. I’m never going to complain about answered prayers. What pushes me is just the reassurance from my support system, the reassurance from Father God himself, the reassurance for my babies. They keep me going. That’s who I do it for. I want to create generational wealth. So them babies are my reason. They are my why.
Olsen: To start asking you about “One Battle After Another,” your character, Perfidia Beverly Hills, she’s inspired a lot of conversation and some controversy. For you, was there something about that character that you felt you hadn’t seen on screen before?
Taylor: Yes. Perfidia is complex and she is also misunderstood. This is a woman who has been in survival mode, who has been fetishized, who has been ignored, not seen. We’re seeing this woman deal with that, where in movies we’re used to seeing us women have to be in capes all day and you see this woman rip this cape away and it’s just unapologetically herself — even in her weakness. And even like you said, with the controversy of her sexuality, I think her sexuality is her armor. It is also her power. She’ll give somebody what they want to get what she wants. And literally in the movie, she’s made selfish decisions. But if you think about her spirit and mentally and emotionally as a woman, it felt good to see a woman actually be selfish and put her[self] first, which we never really get to do because we have to be super this, super this, super this. Super mom, super wife, super woman, super chef; everything is always with a super in front of it. And you see this woman not really caring about what people think. Nobody can quiet her. And in this space of, “OK, you’re too loud, quiet down; you stand too tall, have a seat,” Perfidia is all of the things that they can’t make her do. She’s like, “I’m gonna stand tall, I’m gonna use my voice, I’m gonna use whatever I need to use to get what I want.” And she makes decisions that we don’t agree with, but I think one thing we all can agree on is that she’s a badass. And I can always respect anybody that’s unapologetically themselves.
Another thing that I feel like the controversy is proof of is how much of a nonfactor postpartum depression is. Half of the mistakes we see Perfidia make is her dealing with postpartum depression. You see the moment where they say, “Perfida, she’s a runner. She comes from a long line of revolutionaries.” That in itself is a pressure on her to feel like she gotta keep that going. The revolution is instilled in her. It’s a part of her identity. So imagine getting pregnant and you’re feeling like, “Oh, my God, does this slow down the revolution? Am I gonna play house with a person that’s ignoring me?” Nobody is really taking the time to think about what’s happening in her mind. We can’t control how a person handles postpartum depression. We hear her, through the door, cry, and then we see Bob put his ear to the door — and instead of him walking in, he walked away. And then what was the result of that? Her walking away. Even if it had to be walking away from Baby Willa, it’s something that she felt like she needed to do, and that’s what postpartum make you do sometime. And every mother handles postpartrum depression differently. But I think that’s what I love about her character, because you get to see a harsh reality that I know is hard to take in. But when you watch it a few times you understand exactly what’s happening. … I think that’s what makes the letter at the end so important. Because you hear the pain, you hear the hurt, you hear the regret, you hear the accountability, “Do you have love? Are you happy? Will you try and change the world like we did? We failed, but maybe you will not.”
And that’s another thing. This is a story that Paul Thomas Anderson wanted to tell. It was Perfidia’s job to go and anchor this boat and stay there and create the path for Willa to take on these battles, because her past haunted Willa and Bob. That’s a part of Perfidia being supporting — supporting the next steps of what is for Willa. It’s for Willa to go on and to rise. So you see Perfidia in the beginning of the movie, you see her drive this boat, you see her get to the middle of the sea and you see her anchor herself. And from there, we have to continue the story. So I’m happy that the controversy around her can create dialogue like this, can create healthy dialogue or even uncomfortable dialogue. As long as it’s dialogue and we’re conversing and we are speaking and people are speaking from their point of views, I can absolutely respect that.
Olsen: Is that a conversation you expected to have? When you were making the film, were you and Paul, or you and your co-stars talking about the depiction of Black women in the movie? Or have you been surprised that’s been such a talking point now that the movie’s out in the world?
Taylor: Honestly, I’m not surprised of any of the talking. I think one thing that I said before the movie even dropped and we were doing our press junkets, I was always very boisterous about the fact that this movie, period, not just the character, would definitely shake the table, and it would definitely spark, whether it was great debates or — I love conversation and I like when we can converse. Get it off your chest, tell me how you feel. And I’m open to receive that. So I knew that it would shake the table. I also knew that it needed to be done. Postpartum depression is a big thing for me that I feel like it needs more light. It needs light around it. We need more solutions for it. And like I said, you see this person, this woman in survival mode. You see this woman be ignored. You see this woman be fetishized. And is that not the truth? Is that not what happens, especially in this place of a Black woman feeling the least protected? So I’m really happy that Paul put wings on that to be able to spread and fly with that. And like I said, I know it’s probably tough to take in, but that’s what we got to see because everybody is not wearing capes. Everybody is not handling things the way you may handle things, I may handle the things, the way that person or this person may handle things. So we all just got to give grace and take in the film. It’s a story that’s being told.
Olsen: To me, one of the biggest surprises about the movie is considering how cohesive and complete it feels, to learn how improvisatory and collaborative the process of making the movie was. Were you surprised by that? What was it like for you entering into the process of making this movie with Paul?
Taylor: I was shocked at how collaborative it was. And I loved every bit of it because one thing about it is, again, when you are telling a story that someone wrote — he’s been working on this project for 20 years. This is something that I consider to be his baby. And when you’re trusting me to take on a job like this, I don’t ever wanna walk into any set and feel like I’m doing what I want to do. I just want to be of good support. If you tell me, “Hey, let’s find this together,” I’m gonna find it together. If you say, “This is my vision of what that is and this is how I want it to be,” it’s my job to give you that vision of what you want it be, and then add my little sauce on top of it. But to be fully collaborative, I thought it was really dope. We found Perfidia’s layers and we color-coordinated those layers. And I’m really happy that he let me be a part of that.
Olsen: What do you feel you brought to Perfidia or you were able to add to the character?
Taylor: I was able to add a lot. Paul was very, very collaborative. And again, we found her layers, which was the most important, especially with such a complex character. And you know, I just came from “A Thousand and One.” So I came from being another complex character, but this one was complex to a whole other level, where we almost didn’t understand why we never see Perfidia cry. But you see these little moments, like little details, in her face that’s just like, it’s this strength, but the strength — because I also don’t really love the term “strong Black woman” — it’s this strength that you feel like she has to have because the strength is really survival mode. And again, like I said, you hear her crack down and you hear her vulnerable, and nobody stepped through that door. So when you see a strong Black woman, there is no grace, it’s, “Oh, she’s OK, she fine, she got it all figured out.” And then you hear her vulnerable and you still feel like even at her most vulnerable, she got this, she’s strong. And it’s just like, “Step through the door. Step in early. Step in the first time. Hear me the first time, see me [this] time, wipe the first tear away. Would she have walked out that door on Baby Willa and Bob, had he walked through that door when he heard her cry?
Olsen: I’ve heard you a number of times when you’re talking about Paul, you always call him Paul “Let Him Cook” Thomas Anderson. What does that mean?
Taylor: Let him cook! Listen, because he to me is a master chef. And honestly, I’m very, very big on leadership. I respect the person that is a leader. What makes it so dope is because, with being in culinary school, I originally signed up for culinary school, of course, to learn the art of culinary, but to just cook, I love to cook and I wanted to learn the art of that. With being enrolled in culinary school, it’s a lot of writing work and a lot of discussion forums and a lot of quizzes and stuff like that. So you’re not only learning to cook, but you’re learning how to run a business. You’re learning how to navigate your staff, front of house, back of house, in the kitchen. You have to understand it’s a whole system in how you handle people in general. In the kitchen they call it like a “servant leader,” where your leader is in the kitchen with you, they’re cooking with you. They’re your mentor, they are your guidance, but they’re cooking with you. They’re not just pointing, “Do this, do that, boom, boom, boom.” And it’s just, like, his gentle servant leadership is something that I respect so much and something that inspires me as an upcoming movie director on how to handle and navigate my staff.
So it’s like the best of both worlds because I have PTA and then I have culinary school who’s teaching me how to be the best leader. Even in how we handle people, it’s bigger than just the people that work for us or with us. It’s also the people that come into this restaurant. It’s your customers. It’s just the hospitality of it all and the hospitality that he gives, it’s really amazing to see. I’m also a big sports girl. So even in regards to him being our quarterback, you know, he’s not on the side, pointing at what to do. He’s on the field with you. But he has an even bigger job because now he’s trusting that he’s going to throw this ball to you and you’re going to receive that ball. So we’re his receivers, we’re his wide receivers to take it to the touchdown. It’s all about being present. And that’s what I learned in culinary, it’s what I learned in sports, it’s just everything about being a leader as I prepare to lead my village and lead my community. That’s just so important to me. So I always respect people that are in the field with you. I become a warrior for you. You see Paul, you’re running in the battlefield, you look to your left, he’s with you. He’s not on a horse, he’s not on his high horse. He’s in the field with you. Let’s go, we got this! And it just makes you want to you want to go so hard for him. And that’s how I look at it. So I am a student. I am a teammate. I am a soldier. I am a warrior. That’s what I am with people that are great leaders.
Olsen: When you won the Golden Globe, your speech was so moving and you specifically spoke to your “brown sisters and little brown girls” and said that their light does not need permission to shine. Can you talk more about that? What was it that made you want to say that in that moment, specifically talking about this movie?
Taylor: I thought it was a very important moment on a very important stage. I wanted to use my voice and I wanted to use my platform. And in that moment, I had the voice and the platform to say just that. It’s nothing less than that. There’s nothing beyond that. Exactly what I said. We deserve space. What that night showed was that here’s the space. And I appreciated that. I was filled with so much gratitude. That moment hit hard for me because I was that little girl that sat on the floor on a TV watching the other queens onstage accept their awards. Like, “You can do it too, you can do it too.” And I knew that one day when it was my turn, I would tell my little queens, “You can do it too — all the little queens that look like me, you can do it too, you deserve space.” To know that also my daughters were watching as well, it’s everything to me. It’s everything for me to know that they embrace that as well. It’s so important. I’ve gotten so many women come up to me like, “Wow, that speech was just everything.” And that’s what it’s all about. That’s what is all about: to inspire, uplift and remind us that there is space.
Olsen: Before I let you go, you just bring it on red carpets time and time again. And the one thing I like is that you wear these really bold outfits, and it never looks like the clothes are wearing you. Do you have tips for people? What do you do for confident personal style?
Taylor: Honestly, follow your heart. Follow your heart. If you see it and you like it, put it together. You might put it together and be like, “That didn’t work the way I [intended].” Practice. Play in clothes. I love to play in clothes — but also will walk in the store and redress a whole mannequin. I’ll also be like, “I like that tie, I think it should be a little bit tighter.” I dream about certain outfits. I dream of certain moments where I’m like, “Oooh. I already know what I feel like I want my Oscar dress to look like. I already know what I want my Golden Globes dress to look like.” It’s always a vision. Or sometimes you might have a base. You might see something and be like, “I like this, but I feel it could use this.” Add it. If you feel like something can use something, add it. Because before you know it, now you done created your own thing. So don’t hesitate. When I was younger, I used to hesitate and be like, “This looked pretty cool, but now I’m not gonna do it.” And then later on, I see somebody try it, and I’m like, “Oh, I should have just…” Always follow your gut and always follow you heart.
Nina J. Easton does us a disservice by attempting to relate so closely the ‘60s violence of the Left and the ‘90s violence of the Right (“America, the Enemy,” June 18).
In terms of tragedy, the Oklahoma bombing stands alone, its carnage having exceeded by plenty any other terrorist act in U.S. history. It was designed to kill and maim as many people as possible. The Far Left simply hasn’t operated in that coldblooded a manner. For example, the explosives planted in 1970 in a Wisconsin ROTC building by the ultra-left Weathermen were timed to go off at 4 a.m., when few would be present.
The right-wing militias address no social ills; they tend only to their paranoid fantasies. By contrast, in an earlier day, the Black Panthers swaggered menacingly with weapons bared but also established breakfast programs to feed inner-city children.
The violent Left has taken hostages, blown up buildings, incited riots and, like their right-wing counterparts, imagined a world where government agents were hidden behind every door. But societal benefits like Social Security, equal voting rights and child-labor laws were initially espoused only by the Left, which worked tirelessly to bring these simple manifestations of fairness into mainstream political dialogue.
Conversely, right-wing militias exist only to prepare for, and eventually wage, war. They arm themselves against phantoms, against enemies so ill-defined that they could be pointing a gun at you or me–or anyone at all.
Searching through the rambling, angry diatribe that the militias spew over the airwaves and web sites, one cannot find even a hint of goodwill for humankind, or any sort of notion for a better world, however cocky or deranged. No, the right-wing militias discuss only war: how to plan, train for and eventually execute assaults on people who are different than they are, people whose skin color is different, whose political beliefs differ from those of the militia.
The Left in this country has given us a legacy–a mixed one, to be sure, but a rich history that includes organizing laborers and bread lines as well as violent cell groups. For every rock thrown, there have been hundreds of jobs saved and social benefits secured as a result of left-wing agitation in America. Right-wing militias are simply a powder keg waiting to blow.
Unfortunately, Easton has offered the raucous Right a fig leaf, behind which they can continue their frightening march to battle.
Winston Steward
Los Angeles
*
Easton fails to comprehend that political and moral consciousness undergoes changes during times of massive paradigm shifts. Her article compares and equates very different sets of people and differing sets of paradigms. It reads like one of those “high-concept” duds that the film industry makes because the marketing departments likes the pitch.
“America the Enemy” relies on the repetition of the premise “If ‘A’ existed in the 1960s Left, then ‘B’ exists in the 1990s Right.” It’s as if the force of a grammatical structure conveys meaning, even when the data doesn’t wash. Despite occasional accuracies that either A or B did in fact exist, the common or even causal relationship implied in the “if . . . then” structure usually does not exist.
Someone who experienced either period, or who did the necessary homework on either era, or who could handle Tom Hayden and Richard Flacks as resources rather than as sources of cognitive dissonance would certainly have qualms about getting this piece into print.
Seeing patterns that don’t exist, and linking unconnected things, are signals of the paranoid style in American politics described by historian Richard Hofstadter. Perhaps bad mental processes really are viral. However, a paranoid style in American journalism will not do.
Arthur M. Eisenson
Los Angeles
*
“America The Enemy” was a typical oversimplification of a complex issue. It will probably come as an unpleasant surprise to Easton and many others that the NRA has more than a few members, black and white, who are more truly liberal than those who favor the disarming of ordinary citizens. The NRA is one of the few subjects on which it is possible for Left and Right to agree.
Art Volkman
Inglewood
*
The story comparing the bombers of the ‘60s and ‘90s was terrible.
The cover matched photographs of the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion with Oklahoma City, but in the Greenwich Village case, the only people blown up were the bomb-makers themselves. Inside the magazine, a photograph of Tom Hayden in 1969 was matched with one of Timothy McVeigh–completely outrageous.
Hayden never blew up anybody. What is going on at The Times?
Jon Wiener
Los Angeles
*
Comparing ‘90s militias with ‘60s Marxist radicals was a masterpiece of liberal disinformation.
To accurately frame today’s political reality, one must start with the premise that the ‘60s radicals–in the form of state Sen. Tom Hayden, our hapless boy President Bill Clinton and their ilk–have taken over the government and are aggressively moving to destroy the Constitution, as Clinton’s budgetary, crime and anti-terrorism legislation proves beyond a doubt. Add in 30 years of irresponsible deficit spending by liberals in both major parties and it becomes obvious that the government will very soon be intentionally bankrupt. A general economic collapse and a depression will inevitably follow–all according to plan.
The militias are only reacting to these not-so-veiled attacks on the Constitution and preparing for civil warfare, the only logical upshot to this kind of treachery.
Loyal Americans who form legal militias in support of a limited democratic republic are our future, if this country and the Constitution are to survive into the the millennium.
You aren’t going to be able to hide that fact much longer.
“I think what has kind of misled children is the belief that if you are not a typical girl, if you like playing with trucks, or boys who like dressing up or that you have same-sex attraction that means that you’re trans and actually it’s not like that but those are all normal variations,” she said.
