faces

You may have missed it, what with President Trump’s endless pyrotechnics, but California voters will decide in November who succeeds Gavin Newsom, the highest-profile governor since the Terminator returned to Hollywood.

Unfortunately for those attempting to civically engage, the current crop of contenders is, shall we say, less than enthralling.

In alphabetical order (because there is seriously no prohibitive front-runner), the major candidates are Xavier Becerra, Chad Bianco, Ian Calderon, Steve Hilton, Matt Mahan, Katie Porter, John Slavet, Tom Steyer, Eric Swalwell, Tony Thurmond, Antonio Villaraigosa and Betty Yee.

Whew! (Pause to catch breath.)

Armed with that knowledge, you can now go out and win yourself a few bar bets by asking someone to name, say, even two of those running.

Meantime, fear not. Your friendly columnists Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria have surveyed the field, weighed the odds, pondered California’s long history and concluded … they have absolutely no clue what will happen in the June 2 primary, much less who’ll take the oath of office come next January.

Here, they discuss the race that has Californians sitting on neither pins nor needles.

Chabria: Mark, I do this for a living and I’m having trouble summoning up any interest in this race — yet, anyway.

Part of my problem is that national events are so all-consuming and fast-moving that it’s hard to worry about potholes. I admit, I appreciate that our White House-contending governor is fighting the big fight. But remind me again, what’s a governor supposed to do?

Barabak: End homelessness. Elevate our public schools to first-class rank. Make housing and college tuition affordable. Eliminate crime. End disease and poverty. Put a chicken in every pot. Make pigs fly and celestial angels sing. And then, in their second year …

Seriously, there’s a pretty large gap between what voters would like to see happen and what a governor — any governor — can plausibly deliver. That said, if our next chief executive can help bring about meaningful improvement in just a few of those areas, pigs and angels excepted, I’d venture to say a goodly number of Californians would be pleased.

Broadly speaking, my sense when talking to voters is they want our next governor to push back on Trump and his most egregious excesses. But not as a means of raising their national profile or positioning themselves for a run at the White House. And not to the exclusion of bettering their lives by paying attention to the nitty and the gritty, like making housing and higher education more readily available and, yes, fixing potholes.

Chabria: All that is fair enough. As the mom of two teens, I’d especially like to see our university system be more affordable and accessible, so we all have our personal priorities. Let’s agree to this starting point: The new governor can’t just chew gum and walk. She or he must be able to eat a full lunch while running.

But so far, candidates haven’t had their policy positions break through to a big audience, state-focused or not — and many of them share broadly similar positions. Let’s look at the bits of daylight that separate them because, Republicans aside, there aren’t canyon-size differences among the many candidates.

San José Mayor Matt Mahan, the newest entry in the race, is attempting to position himself as a “can’t-we-all-just-get-along” centrist. How do you think that will go over with voters?

Barabak: You’re having me tiptoe uncomfortably close to the Make A Prediction Zone, which I assiduously avoid. As I’ve said before, I’m smart enough to know what I don’t know. (Many readers will doubtless question the underlying premise of the former if not the latter part of that statement.)

I think there is at least a potential for Mahan to tap into a desire among voters to lower the hostilities just a bit and ease up on our constant partisan war-footing.

You might not know it if you marinate in social media, or watch the political shout-fest shows where, as in nature, the loudest voices carry. But there are a great many people working two or even three jobs, ferrying their kids to soccer practice, worrying about paying their utility and doctor bills, caring for elderly parents or struggling in other ways to keep their heads above water. And they’re less captivated by the latest snappy clap-back on TikTok than looking for help dealing with the many challenges they face.

I was struck by something Katie Porter said when we recently sat down for a conversation in San Francisco. The former Orange County congresswoman can denigrate Trump with the best of ‘em. But she said, “I am very leery of anyone who does not acknowledge that we had problems and policy challenges long before Donald Trump ever raised his orange head on the political horizon.”

California’s homelessness and affordability crises were years in the making, she noted, and need to be addressed as such.

I heard Antonio Villaraigosa suggest something similar in last week‘s gubernatorial debate, when the former Los Angeles mayor noted the state has spent billions of dollars in recent years trying to drastically reduce homelessness with, at best, middling results. “We cannot be afraid to look in the mirror,” he said.

That suggests to me Mahan is not the only candidate who appreciates that simply saying “Trump = Bad” over and over is not what voters want to hear.

Chabria: Certainly potholes and high electricity bills existed before Trump. But if the midterms don’t favor Democrats, the next governor will probably face a generational challenge to protect the civil rights of residents of this diverse state. It’s not about liking or disliking Trump, but ensuring that our governor has a plan if attacks on immigrants, the LBGTQ+ community and citizens in general grow worse.

I do think this will matter to voters — but I agree with you that candidates can’t simply rage against Trump. They have to offer some substance.

Porter, Swalwell and Becerra, who have the most national experience and could be expected to articulate that sort of vision, haven’t done much other than to commit to the fight. Steyer and Thurmond want to abolish ICE, which a governor couldn’t do. Mahan has said focusing on state policy is the best offense.

I don’t think this has to be a charisma-driven vision, which is what Newsom has so effectively offered. But it needs to bring resoluteness in a time of fear, which none of the candidates to my mind have been able to project so far.

But this all depends on election results in November. If Democrats take Congress and are able to exert a check to this terrible imbalance, then bring on the asphalt and fix the roads. I think a lot of what voters want from a governor won’t fully be known until after November.

Barabak: The criticism of this collective field is that it’s terminally boring, as if we’re looking to elect a stand-up comic, a chanteuse or a juggler. I mean, this is the home of Hollywood! Isn’t it the birthright of every California citizen to be endlessly entertained?

At least that’s what the pundits and political know-it-alls, stifling yawns as they constantly refresh their feeds on Bluesky or X, would have you believe.

Voters elected Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor — that’s two movie stars in the state’s 175-year history — and, from the way the state is often perceived, you’d think celebrity megawattage is one of the main prerequisites for a chief executive.

But if you look back, California has seen a lot more George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson and Gray Davis types, which is to say bland-persona governors whom no one would mistake for box-office gold.

It seems to me no coincidence that Schwarzenegger, who arrived as a political novelty, was replaced by Jerry Brown, who was as politically tried-and-true as they come. That political pendulum never stops swinging.

Which suggests voters will be looking for someone less like our gallivanting, movie matinee governor and someone more inclined to keep their head down in Sacramento and focus on the state and its needs.

Who will that be? I wouldn’t wage a nickel trying to guess. Would you care to?

Chabria: I certainly don’t care to predict, but I’ll say this: We may not need or get another Terminator. But one of these candidates needs to put some pepper flakes in the paste if they want to break out of the pack.

LONDON Liverpool Street station is set to undergo a huge transformation – but it will result in years of ‘chaos’ for commuters.

The proposed plans are set to redevelop the busiest train station in the UK and could cost as much as £1.2billion.

Network Rail has proposed a project to expand the country’s busiest train station that will completely change it and the surrounding area.

The proposals include improved accessibility and the building of a 19-storey office block over the station concourse.

According to The Standard, these plans have had around 2,500 objections but more than 1,100 supporting comments.

Campaigners believe that the works will result in almost a decade of chaos for commuters and tourists alike.

Read More on UK Staycations

COAST IT

Fascinating UK holiday spot with 2 coasts, secret seaside pools & hidden beaches

COAST IT

White sand beaches, pirate pubs & Gibraltar Point – Sun readers Lincolnshire faves

One architect who has opposed the plans said during a recent campaign meeting that the disruption could last for 10 years.

As part of the planning process, Network Rail has revealed the extent of disruption that commuters would face despite the station remaining open during the works.

There would be an impact on some London Overground routes on Greater Anglia services including those from Chingford, Cheshunt and Enfield Town.

Documents reveal that platforms 1 and 2 which are used by London Overground trains would be closed for up to two years.

Proposals also suggest that later on, the area between platforms 9 and 10 would be needed for the building of a new upper concourse.

But Network Rail says these platforms as well as platforms 16 and 17 would remain open throughout the work.

Services could possibly face ‘thinning’ which is likely to result in overcrowding – particularly at rush hour.

The Stansted Express could possibly face disruption too.

Part of why Liverpool Street is so busy is due to the addition of the Elizabeth Line which was added in 2022.

However this would be unaffected by the construction to the main station.

If the proposals go ahead, work would start at the beginning of 2029 and last seven years, with the new station completed by mid-2036.

Network Rail’s scheme is set to be considered by the City of London Corporation’s planning committee on February 10, 2026.

Network Rail recently revealed a new fly-over video to show their proposed plans which has a large concourse area set to ease congestion during busy times.

It includes increased step-free access across rail and underground platforms, eight new lifts and more escalators which will increase from four to ten.

To reduce queues, additional ticket barriers would be added along with more toilet and family facilities on all levels.

On the upper concourse will be more cafes and food outlets and outside will be more green spaces.

Renders also show what the new office building that’s set to be built above the station concourse near the Grade II* listed Andaz Hotel will look like – with rooftop gardens.

Talking about the potential disruption, a spokesperson for Network Rail said to The Standard: “The scheme has been carefully designed and phased to ensure that the station remains open and operational during the works.

“There will be changes to entrances and routes and the only platform closure can be accommodated across the remaining platforms for that short period.

“We are engaging with our transport partners and ensuring customers can continue to use Liverpool Street with as little disruption as possible during the works is as important as the transformation for the future.”

Plus, this UK seaside town has revealed a new £14million transformation of historic train station.

And this small English town’s huge £12million railway upgrade could soon be scrapped.

Jan. 29 (UPI) — The Justice Department on Thursday filed charges against Anthony Kazmierczak, 55, for spraying a substance on Rep. Ilhan Omar as she conducted a town hall hearing in Minneapolis.

FBI special agent Derek Fossi, in a criminal complaint, said Kazmierczak “forcibly assaulted, opposed, impeded, intimidated and interfered with” Omar while she was conducting a town hall with her constituents Tuesday, The New York Times reported.

Omar told the audience that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem should resign when Kazmierczak approached her.

“She’s not resigning. You’re splitting Minnesotans apart,” Kazmierczak said after squirting her with the unknown liquid, as reported by NBC News.

Omar’s security staff detained Kazmierczak, who was arrested after briefly disrupting the congresswoman’s event.

A hazardous materials specialist with the Minneapolis Police Department’s North Metro Chemical Assessment Team tested the substance and identified it as a mix of water and apple cider vinegar, Fossi said.

Kazmierczak was carrying a plastic syringe when he approached Omar while she was speaking and sprayed her with an unidentified liquid that stained her clothes and might have contacted her face and right eye, Fossi wrote.

“As he sprayed her, Kazmierczak gestured at Rep. Omar and shouted at her before turning away and being brought to the floor by two security officers,” he said in the affidavit.

Minneapolis Police Department officers responded to the scene and arrested Kazmierczak and jailed him on third-degree assault charges.

While being arrested, Kazmierczak told officers that he sprayed Omar with vinegar.

Fossi said he interviewed a “close associate” of Kazmierczak on Wednesday, and that person recalled a time “several years ago” when the suspect, during a phone conversation, allegedly said, “somebody should kill that [expletive].”

U.S. District Court of Minnesota Magistrate Judge Dulce Foster confirmed receipt of the criminal complaint and supporting affidavit on Wednesday but did not say when an arraignment hearing will be held to formally charge Kazmierczak.

Jan. 29 (UPI) — Chinese e-commerce platform Temu has taken its dispute with Mercado Libre to federal court after Argentina’s largest online marketplace accused it of unfair competition.

Mercado Libre filed a complaint in August 2025 with Argentina’s Secretariat of Industry and Commerce, alleging Temu violated Commercial Fairness Decree No. 274/2019, which governs truthful advertising and fair competition in the country.

After reviewing the filing, the National Directorate of Policies for the Development of the Domestic Market opened an investigation and ordered Temu to suspend digital advertising and promotions deemed misleading.

In response, Temu turned to federal court Wednesday to try to halt the administrative measure and maintain its operations in Argentina, Argentine daily La Nacion reported.

According to the complaint, the company founded by Argentine entrepreneur Marcos Galperin challenged Temu’s commercial strategy, which Mercado Libre said relies on extreme discounts and promotions that are not met under the conditions advertised, local outlet Ambito reported.

Among the main allegations are discounts ranging from 80% to 100% that apply only if users meet additional requirements, such as minimum purchase amounts, buying other products or completing purchases within the app.

Mercado Libre also accused Temu of what it described as “misleading gamification,” using games and interactive features that promise prizes or free products, but in practice impose increasingly complex and unclear conditions.

The dispute is now under the jurisdiction of the National Chamber of Appeals in Civil and Commercial Federal Matters, which must determine the next steps in the case, Infobae reported.

Temu rejected the allegations and said its business model is transparent and that prices, discounts and conditions are clearly disclosed to users, which the company contended rules out consumer deception.

Mercado Libre said the complaint is not related to Argentina’s opening of imports, a policy it supports. The company noted that it also offers imported goods through its international purchases category and competes in what it described as a dynamic and open market with both local and global players.

The legal battle unfolds amid rapid growth in cross-border e-commerce in Argentina. Data cited in the case show door-to-door purchases through platforms such as Temu and Shein posted increases close to 300% year over year, driven by low prices, direct shipping and intensive social media marketing.

The expansion of the Chinese platforms has revived debate over the regulatory framework for digital commerce and competition between domestic and foreign companies, Perfil reported.

Mercado Libre executives reiterated the need for rules that are “the same for everyone,” as the case becomes a key recent precedent on competition and advertising in Argentina’s e-commerce sector.

Entering a particularly consequential season for coach Lincoln Riley at USC, a brutal Big Ten slate won’t cut the Trojans or their coach any slack in 2026.

That much was clear long before the Big Ten officially released its schedule for next season Tuesday. USC already knew it would face the conference’s top three teams from a season ago (Indiana, Ohio State and Oregon). But the official unveiling of the slate would further solidify just how grueling the climb could be for USC next season.

Oregon will face Portland State, an FCS team, a week before coming to USC on Sept. 26. Ohio State will have a bye week before its Halloween meeting with USC at the Coliseum, and so will the defending champ, Indiana, which USC will face in Bloomington on Nov. 14.

The Trojans will assuredly have to win at least one of those games to maintain their hopes of making the College Football Playoff in Riley’s fifth season. The rest of the schedule is hardly a cakewalk too, with trips to Rutgers (Sept. 19), Penn State (Oct. 10) and Wisconsin (Oct. 24).

The nonconference schedule is still being finalized, after talks broke down between USC and Notre Dame over the future of their rivalry series. But with two byes already baked into the Trojans’ schedule, a person familiar with the situation but not authorized to speak publicly told The Times that USC plans to schedule its season opener during Week Zero, with a home game on Aug. 29.

That timing drastically cuts down USC’s options for finding a fill-in opponent to open the season against at the Coliseum.

In order to play in Week Zero in its home stadium and not internationally or at a neutral site, USC must secure an exemption from the NCAA. That probably limits the Trojans to a team that faces Hawaii in 2026 — and thus gets an exemption from the NCAA to play an additional game — or means playing a Football Championship Series team, which USC has notably never done.

Starting the season early will allow for USC to add an extra bye week, while most Big Ten schools are working with just one during their 2026 slates. It’ll need that break considering what the latter half of the season holds.

After kicking off in late August, USC opens the season with home games in five of its first six weeks. But after that, the Trojans return home just twice the rest of the season, for matchups against Ohio State on Oct. 31 and Maryland on Nov. 21.