history

Britain’s famed natural historian David Attenborough is celebrating his 100th birthday. The broadcaster has made some of the world’s most iconic wildlife documentaries, in a 70-year career that saw him become a global voice for conservation and climate change advocacy.

May 9 is a venerated date on the Russian calendar. The anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany in World War II is usually commemorated with a grand military parade outside the Kremlin, on Moscow’s Red Square.

“For modern Russia, it’s the main holiday of the year,” said Oleg Ignatov, senior Russia analyst at Crisis Group. “There are two main holidays in Russia, the ninth of May and the New Year. And if you asked Russians, what is the main holiday, I think they would answer you that it’s the ninth of May.”

This year, however, for the first time in nearly 20 years, there will be no tanks, missiles or junior cadets in the parade. The decision to hold back on showcasing military equipment comes as a result of heightened security fears over the war in Ukraine.

However, personnel from higher-level military academies will still take part in the procession on foot, while the aerial portion of the programme will remain unchanged – an aerobatic show, followed by a team of Sukhoi Su-25 fighter jets painting the sky in the tricolours of the Russian flag.

In official statements, the Kremlin has referred to “the current operational situation,” and threats of “Ukrainian terrorist activity.”

Ukrainian drones are now striking deeper and deeper into Russian territory on an almost daily basis, hitting targets such as oil facilities and airfields. A recent spate of drone attacks on the oil refinery in Tuapse, on Russia’s Black Sea coast, has caused an ecological catastrophe and prompted the evacuation of the town.

“Drones are indeed the primary means to attack Russia’s territory,” explained Olha Polishchuk, research manager for Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus at Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED). “They are relatively cheap, modifiable and can travel long distances … Both Ukraine and Russia have switched to using primarily drones for their attacks.

He said that since 2025, drone strikes “completely overshadowed other attacks”.

“Their use has been effective overall; most drones are intercepted but if you send enough of them, some will reach the target.”

Fears of ‘political and psychological consequences’

Security and anti-drone defences have been tightened in the capital since the Ukrainian armed forces began sending drones there in 2023, with one striking the Kremlin itself.

Mobile internet has been periodically shut off in Moscow, Saint Petersburg and other areas of the country in the days running up to the event, with providers citing “security reasons”.

“Moscow has very strong air defence, which includes short-range surface-to-air missile systems, other missile systems, small arms and electronic warfare systems,” explained Polishchuk. “It is a multilayered system located both around and inside the city. In the past, authorities have shut down cellular networks in Moscow to complicate drone navigation.

“Ukraine very rarely attacks Moscow because the air defence would require a very large swarm of drones for any attack to land, but also because there are plenty of other strategically relevant targets that do not carry such a high risk of civilian casualties.”

Nevertheless, the Victory Day ceremonies present a clear risk. Such a concentration of troops and vehicles is vulnerable not only on the day of the parade itself but before and after, too: after all, that hardware must be stored somewhere.

“Of course, they care about drones which can fly from Ukraine, but most of these drones are being intercepted,” Crisis Group’s Ignatov told Al Jazeera. “They are more afraid of groups of people using small drones which are delivered to Russia, and used against targets inside Russia, like in Operation Spiderweb [in 2025] … Even if one or a couple of small drones hit a military parade, it may not cause a casualty, but it will have a demonstrative and psychological effect. I think what they care about is the political and psychological consequences of this.”

The Victory Day parade is a tradition from the communist era, an occasion on which the citizenry could catch a glimpse of Soviet statesmen waving from atop Lenin’s tomb, as well as a chance for the then-superpower to show off its military might. But when the USSR collapsed in December 1991, the parades were shelved for nearly two decades until they were revived by President Vladimir Putin in 2008.

Since the start of the full-scale war in 2022, the Victory Day parade has been scaled back again. Only a solitary Soviet-era T-34 tank symbolically rolled across Red Square in 2024, although other types of vehicles, such as armoured personnel carriers and mobile missile launchers, were present.

Last year’s proceedings, however, packed a little more pomp. Not only did the parade feature modern tanks, the TOS-2 Tosochka heavy flamethrower systems and Iskander ballistic missiles, but also Russian troops marching alongside Chinese soldiers.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping watched the show sitting beside Putin, one of 27 heads of state in attendance, including Brazilian President Lula da Silva and Ibrahim Traore of Burkina Faso. The turnout seemed to indicate that, despite international condemnation of the invasion of Ukraine, Moscow was not isolated.

‘Victory over Nazi barbarism’ or a ‘cynical distortion of history’

“A celebration of the Soviet and Allied defeat of Hitler’s Nazi-Fascist alliance, Victory Day is the most sacred date on Russia’s political calendar,” said British historian Geoffrey Roberts.

“As ever, Victory Day will be celebrated as a Soviet as well as a Russian victory – the result of the common struggle of all the peoples of the multinational USSR, not least millions of Ukrainians. Victory Day is for the Russian government a day of multiethnic unity. It is also a reminder of the international antifascist unity – of the Soviet-Western coalition during World War II that together saved the world from Nazi barbarism.”

The Eastern Front of the second world war, known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia, occupies a central place in Russian national memory. About 27 million Soviet citizens, including Russians, lost their lives in the conflict, more than any other country, and it was the Red Army’s soldiers that hoisted their flag over the Reichstag in Berlin in 1945. The German surrender was officially finalised on May 9.

This memory is evoked by Putin’s government today, claiming it is fighting “Nazis” on the battlefields of Ukraine.

“It appears that in modern Russia, 9 May has been twisted to actually support aggressive behaviour and militarisation,” Polishchuk said.

“It is a big source of pride which supports the notion that Russia is strong, undefeated, and will not tolerate disrespect from anyone. The more common ‘never again’ in reference to WWII became ‘we can do it again’ in Russia as a popular Victory Day slogan. This posturing becomes even more important during an ongoing war, as it supports another sort of reality – one where Russia has not made a mistake by invading Ukraine and is not currently failing to achieve its military objectives.”

According to the open-source intelligence project Oryx, more than 14,000 Russian tanks, APCs and other combat vehicles have been destroyed, captured, abandoned or otherwise lost since the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022.

Modern Ukraine considers Victory Day, as celebrated in Russia today, a cynical distortion of history and seeks to discourage foreign dignitaries from attending, Polishchuk added.

“Ukraine is generally more level-headed than Russia in sticking to targets that have a military objective, but this is indeed one of the instances where the [potential] attack appears largely symbolic,” she said. “Ukraine may decide to save resources this time and not attack Moscow – it could be a sane choice since air defence will be on high alert and security concerns may already discourage participation, yet Russian authorities have no choice but to try to reduce the risk regardless.”

Barcelona are set to storm La Liga this year and could seal title in Sunday’s Clasico, but what is the history of the Real Madrid rivalry?

Barcelona and Real Madrid will contest the 264th El Clasico when the Spanish giants come together in a La Liga clash on Sunday.

Rarely will there have been a more highly charged atmosphere with a heavily demoralised Real arriving in the Catalan capital, facing the prospect of watching their fiercest rivals crowned champions on the day.

Although knocked out of the UEFA Champions League at the quarterfinals, as Los Blancos were too, Barca are well on course to defend their La Liga crown – and at a canter.

Al Jazeera Sport takes a look at the talking points heading into the game and what the history is of a 124-year-old rivalry.

Will Kylian Mbappe play for Real Madrid against Barcelona?

The headline news surrounding Sunday’s game is the availability of Kylian Mbappe, with the French striker a doubt for the Clasico because of a hamstring injury.

The 27-year-old striker tops the scoring charts in the Spanish league this season with 24 goals. Mallorca’s Vedat Muriqi is a surprise second on the list with 21 strikes, while Barca’s Lamine Yamal, who is out for the remainder of the season, has netted 16 times and is third on the list.

Despite Mbappe’s goalscoring achievements, a “Mbappe out” petition has garnered more than 33 million signatures calling for the club to sell the striker, who joined from Paris Saint-Germain two seasons ago.

What happened to Real Madrid’s Federico Valverde?

Federico Valverde will definitely miss out on El Clasico after a training ground bust-up on Thursday resulted in the midfielder being taken to hospital.

The 27-year-old Uruguayan is understood to have sustained a head injury following an incident with teammate Aurelien Tchouameni.

Real have said they are investigating internally, and have already decided to open disciplinary proceedings against both players.

It is not yet clear if Frenchman Tchouameni will be available for Sunday’s match as a result.

How can Barcelona win La Liga in Sunday’s El Clasico?

Alvaro Arbeloa’s Real trail Hansi Flick’s reigning champions by 11 points with four matches remaining, and are sinking towards a second straight season without a major trophy.

Anything but a win for Real on Sunday will see Barca lift the trophy in their own stadium against the only side to have won La Liga more.

What is meant by El Clasico?

The term El Clasico first appeared in a Spanish newspaper during the 1960s in reference to matches between the two biggest club teams in Spain.

The simple translation is “The Classic”.

By that time, the match had already been long considered one of sport’s fiercest derbies.

How did El Clasico become Spain’s greatest rivalry?

Originally, the phrase “Viejo Clasico” (Old Classic) was a term that referred to the Madrid derby between Real and Athletic Bilbao.

The match between the pair has historically been the most-played fixture in Spanish football before the rise of Barcelona to one of the two most prominent teams in the country.

The term El Clasico, although a 1960s invention in Spain, became a more widely popular and globally associated name when the rivalry between Real Madrid and Barcelona peaked in the 1990s.

Johan Cruyff’s Barcelona were a side to be feared on the global stage, but Quinta del Buitre’s Real were putting up a stern test. In the late 90s, Real’s superstar lineup was dubbed the Galacticos following the heavy financial investment in overseas stars such as Zinedine Zidane, Ronaldo and David Beckham.

By the turn of the century, the rivalry was recognised as one of the biggest match-ups in world sport and heralded in the era of Pep Guardiola vs Jose Mourinho in the dugouts – and the small matter of Lionel Messi vs Cristiano Ronaldo on the field.

When was the first El Clasico between Barcelona and Real Madrid?

The first match between the clubs took place on May 13, 1902, in the Copa de la Coronacion (a predecessor to the Copa del Rey).

Barcelona won the match 3-1 in the Spanish capital against Madrid FC (the club later became Real Madrid).

Who has won more El Clasico matches, Real Madrid or Barcelona?

Of the 261 matches between the clubs over the last 124 years, Real have won 106, while Barcelona have won 105.

How many times have Real Madrid and Barcelona won La Liga?

Real have lifted the La Liga trophy 36 times while Barca are targeting their 28th title.

Who has scored the most El Clasico goals?

1. Lionel Messi (Argentina) – 26 goals for Barcelona
2. Alfredo Di Stefano (Portugal) – 18 goals for Real Madrid
3. Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal) – 18 goals for Real Madrid
4. Karim Benzema (France) – 16 goals for Real Madrid
5. Raul (Spain) – 15 goals for Real Madrid

What are the last five results between Barcelona and Real Madrid?

• January 11, 2026 – Spanish Super Cup final: Barcelona 3-2 Real Madrid
• October 26, 2025 – La Liga: Real Madrid 2-1 Barcelona
• May 11, 2025 – La Liga: Barcelona 4-3 Real Madrid
• April 26, 2025 – Copa del Rey final: Barcelona 3-2 Real Madrid (after extra time)
• January 12, 2025 – Spanish Super Cup final: Real Madrid 2-5 Barcelona

How can I follow Sunday’s El Clasico between Barcelona and Real Madrid?

We will bring you our comprehensive text commentary stream of Sunday’s match, starting with our usual extensive build-up – including all the news, analyses and opinion surrounding the game.

In the ancient days of 2022, when the Supreme Court sledgehammered abortion rights with the Dobbs decision, the (Republican) party line was that the issue had returned to where it belonged: the states.

Fast forward to 2026 and it would now seem that the antiabortion crowd, faced with the aggressive pro-choice response of states such as California and lethargy on the part of the Trump administration to do more toward implementing a national ban, is no longer satisfied with that outcome.

They are now out to stomp on California, and a handful of other reproductive health sanctuaries, to ensure that what happens inside our borders fits their ideology.

“It’s strategic, it’s targeted,” Mini Timmaraju, president and chief executive of Reproductive Freedom for All, told me. “Even if you’re in a ‘blue state,’ you’re not safe.”

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide next week whether to take up the abortion issue again, in a case that could end medication-only procedures as we know them.

That would force women into a less-safe regimen with a lower success rate that would almost certainly lead to more complications — and therefore more controversy. Even in California, which would not be spared by what the court could do, and whose policies are central to the case.

Let’s break it down.

Union members, immigrant rights supporters and anti-Israel demonstrators participate in a May Day rally and march in Washington, D.C., on Friday.

(Robyn Stevens Brody / Sipa USA via Associated Press)

Rogue California

After the Dobbs decision, 11 states passed near-total bans on abortions.

Six other states put early time limits on the procedures, and others passed bans in the second trimester, leaving women in much of the South and the Great Plains with no access to in-person care for hundreds or even thousands of miles.

In many of those places, those bans include making it illegal to receive abortion-inducing medications in the mail from states such as California. But that’s a hard law to enforce unless you go around opening lady-mail.

In recent years, the number of U.S. abortions arranged through telehealth and mailed medication has skyrocketed to more than a quarter of all procedures, though the often illegal nature of this route probably means the number is higher but underreported.

To protect the doctors and providers who are prescribing and sending these medications, California and other states have passed numerous laws to make it easier and safer — from allowing the prescriber to remain anonymous to shield laws that ensure those providers can’t be penalized or extradited to other states for prosecution, though some states are trying.

Earlier this year, Louisiana (a state with a full ban) tried to extradite a California doctor with no luck. Gov. Gavin Newsom gleefully denied that request, promising to “never be complicit with Trump’s war on women.”

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, speaks during the annual March For Life at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 23.

(Graeme Sloan / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Rogue Louisiana

In the Supreme Court case, Louisiana is thinking bigger — and expressing antiabortionists’ frustration with the Trump administration. The state is suing Trump’s Food and Drug Administration because it allows mifepristone, one of two medications used in abortions, to be prescribed via telehealth.

“Patients and these states with bans and extreme restrictions have relied on providers in blue states, abortion access states, to really help provide care,” Timmaraju said. “And this is a way to stop that.”

Antiabortion groups had hoped (and pushed) Trump to simply have the FDA remove its approvals of mifepristone, but Trump ain’t that dumb. Despite all his promises on the campaign trail, the administration would prefer to kick the can instead of the hornet’s nest on this one, especially before the midterms — since most Americans support abortion rights. So the FDA has said it’s “studying” mifepristone, which could take awhile.

Louisiana is claiming it had to spend $90,000 in taxpayer money to help two women who sought medical treatment after medication abortions (though it has not said they received the medication in the mail).

That’s a real harm, it argues, and gives them standing to sue the FDA to stop mifepristone from being prescribed by telehealth at all, claiming the FDA hasn’t done its due diligence to ensure that’s safe and it makes them really sad that they can’t stop women from ordering it.

The FDA has remained “completely silent on this point because the Trump administration doesn’t want to get involved,” said Mary Ziegler, a UC Davis law professor and expert on reproductive law.

“It’s totally one of the signs that the antiabortion movement is in an open rebellion, and is using the federal courts to express that because the political branches have been pretty non-responsive,” she said.

The Contemplation of Justice statue is seen outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on Monday in Washington.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

The Supreme Court lifted a stay Monday imposed by the 5th Circuit that stopped mifepristone from being tele-prescribed. So it’s available until at least May 11.

After that, who knows. It’s up to a court that has proven it’s no friend to reproductive rights.

It’s an issue with real consequence for Trump. If the court takes the case, the midterms must contend with abortion. If they don’t, the pressure on Trump to do so sometime intensifies. But its also an issue with real consequence for Californians.

Consequences in California

In California, there are 22 counties without an abortion clinic, Ziegler points out. In the far north of the state, women without access to telehealth abortions would be little better off than those in Louisiana if mifepristone by mail is stopped.

Instead, women would probably be forced to use the second medication, misoprostol, alone. This single-drug regimen has a lower effectiveness rate than the combined drugs, meaning more women will have to seek out secondary care — often in places where even in-person care is hard to come by. That could lead to more real harm, and therefore more high-profile cases of botched abortions to fuel a further ban on misoprostol.

Steve Hilton takes an interview after the California gubernatorial debate at Skirball Cultural Center on Wednesday.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

And then there’s the fact that Newsom won’t be governor for much longer, and it will be up to the next chief executive to protect in-state providers from extradition. The top Republican contender, Steve Hilton, has previously said he would allow Louisiana to grab our California doctor if he were in charge.

Those kinds of threats have a chilling effect, both Ziegler and Timmaraju said. If enough providers are scared of the consequences of providing telehealth — or any — abortions, a ban becomes self-imposed.

Even in California.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Immigration crackdown souring Orange County’s view of Trump, poll finds
The deep dive: ‘How the Fight Over Israel Is Playing Out Inside MAGA
The L.A. Times Special: Who won the California governor debate on CNN? Here’s what our columnists say

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — The first baby boomer on the Supreme Court hit a milestone on Thursday, becoming the second-longest-serving justice in history at a time when his influence has never seemed greater.

Once an outlier on the nation’s highest court, Justice Clarence Thomas has become a towering figure in the conservative legal movement over the last decade as he helped secure landmark rulings on abortion, voting and Second Amendment rights.

The only justice with a longer tenure is liberal William O. Douglas. Thomas would overtake Douglas in 2028 if he remains on the court — and there’s no sign he plans to retire anytime soon.

“I think he’s more energized and excited now than when I first met him,” said John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who served in Republican President George W. Bush’s administration after his time as a Thomas clerk three decades ago.

Thomas was confirmed in 1991 after contentious hearings that included sexual harassment allegations. More recently, his acceptance of luxury trips has raised a storm of ethics questions. He’s nevertheless gone from near-silence at oral arguments to asking the first questions and penning a landmark ruling expanding Second Amendment rights.

Following the appointment of three conservative justices by Republican President Trump, Thomas is now the most senior member of a supermajority that’s also overturned abortion as a constitutional right, ended affirmative action in college admissions and sharply limited the Voting Rights Act.

“The court has radically moved in his direction over the course of his time on the court,” said Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan. Thomas’ seniority means he can decide who writes an opinion if he’s part of a majority that doesn’t include Chief Justice John Roberts, a factor that can nudge other votes behind closed doors, Karlan said.

Off the bench, Thomas’ sphere of influence also includes his large, close-knit network of former clerks, who have served in the Trump administration and are increasingly filling out the ranks of federal judges.

“That is an important legacy that he will leave,” said Sarah Konsky, director of the Supreme Court and Appellate Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “Even as justices’ own time on the court winds down, significant influence lives on through their clerks.”

That’s not to say Thomas’ time on the court is up. In a recent speech, Thomas tied the nation’s highest ideals to a conservative vision of limited government — and launched a broadside on progressivism seen by critics as unfair and inappropriate. In the room at the University of Texas, though, it earned a standing ovation.

Thomas, who became the second Black member of the court, now has a tenure that tops 34 years, putting him ahead of Justice Stephen J. Field, who was appointed by Lincoln before the end of the Civil War and served as the only 10th justice until 1897.

For Thomas, 77, it’s a long way from the hearings at which his nomination by Republican President George H.W. Bush was nearly derailed by allegations that he had sexually harassed Anita Hill, a charge he forcefully denied.

Thomas has more recently come under scrutiny for lavish, undisclosed trips from a GOP megadonor and the conservative political activism of his wife, who backed false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. The justice has said he wasn’t required to disclose the trips he took with friends and ignored calls to recuse himself from cases related to the election.

On the court, though, recent years have also brought perhaps the most significant work of his career, especially a 2022 opinion he wrote that found people generally have the right to carry a gun in public. The justice did not respond to a request for comment on his tenure.

His own jurisprudence has changed little over the years, said Scott Gerber, author of “First Principles: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas.” Even as the majority moves his way, he’s continued to write dissents that get noticed.

“He’s incredibly consistent,” Gerber said. Once known for solo dissents, “now he writes majority opinions.”

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Across America, 53 women have served as state governors. But not one in California. What gives? Aren’t we supposed to be enlightened out here in this cutting-edge state?

In fact, 14 women currently are governors in all sorts of states — north, south, flyover and Pacific coast. Big, midsize and small. Red, blue and purple.

We stand out with a huge black mark.

Voters have a chance to erase the ugly spot this year with Katie Porter in position to possibly be elected California’s first female governor.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying Porter should be elected just because she’s a woman.

What I’m saying is that this is an opportunity to elect a perfectly qualified woman. If a male opponent is considered better suited for the job, fine. But first, let’s give her a good hard look and listen to her ideas. Maybe she’s too liberal — or not liberal enough. Perhaps too feisty and brusque than some unfairly find acceptable in a woman.

Independent polling shows that Porter basically isn’t getting any more support from women voters than she is from men.

I queried my best source on such matters: my daughter, Karen Skelton, a longtime political operative who has served stints in the Clinton and Biden White Houses. Why aren’t more women rallying around Porter?

“There was a time when women were excited to support women just because they were women, fueled by the historic prospect of electing ‘the first,’” she said. “But if anything has been proven in the last two presidential elections where women ran, it’s that identity politics does not work….

“It has to be more than her identity as a woman to get her elected.”

Yep. In my view, Democrat Hillary Clinton wasn’t very likable in 2016 and ran a lousy campaign. In 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris also lacked popularity. And she was dealt a losing hand by aging President Biden when he took too long to step aside.

Harris, a former U.S. senator with a long history of electoral success in California, would have been the heavy favorite to become the state’s first female governor if she had run. But she declined, opting for a possible third presidential bid in 2028.

Porter, 52, is a UC Irvine consumer law professor and former Orange County congresswoman who increased her statewide name familiarity by running unsuccessfully for the Senate in 2024.

Running for governor, she has been forthright and specific on what she’d try to achieve in Sacramento. She’d probably shake up the place.

One goal that should appeal to young families is free childcare. How’d she pay for that, I asked.

“Well, how do we afford public schools, roads, everything else, right?” the single mother of three answered, implying it’s about priorities. “The reason we don’t fund childcare, but we do fund other things, is because we expect women and mothers to do childcare for free or for pennies.”

She was scurrying along leading the Democrat pack last fall until tripping over two videos that displayed a hot temper.

In one, she threatened to walk out of a TV interview when a female reporter repeatedly asked how she expected to gain the votes of President Trump’s supporters. An irritated Porter said she didn’t need their votes, and she was right — but also rude.

In the other video — an oldie — then-Rep. Porter was shown yelling at a young female aide to “get out of my f— shot” during a videoconference with a Cabinet secretary.

Porter says she apologized to the staffer that day and they worked together for years afterward. And following a recent televised debate, Porter says, the former aide texted her congratulations and added that if she still lived in California, she’d vote for her.

The TV reporter, Julie Watts of CBS, was a moderator of a campaign debate last week and tossed some prickly questions at Porter and the other candidates.

“I was very calm and answered all the questions,” Porter notes. “I showed people I can do better” than the TV interview she has apologized for many times.

Porter has never completely recovered from the harmful videos. But she’s running close to two other Democrats — billionaire Tom Steyer and former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra — in the June 2 primary.

“If a man had done the same thing, we wouldn’t be talking about it,” asserts Valerie McGinty, founder and president of Fund Her, an organization dedicated to electing women.

Several women agreed.

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), who has endorsed Porter, points to the late beloved, oft-profane legislative leader John Burton of San Francisco as an example of a double standard.

“Not a woman in American politics could get away with titling their autobiography ‘I Yell Because I Care,’” she says. On the book’s jacket cover, Burton is pictured speaking to a crowd with two raised middle fingers.

“People expect women to be strong but not too harsh,” Petrie-Norris says.

OK, but why do women get elected governor in other states, but not in California?

Mindy Romero, director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at USC, says the vast amounts of money and human resources needed to win in humongous California make it especially difficult for women. They usually haven’t been included in the political pipeline long enough, she says, to build a hefty donor base, acquire elective office experience and gain statewide name recognition.

Three women have dropped out of the current race because they weren’t gaining ground. But it’s hard to argue it was because of any gender hurdles.

Previously, three women won their party nominations for governor but lost in November: Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Kathleen Brown in 1990 and 1994, respectively, and Republican Meg Whitman in 2010. None lost because of any double standard. It just wasn’t their year politically.

But California has elected three female U.S. senators — Democrats Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Harris.

And nearly half the state Legislative seats are held by women.

It’s conceivable this year that California finally enters the 20th century — let alone the 21st — by electing our first female governor.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Coded messages, ‘red boxing’ and other allegations in California’s testy race for governor
Money (That’s what I want): Billionaire-tax backers say they have enough signatures to qualify for ballot
The L.A. Times Special: Voter guide to the 2026 California primary election

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Before Cherie DeVaux won a Breeders’ Cup race, before one of her horses won an Eclipse Award, before she became the answer to a Siri question — “Who was the first female trainer to win the Kentucky Derby?” — she faced the same problem as every new trainer.

She needed horses.

Fortunately for her, this was 2018 and she had just married David Ingordo, a leading bloodstock agent. Surely he’d bring her some top horses and DeVaux would be on her way.

Except … it took DeVaux 11 months to win her first race.

Cherie DeVaux, trainer of Kentucky Derby winner Golden Tempo, celebrates with her husband, David Ingordo, on Saturday at Churchill Downs in Louisville, Ky.

(Andy Lyons / Getty Images)

“That was 100% my fault,” Ingordo said. “We gathered up some horses of our own; we were totally self-funded. And the collection of horses I gathered up were yaks and llamas and sheep. They weren’t related to the equine species.

“I told her, ‘You should have divorced me for the effing horses I put in there.’”

Ingordo was telling this story Sunday, standing in the morning chill outside Barn 37 at Churchill Downs, where dozens of cameras and a few reporters were there to record every word his wife had to say, 12 hours after she made history.

“Good thing I don’t have social anxiety,” DeVaux quipped as she stepped in front of the throng.

She reported Golden Tempo, munching on some hay in his stall maybe 50 feet behind her, was doing well, two hours before he took a 70-mile van ride to DeVaux’s base at Keeneland. A decision on whether he will continue east next week to Laurel Park, temporary home of the May 16 Preakness, won’t be made for several days.

DeVaux said she celebrated with family late Saturday night, eventually getting to sleep at 1:30 a.m. and allowing herself to “sleep in a bit,” not rising until a whole four hours later. There were more than 800 text messages on her phone and she was thinking about what she was going to pack for a flight to New York, where she’s scheduled to appear at 7:30 a.m. Monday on NBC’s “Today.”

“I don’t know if the enormity of this has sunk in yet,” she said.

But DeVaux, 44, has never forgotten where she came from. She grew up in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., which is known for thoroughbred racing, but her family was involved in harness racing and she never wanted to be a trainer anyway. She was in college when most of her family moved to Florida, and she stayed behind to finish school. She needed a job to help pay tuition, and her mom told her there was a racetrack across the street “and all you have to do is walk the horses.”

Cherie DeVaux, trainer of Kentucky Derby winner Golden Tempo, is surrounded by media in the winner’s circle Saturday in Louisville, Ky.

(Michael Reaves / Getty Images)

DeVaux’s plan was to go to medical school, but when an advisor said she had to take a class in organic chemistry, “I just looked at her and said: ‘No, I’m going to go work on the racetrack.’ She’s like: ‘Are you sure?’ and I was like, ‘I’m just going to see how it works.’”

Her first job was with Chuck Simon, who had worked for her father. She was 22 when she showed up at Churchill Downs.

“I was a wild child,” DeVaux said Saturday night. “Chuck saw I was going the wrong way and took me under his wing and made me be an assistant trainer, begrudgingly, because I was really enjoying the party life. But he kind of wrangled me in.

“He would be so proud. I am here because of him. Because he pushed me. He pushed my boundaries. He gave me direction when I needed it. And he was always proud of me. But I just think this definitely would have put him over the top.”

Holding one of the roses that came with Golden Tempo’s victory, she added, “And I can’t wait to drop one of these off at our old barn here.”

She did just that Saturday night before leaving the track.

Cherie DeVaux, trainer of Golden Tempo, looks on during morning workouts ahead of the Kentucky Derby on April 27 at Churchill Downs in Louisville, Ky.

(Michael Reaves / Getty Images)

“It was really emotional,” she said Sunday of her stop at Barn 14. “You know, you walk up, and all the memories flood back of being there, and … it’s an honor to get to be able to do something, you know? It’s just a rose, but it meant a lot. That was where I first unloaded my car, and I thought, ‘OK, let’s do this.’”

DeVaux then worked several years for Chad Brown before making the decision to go out on her own. She said Ingordo told her to give it three years and if it didn’t work, she could do something else.

But Ingordo, who has been working in racing since he was 15, spending time with trainers such as Bobby Frankel and Bruce Headley and later his stepfather, John Shirreffs, said he knew it would work.

“I always say that talent and class are evident in horses and people very quickly,” Ingordo said. “And, you know, I’d watch Cherie and see her, and I knew her from her previous job. And I could watch … the one trainer’s name might have been on the headlines, but I saw who was doing the work. And I told her, ‘You’re too talented to be an assistant. And it’d be a waste if you don’t try it.’”

It did work. Slowly at first, but business picked up and DeVaux started winning bigger races. Her breakthrough came in 2023 when she had the likes of More Than Looks, Vahva and She Feels Pretty. The latter provided her first Grade 1 win in the 2023 Natalma at Woodbine, and the next year all three of those horses captured Grade 1 races, including More Than Looks in the Breeders’ Cup Mile at Del Mar. Last year, She Feels Pretty won two more Grade 1s and was voted the Eclipse Award as top female turf horse.

She has a life away from the track as well, as much as any trainer can have. Ingordo has full custody of a 15-year-old daughter from a previous marriage, and he said, “Meeting Cherie was not only good for me, it’s been great for my daughter.”

As for making history, Ingordo said it wasn’t anything they talked about, and DeVaux “doesn’t sit there and go, ‘I’m a woman, hear me roar.’

“But at the same time,” he said, “she’s very cognizant of the fact this is a very male-dominated business throughout history. It’s probably a little chauvinist at times, if not more.

“And for her to do this. … You know, she’s not a one-hit wonder. The top 25 should be her domain, somewhere in there, for a long time.”

In 1995, when the L.A. Metro system was in its most nascent stage, Ken Karagozian — then an amateur photographer in an Owens Valley, Calif., workshop — found his way underground to document the subterranean marriage between downtown L.A. and Westlake through Metro’s Red Line, now called the B Line.

From that came a feature in Life magazine, but more importantly, a driving principle: Karagozian believed that the construction workers, engineers and electricians who were subject to the whims of a city indecisive on the subway project were deserving of intimate documentation. The invisible many who built the pyramids and New York’s skyline never got that chance, he said, but the people who contributed to the historically controversial Metro D Line from Koreatown to Westwood would, if he had a say.

“When I did take photography workshops, they always said, ‘Do a project close to your home,’” Karagozian said on a call from his Agoura Hills residence. “I wrote a letter to [L.A. Metro], which said, ‘How can I get permission to photograph?’”

Days before the fires ravaged L.A. in 2025, Altadena-based historian and author India Mandelkern had a phone call with Karagozian, who was interested in collaborating on a project about the D Line. After publishing a book on the art and politics of street lighting in Los Angeles, Mandelkern worked on the L.A. Metro blog, soliciting interviews from Angelenos who seemed desperate for a line to the Westside.

A Karagozian photo shows a group of workers during the Section 2 breakthrough during the underground construction of the Metro D Line.

(Ken Karagozian)

A photo by Karagozian shows sunlight filtering underground into the Wilshire/Fairfax site during construction.

(Ken Karagozian)

After Mandelkern connected with Karagozian, their project had solid form: a photo book, titled “Wilshire Subway: The Making of the D Line Subway Extension,” about the history, conflict and people behind the scenes and underground ahead of the May 8 opening of the subway expansion along Wilshire Boulevard. (New stations will be added at Wilshire/La Brea, Wilshire/Fairfax and Wilshire/La Cienega. In the future, stations in Beverly Hills, Century City and Westwood will open.)

A related photo exhibition, “Wilshire Subway: Photographed by Ken Karagozian,” is on view through May 14 at the 1301PE art gallery on Wilshire Boulevard.

This week, we chatted more with Karagozian and Mandelkern about their project.

After writing a book about the social history of street lighting, what brought you underground?

Mandelkern: Well, a couple different reasons. First, I was very interested in Metro just because I had worked there as the blog editor, and in that role, I got to explore so many different stories. I thought Wilshire Boulevard was one of the most interesting places, the stories of this rail-building ambition that persisted for so many different years, and what that says about Angelenos. Second, I think that we talk about L.A. as a horizontal city, and that’s certainly true. If you go somewhere like Tokyo, you instantly see that this is what a vertical city is, but I wanted to bring a little bit of that to L.A. There is so much history buried beneath the ground that we seem to forget, and once you start tunneling, you realize that it’s always been there and it hasn’t disappeared. It’s just pushed beneath us.

In support of their new project, writer India Mendelkern, left, and photographer Ken Karagozian appear at the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books in April.

(Ken Karagozian)

Of all the people you spoke to for this book, which one most influenced the way you understood what the D Line could provide for the city?

Karagozian: This was a joint venture between three contractors, and they each had their specialty. It was Skanska, Traylor [Bros.] and Shea. With Traylor, they were brothers and they were doing the tunneling. Richard McLane [chief mechanical engineer of Traylor Bros.] was very helpful in telling me a little bit about the history of Wilshire Boulevard and facts of tunneling. … All these different contractors impacted the project in some way.

Mandelkern: I always say Ken is one of the best construction photographers out there, but his specialty is really people. When I interviewed some of these individual workers, a whole different story came to light, and I realized that many of these workers came to L.A., started at the bottom of the totem pole, and through working on the subway have risen through the ranks, gotten promotions, become leaders, and their kids now work in construction. … It’s just so amazing that so many of these individuals are doing all this work behind the scenes that creates infrastructure that connects all of us.

1

2

1. Carpenter Jenna Dorough poses for a portrait by Karagozian during the underground construction of the Metro D Line. 2. A concrete supervisor photographed by Karagozian at the La Cienega Boulevard station. (Ken Karagozian)

There are many portraits in the book of the builders who created the D Line. India referred to the short lifespans of the workers compared to the marvelous structures they craft: Was it intentional that you documented most of the D Line’s visual history through the people who built it?

Karagozian: When I go down underground and after the stations are completed, to me, it’s the people that built it that should tell the story. I didn’t just want to get a shot of them from behind. I really like to photograph their faces. … When I photographed the workers from the Red Line, some of these workers from the middle ’90s are still working on the Purple Line. I’ve known them for years, and now their children are working in construction; it becomes a family issue. … Going down and photographing the tunnels with that lighting in that perspective, it’s always been so interesting.

Mandelkern: That just reminded me of one of the quotes in the book from John Yen, who is the VP of operations at Skanska. He said, “In construction, we work ourselves out of a job.” I always found it really interesting that, as we build, the whole point is to kind of disappear. It reminded me of one of my favorite quotes in the essay, when James [Rojas] writes [that] when the stations are open, they’ll be shiny and new, but that will kind of erase all the memories and all the work of the people who’ve been doing this for all this time. This book really became a way to sort of remember all of these different people that have been working on these projects for decades and decades, even if they’re not really remembered in the official record.

As the D Line prepares to open, does it somehow feel like the end of a journey?

Mandelkern: This just [started] so many other things for me. Afterwards, I decided I really want to learn about the geology of L.A., and I found an interest in paleontology, too. I hope with any book that it just gets people curious, and it gets them to start asking questions. I think that “Wilshire Subway” does accomplish that. L.A. is just this bowl with all these different salad layers, and as we penetrate down, we learn more and more about our history.

Karagozian: It does a little bit. With May 8 being the grand opening, and as the stations are complete and they’re testing the trains underground, it almost feels like it’s graduation time. Time to celebrate the journey of going through high school, college, whatever. I am still continuing to photograph the [Purple Line extension], which is Rodeo or Beverly [Hills] station … Now it’s just the accomplishment of celebrating all the work that I’ve put into this project and going down almost once a week and photographing the process for so many years.

Wrexham’s dream of reaching the Premier League is over, for this season anyway.

And for Ryan Reynolds, it was tough to stomach.

“I am completely gutted by today’s result but incredibly proud of our season,” the actor wrote on X after the Welsh club he co-owns missed out on a place in the playoffs in the second-tier Championship by drawing 2-2 with Middlesbrough in a dramatic final round of the regular season on Saturday.

That allowed Hull to jump ahead of Wrexham and into sixth place — the fourth and final spot in the playoffs — courtesy of a 2-1 win over Norwich in a match played at the same time.

The winning goal for Hull, by Oli McBurnie in the 67th, appeared to be scored from an offside position but there are no video reviews in the English Football League.

It ended Wrexham’s unprecedented run of three straight promotions under its famous owners — a streak that began by getting out of the fifth tier in the 2022-23 season and has been documented in the globally popular, Emmy Award-winning “Welcome to Wrexham” series.

Still, seventh place marked the Wrexham’s highest finish in its history, bettering the 15th position it achieved in the second tier in the 1978–79 season.

“We’ve come a long way in five years and this was the best result in our 150+ year history,” Reynolds wrote alongside a graphic that showed how Wrexham has risen from the National League. “More to do. But for now, we have so much to be proud of, Reds.”

Elsewhere, Ipswich secured the second automatic promotion spot behind champion Coventry — and an immediate return to the Premier League — by beating Queens Park Rangers 3-0.

Ipswich is owned by U.S. investment group Gamechanger 20 Limited and counts pop star Ed Sheeran as a minority shareholder.

Joining Hull in the playoffs, which begin next week and are over two legs, are Millwall, Southampton and Middlesbrough.

Millwall will face Hull, and Southampton will meet Middlesbrough.

Best-ever finish by Wrexham

It was a memorable campaign by Wrexham in its first season in the second tier since the 1980s.

However, the short-term pain was acute, and Wrexham’s players sat on the ground and looked disconsolate after the final whistle — even though the Hull-Norwich match hadn’t finished.

Wrexham started the day in sixth place, ahead of Hull on goal difference, and conceded in the fourth minute to Middlesbrough, only to score through Josh Windass and Sam Smith for a 2-1 lead by the 41st.

Middlesbrough hit back immediately with a 43rd-minute equalizer but Wrexham finished the stronger, squandering a string of great late chances for a winner that would have secured a playoff place on goal difference.

Wrexham’s Josh Windass squats on the field and looks dejected following a draw with Middlesbrough on Saturday.

(Michael Steele / Getty Images)

In the end, Wrexham finished two points behind Hull.

“This squad as it stands, with a preseason together, will be even stronger next year,” said Wrexham manager Phil Parkinson, who oversaw a summer spend of around $40 million last year.

“Of course we’ll always look to add to that to try and give ourselves an even better chance … we know where we’d like to strengthen and what we need to improve on. We’ll do that and we’ll make this squad as strong as we possibly can to mount a challenge next year.”

Douglas writes for the Associated Press.

The tallest player in college basketball history plans to take his long strides from Gainesville, Fla., to Orange County.

Olivier Rioux, who is 7-foot-9 yet seldom played at Florida, has committed to UC Irvine, he announced on Instagram. His move likely was prompted by the near certainty that he wouldn’t crack the Gators’ starting lineup next season, either.

Florida is expected to be ranked No. 1 entering the 2026-27 season after finishing 27-8 and ranked No. 9 in the final AP poll behind three star players. Thomas Haugh and Alex Condon announced they would return and Rueben Chinyelu is expected to withdraw from the NBA draft and also return.

Rioux, who will be a redshirt sophomore, grew up in Quebec and played at IMG Academy in Bradenton, Fla., before attending Florida as a preferred walk-on. He appeared in 11 games, scoring seven points, becoming the tallest player to score in a Division I game.

He will be fun to watch play regardless of whether he is dominant. Rioux dunks without jumping, a feat highlighted by his first college field goal against Saint Francis in December 2025 and a memorable March Madness moment in 2026 with an offensive rebound and put-back dunk.

He didn’t play more than a few minutes at a time because Florida coach Todd Golden said he lacked the stamina to do so.

Mamadou Ndiaye, who is 7-foot-6, played at Irvine from 2014-2016, likely confident he would be the tallest ever to suit up for the Anteaters. Ndiaye twice was named Big West defensive player of the year and helped Irvine to a Big West Conference title and NCAA tournament berth. He played five years in the NBA, including for the Clippers in 2004-05.

Rioux is one of only three college basketball players in history taller than the decorated former Irvine center, according to ESPN. The Anteaters can only hope Rioux makes a similar impact.

Last season Irvine won the Big West regular-season title but lost to Hawaii in the conference tournament. The Anteaters went 32-7 in 2024-25. Guard Jurian Dixon starred on both teams but transferred to Virginia this offseason.

According to the Florida media guide, Rioux is the Guinness World Record holder for tallest teenager. He stood 6-1 at age eight, 6-11 by sixth grade and became a certified 7-footer the next summer. Rioux played on Canada’s national team at various age levels.

The center redshirted in 2024-25 when Gators won the national title in 2025 and appeared in 11 games last season. In late March, he announced that he would enter the portal in search of more playing time. On Thursday, he made a decision.

“Next stop: Irvine, California,” he wrote on social media.

In an era of 150-page novels in 14-point font, and books on Venezuela’s recent history that feel like overly long opinion pieces, Ulises Milla’s Editorial Alfa opted for something entirely different: a chronicle of how chavismo took over the Venezuelan State between 1999 and 2004, the product of ten years of research, divided into two volumes totaling more than 1,400 pages.

It is titled La oscuridad no llegó sola (no English translation yet), taken from a line by a Colombian poet, and has a subtitle that speaks volumes: “chronicle of a Venezuelan tragedy.” Yes, it is a chronicle in the broadest sense of the term, a systematic and multifaceted account that protects a series of events from oblivion in a specific era. It is also a Venezuelan tragedy, one among many, in which everything leads to an unhappy ending that seems inevitable, as in those of Aeschylus or Sophocles.

There is a classical feel to Mirtha Rivero’s new work, not only because she has drawn on literary genres that are over two millennia old, but also because it is a book that took a long time to write, one made to transcend time. For this reader, it is another essential text about our past, like José Domingo Díaz’s chronicles of the First and Second Republics or Lisandro Alvarado’s Historia de la Revolución Federal, and certainly like Rivero’s previous work: the bestseller La rebelión de los náufragos, published in 2010. It does not attempt to impose a personal thesis, defend one side or one figure, or propose a solution to the nation’s ills. It is an effort to understand how things happened, on a scale vast enough to allow the patterns of behavior developed by political actors over those years to emerge.

For those of us who experienced these events firsthand, through the media, La oscuridad no llegó sola still reveals aspects of the story we didn’t know, thanks to the quantity and quality of its sources. For those who were too young, it is an unparalleled document on how the traditional political class underestimated chavismo, how chavismo took advantage of the negligence and frivolity of its adversaries to seize control of institutions, and how the anti-politics we saw explode in La rebelión de los náufragos helped demolish what little remained of that democracy, which committed suicide, or allowed itself to die. A tragedy that, with its variations, has happened before. And that will very likely happen again. La oscuridad no llegó sola by Mirtha Rivero is available on Amazon and in bookstores in Spain. From Monterrey, Mexico, where she has lived for several years, the economics journalist who is showing how Venezuela’s contemporary history must be written spoke with Caracas Chronicles.

I want to start with the moment when La rebelión de los náufragos was published, had the impact it did, and you began the journey that led to these two volumes. You addressed this in the preface to La oscuridad no llegó sola, but what was the process like for defining not only the 1999-2004 timeframe, but also the questions you wanted to answer?

After La rebelión de los náufragos was published, I didn’t immediately consider any other topics. It was the third book I had written, but it was the first one that was published, and its reception changed my way of working. It was like a shock. For a year and a half, I couldn’t think about another “topic” because I was adapting to that new reality. It was in mid-June 2011 that another topic emerged. I wanted to answer a question: What happened in the 2004 recall referendum? For me, it was personally very important because, as a result, my husband and I began looking for a new place to live. Did voting fraud occur or not? What was it like? How did we get to that point? So I marked the period: from Chávez’s inauguration on February 2, 1999, until the day of the referendum, August 15, 2004.

It wasn’t so much that chavismo was pressuring the Supreme Court, but rather that a large part of society favored a Constituent Assembly.

I had to go back quite far because Chávez didn’t appear out of nowhere. Nor did other figures: the architects who helped him set up his political machine, those who accompanied him from that day forward, and those who had been with him even before the 1992 uprisings didn’t appear out of nowhere. They all have a past and a reason for being there, just like the people who kept appearing in my research. I confirmed along the way that during those years, the foundations were laid and the entire structure that allows chavismo to endure was built. As I guide my narrative, I realize that I not only have to look back, but that I often force myself to project into the future. For example, I look back when I discuss the oil industry, which is an important topic in my chronicle, but I also look forward when someone talks about the changes in the judicial sphere that the 1999 Constitution imposed, and I’m going to the trial against Judge Afiuni in 2009.

I see. For me, La oscuridad no llegó sola is a twin of La rebelión de los náufragos, in its structure, its tone, and its intention: first, you show how the political class sacrificed democracy with Carlos Andrés Pérez and paved the way for chavismo, and now we see how it overestimated its own strength and underestimated Chávez. Was describing this hall of mirrors the plan, or did it emerge during the research?

It wasn’t the plan. I didn’t see it as a continuation, nor as a hall of mirrors: it turned out that way, the story led me there. Exploring the recall referendum was actually a pretext for me to delve into that era, which I was afraid of. What was important was what happened before the referendum. How the referendum was repeatedly postponed until Chavismo had all institutions and powers under its control, which culminated in the expansion of the Supreme Court, and how it was able to regain popular support through direct subsidies via the social missions. How the opposition promoted the recall referendum without having a candidate to challenge Chavismo if Chávez lost and elections were held.

What did you learn, while writing this book, about the ability of the various opposition leaders to interpret reality? Do you share the common opinion that popular support for Chávez was underestimated in 1998 and 1999?

I was very surprised by their inability to see what was right in front of them. We had already seen how short-sighted the political parties were, their reluctance to form and renew themselves, since the 1980s. This is evident in the conspiracy against Carlos Andrés Pérez in 1993, based on a check from the secret fund that had been annulled in 1989 and was used against him in 1992; in the corruption accusations made by (future chavista minister) José Vicente Rangel; in the resistance to the reforms of the Presidential Commission for State Reform; and in the insistence of the old leaders on remaining political bosses.

There were people who knew who this Hugo Chávez they were opposing really was, but even so, there were those clumsy last-minute maneuvers in the 1998 campaign, and they weren’t prepared for the scenario in which Congress would be eliminated, as Chávez himself had said would happen. They acted with great carelessness in the face of Chávez’s rise: society, the political parties, and even a political animal like Teodoro Petkoff underestimated him. I was very surprised that they didn’t know how to confront the lieutenant colonel, the authoritarian tendencies that came with him, the power-hungry Left that accompanied him, the people who applauded the military coup attempts of 1992. They offered no resistance when Chavismo abolished Congress, taking advantage of the anti-political sentiment that had also been brewing since the 1980s. The lack of vision, and even of any statesman-like discourse, on the part of the politicians, did surprise me greatly.

One of the book’s many achievements was to unearth and trace a somewhat forgotten but key episode: how the Supreme Court accepted the Constituent Assembly’s suspension of the Legislative Branch. Did that also surprise you, how they paved the way for the dissolution of the separation of powers? How much pressure was chavismo exerting on the Supreme Court?

It didn’t surprise me that much, because we experienced it firsthand. The chavistas had just come to power and were barely learning how to use it, and they couldn’t exert pressure before Chávez took office on February 2, 1999. It wasn’t so much that chavismo was pressuring the Supreme Court, but rather that a large part of society favored a Constituent Assembly, even though a constitutional reform would have sufficed. Many people believed that this Constituent Assembly would save the country, to create a new, bright, efficient nation. Everyone was riding that wave. As Simón Alberto Consalvi said, we cannot absolve the people of their decisions.

Some of your interviewees, as expected, fall into hindsight bias: assigning to certain moments a meaning that we see today but that wasn’t easy to discern then. For example, everyone in your book says they knew the 2002-2003 strike was a bad idea, but that “the majority decided”: Didn’t you yourself fall into hindsight bias? Because when I write about those years, I have to tell myself, “Remember what you thought then about the 2002 general strike, not what you think today.”

One can always fall into that bias because one isn’t objective, pristine, but I was very careful about that and made an effort to compare the accounts. Because many interviewees told me things that didn’t happen as they said; they were mixing what others had told them with what they would have liked to have happened. My own interpretations of a particular moment fell apart as I investigated. Sometimes the same scene had six different testimonies, and I had to cross-reference them, sometimes going back to the witnesses to confirm or discuss parts of their story. The good thing is that I encountered very little reluctance from the interviewees, although of course there were people who didn’t want to talk, who stood me up, and I even made trips for nothing. 

Both the oil workers and the dissident military officers were convinced they were right and that they could convince some people, while these people already had a plan in place.

With those I did talk to, I sometimes confronted them, because now it turns out, for example, that nobody agreed with the national civic strike, or as we called it then, the “oil strike.” But the investigation was able to determine who truly resisted, and how society pressured for a repeat of what happened on April 11, even though it was so unlikely to have any effect.

April 11, 2002, is like the novel Rashomon; the same event is seen differently depending on many perspectives. But it’s quite well documented; much less known is what happened within PDVSA, and you contributed a lot to those of us who aren’t familiar with the oil world. How do you see today the role played by the oil executives when they decided to step outside their bubble? 

Within that bubble were people like Edgar Paredes and Juan Santana who, having been involved in university politics, were politically savvy. They knew their place and what might happen, but also what they needed to do. They created that protest movement to rescue PDVSA. Society joined them because, in reality, it used the PDVSA conflict as an excuse to protest many other things, but the oil workers were trying to defend their company because, ever since Chávez was elected in ’98, they saw him as a threat. Naively, they believed they could change the policies because they came from a school of thought where debate and consensus were reached. But even during the 2002 strike, they continued fighting to rescue PDVSA. They were fighting for the country too, but to rescue the country, they believed, PDVSA had to be rescued. The same was true for the soldiers in Plaza Altamira. Right or wrong, they wanted to rescue the FAN (National Armed Forces) where they had made their careers, without understanding that they couldn’t, because the first political prisoners of chavismo were military personnel.

The idea that Chávez also provoked the April 11th march, or the movement to crush it, is a narrative he fabricated after those events.

Both the oil workers and the dissident military officers were convinced they were right and that they could convince some people, while these people already had a plan in place. They thought that the truth would prevail and that the people would act for the good of the country. But that wasn’t meant to happen. They suffered a lack of understanding of the country’s political history, of what the 1992 coups meant. Because they were caught up in their own business, in what they knew. In fact, not all the oil workers or the military saw Chávez as a threat and voted for him in 1998, like a large part of the country.

Reading the book, I came to feel more empathy for what the oil workers and even certain military personnel, did than for what the politicians did.

Because they actually did more than the politicians in terms of trying to rescue their respective organizations. With all their naiveté, the oil workers and the military did force others to act. They gave their all to try to save not only their professional world, but democracy itself.

The book makes it clear that Chávez sought out conflicts, he provoked them. Even the massacres, not to mention the strikes: he sought out battles because he saw them (and he was right) as opportunities to wipe out pockets of resistance. Right? Do you see this as a pattern that connects everything from the 2001 enabling legislation to the recall referendum?

Chávez sought out battles because it was his way of life. He always said, like Pinochet, that he was a soldier. I believe he launched the enabling legislation package in 2001 to impose his agenda, not to provoke, because I don’t think he knew it would generate such strong resistance, even though there had already been protests since 2000. He introduced those laws at the last minute and without consulting anyone because he was an authoritarian who believed he was the center of the world. The idea that he also provoked the April 11th march, or the movement to crush it, is a narrative he fabricated after those events. He knew there were disaffected military officers and expected a classic coup, which he planned to counter with civilians, but he didn’t provoke it, because in fact, his intelligence services ultimately failed him. Just as there are people who, after the strike failed, said they never agreed with it, he rewrote history to impose the narrative that everything was his agenda. But many things surprised him, even though he eventually managed to navigate each situation. However, after April 11th, he did dedicate himself to provoking conflicts, now with the advice of Fidel Castro, and surrounded by radicals like Alí Rodríguez Araque. 

Another pattern I noticed is the persistence of anti-politics, how distrust of political parties shaped different situations. And you get the feeling that this still resonates with people, that three decades after the 1990s, anti-politics continues to define us, right?

The parties were already badly weakened, following a decline that began in the mid-1980s, and even more so after what happened with Pérez II. Their crisis became impossible to hide by the second year of Chávez’s presidency, but anti-politics was very much present during Chávez’s election itself, before that night of April 11, 2002, when decisions were made driven by the desire to remove politicians from important matters. Although politicians met, participated in discussion groups, and sought solutions on their own, such as promoting Adán Celis as transitional president, anti-politics was pervasive across all sectors and prevailed among the main actors who attempted to remove Chávez from power in 2002. The book includes testimonies from politicians who recount how the media favored the opinions of emerging civil society actors who viewed politicians as corrupt and stuck in the past. And yes, as you say, this continues today. Those in power still promote this idea of ​​politicians as a corrupt caste that led the country to ruin. Because it’s very easy to blame politicians for something in which the citizenry also played a part.

Eight candidates for California governor shared a stage for 90 minutes Tuesday night, their second of three scheduled debates before the June 2 primary.

My colleagues Gustavo Arellano and Mark Z. Barabak joined me to decide who the winner was, or if there was a winner at all.

Arellano: The real MVP in this debate? State Supt. Tony Thurmond.

He brought up his family story — child of a Panamanian immigrant who lost his parents young, someone familiar with “government cheese” as sustenance growing up — in a way that didn’t sound forced or pedantic.

He usually stayed within the time limits that were barely enforced by moderators. And he kept knocking down Chad Bianco again and again, drawing applause when he brought up the Riverside County sheriff’s takeover of hundreds of thousands of ballots.

Thurmond is the only gubernatorial candidate currently holding a statewide position, a former Richmond City Council member and Assembly member. “Elect someone with a lived experience,” he told the audience in his closing statement.

So why has Thurmond polled so low again and again to the point that he keeps not getting invited to debates and therefore not getting in front of California voters?

California has never elected a Black governor — in fact, the state is notorious for not voting in Tom Bradley in 1982 even though polls showed him leading George Deukmejian all the way to Election Day (the phenomenon of voters telling pollsters what they think they want to hear instead of what they actually feel is now known as the Bradley Effect).

As California’s Black population keeps shrinking, it would’ve been wonderful to see Thurmond do better than he has.

Chabria: Gustavo is spot on with his take on Thurmond. He came across as polished, capable and knowledgeable. But also, he’s just too far down in the polls for any kind of comeback.

In my mind, though, Xavier Becerra was the clear winner. No, he didn’t blow the other candidates away.

But he landed more than one punch that will almost certainly be on social media feeds for weeks to come, especially when he went at Republican Steve Hilton. Early on, he called President Trump “Hilton’s daddy.” Later, he quipped at Hilton, “We don’t need a talking head for Fox News to tell us how the government works.”

The debate was chaotic in more than one moment, but Becerra managed to get more than his share of airtime and use it wisely. Tom Steyer, the other Democratic front-runner, mired himself in wonk-talk. He wanted to get deep into policy, and got lost in complicated issues such as oil refineries.

Steyer didn’t have a single memorable line, though his closing statement did redeem him somewhat. He called himself the “change maker,” and promised, “if you want change, there is only one person on this stage they are afraid of” — they being tech titans, oil companies and other gods of industry.

It was the same for Katie Porter and Matt Mahan, who didn’t do anything wrong, but also, didn’t break out.

But those back-and-forths of Becerra and Hilton are priceless because they’re quick and shareable. I won’t be surprised to see voters drift Becerra’s way, even if only a bit.

Barabak: No runs, no hits, no errors. Seven men — and one woman — left standing.

I didn’t see, or hear, anything that seems very likely to drastically shake up or dramatically reorder the governor’s race. No breakout performance that will launch any of the candidates into clear-cut front-runner status. No major gaffes to leave any of the contestants sprawled on the killing floor.

So to that extent, I would score Becerra as the evening’s (modest) winner. He’s clearly having a moment, surging from political near-death to the top tier in polls. (Though, let’s be clear, it’s still a muddle, with several candidates bunched in the 15%-20% support range.)

There have been suggestions Becerra needs to show a bit more fight and he did so Tuesday, in particular taking on Hilton. Some of his jabs seemed a bit forced and stagy. (That line about Trump as “Hilton’s daddy.”)

Better, as Anita noted, was the jab from the former congressman, state attorney general and Biden cabinet secretary about a Fox “talking head” explaining how government works.

I found Porter to be crisp and authoritative on policy; Steyer to be repetitive (I’m the only change agent on this stage, look how much money is being spent to stop me — though it’s a small fraction of the sum he’s sunk into his vanity-cruise campaign); Mahan and Antonio Villaraigosa to be largely afterthoughts, and Bianco to have all the warmth and appeal of the grouchy old man telling kids in the neighborhood to get off his damn lawn!

The Riverside County sheriff seemed not to be running for governor of California, but rather mayor of MAGA-ville, a strategy apparently intended to nab one of two spots in the June primary, allowing him to go on to crushing defeat in November.

I agree that perhaps the night’s most surprising performance came from Thurmond. The state schools superintendent is mired in bare single digits in polls and only just made the debate stage after being left out of last week’s meetup in San Francisco.

His chances of being California’s next governor are somewhere between zero and nil, which is why he escaped serious scrutiny. That said, he made the most of the 90 minutes on stage, laying out his compelling up-from-poverty life story and seeming to relish taking on Bianco in particular.

Too little, too late. But Thurmond certainly acquitted himself well.

What else you should be reading
The must-read: ‘This is like the Russian mafia’: L.A. judge elections see unusual drama
The deep dive: Gavin Newsom wants to break up with Elon Musk. Tesla is making that difficult.
The L.A. Times Special: John Seymour, Anaheim mayor and U.S. senator, dies at 88

Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.