On the eve of the release of her 12th album, Taylor Swift received a thank-you note from George Michael’s estate for including his work in her version of “Father Figure.”
“When we heard the track we had no hesitation in agreeing to this association between two great artists and we know George would have felt the same,” the “Freedom!” singer’s estate posted Thursday on X.
Taylor’s take on “Father Figure” incorporates an interpolation of Michael’s 1987 song from his album “Faith.”
Both songs share a common thread of telling the tale of a specific relationship. In a 1987 interview with ET, the former Wham! singer turned solo star — who died over the Christmas holiday in 2016 — vaguely discussed the meaning behind his track.
“‘Father Figure’ is just a very, without going into too much detail, it’s just a very specific experience that I wrote about a specific relationship with one person,” Michael said.
“I think there’s a definite pattern in people’s lives where they move away from their parents, then they spend time on their own and then they look for that replacement,” he added.
Similarly, the fourth song on Swift’s album “The Life of a Showgirl,” which was released on Thursday, tells the experience of a specific relationship between a mentor and his protégé.
Hmmm. Who could it be? Are the lyrics imaginative or are the details too specific to brush off as fiction? Let’s dissect.
Swift opens her track with: “When I found you, you were young, wayward, lost in the cold / Pulled up to you in the Jag’, turned your rags to gold.”
There is one person who turned her into the gold standard of pop — music executive Scott Borchetta, who signed her to his Big Machine Records label back in the day.
The song initially takes the perspective of the mentor who sees potential, profit and the opportunity to be a father figure for the protégé. In the tail end of the track, the point of view changes to the other side.
“You want a fight, you found it / I got the place surrounded / You’ll be sleeping with the fishes before you know you’re drowning.”
Again, the details seem too specific to write it off as pure fiction, but Swifties may have to stick to speculation unless Swift goes on the “New Heights” podcast to discuss the meaning behind her lyrics with her future husband, Travis Kelce, and soon-to-be brother-in-law, Jason Kelce.
Don’t hold your breath — there’s probably a better chance she releases a new version of “Life of a Showgirl” first.
Like many young men these days, Kamaldeep Dhanoa, a lanky 17-year-old, knew he wanted to do something with his life, be a part of something, but didn’t quite know what that meant.
Coming up with a career was important. But even more, it was finding the right friends — discovering what he wanted to be a part of.
He did both when he joined Improve Your Tomorrow, a mentorship organization for teenage boys and young men — that vulnerable, chronically online demographic from which Charlie Kirk drew many of his most ardent supporters, and where so much of our societal angst is focused in the wake of his death.
Now a senior at Florin High School in a suburb outside Sacramento, Dhanoa has a plan to become a paramedic, and more importantly, has those friendships that help him feel not just connected, but included and valued.
His something.
“I just know I have brothers around me,” he told me Tuesday. “We’re always with each other. It gives you, like, a sense of security. So if you’re feeling down, you could always, always rely on them.”
Dhanoa was hanging out in his school’s gym with Gov. Gavin Newsom, who dropped by to announce the California Men’s Service Challenge, an effort to recruit 10,000 Golden State males to serve as mentors to boys such as Dhanoa, so more boys can find their something.
It’s a worthy effort and before you jump to thinking it’s a reaction to Kirk, I’ll point out that 10 years ago, California’s first partner, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, made a documentary about the crisis of connection and identity facing young men, “The Mask You Live In.”
Recently, her husband caught up.
To be fair, a lot of us have been slow on the uptake when it comes to understanding why so many young men seem drawn to the obvious loneliness and disconnection of chronically online lives.
Kamaldeep Dhanoa, 17, and Michael Lynch helped Gov. Gavin Newsom announce his new statewide initiative to engage more men in volunteer and mentorship work.
(Anita Chabria/Los Angeles Times)
“Touch grass” has become a generation’s cultural shorthand to describe both the isolation and cure for people who seem so deep into a virtual world that the real one has lost meaning. It’s a dismissive way of looking at a problem that doesn’t begin and end with boys.
But, if we didn’t see it earlier, Kirk’s killing has made it clear that there are too many boys that need to be pulled back from the brink of a very bad something. One that is less about left or right and more about exactly who and what those boys stumble upon inside those ethereal spaces that most parents can’t even find, much less understand.
“We’ve got to get these kids back,” Newsom said. “They’re very susceptible young men. They’re very vulnerable online.”
Even more concerning, when the nihilism of the darkest corners of the internet catches up to their psyches, “young people weaponize those grievances,” Newsom said — whether that anger turns inward or outward.
Suicide among young men has increased. In 2023, the male suicide rate was about 23 deaths per 100,000 men, nearly four times higher than for women, a number that has been climbing for years (albeit with some slight dips). Sadly, women attempt suicide more often, but men have a higher rate of completion, often because they use more deadly means such as guns.
But lonely boys are also more prone to commit violence on others, maybe especially when they mix their anger with politics. Once recent study by social epidemiologist Julia Schleimer at the University of Washington School of Public Health found that individuals who reported having few social connections were, “more likely than others to support political violence or be personally willing to engage in it in one form or another.”
For reference, about 15% of men have no close friendships, according to a recent poll by the Survey Center on American Life. Newsom puts that figure even higher for young men, with “one in four men under 30 years old reporting that they have no close friends, a five-fold increase since 1990.”
Kirk stepped into that gap, providing meaning and belonging not just through his podcasts, where he was best known, but through the grassroots Turning Point USA organization that gave thousands of young people (of both sexes) both an ideology and, equally as important, real-world connections and events.
“Obviously Charlie Kirk was a master at not only the work he did online, but offline, and his capacity to organize and engage,” Newsom said.
Whether you agreed with Kirk’s views or not (and I did not agree on many points, including matters of race, sexual orientation, immigration or the meaning of patriotism), he created that something that is missing for so many young people. He created a vision of an America that needed to be saved, and could be saved, through a dedication to a certain kind of family and a certain kind of faith. As Newsom described it of his own effort, young people don’t just want a cause. They want to feel invested, they want to feel an “obligation to give back.”
If Newsom’s recent foray into Trump-esque social media proves anything, it’s that he’s willing to learn, even emulate, success — wherever he finds it. Newsom is trying to offer the belonging that Kirk supplied, seeped not in the exclusion and rigidity that Kirk embodied, but in California values.
“It’s about building an inclusive community of all different kinds of voices,” Michael Lynch told me of the California Challenge. He’s the co-founder and chief executive of Improve Your Tomorrow, the organization Dhanoa belongs to.
Lynch said kids get all kinds of benefits from mentors, but when he asks what those are, the sentence usually starts, “Now that I have friends…. “
The outcome of the effort to bring boys out of the virtual world is all about who those friends are, who pulls them out.
Our boys don’t just need to touch grass, they need to be around men who don’t seek to impose values, but teach them how to craft their own, how to believe in themselves before they believe in something someone is selling.
“What the world needs is your authenticity,” Newsom told a teenage journalist who covered the event for the school newspaper. “And so I just hope we take a deep breath and discover the most important, powerful thing in the world, and that’s who you are.”
If Newsom’s effort inspires just one good man to step up and help a kid figure that out — who they are, and how to believe in themselves first and forever — it will be something.
Kate Middleton looked emotional at the Wimbledon Centre Court reception as she made a rare public appearance for the Women’s Final
12:02, 13 Jul 2025Updated 12:03, 13 Jul 2025
Kate Middleton was looking radiant at Wimbledon 2025(Image: Getty)
Kate Middleton was given a standing ovation as she returned to Centre Court for the Ladies’ Singles Wimbledon Final on Saturday.
The Princess of Wales‘ emotional arrival into the Royal Box comes after she has scaled back her public appearances since revealing her cancer diagnosis last year.
Kate looked radiant as she made her entrance, dressed in a chic yellow dress with a pleated skirt and belted waist. Eagle-eyed fans will have noticed a stand-out bow accessory pinned to Kate’s dress. Prince William’s wife has been seen wearing the small dark green and purple bow attached below her shoulder at the sporting event in previous years.
Kate Middleton attends day thirteen of the Wimbledon Tennis Championships on July 12, 2025(Image: Getty)
But fans may not know the special reason for the fashion statement.
Kate is the patron of the AELTC, which conducts the day-to-day operations of The Championships and has been since 2016. The club made green and purple the official colours back in 1909. Kate first made the sartorial show of support in 2017 and has worn the same garment to the sporting event ever since.
The princess, who is the patron of the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, attended the final of the Women’s competition where Iga Swiatek beat Amanda Asiminova 6-0, 6-0.
Other VIPs lucky enough to get a seat in the royal box included former long-distance runner Mo Farah and former US world tennis No1 Billie Jean King.
Catherine, Princess of Wales, presents Amanda Anisimova of United States with the Ladies’ Singles runner up trophy
Kate later presented the trophy to Swiatek. She also had some kind words for Anisimova who burst into tears after the match.
Anisimova was the first women’s singles finalist not to win a game for more than a century, going back to 1911.
Revealing details of her conversation with Kate, she said after the trophy ceremony: “It was such an honour to meet her,” Anisimova said. “I wasn’t sure if she was going to come out today, if she was going be there, so it was just really nice to see her. She definitely had a few things to say that were making me emotional again! But she was really kind, and she told me to keep my head high.
“I don’t really want to reveal everything she said to me, but I also spoke to her again after the match, because I passed by her, and she had all the best to say to me. So I guess it was a positive of today, and I can try and focus on that and not the match.”
Kate returned to public duties on July 2 with a visit to a hospital’s well-being garden, where she spoke candidly about her cancer recovery. She said, “You put on a sort of brave face, stoicism through treatment, treatments done, then it’s like, “I can crack on, get back to normal,’ but actually the phase afterwards is really, really difficult.”
The visit marked her first appearance since missing Royal Ascot on June 18.
A lot of people online have been very, very upset over the Trump Department of Justice’s twofold conclusion, announced last Sunday, that Jeffrey Epstein’s death in jail in 2019 was a suicide and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had no “incriminating ‘client list’ ” among its Epstein files.
The tremendous uproar against the Justice Department and FBI has crossed partisan lines; if anything, it has been many conservative commentators and some Republican elected officials who have expressed the most outrage, with accusations and implications that the government is hiding something about the case to protect powerful individuals.
Given the sordid nature of the underlying subject matter and the fact the feds closely examined “over ten thousand downloaded videos and images of illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography,” the obsession with the “Epstein files” gives off a vibe that is, frankly, somewhat creepy. To be sure, it is always righteous to seek justice for victims, but many don’t want public scrutiny.
The Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files has not been its finest hour. During a February interview on Fox News, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said, in response to host John Roberts’ question about whether the Justice Department would release a “list of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients,” that the list was “sitting on [her] desk right now to review.” It is an astonishing about-face for Bondi to now disavow that investigators have any such list. The Trump administration owes us all a clear explanation.
With that large caveat aside, though, the fact remains: This is just not the biggest deal in the world — and if you think it is, then you probably need to log off social media.
The midterm elections next fall are not going to be determined by the existence — or absence — of a “client list” for an extravagantly wealthy dead pedophile. Nor will they be decided on the absurd grounds of whether FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino have somehow been “compromised.” (They haven’t.) Instead, the election — and our politics — will be contested on typical substantive grounds: the economy, inflation, immigration, crime, global stability and so forth. This is as it should be. There are simply better uses of your time than fuming over the government’s avowed nonexistence of the much-ballyhooed client list.
You might, for instance, consider spending more time, during these midsummer weeks, with your family. Maybe you can take the kids camping or fishing. Maybe you can take them to an amusement park or to one of America’s many national park treasures. You can spend less time scrolling Instagram and TikTok and more time reading a good old-fashioned book; you will learn more, you will be happier and you will be considerably less likely to traffic in fringe issues and bizarre rhetoric that alienates far more than it unifies.
Instead of finding meaning in the confirmation biases and groupthink validations of social media algorithms, perhaps you can locate meaning where countless human beings have found it since time immemorial: religion. Spend more time praying, reading scripture and attending services at your preferred house of worship. All of these uses of your time will fill you with a sense of stability, meaning and purpose that you will never find deep in the bowels of an X thread on the Epstein files.
Too many people today who are deeply engaged in America’s combustible political process have forgotten that there are more important things in life than politics. And even within the specific realm of politics, there are plenty of things that are more deserving of attention and emotional investment than others. Above all, it is conservatives — those oriented toward sobriety and humility, not utopianism and decadence — who ought to be able to properly contextualize America’s political tug-of-war within our broader lives and who ought to then be able to focus on the meaningful political issues to the exclusion of tawdry soap opera drama.
Like many others, I expect that the Justice Department’s recent — and seemingly definitive — waving away of the Epstein files saga will not actually prove to be the final word on the matter. To the limited extent that I allow myself to think about this sideshow, I hope that the administration does squarely address the many legitimate and unanswered questions now being asked by a frustrated citizenry that has seemingly been misled by the Trump administration, either in Bondi’s February statement or in this month’s report. But I also hope that the extent of this past week’s rage might serve as an edifying moment. Let’s return to the real things in life and focus on what matters most.
Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article asserts that the Trump Department of Justice’s conclusion about Jeffrey Epstein’s death being a suicide and the absence of a “client list” is not as politically explosive as online discourse suggests, urging readers to prioritize substantive issues like the economy, immigration, and crime in upcoming elections.
It criticizes the administration’s handling of the Epstein files, noting Attorney General Pam Bondi’s earlier claim of possessing a client list as an “astonishing about-face” that demands public clarification.
The author dismisses the fixation on Epstein-related conspiracies as “creepy” and counterproductive, advising readers to invest time in family, outdoor activities, and religious practices instead of social media outrage.
While acknowledging legitimate public frustration, the piece emphasizes that midterm elections will hinge on traditional policy matters, not Epstein’s “sideshow,” and calls for conservatives to maintain focus on “sobriety and humility” in political engagement.
Different views on the topic
Critics argue the Justice Department’s reversal on Epstein evidence fuels distrust, with bipartisan outrage questioning whether powerful figures are being shielded from accountability, as highlighted in the article’s own reporting[2].
Conspiracy theories—previously amplified by now-FBI officials Kash Patel and Dan Bongino—insist Epstein was murdered to conceal a “client list” implicating elites, despite official findings of suicide and no evidence of blackmail[2][3].
Skeptics demand transparency, citing Bondi’s February 2025 Fox News interview where she claimed a client list was “on her desk,” contrasting sharply with the DOJ’s July memo stating no such list exists[1][4].
The DOJ’s refusal to release additional Epstein files—citing child abuse material and protection of innocent individuals—further fuels allegations of a cover-up, particularly among conservative circles[2][4].