people

Imagine if a candidate for, say, the California Assembly appeared at a political event and delivered the following remarks:

“No to kosher meat. No to yarmulkes. No to celebrating Easter. No, no, no.”

He, or she, would be roundly — and rightly — criticized for their bigotry and raw prejudice.

Recently, at a candidates forum outside Dallas, Larry Brock expressed the following sentiments as part of a lengthy disquisition on the Muslim faith.

“We should ban the burqa, the hijab, the abaya, the niqab,” said the candidate for state representative, referring to the coverings worn by some Muslim women. “No to halal meat. No to celebrating Ramadan. No, no, no.”

Brock, whose comments were reported by the New York Times, is plainly a bigot. (He’s also a convicted felon, sentenced to two years in prison for invading the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. No to hand-slaughtered lamb. Yes to despoiling our seat of government.)

Brock is no outlier.

For many Texas Republicans running in the March 3 primary, Islamophobia has become a central portion of their election plank, as a longtime political lance — illegal immigration — has grown dull around its edges.

Aaron Reitz, a candidate for attorney general, aired an ad accusing politicians of importing “millions of Muslims into our country.”

“The result?” he says, with a tough-guy glower. “More terrorism, more crime. And they even want their own illegal cities in Texas to impose sharia law.” (More on that in a moment.)

One of his opponents, Republican Rep. Chip Roy — co-founder of the “Sharia-Free America Caucus” — has called for amending the Texas Constitution to protect the state’s tender soil from Islamification by “radical Marxists.”

In the fierce GOP race for U.S. Senate, incumbent John Cornyn — facing a potentially career-ending challenge from state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton — has aired one TV spot accusing his fellow Republican of being “soft on radical Islam” and another describing radical Islam “as a bloodthirsty ideology.”

Paxton countered by calling Cornyn’s assertions a desperate attack “that can’t erase the fact that he helped radical Islamic Afghans invade Texas,” a reference to a visa program that allowed people who helped U.S. forces — in other words friends and allies — to come to America after being carefully screened.

There hasn’t been such a concentrated, sulfurous political assault on Muslims since the angst-ridden days following the Sept. 11 attacks.

In just the latest instance, Democrats are calling for the censure of Florida Republican Rep. Randy Fine after he wrote Sunday on X: “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.” He’s since doubled down by posting several images of dogs with the words “Don’t tread on me.”

In Texas, the venom starts at the top with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who’s waltzing toward reelection to an unprecedented fourth term.

In November, Abbott issued an executive order designating the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations — the latter a prominent civil rights group — as terrorist organizations.

Not to be out-demagogued, Bo French, a candidate for Texas Railroad Commission, called on President Trump to round up and deport every Muslim in America. (French, the former Tarrant County GOP chair, gained notoriety last year for posting an online poll asking, “Who is a bigger threat to America?” The choice: Jews or Muslims.)

Much of the Republican hysteria has focused on a proposed real estate development in a corn- and hayfield 40 miles east of Dallas.

The master-planned community of about 1,000 homes, known as EPIC City, was initiated by the East Plano Islamic Center to serve as a Muslim-centered community for the region’s growing number of worshipers. (Of course, anyone could choose to live there, regardless of their religious faith.)

Paxton said he would investigate the proposed development as a “potentially illegal ‘Sharia City.’ ” The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development last week jumped in with its own investigation — a move Abbott hailed — after the Justice Department quietly closed a probe into the project, saying developers agreed to abide by federal fair housing laws. That investigation came at the behest of Cornyn.

The rampant resurgence of anti-Muslim sentiment hardly seems coincidental.

For years, Republicans capitalized on the issues of illegal immigration and lax enforcement along the U.S. -Mexico border. With illegal crossings slowed to a trickle under Trump, “Republicans can’t run on the border issue the way [they] have in the past,” said Jim Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin.

What’s more, cracking down on immigration no longer brings together Republicans the way it once did.

General support for Trump’s get-tough policies surpasses 80% among Texas Republicans, said Henson, who’s spent nearly two decades sampling public opinion in the state. But support falls dramatically, into roughly the high-40s to mid-50s, when it comes to specifics such as arresting people at church, or seizing them when they make required court appearances.

“Republicans need to find something else that taps into those cultural-identity issues” and unifies and animates the GOP base, said Henson.

In short, the fearmongers need a new scapegoat.

Muslims are about 2% of the adult population in Texas, according to the Pew Research Center’s Religious Landscape Study, completed in 2024. That works out to estimates ranging from 300,000 to 500,000 residents in a state of nearly 32 million residents.

Not a huge number.

But enough for heedless politicians hell-bent on getting themselves elected, even if it means tearing down a whole group of people in the process.

In 1994, the Rev. Jesse Jackson declared war on Hollywood.

The civil rights leader, who died Tuesday, set his sights on the entertainment industry, accusing it of “institutional racism” and calling out what he called the lack of representation of people of color and women, an issue that reverberates today.

Jackson aimed his trademark fiery dynamism at studio and network executives, forming the Rainbow Coalition on Fairness in the Media — an offshoot of his Rainbow Coalition that focused on social justice and economic equality — and threatening boycotts against projects that excluded minorities.

Comparing his campaign to the historic march in Selma, Ala., and other civil rights demonstrations during a news conference, Jackson said, “They think they have the right to not include us in recruitment, hiring, promotion, projection, decision making. But we have consumer power, we have viewer power, we have the power to change dials. … The networks have time now to get their house in order. They can begin to change now.”

The pronouncement was a dramatic contrast to Jackson’s 1984 hosting gig on “Saturday Night Live” and his memorable reading of “Green Eggs and Ham” during a 1991 appearance on the sketch variety series.

But despite his characteristic command and media savvy, Jackson’s campaign never gained true momentum, scoring mixed results. Black actors and creators within Hollywood for the most part failed to rally around him, and leaders of some advocacy groups accused him of losing focus. Whoopi Goldberg made fun of him while hosting the 1996 Oscars.

By 1997, the battle had fizzled out and Jackson had moved on to more political concerns.

The clash with Hollywood was first sparked after several Black-oriented shows on Fox, including “South Central,” “Roc,” “In Living Color” and “The Sinbad Show” were canceled in the July 1994. Jackson felt there would not be much improvement in the diversity on the shows in the upcoming fall season.

“We know that significant shows were cut off from Fox this season, and that is of great concern to us,” Jackson said at a news conference at the African American Community Unity Center where he was accompanied by Brotherhood Crusade founder Danny Bakewell and comedian Sinbad, who starred in his own eponymous sitcom.

And Jackson said it wasn’t the only TV network with this problem. “We look at the data we have on NBC. It is substantial. It is ugly. We look at the projected format for CBS this fall. In the real sense, all of them are recycling racist practices. It is called institutional racism. It is manifest not only in their hiring, but in their priorities.”

He added that he was also concerned about what he claimed was poor representation of people of color and women among network news anchors and on writing staffs on prime-time network series. He criticized the prominence of Black actors having major roles that often involved criminal activity.

Jameel Hasan as Homey Jr., left, and Damon Wayans as Homey D. Clown on Fox’s “In Living Color,” which was canceled in 1994.

(Nicola Goode / Fox)

“We have written the networks letters, and the response, by and large, has been defensive as they attempt to justify what is unjustifiable,” Jackson said at the news conference. “While we’re willing to talk, we’re also willing to walk. It’s now time for aggressive direct action.”

In a separate interview, he targeted politically oriented Sunday news shows, saying they excluded Black journalists and news figures: “Those all-white hosts determine their guests and set the political agenda for public policy for Monday morning. That’s not America.”

His newly formed commission was researching network hiring practices and minority images. He vowed that boycotts and other actions would take place if there was not significant change.

But those demonstrations never materialized, and no boycotts were called. Roughly a year after his initial declaration, observers inside and outside the industry said networks had mostly ignored Jackson, and that little had changed.

Some leaders at the time questioned his commitment, saying he did not seem truly dedicated to aggressive action.

Sonny Skyhawk, founder and president of American Indians in Film, one of the organizations that had joined forces with Jackson, said the campaign against the networks should have been stronger.

“I would hate to criticize him for not being more diligent, but it is frustrating,” said Skyhawk in a 1995 interview about the initiative. “I don’t know where (the issue) is or why he is not continuing on this. But I think he got sidetracked on a lot of other things.”

Sherrie Mazingo, who was then head of broadcast journalism at USC, said she was not surprised that the Jackson campaign had lost steam: “What happened last season isn’t new, it’s perennial, and may even be cyclical. Protests and accusations and talk like this goes on all the time, and nothing ever happens. Nothing.”

Mazingo cited similar efforts by the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People in the early 1980s that had attacked Hollywood’s hiring practices. A boycott of films that failed to use Black artists in front of or behind the camera was proposed but never materialized.

“I believe what happens when these things start is that an individual in the organization who is pushing forward on these issues gets tired of banging their head against a brick wall,” Mazingo said. “They make an all-out assault, exhaust a lot of energy and money, and nothing ever significantly changes, except for a token gesture here and there.”

Sumi Haru, who was president of the Assn. of Asian Pacific Artists, said Jackson had been sidetracked by more topical issues such as a conservative power grab in Washington, D.C., and calls for abolishing affirmative action programs.

“He needed to focus his energy on the civil rights initiative, and affirmative action was a much bigger deal,” said Haru.

But Billie Green, president of the Beverly Hills/Hollywood branch of the NAACP, said Jackson’s campaign would have been more effective if it had joined forces with other organizations that had members within the television industry.

Jackson pushed back against the criticism, insisting that the fight against Hollywood “is still very high on our agenda.” He pointed out that he had worked to continue government funding for the Public Broadcasting Service, protested the cancellation of the Nickelodeon series about two Black brothers, “My Brother and Me,” picketed conservative “hate radio” programs and sent out a fax to 8,000 supporters asking them to rally CBS to bring back the family drama “Under One Roof.”

“It’s going to get more intense,” Jackson said.

In 1996, Jackson turned his attention to the Academy Awards, angered that there was only one Black nominee among the 166 artists nominated. He called for picketing in major cities and and said Black people attending the Oscar ceremony should wear a symbol expressing solidarity against what he called Hollywood’s “race exclusion and cultural violence.”

But during the Oscars, which was produced by Quincy Jones, Goldberg, who was hosting, took a swipe at the civil rights leader who was picketing across town.

“Jesse Jackson asked me to wear a ribbon. I got it,” Goldberg said during her opening. “But I had something I want to say to Jesse right here, but he’s not watching, so why bother?” The remark drew applause and laughter from the black-tie audience.

Some leaders, producers and directors were not amused by Goldberg, saying her remarks were insulting and dismissive of a serious fight to gain diversity within the motion picture industry. But others criticized Jackson, calling his action ill-timed and ill-advised. Several of the most prominent African Americans present, including Oprah Winfrey, Sidney Poitier and Laurence Fishburne, did not wear rainbow-colored ribbons as a sign of solidarity with Jackson and his Rainbow Coalition.

Even though he concentrated on other endeavors, Jackson was not totally done with Hollywood. He and the Rev. Al Sharpton spearheaded a protest in 2002 against the comedy “Barbershop” and its jokes about Jackson and ciivil rights icons Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. The two leaders also threatened a boycott against the 2004 comedy “Soul Plane.”

President Trump and his allies are questioning ballot security. Democrats are warning of unconstitutional federal intervention. Experts and others are raising concerns about partisan redistricting and federal immigration agents intimidating people at the polls.

Voter trust in the upcoming midterm elections, meanwhile, has dropped off sharply, and across party lines, according to new research by the UC San Diego Center for Transparent and Trusted Elections.

Out of 11,406 eligible voters surveyed between mid-December and mid-January, just 60% said they were confident that midterm votes will be counted fairly — down from 77% who held such confidence in vote counting shortly after the 2024 presidential election.

Shifts in voter confidence are common after elections, with voters in winning parties generally expressing more confidence and voters in losing parties expressing less, said Thad Kousser, one of the center’s co-directors. However, the new survey found double-digit, across-the-board declines in confidence in the last year, he said.

According to voting experts, such drops in confidence and fears about voter intimidation are alarming — and raise serious questions about voter turnout in a pivotal midterm election that could radically reshape American politics.

While 82% of Republicans expressed at least some confidence in vote counting after Trump’s 2024 win, just 65% said they felt that way in the latest survey. Among Democrats, confidence dropped from 77% to 64%, and among independents from 73% to 57%, the survey found.

“Everyone — Democrats, Republicans, independents alike — have become less trusting of elections over the last year,” Kousser said, calling it a “parallel movement in this polarized era.”

Of course, what is causing those declines differs greatly by party, said Kousser’s co-director Lauren Prather, with distrust of mail ballots and noncitizens voting cited by half of Republicans, and concerns about eligible voters being unable to cast ballots because of fear or intimidation cited by nearly a quarter of Democrats.

Trump and other Republicans have repeatedly alleged that mail ballots contribute to widespread fraud and that noncitizen voting is a major problem in U.S. elections, despite neither claim being supported by evidence.

Dean C. Logan, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, oversees the registering of voters, maintaining voter files, administering federal, state, local and special elections and verifying initiatives, referenda and recall petitions.

(Gary Coronado / For The Times)

Many Democratic leaders and voting experts have raised concerns about disenfranchisement and intimidation of eligible voters, in part based on Republican efforts to enforce stricter voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements, and Trump suggesting his party should “take over” elections nationwide.

Others in Trump’s orbit have suggested Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents will be deployed to polling stations, and the FBI recently raided and seized ballots from Fulton County, Ga., long a target of Trump’s baseless claims of 2020 election fraud.

Prather said that research has long showed that “elite cues” — or messaging from political leaders — matter in shaping public perception of election security and integrity, so it is no surprise that the concerns being raised by Trump and other party elites are being echoed by voters.

But the survey also identified more bipartisan concerns, she said.

Voters of all backgrounds — including 51% of Democrats, 48% of independents and 34% of Republicans — said they do not trust that congressional districts are drawn to fairly reflect what voters want. They primarily blamed the opposing party for the problem, but nearly a quarter of both Democrats and Republicans also expressed dissatisfaction with their own party leaders, the survey found.

Various states have engaged in unprecedented mid-decade redistricting to win more congressional seats for their party, with Republicans seizing advantage in states such as Texas and Democrats seizing it in states such as California.

Voters of all backgrounds — including 44% of Democrats, 34% of independents and 30% of Republicans — also said they believe it is likely that ICE agents will be present at voting locations in their area, though they did not all agree on the implications.

Half of Democrats said such a presence would make them feel less confident that votes in their area would be counted accurately, compared with fewer than 14% who said it would make them more confident. Among Republicans, 48% said it would make them more confident, and about 8% less confident. Among independents, 19% said more confident, 32% less confident.

Perceptions of ICE at polling locations also varied by race, with 42% of Asian American voters, 38% of Hispanic voters, 29% of white voters and 28% of Black voters saying it would make them feel less confident, while 18% of Asian American voters, 24% of Hispanic voters, 27% of white voters and 21% of Black voters said it would make them feel more confident.

Among both Black and Hispanic voters, 46% said they expect to face intimidation while voting, compared with 35% of Asian American voters and just 10% of white voters. Meanwhile, 31% of Hispanic and Asian American voters, 21% of Black voters and 8% of white voters said they are specifically worried about being questioned by ICE agents at the polls.

A man waits in line to vote at Compton College in November.

(Michael Blackshire / Los Angeles Times)

Kousser said voters’ lack of confidence this cycle reflects a remarkable moment in American politics, when political rhetoric has caused widespread distrust not just in the outcome of elections, but in the basic structure and fairness of how votes are collected and counted — despite those structures being tested and proven.

“We’re at this moment now where there are people on both sides who are questioning what the objective conditions will be of the election — whether people will be able to freely make it to the polls, what the vote counting mechanisms will be — and that’s true sort of left, right, and center in American politics today,” he said.

Prather said research in other countries has shown that distrust in elections over time can cause voters to stop voting, particularly if they think their vote won’t be fairly counted. She does not think the U.S. has reached that point, as high turnout in recent elections has shown, but it is a longer-term risk.

What could have a more immediate effect are ICE deployments, “especially among groups that have worries about what turning out could mean for them if they expect ICE or federal agents to be there,” Prather said.

Election experts said voters with concerns should take steps to ensure their vote counts, including by double-checking they are registered and making a plan to vote early, by mail or with family and friends if they are worried about intimidation.

What voters should not do if they are worried about election integrity is decide to not vote, they said.

“The No. 1 thing on my list is and always will be: Vote,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law. “That sounds maybe trite or simple, but the only way we hold on to our democracy is if people continue to participate and continue to trust it and put their faith in it.”

Registrar voter staff members process ballots at the Orange County Registrar of Voters in Santa Ana in November.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

“Now is the time to buckle down and figure out how to fortify our protections for fair elections, and not to give into the chaos and believe it’s somehow overwhelming,” said Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law.

“I don’t want people to feel like nothing is working, it’s all overwhelming and they are just being paralyzed by all the news of these attacks, these threats,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the Voting Rights Project at the ACLU. “There are a huge range of folks who are working to ensure that these elections go as smoothly as possible, and that if anything comes up, we are ready to respond.”

Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant in California, said the erosion of confidence in U.S. elections was “a deliberate strategy” pushed by Trump for years to explain away legitimate election losses that embarrassed him, and facilitated by Republicans in Congress unwilling to check Trump’s lies to defend U.S. election integrity.

However, Democrats have added to the problem and become “the monster they are fighting” by gerrymandering blue states through redistricting measures such as California’s Proposition 50, which have further eroded American trust in elections, Madrid said.

Madrid said that he nonetheless expects high turnout in the midterms, because many voters have “the sense that the crisis is existential for the future, that literally everything is on the line,” but that the loss of trust is a serious issue.

“Without that trust, a form of government like democracy — at least the American form of democracy — doesn’t work,” he said.

Trump — who in a post Friday called Democrats “horrible, disingenuous CHEATERS” for opposing voter ID laws that most Americans support — has long called on his supporters to turn out and vote in massive numbers to give him the largest possible margin of victory, as a buffer against any election cheating against him. One of his 2024 campaign slogans was “Too Big to Rig.”

In recent days, some of Trump’s fiercest critics — including Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) — have made a similar pitch to Democrats.

In an interview with The Times, Schiff said that he is “deeply concerned” about the midterms given all of Trump’s threats, but that voters should understand that “the remedy here is to become more involved, not less.”

“The very best protection we’ll have is the most massive voter turnout we’ve ever had,” he said. “It’s going to be those with the most important title in our system — the voters — who end up saving this country.”

Lebanese authorities say Israeli forces bombed a vehicle near the border, killing at least four people.

Israeli forces have bombed a vehicle near Lebanon’s border with Syria, killing at least four people, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health.

The Israeli air strike took place early on Monday morning, it said in a statement.

Lebanon’s National News Agency said one of the victims was a Syrian national named Khaled Mohammad al-Ahmad.

The Israeli military confirmed the air strike, claiming in a post on X that it targeted members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in Lebanon. It did not provide evidence for its claim.

The Israeli military said the raid took place in the Majdal Anjar area of Lebanon.

There was no immediate comment from the PIJ.

The PIJ is an armed group in the occupied Palestinian territory, fighting alongside Hamas in Gaza for the establishment of a Palestinian state. It is also an ally of the Lebanese armed group, Hezbollah, which launched attacks on northern Israel in solidarity with Palestinians after the start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza in 2023.

Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire in November 2024, but the Israeli military has continued to carry out near-daily attacks on Lebanon, in violation of the United States-brokered truce.

According to the United Nations, the Israeli military launched more than 10,000 air and ground attacks in the year since it agreed to halt hostilities.

The UN’s rights office said in November last year that it verified at least 108 civilian casualties from Israeli attacks since the ceasefire, including at least 21 women and 16 children.

At least 11 Lebanese civilians were also abducted by Israeli forces during that time period, the office said.

Lebanon filed a complaint with the UN last month about the repeated Israeli violations, urging the UN Security Council to push Israel to end its attacks and fully withdraw from the country.

The complaint said Israel violated Lebanon’s sovereignty at least 2,036 times in the last three months of 2025 alone.

Israel also continues to occupy five areas in Lebanese territory, blocking the reconstruction of destroyed border villages and preventing tens of thousands of displaced people from returning to their homes.

In this episode of The Envelope video podcast, Teyana Taylor describes the “slingshot” of success that’s come with “One Battle After Another” and shares her insights as to why fictional revolutionary Perfidia Beverly Hills does what she does in the film.

Kelvin Washington: Hello, everyone, and welcome back to The Envelope. Kelvin Washington, Yvonne Villarreal, we have Mark Olsen as well. Hopefully you all have been great since the last time I saw you. Everybody been good?

Mark Olsen: Of course.

Washington: Well, I tell you what, there’s a list of folks who’ve been very good because they’ve been nominated for an Oscar. And obviously, you kind of get the usual suspects, if you will. And then you get some surprises out there. Some folks you go, “Whoa!” So I want to start with you. Either of you can jump in on this. Is there someone that maybe surprised you, a film or something that you were just excited about or maybe someone said, “Them again?” or “That film again?”

Olsen: I think it was very exciting that “Sinners” got the most nominations of any film ever with 16 nominations. It was nominated in every category that it was eligible for. To see a movie that has had commercial success and felt like a cultural moment now being recognized somewhere like the Academy Awards, it’s just exciting to see that all coming together and rolling along for that film, regardless of how it turns out at the show.

Villarreal: I was very excited to see Rose Byrne get acknowledged for “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You.” Because I was worried about that movie losing steam after all the raves it got at Sundance [in 2025] and it’s a smaller movie. I wasn’t sure, “Are people going to remember it?” But I just think she’s so great in that film.

I was sort of surprised that Chase Infiniti didn’t get nominated.

Olsen: Because of the nature of the movie, the whole lead/supporting business was tough, and also it being her first movie, it’s a little harder to get that nomination — especially in lead actress, faced with, say, Kate Hudson, someone who’s been in the business for a long time, is much beloved in the industry, has obviously family historical ties to Hollywood. It’s interesting to see even in the nominations this sort of alchemy of like, “a little of this, a little bit of that” as far as who the academy was choosing to recognize.

Washington: You know, I go back to something you said, Mark, when you go to “Sinners.” You mentioned the blockbuster feel of it, getting people’s butts to the theaters, spending money. And also kind of original. We’ve had vampire movies before, but, you know, you get the “Transformer 12’s” and “Expendable 32’s.” I think a lot of folks were excited to see something original that also had commercial success as well.

Another film that had a bunch of success is “One Battle After Another.” You had a chance to speak with a star from that film, who’s been a star in her own right musically, but now into the film world, with Teyana Taylor.

Olsen: That’s right. It’s so exciting. She’s nominated for best supporting actress. This is a long movie, it’s over two and a half hours long. She more or less exits the picture about 30 minutes in. So I think it says something about the strength of her performance that her character kind of hovers over the rest of that movie. You feel her in the movie, even though she’s actually not onscreen. So at the Oscar nominees luncheon recently, we had a chance to sit down with Teyana and she was just so vibrant, so full of energy, really has a great attitude about this moment for herself. I mean, she just recently won a Golden Globe, she hosted “Saturday Night Live.” So much is like happening for her, seemingly right now and she’s just got this real like, taking it all in, very open to it [attitude]. It was really an exciting conversation.

Washington: A culmination of all her hard work. Here is Mark’s conversation with Teyana Taylor.

Teyana Taylor.

(Ian Spanier / For The Times)

Mark Olsen: You were just at the Super Bowl. About a week before that, you were a nominee at the Grammys. About a week before that you hosted “Saturday Night Live.” About a week before that you won a Golden Globe. And you’re here today as an Academy Award nominee. I’m sure I’m leaving some things out. I would say what’s the last year been like for you, but I feel like, what’s the last month or two been like for you? It feels like the rocket ship has really taken off.

Teyana Taylor: Yeah, it’s really taken off. I’m so blessed and I’m so honored and I’m filled with so much gratitude to just see so many prayers get answered all at once, where I’m also OK with one at a time. But it’s all happening, you know? And I’m just beyond blessed. And like we were talking about earlier, just how much fun I’m having with it. I’m really having a good time and I’m taking it all in because life is short and life is so fragile. So I just try and take time to enjoy life and enjoy my blessings and enjoy just being alive and well.

Olsen: Has there been a moment that felt the most surreal, like a “What is happening to me right now” moment?

Taylor: Honestly, all of it, because it reminds me of a slingshot, you know what I’m saying? It’s just like, here’s the way, here’s the way, here’s the way, here’s the way, here’s the work, here’s the prayers, here’s the tears, just here, here, here, here, here. And then whoosh — whatever the ball hit, it knocked down everything at once. And that’s what this feels like. It feels really good because literally everything is happening at the same time. So it’s not like only one moment or only two moments that’s making me feel this way. It’s everything. The small wins, the big wins, the medium wins. Every single win and every single blessing is a big deal to me. You know what I’m saying? Even my Ls. I’m not gonna win everything and I’m not gonna get everything, and some things are not even meant for me. But even those are blessings. It’s preparation for something that is in store for me and something that is meant for me, because all of this is already written. What’s for you is for you and will be for you, because that’s just what’s written. So I have that mindset.

Olsen: You’ve been doing this since you were a teenager, at first as a choreographer and a dancer, a singer, an actor, you’re going to direct your first feature soon. What keeps you moving through all of this, through these different disciplines and pursuits?

Taylor: My babies. My support system. My village. My community. I love to make my people proud. I love to make my peers proud, my family. I just love to make everybody proud and that’s what keeps me going. Even right now, I’m also in culinary school. So it’s just juggling that, but taking out the little moments to just be quiet and cook and feed my people. So it’s a push. It’s understanding it’s a marathon and that it’s not a sprint. It’s a part of the faith walk. And I think that’s what keeps me going, to wake up and feel so blessed, how could I ever complain? How could I ever be like, “Oh, this is too much”? It is everything I’ve ever asked for. I’m never going to complain about answered prayers. What pushes me is just the reassurance from my support system, the reassurance from Father God himself, the reassurance for my babies. They keep me going. That’s who I do it for. I want to create generational wealth. So them babies are my reason. They are my why.

Olsen: To start asking you about “One Battle After Another,” your character, Perfidia Beverly Hills, she’s inspired a lot of conversation and some controversy. For you, was there something about that character that you felt you hadn’t seen on screen before?

Taylor: Yes. Perfidia is complex and she is also misunderstood. This is a woman who has been in survival mode, who has been fetishized, who has been ignored, not seen. We’re seeing this woman deal with that, where in movies we’re used to seeing us women have to be in capes all day and you see this woman rip this cape away and it’s just unapologetically herself — even in her weakness. And even like you said, with the controversy of her sexuality, I think her sexuality is her armor. It is also her power. She’ll give somebody what they want to get what she wants. And literally in the movie, she’s made selfish decisions. But if you think about her spirit and mentally and emotionally as a woman, it felt good to see a woman actually be selfish and put her[self] first, which we never really get to do because we have to be super this, super this, super this. Super mom, super wife, super woman, super chef; everything is always with a super in front of it. And you see this woman not really caring about what people think. Nobody can quiet her. And in this space of, “OK, you’re too loud, quiet down; you stand too tall, have a seat,” Perfidia is all of the things that they can’t make her do. She’s like, “I’m gonna stand tall, I’m gonna use my voice, I’m gonna use whatever I need to use to get what I want.” And she makes decisions that we don’t agree with, but I think one thing we all can agree on is that she’s a badass. And I can always respect anybody that’s unapologetically themselves.

Another thing that I feel like the controversy is proof of is how much of a nonfactor postpartum depression is. Half of the mistakes we see Perfidia make is her dealing with postpartum depression. You see the moment where they say, “Perfida, she’s a runner. She comes from a long line of revolutionaries.” That in itself is a pressure on her to feel like she gotta keep that going. The revolution is instilled in her. It’s a part of her identity. So imagine getting pregnant and you’re feeling like, “Oh, my God, does this slow down the revolution? Am I gonna play house with a person that’s ignoring me?” Nobody is really taking the time to think about what’s happening in her mind. We can’t control how a person handles postpartum depression. We hear her, through the door, cry, and then we see Bob put his ear to the door — and instead of him walking in, he walked away. And then what was the result of that? Her walking away. Even if it had to be walking away from Baby Willa, it’s something that she felt like she needed to do, and that’s what postpartum make you do sometime. And every mother handles postpartrum depression differently. But I think that’s what I love about her character, because you get to see a harsh reality that I know is hard to take in. But when you watch it a few times you understand exactly what’s happening. … I think that’s what makes the letter at the end so important. Because you hear the pain, you hear the hurt, you hear the regret, you hear the accountability, “Do you have love? Are you happy? Will you try and change the world like we did? We failed, but maybe you will not.”

And that’s another thing. This is a story that Paul Thomas Anderson wanted to tell. It was Perfidia’s job to go and anchor this boat and stay there and create the path for Willa to take on these battles, because her past haunted Willa and Bob. That’s a part of Perfidia being supporting — supporting the next steps of what is for Willa. It’s for Willa to go on and to rise. So you see Perfidia in the beginning of the movie, you see her drive this boat, you see her get to the middle of the sea and you see her anchor herself. And from there, we have to continue the story. So I’m happy that the controversy around her can create dialogue like this, can create healthy dialogue or even uncomfortable dialogue. As long as it’s dialogue and we’re conversing and we are speaking and people are speaking from their point of views, I can absolutely respect that.

Olsen: Is that a conversation you expected to have? When you were making the film, were you and Paul, or you and your co-stars talking about the depiction of Black women in the movie? Or have you been surprised that’s been such a talking point now that the movie’s out in the world?

Taylor: Honestly, I’m not surprised of any of the talking. I think one thing that I said before the movie even dropped and we were doing our press junkets, I was always very boisterous about the fact that this movie, period, not just the character, would definitely shake the table, and it would definitely spark, whether it was great debates or — I love conversation and I like when we can converse. Get it off your chest, tell me how you feel. And I’m open to receive that. So I knew that it would shake the table. I also knew that it needed to be done. Postpartum depression is a big thing for me that I feel like it needs more light. It needs light around it. We need more solutions for it. And like I said, you see this person, this woman in survival mode. You see this woman be ignored. You see this woman be fetishized. And is that not the truth? Is that not what happens, especially in this place of a Black woman feeling the least protected? So I’m really happy that Paul put wings on that to be able to spread and fly with that. And like I said, I know it’s probably tough to take in, but that’s what we got to see because everybody is not wearing capes. Everybody is not handling things the way you may handle things, I may handle the things, the way that person or this person may handle things. So we all just got to give grace and take in the film. It’s a story that’s being told.

Olsen: To me, one of the biggest surprises about the movie is considering how cohesive and complete it feels, to learn how improvisatory and collaborative the process of making the movie was. Were you surprised by that? What was it like for you entering into the process of making this movie with Paul?

Taylor: I was shocked at how collaborative it was. And I loved every bit of it because one thing about it is, again, when you are telling a story that someone wrote — he’s been working on this project for 20 years. This is something that I consider to be his baby. And when you’re trusting me to take on a job like this, I don’t ever wanna walk into any set and feel like I’m doing what I want to do. I just want to be of good support. If you tell me, “Hey, let’s find this together,” I’m gonna find it together. If you say, “This is my vision of what that is and this is how I want it to be,” it’s my job to give you that vision of what you want it be, and then add my little sauce on top of it. But to be fully collaborative, I thought it was really dope. We found Perfidia’s layers and we color-coordinated those layers. And I’m really happy that he let me be a part of that.

Olsen: What do you feel you brought to Perfidia or you were able to add to the character?

Taylor: I was able to add a lot. Paul was very, very collaborative. And again, we found her layers, which was the most important, especially with such a complex character. And you know, I just came from “A Thousand and One.” So I came from being another complex character, but this one was complex to a whole other level, where we almost didn’t understand why we never see Perfidia cry. But you see these little moments, like little details, in her face that’s just like, it’s this strength, but the strength — because I also don’t really love the term “strong Black woman” — it’s this strength that you feel like she has to have because the strength is really survival mode. And again, like I said, you hear her crack down and you hear her vulnerable, and nobody stepped through that door. So when you see a strong Black woman, there is no grace, it’s, “Oh, she’s OK, she fine, she got it all figured out.” And then you hear her vulnerable and you still feel like even at her most vulnerable, she got this, she’s strong. And it’s just like, “Step through the door. Step in early. Step in the first time. Hear me the first time, see me [this] time, wipe the first tear away. Would she have walked out that door on Baby Willa and Bob, had he walked through that door when he heard her cry?

Olsen: I’ve heard you a number of times when you’re talking about Paul, you always call him Paul “Let Him Cook” Thomas Anderson. What does that mean?

Taylor: Let him cook! Listen, because he to me is a master chef. And honestly, I’m very, very big on leadership. I respect the person that is a leader. What makes it so dope is because, with being in culinary school, I originally signed up for culinary school, of course, to learn the art of culinary, but to just cook, I love to cook and I wanted to learn the art of that. With being enrolled in culinary school, it’s a lot of writing work and a lot of discussion forums and a lot of quizzes and stuff like that. So you’re not only learning to cook, but you’re learning how to run a business. You’re learning how to navigate your staff, front of house, back of house, in the kitchen. You have to understand it’s a whole system in how you handle people in general. In the kitchen they call it like a “servant leader,” where your leader is in the kitchen with you, they’re cooking with you. They’re your mentor, they are your guidance, but they’re cooking with you. They’re not just pointing, “Do this, do that, boom, boom, boom.” And it’s just, like, his gentle servant leadership is something that I respect so much and something that inspires me as an upcoming movie director on how to handle and navigate my staff.

So it’s like the best of both worlds because I have PTA and then I have culinary school who’s teaching me how to be the best leader. Even in how we handle people, it’s bigger than just the people that work for us or with us. It’s also the people that come into this restaurant. It’s your customers. It’s just the hospitality of it all and the hospitality that he gives, it’s really amazing to see. I’m also a big sports girl. So even in regards to him being our quarterback, you know, he’s not on the side, pointing at what to do. He’s on the field with you. But he has an even bigger job because now he’s trusting that he’s going to throw this ball to you and you’re going to receive that ball. So we’re his receivers, we’re his wide receivers to take it to the touchdown. It’s all about being present. And that’s what I learned in culinary, it’s what I learned in sports, it’s just everything about being a leader as I prepare to lead my village and lead my community. That’s just so important to me. So I always respect people that are in the field with you. I become a warrior for you. You see Paul, you’re running in the battlefield, you look to your left, he’s with you. He’s not on a horse, he’s not on his high horse. He’s in the field with you. Let’s go, we got this! And it just makes you want to you want to go so hard for him. And that’s how I look at it. So I am a student. I am a teammate. I am a soldier. I am a warrior. That’s what I am with people that are great leaders.

Olsen: When you won the Golden Globe, your speech was so moving and you specifically spoke to your “brown sisters and little brown girls” and said that their light does not need permission to shine. Can you talk more about that? What was it that made you want to say that in that moment, specifically talking about this movie?

Taylor: I thought it was a very important moment on a very important stage. I wanted to use my voice and I wanted to use my platform. And in that moment, I had the voice and the platform to say just that. It’s nothing less than that. There’s nothing beyond that. Exactly what I said. We deserve space. What that night showed was that here’s the space. And I appreciated that. I was filled with so much gratitude. That moment hit hard for me because I was that little girl that sat on the floor on a TV watching the other queens onstage accept their awards. Like, “You can do it too, you can do it too.” And I knew that one day when it was my turn, I would tell my little queens, “You can do it too — all the little queens that look like me, you can do it too, you deserve space.” To know that also my daughters were watching as well, it’s everything to me. It’s everything for me to know that they embrace that as well. It’s so important. I’ve gotten so many women come up to me like, “Wow, that speech was just everything.” And that’s what it’s all about. That’s what is all about: to inspire, uplift and remind us that there is space.

Olsen: Before I let you go, you just bring it on red carpets time and time again. And the one thing I like is that you wear these really bold outfits, and it never looks like the clothes are wearing you. Do you have tips for people? What do you do for confident personal style?

Taylor: Honestly, follow your heart. Follow your heart. If you see it and you like it, put it together. You might put it together and be like, “That didn’t work the way I [intended].” Practice. Play in clothes. I love to play in clothes — but also will walk in the store and redress a whole mannequin. I’ll also be like, “I like that tie, I think it should be a little bit tighter.” I dream about certain outfits. I dream of certain moments where I’m like, “Oooh. I already know what I feel like I want my Oscar dress to look like. I already know what I want my Golden Globes dress to look like.” It’s always a vision. Or sometimes you might have a base. You might see something and be like, “I like this, but I feel it could use this.” Add it. If you feel like something can use something, add it. Because before you know it, now you done created your own thing. So don’t hesitate. When I was younger, I used to hesitate and be like, “This looked pretty cool, but now I’m not gonna do it.” And then later on, I see somebody try it, and I’m like, “Oh, I should have just…” Always follow your gut and always follow you heart.

People are witnessing the demise of Wales, a country that have enjoyed Six Nations success and Grand Slam victories over the past two decades.

The dedicated fans will try to stick by their beloved side through thick and thin but it has proved a turbulent time since the 2023 World Cup.

Wales have lost 22 of the past 24 internationals, which included an 18-match losing sequence, with the only two victories coming against Japan.

There have been 12 straight Six Nations defeats, a record now stretching back 1,072 days to when Wales beat Italy in Rome in March 2023.

And there are very few home comforts, with Wales having not won a match in Cardiff in the tournament for four years since defeating Scotland in February 2022. That was 1,464 days ago.

It has also been the manner of humbling home defeats in recent times, with heavy record losses to England (68-14), Argentina (52-28) and South Africa (73-0).

Even the loss to New Zealand in November, which has been held up as Wales showing some green shoots of recovery, was a 52-26 loss.

Despite the results, captain Dewi Lake has extolled the Principality Stadium surroundings.

“It is our ground, the best stadium in the world and we are excited to be back home,” said Lake.

“Our goal with our game on the pitch is to get the fans involved, to give them life and energy because that feeds back onto us.”

Wales need to back up those rousing words with actions.

Witnesses say the motorcycle riding gunmen attacked three communities in northern Nigeria, killing and abducting dozens.

Gunmen on motorcycles have rampaged through three villages in northern Nigeria, killing at least 32 people and abducting several more, according to witnesses and local police.

The raids on Saturday in the Borgu area of Niger State came amid a complex security crisis in northern Nigeria, featuring armed groups affiliated with ISIL (ISIS) as well as gangs that abduct people for ransom money.

Wasiu Abiodun, ‌the Niger State police spokesperson, confirmed the attack in one of the villages.

“Suspected bandits invaded Tunga-Makeri village,” he said. “Six persons lost their lives, some houses were also set ablaze, and a yet-to-be ascertained number of persons were abducted.”

He added that the assailants had moved on to Konkoso village, while details of other attacks remained unclear.

Jeremiah Timothy, a resident of Konkoso, told the Reuters news agency that the attack on ⁠his village began in the early hours with sporadic gunfire.

“At least 26 people were killed so far in the village after they set the police station ablaze,” said Timothy, adding that the ⁠attackers entered Konkoso around 6am (05:00 GMT), shooting indiscriminately.

He said residents heard military jets flying overhead.

Abdullahi Adamu, another resident of Konkoso, said 26 people were killed. “They were operating freely without the presence of any security,” he told The Associated Press news agency.

The AFP news agency, citing an unnamed humanitarian source, put the death toll in Konkoso at 38. The source said the victims were shot dead or had their throats slit.

Most of the homes in the village were burned down, and apart from those already counted as dead, “other bodies are being recovered”, the source told AFP.

The agency cited a Konkoso resident as saying that the gunmen had killed his nephew and abducted four women.

“After Konkoso, they went to Pissa, where they set a police station on fire and killed one person.”

“At the moment, many people are missing,” he said.

The AP also reported an attack in Pissa, without providing details.

The attacks in Niger State followed a deadly attack by armed fighters earlier this month in neighbouring Kwara and Katsina states that killed nearly 200 people.

The border between Niger and Kwara states is home to the Kainji Forest, a known haven for bandits and fighters, including from the armed group Boko Haram. Last October, the al-Qaeda affiliated Group for the Support of Islam and Muslims (JNIM) also claimed responsibility for its first attack on Nigerian soil, near Woro, in Kwara State.

Religious and community leaders from the Borgu area in Niger State last week called on President Bola Tinubu to establish a military base in the area to put an end to the recurring attacks, Nigerian media reported.

Nigeria is also under pressure to restore security since United States President Donald Trump accused ‌it last year of failing to protect Christians.

Authorities, however, denied that there is systematic persecution of Christians, while independent experts say Nigeria’s security crises kill both Christians and Muslims, often without distinction.

Nigeria’s government, meanwhile, has stepped up cooperation with Washington to improve security, and in December, the US military carried out air strikes in Sokoto State, targeting what Washington said were armed fighters.

KATIE Price has hit out at “snakes” and “bitter people” as she furiously hits back at claims about her new husband Lee.

The former glamour model, 47, tied the knot with the businessman in a secret ceremony last month and they’re currently on honeymoon in Dubai, where he lives full time.

Katie took to Instagram to post a furious message in defence of her new husband Lee.

In the video clip, Lee and Katie were seen shopping in a pet store together, with Katie completely besotted with what appeared to be a Pomeranian or Spitz puppy.

A loved up Katie added text to the clip which read: “@wesleeeandrews has given me more love more security more respect.

“And proven that everything that’s been said about him is absolute BS by bitter people and snakes in all areas.”

ON THE BOX

Katie Price’s new husband teases reality show after she left TV execs ‘fuming’

PLUS ONE

Katie Price teases new family addition with husband Lee Andrews after baby hint

She also added three emojis: a dog, a house and a pregnant woman – with the latter continuing to fuel pregnancy rumours.

Lee recently shared a snap on his social media profile of an AI generated man kissing a woman’s stomach.

He captioned it: “Good things come to those who have waited,” alongside a pregnant woman emoji.

This isn’t the first time Lee has hinted at children being on the horizon for the new couple.

Prior to her flying out for their honeymoon, he shared another suggestive photo on his stories for the world to see.

He posted a picture of a silhouette of a pregnant woman with her baby bump on display and a bright crescent moon on the stomach.

The baby hints come amid family fears that Katie is looking to uproot her life and relocate to Dubai to be with Lee.

A source previously told The Sun that Katie has been talking about the move and is already thinking about places to live.

Pals fear she is planning to relocate to Dubai for good, and it looks like they have cause for concern.

A source has told The Sun that Katie has been talking about moving there and is already thinking about places to live.

The onlooker said: “She was in a restaurant and I recognised her immediately – she was talking about a property she’s buying out here [Dubai] so they could move here for good, and her husband was laying it on thick – telling her exactly what she wanted to hear, how great he’d make it.

“She was lapping it up. He was selling her a dream but I got a bad vibe from him.”

Katie shocked fans when she revealed that she had married Lee in a quickie wedding almost three weeks ago.

But despite Katie saying her latest trip would be a short one, there doesn’t look like any sign she will be heading back to the UK soon.

This latest news will no doubt cause more upset for her family who are already “deeply concerned” for her, following her wedding.

The Sun revealed how self-proclaimed businessman Lee lives a ‘Walter Mitty’ style existence in Dubai.

Lee was accused of using artificial intelligence to fake images of himself with tech billionaire Elon Musk and reality TV star Kim Kardashian.

He also claimed on his LinkedIn profile to have been a Member of the Board of Advisors to the Labour Party since 2015.

But a Labour source said: “We don’t have a board of advisors and he doesn’t work with us.”

Katie’s pals have told The Sun she has put down a deposit on a property in Dubai.

And they worry she is planning to relocate to the country for good.

Meanwhile, ex Crystal echoed a similar sentiment and warned Katie not to give Lee money, after allegedly being duped out of £123,000 by him.

IMPERIAL BEACH, Calif. — Mike and Patricia McCoy answered the door of their cozy cottage in Imperial Beach, a short stroll from crashing waves and several blocks from the Tijuana River Estuary, where California meets Mexico and the hiking trails are named for them.

They offered me a seat in a living room filled with awards for their service and with books, some of them about the wonders of the natural world and the threat to its survival. The McCoys are the kind of people who look you in the eye and give you their full attention, and Patricia’s British accent carries an upbeat, birdsong tone.

A sign shows coastal conservationists Mike and Patricia McCoy as young adults “Making a Difference” at the estuary.

(Hayne Palmour IV / For The Times)

In the long history of conservation in California, few have worked as long or as hard as the McCoys.

Few have achieved as much.

And they’re still at it. Mike at 84, Patricia at 89.

The McCoys settled in Imperial Beach in the early 1970s — Mike was a veterinarian, Patricia a teacher — when the coastal protection movement was spreading across the state amid fears of overdevelopment and privatization. In 1972, voters approved Proposition 20, which essentially laid down a hallmark declaration:

The California coast is a public treasure, not a private playground.

Four years later, the Coastal Act became state law, regulating development in collaboration with local government agencies, guaranteeing public access and protecting marine and coastal habitats.

During that time, the McCoys were locked in a fight worth revisiting now, on the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act. There had been talk for years about turning the underappreciated Tijuana River Estuary, part of which was used as a dumping ground, into something useful.

Mike McCoy knew the roughly 2,500-acre space was already something useful, and vitally important. It was one of the last major undeveloped wetlands in Southern California and a breeding and feeding site for 370 bird species, along with fish, reptiles, rabbits, foxes, coyotes and other animals.

In McCoy’s mind, it needed to be restored, not repurposed. And certainly not as a giant marina, which would have destroyed a habitat that was home to several endangered species. At a 1977 Imperial Beach meeting packed with marina supporters, Mike McCoy drew his line in the sand.

The Tijuana Estuary in Imperial Beach is seen on Friday.

(Hayne Palmour IV / For The Times)

“I went up there,” McCoy recalled, pausing to say he could still feel the heat of the moment, “and I said, ‘You people, and I don’t care who you are, you’re not going to put a marina in that estuary. That’s sacrosanct. You don’t mess with that. That’s a fantastic system, and it’s more complex than you’d ever believe.’”

The estuary won, but the McCoys weren’t done. As I began talking with them about the years of advocacy that followed, Patricia’s modesty blushed.

“We don’t want to be blowing our own trumpet,” she said.

They don’t have to. I’m doing it for them, with the help of admirers who were happy to join the symphony.

Patricia went on to become a member of the Imperial Beach City Council and served for two years on the Coastal Commission, which oversees implementation of the Coastal Act. She also helped Mike and others take the estuary restoration fight to Sacramento, to Washington, D.C., and to Mexico.

“This is what a real power couple looks like,” said Sarah Christie, legislative director of the Coastal Commission. “They wield the power of nature and the power of the people. You can’t overstate their contribution to coastal protection.”

The McCoys’ signature achievement has been twofold, said Jeff Crooks, a San Diego wetlands expert. They helped establish the estuary as a protected wildlife refuge, and they also helped build the framework for the estuary to serve as a research center to monitor, manage and preserve the habitat and collaborate with other managed estuaries in the U.S.

“It’s been a living laboratory for 40-some years,” said Crooks, research coordinator for the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve.

Sewage and debris flow from Tijuana are an ever-present threat and decades-long source of frustration and anger in Imperial Beach, where beaches have been closed and some residents have planted “Stop the Stink” yard signs. Crooks said there’s been some progress on infrastructure improvements, with a long way to go.

Coastal conservationist Mike McCoy looks at a new interpretive sign at the Tijuana Estuary in Imperial Beach on Friday.

(Hayne Palmour IV / For The Times)

But “even though we’re beating it up,” Crooks said of the pollution flowing into the estuary, it’s been amazingly resilient in part because of constant monitoring and management.

Chris Peregrin, who manages the Tijuana Estuary for the state park system, said the nonprofit Tijuana Estuary Foundation has been a good partner, and the president of the foundation board is guess who:

Mike McCoy.

The foundation ”fills gaps that the state cannot,” Peregrin said. “As one example, they run the research program at the reserve.”

For all their continued passion about the mission in their own backyard, the McCoys fret about the bigger picture — the alarming increase in greenhouse gases and the biodiversity decline. Through the estuary window, they see a planet in peril.

“They both think big like that,” Crooks said. “Mike especially comes from the mindset that this is a ‘think globally and act locally’ kind of thing.”

“Restoration is the name of the game, not intrusion,” Mike told me, and he wasn’t talking just about the estuary.

On the very week I visited the McCoys, the Trump administration delivered a crushing blow to the environmental movement, repealing a government finding that greenhouse gas pollution is a threat to the planet and public health. He called those claims, backed by overwhelming scientific consensus, “a giant scam.”

It’s easy to throw up your hands at such knuckle-dragging indifference, and Mike told me he has to keep reaching for more stamina.

But Serge Dedina, a former Imperial Beach mayor who was inspired by the McCoys’ activism as a youngster, sees new generations bringing fresh energy to the fight. Many of them work with him at Wildcoast, the international coastal conservation nonprofit he founded, with Patricia McCoy among his earliest collaborators.

“I wouldn’t be a conservationist and coastal activist without having worked with Patricia and Mike and being infused with their passion,” said Dedina. ”I think sometimes they underestimate their legacy. They’ve had a huge impact on a whole generation of scientists and conservationists and people who are doing work all along the coast.”

We can’t underestimate the legacy of the citizen uprising of 1972, along with the creation of an agency dedicated to coastal conservation. But it’s only fair to note, on the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act, that not everyone will be reaching for a party hat.

The Coastal Act has been aggressively enforced, at times to a fault in the opinion of developers, homeowners, commercial interests and some politicians. Former Gov. Jerry Brown, who signed the act into law, once referred to Coastal Commission agency staffers as “bureaucratic thugs” for tight restrictions on development.

There’s been constant friction, thanks in part to political pressure and the clout of developers, and one of the many future threats to the core mission is the need for more housing throughout the state. The balance between new construction and continued conservation is sure to spark years of skirmishes.

Coastal conservationists Mike and Patricia McCoy on a trail named after them at the Tijuana Estuary Visitor Center in Imperial Beach.

(Hayne Palmour IV / For The Times)

But as the Coastal Commission website puts it in marking the anniversary, the major achievements of the past 50 years include the “wetlands not filled, the sensitive habitats not destroyed, the access trails not blocked, the farms and ranches not converted to urban uses, the freeways and gated communities and industrial facilities not built.”

In the words of the late Peter Douglas, who co-authored Proposition 20 and later served as executive director of the Coastal Commission, the coast is never saved, it’s always being saved.

Saved by the likes of Mike and Patricia McCoy.

I had the pleasure of walking through the estuary with Mike, past the plaque dedicated to him and his wife and “all who cherish wildlife and the Tijuana Estuary.” We also came upon one of the new interpretive signs that were to be dedicated Friday, including one with a photo of Mike and Patricia as young adults “Making a Difference.”

Mike pointed a finger here and there, explaining all the conservation projects through the year. We saw an egret and a rabbit, and when I heard a clacking sound, Mike brightened.

“That’s a clapper rail,” Mike said, an endangered bird that makes its home in the estuary.

The blowing of the trumpet isn’t just for the McCoys.

It’s a rallying call to those who might follow in their footsteps.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

THREE people were detained after a Swat team descended on a home near the Tucson home of missing Nancy Guthrie, reports say.

The Friday night operation unfolded about two miles from Guthrie’s property as members of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department executed a search warrant, reportedly acting on a tip.

Two men – along with one of their mothers – were taken into custody, a local police told Fox News Digital.

It’s unclear whether any of those detained are considered suspects.

Late Friday, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department posted on X that a statement would be “forthcoming,” but did not specify what the announcement would address.

The SWAT operation came just hours after investigators recovered DNA evidence from someone not known to be “close” to Guthrie at her property.

Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos confirmed the unidentified DNA – discovered on the missing 84-year-old’s Tucson property – is now central to the probe.

He declined to say where inside the home it was found.

This is breaking news. More to follow… please refresh for more updates and follow the-sun.com for the biggest stories of the day…

Ryan Sickler is used to asking the question that people are afraid to ask: “Is there anyone here who has ever actually died and come back and would be comfortable talking about it in front of all of us?”

It’s not your typical comedy show crowd work but it has profound results. During his special “Ryan Sickler: Live & Alive” released on YouTube in October, a woman in the audience talked about a near-death experience as a child where she rode her bicycle in front of a neighbor’s station wagon. But Sickler pointed out that this remarkable level of candor in the audience is something he continues to marvel about. In fact, he said they did two shows the night they taped his special and during the second show two people in the crowd said they had near-death experiences.

“When I ask the question, I know there’s someone in the crowd that’s like, ‘There’s nobody in here that’s died and come back,’” Sickler said. “So now they’re all very excited to listen too. Like, what happened to this lady, or what happened to this guy? You know, there’s been some wild ones, some real funny ones out there too.”

Given how many comedy specials are being released on various streaming platforms, he says that “we have lost the specialness of the special.” But Sickler said since coming so close to death and being able to talk about it with candor and relatability, he is still calling his latest self-produced YouTube special, special. It now has more than 1 million views on YouTube. Sickler has been on the comedy scene for more than 30 years and released his comedy special “Lefty’s Son” in 2023. He also hosts the “HoneyDew Podcast.” His comedy career has often incorporated his lived experience with a rare blood-clotting disease called Factor V Leiden that almost killed him.

But these days, he’s grateful to be alive, to have been able to wake up when it looked like he might not, to watch his daughter continue to grow up and the laughs along the way. Sickler has long been candid about his chronic health issues with his comedy but he has found particular meaning in doing crowd work when he performs, that talks about death and what it means to live.

The Times recently spoke with Sickler about his special and how he thinks about his sense of health, humor and mortality.

Ryan Sickler in the studio where he films the “HoneyDew Podcast.”

(Al Seib / For The Times)

What did you want to say this time around in your new special?

My first special was something that was a bit of a hybrid of stuff that had been out there and around, but I didn’t own it. It was out there on people’s platforms. They’re making the money off of it. And so I did a bit of, “Let me get this stuff on my channel where I can control it.” And then the other part of that special was becoming a new single dad, all those things this time, specifically, I really just wanted to talk about what had happened and the results after that. I follow these comedy accounts and in October, there were 31 stand-up specials that hit between Netflix, Hulu, YouTube. November was 30. This month was a little slow because the holidays, but it was still at 18 the last time I checked. So I don’t think there’s anything special about stand-up specials anymore. You’re in an environment now where there’s a stand-up special a day, people are doing that with podcasts. There’s so much content going on out there, and I feel like a lot of it is the same. So I this time wanted to just take something that happened very personal to me, this incident, and then tell the story, not only behind it, but what happened after and I was really proud of being able to just focus on that and make that into this special instead of just my observations on this or my thoughts on that. I’m a storyteller and I really think that’s what art is.

When did you realize you had the courage to write about this near–death experience?

I know I had the courage to write about it a long time ago. When I’m making people laugh at my father’s funeral and things like that, I knew I was comfortable being able to take on the material. But what I didn’t know was, could I make it funny? Could I make it relatable? Could I make this one thing that happened to this one person on this rock in outer space matter to anybody and make them care? Because it’s not like we all had this happen to us. This is just one thing that happened to this one dude. So that was really what I was more worried about, is like, can I get this message across and make it relatable, funny and entertaining at the same time? Which is why I threw in those really expensive light cues.

It can be very challenging to hear about these traumatic [near–death] experiences that people have had. How do you absorb that and not absorb it too much?

I’ve been doing this show for so long that it does start to wear on you a little bit hearing a lot of the trauma. So I created a new podcast a couple years ago called the Wayback, which is just fun, funny, nostalgia. So that also for me, was like, let’s not dig into the tears and let’s just laugh about growing up. So that was one way where I could still keep it in my lane and do my job, where I alleviate that a little bit. But the other thing, and I make fun of myself a little, is I’m like the paramedic at the party now. I’m the guy that’s like “You think that’s bad, wait until you hear this.” “This one guy …” “This one lady …” You know what I mean? So I’ve almost become sort of their voice, and I have absorbed it in a way that isn’t so negative, where I carry it home with me. I always forget the quote how it’s worded, but it’s something to the tune of, if we all stood in a circle and threw our problems in the middle, we’d all take our shit right back. It’s like you know what, that’s what you’re dealing with? I’m gonna go ahead and take mine.

How is hearing all these stories and connecting with the crowd and fans in this way [about near–death experiences] changed how you think about your own sense of mortality?

Even with my close call, like, that one angered me, because you start to think about things. You never know how you’re really going to go. You might have an idea if you’re getting older and cancer runs in your family, whatever, but the fact that you could go to a hospital for a simple surgery, they don’t listen to you, everything’s there in your paperwork. You’re your own advocate. You’re doing all the right stuff by yourself, and you’re among professionals, medical professionals, not Yahoos, and you can still have someone else make a mistake and your life is gone. That started me thinking a lot like, “Oh man, for no fault of my own, I could also be gone.” So I go day by day, and I try to be happy day by day. And I’m not going to lie, I also like to know I got a little something tomorrow too.

Do you think that incorporating death and near–death in your comedy helps people work through their own feelings about death and grief?

I only say yes to that because the amount of emails I get, the amount of feedback we get, the amount of guests that still continue to show up [to support] the Patreon. I’ve definitely found, I would say, a purpose in my people. If you’re someone saying you’re a jerk for laughing at this lady talking about cancer, we’re not laughing at her cancer. We’re laughing at something, some light that she found in the darkness of this and trying to have a moment here together, all about, “Hey, there’s some positive ways to look at things at your lowest.” So I know it’s helped people. I mean, we have, over the years, probably thousands of emails now. We have people telling us how much it’s helped. And I mean just through podcasting, I found out I have this blood disease. I was 42 at the time, and already been podcasting. There’s a lady I went to high school with. She’s like “Ryan, my son is 17. He started clotting.” I said, “Go ahead and check for this.” He listens to the podcast. This kid has it. I said, “Well, bad news. It’s genetic.” Now the whole family’s got to get tested. And if you have it from one parent, it’s not great, but having it from two is bad. The whole family gets tested. The parents have it. She’s got it from both her parents. So I can’t get over the fact that a woman I knew when we were children, 35 years later is like, “Hey, that thing you’re talking about on your podcast, my kids, my family, we all have it.” And then I’ve talked about another disease I also have, called Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, which is CMT. And from bringing that up, people hit me up on that like “I have it, no one ever talks about that.”

What have you found to be one of the positives — besides surviving — of your near–death experience?

Gosh, so many. I have a child, so getting to see her grow and really taking care of my health and things. Not that I wasn’t before, but just I dove in even deeper. I went and got what’s called a gallery test for prescreening for cancer. I started doing all these blood works and like, “Let’s go find out everything you know, because I didn’t find out that I had this blood disease until I was 42 when I clotted.” I’m living my whole life, not even knowing I have this thing and and if I don’t clot, there are plenty of people out there that live to 100 years old and have it. It’s really made me appreciate life and trying to take things day by day. I also was living in a little single-dad pad at the time. We had no central air. We had tandem parking. We were above dumpsters. Our laundry was outside in a room with quarters. And when I got home — I’m still on a walker — and I was like, “What are we doing? We’re going to die without central air? Are we going to die with a bucket of quarters on the fridge? No more.” And so I moved my home, I moved my studio, I did all these things that are, like, the biggest thing you can do in life. We’re going to roll the dice, scared money don’t win, and we’re just going to go for it. Also, as a comedian and anybody in entertainment will tell you, a lot of times you work scared, you hold that money and you wait until the next thing comes. And also, as a single parent, you know we got to budget. And I was like, no more. We’re not going to go out and buy 10 Porsches. We’re going to be responsible. But I was on point with let’s go get a living will and trust. Let’s make sure we have that life insurance policy. Let’s make sure we have all the proper paperwork and stuff done before we do anything like go on a vacation, you know, let’s get this done now and get it done proper.

What do those conversations look like, if you have them at all, about encouraging your male friends to go to the doctor or encouraging them to take care of themselves, physically and emotionally?

I would say the conversations go something like this. My younger brother is like, “Hey, man, I just went in for a test, and they’re telling me I got to have an old school triple bypass,” and then that’s what we all get tested. “Hey guys, I found I got a blood disease.” “Oh man, we all better look into it now.” That’s usually how it goes. I don’t know many men who are proactive. There are a few of us these days. But it’s usually something horrible happens and then we’ll be proactive about everything else.

Do you have male fans who also say “I [saw] your special … I went to your show, and it made me go [to the doctor]”?

Yeah, but I’m saying, though, it still took them to come see a professional clown to get them to go to the damn doctor. I actually have been very good about going, because everyone in my family died. So I’ve been proactive in the sense that I go get two physicals a year. I’ve been doing that since my 20s. I always tell my doctor, if I can go buy expensive sushi, if I go buy weed, if I go buy all these things, I can put money into myself here and come see you a second time and pay for all that. So I do two physicals a year, and I’ve been doing that forever. But I’ve never done any sort of like gallery test. And now we’re in our 50s, so we got to go get the prostate and all that. That’s when you start hearing about that stuff. There’s a lot of ignorance that goes into it as well. I just had a guest here on the “HoneyDew” and said he didn’t go to a doctor or anything for over 20 years because he was just scared of what they were going to tell him. He was scared to get the bad news. You can kind of get the bad news and you could turn that into good news. It doesn’t need to be deadly news.

How do you know when you’ve been too open?

It usually tends to be a personal thing where someone’s like, “I don’t really appreciate you bringing that up.” So I don’t anymore. I’m always cognizant of [saying] like, “Hey, would it be cool if I talked about this or whatever?” I feel like the question you’re asking me would have been great for me just before I started, like, the “HoneyDew” and stuff because this is what I really want to talk about. Everyone wants to talk about the best and bring their best and I just really do want to hear about, you know, the trauma bond. I want to hear about the worst times in your life. I want to know because, honestly, that tells me so much more about you than you verbally talking about you. You know who you were in those moments, how you reacted, how you behaved, how you’ve adjusted. Those things really end up defining who you are, and that’s more what I want to know about. I don’t want to know your best polished version of yourself.

The Trump administration has unveiled a sweeping set of regulatory proposals that would substantially change health plan offerings on the Affordable Care Act marketplace next year, aiming, it says, to provide more choice and lower premiums.

But it also proposes sharply raising some annual out-of-pocket costs — to more than $27,600 for one type of coverage — and could cause up to 2 million people to drop insurance.

The changes come as affordability is a key concern for many Americans, some of whom are struggling to pay their ACA premiums since the Republican-led Congress allowed enhanced subsidies expired at the end of last year. Initial enrollment numbers for this year fell by more than 1 million.

Healthcare coverage and affordability have become politically potent issues in the run-up to November’s midterm elections.

The proposed changes are part of a 577-page rule that addresses a broad swath of standards, including benefit packages, out-of-pocket costs and healthcare provider networks. Insurers refer to these standards when setting premium rates for the coming year.

After a comment period, the rule will be finalized this spring.

It “puts patients, taxpayers, and states first by lowering costs and reinforcing accountability for taxpayer dollars,” Mehmet Oz, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator, said in a news release Monday.

One way it would do so focuses heavily on a type of coverage — catastrophic plans — that last year attracted about only 20,000 policyholders, according to the proposal, although other estimates put it closer to 54,000.

“This proposal reads like the administration has found their next big thing in the catastrophic plans,” said Katie Keith, director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center.

Such plans have very high annual out-of-pocket costs for the policyholder but often lower premiums than other ACA coverage options. Formerly restricted to those under age 30 or facing certain hardships, the Trump administration allowed older people who lost subsidy eligibility to enroll in them this year. It is not known how many people did so.

The payment rule cements this move by making anyone eligible if their income is below the poverty line ($15,650 for 2026) or if they’re earning more than 2½ times that amount but lost access to an ACA subsidy that lowered their out-of-pocket costs. It also notes that a person meeting these standards would be eligible in any state — an important point because this coverage is now available in only 36 states and the District of Columbia.

In addition, the proposal would require out-of-pocket maximums on such plans to hit $15,600 a year for an individual and $27,600 for a family, Keith wrote this week in Health Affairs. (The current out-of-pocket max for catastrophic plans is $10,600 for an individual plan and $21,200 for family coverage.) Not counting preventive care and three covered primary care doctor visits, that spending target must be met before a policy’s other coverage kicks in.

In the rule, the administration wrote that the proposed changes would help differentiate catastrophic from “bronze” plans, the next level up, and, possibly, spur more enrollment in the former. Currently, the proposal said, there may not be a significant difference if premiums are similar. Raising the out-of-pocket maximum for catastrophic plans to those levels would create that difference, the proposal said.

“When there is such a clear difference, the healthier consumers that are generally eligible and best suited to enroll in catastrophic plans are more motivated to select a catastrophic plan in lieu of a bronze plan,” the proposal noted.

However, ACA subsidies cannot be used toward catastrophic premiums, which could limit shoppers’ interest.

Enrollment in bronze plans, which have an average annual deductible of $7,500, has doubled since 2018 to about 5.4 million last year. This year, that number likely will be higher. Some states’ sign-up data indicate a shift toward bronze as consumers left higher-premium “silver,” “gold” or “platinum” plans following the expiration of more generous subsidies at the end of last year.

The proposal also would allow insurers to offer bronze plans with cost-sharing rates that exceed what the ACA law currently allows, but only if that insurer also sells other bronze plans with lower cost-sharing levels.

In what it calls a “novel” approach, the proposal would allow insurers to offer multiyear catastrophic plans, in which people could stay enrolled for up to 10 years, and their out-of-pocket maximums would vary over that time. Costs might be higher, for example, in the early years, then fall the longer the policy is in place. The proposal specifically asks for comments on how such a plan could be structured and what effect multiyear plans might have on the overall market.

“As we understand it thus far, insurers could offer the policy for one year or for consecutive years, up to 10 years,” said Zach Sherman, managing director for coverage policy and program design at Health Management Associates, a health policy consulting firm that does work for states and insurance plans. “But the details on how that would work, we are still unpacking.”

Matthew Fiedler, senior fellow with the Center on Health Policy at the Brookings Institution, said the proposed rule included a lot of provisions that could “expose enrollees to much higher out-of-pocket costs.”

In addition to the planned changes to bronze and catastrophic plans, he points to another provision that would allow plans to be sold on the ACA exchange that have no set healthcare provider networks. In other words, the insurer has not contracted with specific doctors and hospitals to accept their coverage. Instead, such plans would pay medical providers a set amount toward medical services, possibly a flat fee or a percentage of what Medicare pays, for example.

The rule says insurers would need to ensure “access to a range of providers” willing to accept such amounts as payment in full. Policyholders might be on the hook for unexpected expenses, however, if a clinician or facility doesn’t agree and charges the patient the difference.

Because the rule is so sweeping — with many other parts — it is expected to draw hundreds if not thousands of comments between now and early March.

Pennsylvania insurance broker Joshua Brooker said one change he would like to see is requiring insurers that sell the very high out-of-pocket catastrophic plans to offer other catastrophic plans with lower annual maximums.

Overall, though, a wider range of options might appeal to people on both ends of the income scale, he said.

Some wealthier enrollees, especially those who no longer qualify for any ACA premium subsidies, would prefer a lower premium like those expected in catastrophic plans, and could just pay the bills up to that max, he said.

“They’re more worried about the half-million-dollar heart attack,” Brooker said. It’s tougher for people below the poverty level, who don’t qualify for ACA subsidies and, in 10 states, often don’t qualify for Medicaid. So they’re likely to go uninsured. At least a catastrophic plan, he said, might let them get some preventive care coverage and cap their exposure if they end up in a hospital. From there, they might qualify for charity care at the hospital to cover out-of-pocket costs.

Overall, “putting more options on the market doesn’t hurt, as long as it is disclosed properly and the consumer understands it,” he said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

If you’re reading this review of Gore Verbinski’s maniacal farce “Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” in newsprint, congratulations on being a Luddite.

But if you’re reading it on a smartphone, then you’re one of the suckers that Sam Rockwell is hoping to reach when his unnamed time traveler barges into a late-night Los Angeles diner screaming, “I am from the future and all of this goes horribly wrong!” The patrons pause scrolling to glance at this unhinged, unwashed man wearing a crown of computer wires wrapped around his head like an IT messiah. Then they get a good look at his shoes when he stomps on their tables, kicking cheeseburgers as he tries to make these regular folks engage with the tech-pocalypse he swears is coming.

It’s a sermon we’ve heard plenty of times before and possibly even delivered ourselves. Coming from the ever-charismatic Rockwell, a lecture to stop wasting our lives online sounds no more insurmountable, only more immediate.

Half of the world will die, he foretells. The other half will be too distracted to notice. That is, unless a handful of strangers join him right now, right this moment, to fight for humanity’s cerebral freedom. Unsurprisingly, volunteers don’t raise their hands. (The one eager guy who does has failed him too often in other scenarios.) But Rockwell’s time traveler — he really is one — is used to a firewall of resistance. He’s given this speech at this diner 117 times. Some combination of the 47 people in it is fated to succeed.

That opening scene sounds as if an AI merged “The Terminator” with “Groundhog Day.” True, Matthew Robinson’s funny, savage and surprising script doesn’t downplay its inspirations. (He even lets Rockwell rip off Indiana Jones’ line about snakes.) But the screenplay gets so intricate and angry — and so shamelessly ambitious — you can’t believe someone in today’s Hollywood was willing to put up the money to get it made. Even helmed by proven hitmaker Verbinski of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise, it’s a feat akin to convincing someone to fund a skyscraper-sized cuckoo clock that has a bird that pops out and heckles the crowd.

Eventually, a dubious crew enlists: public school teachers Mark and Janet (Michael Peña and Zazie Beetz), grouchy ride-share driver Scott (Asim Chaudhry), assistant Boy Scout leader Bob (Daniel Barnett), jittery mom Susan (Juno Temple) and forlorn Maria (Georgia Goodman), who keeps sighing that all she wanted was a slice of pie. Rockwell also impulsively yokes in Ingrid (Haley Lu Richardson), a grungy girl in a princess dress, who seems to be on her own suicide mission. The actors are mostly just pegs in a complicated plot, but they snap into place well.

The man from the future doesn’t have a plan — and worse, he considers himself the only person who isn’t expendable. The others can die (and do). As the group shuffles toward catastrophe, Verbinski intercuts their mission with flashbacks to their civilian lives. Their ordinary days, the digital indignities they’ve borne, that’s where Verbinski really gets mean.

The film’s feints and twists are fabulous as they explore how the internet’s promise has soured. One plotline involves a corporate brainstorm to make people love and nurture their own talking adbot, essentially a human-sized Tamagotchi. In another, school shootings have become such an epidemic that when Temple’s Susan gets summoned to identify her ninth-grader’s corpse, the other grieving mothers at the station calmly chitchat about traffic until one glances over at her nonchalantly and says, “First time?”

At first, the not-so-original idea that phones have turned children into zombies is a Romero-style parody of brain rot. (The young actor Cassiel Eatock-Winnik has a great scene as a vicious teen who stares down one of her elders and says, “You’re 35? That’s, like, older than most trees.”) But Verbinski reveals an unexpected angle of attack: Here, society has groomed the next generation to behave like machines. We don’t know why, exactly, but we can imagine a few reasons.

Even coping mechanisms take fire. Susan meets more parents who’ve snapped under the strain and become nihilistic trolls raising their daughter to be toxic so it won’t matter as much if she dies. Another character is quick to insist that everything he’s looking at — the walls, the people — is a facade. A 20-something gig worker named Tim (Tom Taylor) wants to permanently live in a VR simulation. His story is a little rushed but we get the idea that Tim’s not a jerk, just an idealist who can’t handle the tawdriness of the 21st century. As he puts it, “Why would I choose this world over that one?”

Verbinski doesn’t say much outright about the creeping concern that we’re living in a highly surveilled, aggressive and unpredictable police state. He’s able to make that point without words when cops arrive and our heroes-slash-hostages, none of whom have yet done anything worse than skip out on their bill, all assume the itchy trigger finger of the law will shoot them on sight. (And they’re right.) He also makes an ominous refrain of “Thank you for your service.”

It’s easier to howl at a classic like “Dr. Strangelove,” which mocked the leaders giddyuping the planet’s destruction, than at a present-day satire where we ourselves are the joke. As with “Idiocracy” (and eventually “Eddington”), our ability to fully appreciate this merciless, furious comedy might take a decade of remove. Even then, though, I won’t like James Whitaker’s cinematography, which goes for a deliberate ugliness but just looks dishwater drab.

“Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” anticipates the audience’s resistance. We do think for ourselves and so we scour the movie for flaws that will justify the urge to roll our eyes. For example: Why does Rockwell let some characters die and not others? Is the movie just as shallow as its j’accuse of us? Some quibbles get answered. Larger questions are left coyly unresolved so that we leave the theater uneasy.

There are so many overwhelming ideas in “Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” that, at over two hours, it does have the sense of a dissociative doomscroll. There’s even a plot point involving an algorithmic overlord that creates randomly generated armies: “Ghostbusters” with AI slop. The normie survivors try to convince themselves it might send something good, like they’re thumbing TikTok hoping for a treasure worth the time. Rockwell assures them it won’t. Nothing good will ever come. And what does arrive is so hellacious that it makes the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man look sweet.

The film is too cynical to take itself that seriously; Verbinski would roll his eyes at any thoughts and prayers it could do much good. Yet, anyone born with “19” at the start of their birthyear still remembers how it felt to leave the house without a black rectangle in their hands. That makes us all time travelers of a sort, too, beacons of an increasingly distant era in which it was possible to be unplugged.

But it’s OK if you’re on your screen right now. Just sit before a bigger one to see this film.

CHICAGO — Before she had toppled the moneyed and the mighty, back when perhaps a dozen people thought she had a chance to be a U.S. senator, Carol Moseley Braun went to Washington to drum up support for her ragtag campaign.

Waiting in the drafty outer hallways of power, she was treated like a poor relation. And the results were pathetic.

The official gatekeepers of money and political advice simply dismissed Braun and her candidacy for the Democratic Senate nomination from Illinois, recalls Tony Podesta, a college friend who is now is a Washington political consultant. He walked her through receptions, and she got nothing more than a few polite hellos. And although established women’s groups said, “Right on, keep going,” they kept their pocketbooks closed.

“Talk about your underdogs,” Podesta says, laughing. “I couldn’t even find a professional fund-raiser who she could pay to work for her.”

But with no organization, little money and a quintessentially Chicago political title as the Cook County Recorder of Deeds, Braun knocked out a three-term senator, Alan J. Dixon, in the March 17 Democratic primary.

This week, Braun went back to Washington for money and backing. And this time, it was the difference between the Prince and the Pauper.

With the head of the Illinois State Democratic Party in tow, she met with party powerbrokers, including Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell of Maine and Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. All are members of the white man’s club she ran against, but the reception was ecstatic.

Such is the nature of power in Washington. Braun had just eliminated one of their entrenched cohorts, “Al the Pal” Dixon, 64, who has been winning elections for 42 years. But now she stands a fair chance of making history as a double outsider: If she wins against Republican nominee Richard Williamson in November, she’ll be the first black woman in the Senate and only the fourth black to serve in that august chamber.

Although she dismisses political post-mortems that credit anything but her determination, there is evidence she was also buoyed by luck, timing and a third candidate, Al Hofeld, a 55-year-old personal-injury attorney who spent $4.5 million of his own personally injuring Dixon in negative TV advertisements.

“I think it’s fair to say that if this were hockey, Hofeld would get an assist,” quips Hofeld’s media consultant, David Axelrod.

Braun may have had one other unlikely man on her team: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In fact, without him she might never have entered the race.

Last autumn she was so disgusted by the tone and substance of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Thomas’ nomination to the high court–before and after the allegations of sexual harassment by Prof. Anita Hill–that she decided it was time to break into the men’s club on Capitol Hill.

“I was completely focused on how badly the process had failed,” she says. “If the Senate had done its job right from the start, we all would have been spared the mess. And who were these guys anyway? Where were the women, the minorities and the regular working people?”

She said as much, twice, on a public television talk show and was overwhelmed with letters, phone calls and friends urging her to take on Dixon, who had voted for Thomas. After several meetings, Chicago women activists identified three potential female candidates to challenge Dixon; it was decided that Braun, a University of Chicago Law School graduate who had served 10 years in the state Legislature, had the best qualifications and the best shot.

But she was not a shrinking violet thrust forward into the limelight. Now 44, she has been in the cut and thrust of Chicago politics since her early 20s, and she knew the risks. When a friend warned her that she could be a sacrificial lamb, she reportedly retorted: “If the best my party can do for me is recorder of deeds, then I don’t care about the future.”

With the backing of a coalition of women activists, suburban liberals and her most critical base, blacks throughout Chicago, Braun garnered 38% of the vote compared to Dixon’s 35% and Hofeld’s 28%. Less than two weeks before the upset, Braun had been 12 percentage points behind Dixon.

Hers was a last-minute sprint that came together through a confluence of events, including a television debate in which Hofeld hammered Dixon for his conservative voting record. For the first time, a broader spectrum of the public saw Braun demonstrate her speaking savvy and natural warmth.

In addition, Gloria Steinem came twice to Chicago on Braun’s behalf, attracting attention and contributions to the campaign. And the network of liberals in the suburbs–mostly white women–mounted a word-of-mouth effort to turn Braun into a winner.

In fact, women did well up and down the ballot in the Illinois primary. “I think women, more than men, are convincing elements of change,” says Axelrod. “That will give Carol an edge in November.”

But the “women’s vote” has never materialized consistently in past elections, and it’s still too early to tell whether Braun can make a convincing argument in November that she is a “change agent,” as Washington insiders are fond of saying.

“She’s got to broaden her base beyond blacks and some women and focus, focus, focus, on economic issues,” advise Axelrod and others.

Both Braun and Williamson are positioning themselves as outraged outsiders and setting each other up as a symbol of what catapulted America into an economic morass.

“The fundamental difference between my opponent and myself is that she has made her living for the past 14 years as a career politician and voted 13 times to raise taxes,” says Williamson, 42, a partner in a Chicago law firm who serves on President Bush’s General Advisory Committee on Arms Control.

Speaking from a car phone as he made an eight-city campaign swing last weekend, he added: “I’m not saying it’s always evil to be a career politician–George Bush certainly is. It’s just among the elements that makes differences between my opponent and myself so stark.”

Although exhausted from her sudden status as a political phenomenon–already she’s done “Nightline” and the “Today” show–Braun last week offered her assessment of those differences:

“He’s a typical Reaganite and will have to answer for the policies of the new federalism that screwed up this country. He was part of it.”

Braun doesn’t expect this race to be more challenging than the primary seemed last November–but she does see land mines.

“It’ll be a tough race only to the extent that Williamson (who is white) plays the racial card, directly or subtly, by manipulating symbols like talking about my views on welfare reform,” she says.

Illinois has elected blacks statewide, but many more have been defeated. “If the election was held next week, she’d probably win because of the post-primary euphoria around her,” says Don Rose, a Chicago political consultant. “But we have a way to go, and we don’t know how the wild card–race–plays, and we don’t know how the national ticket plays.”

Williamson insists that he’ll fire anyone in his campaign who uses racism to attack his opponent.

“I won’t hold my opponent accountable for the race of her parents if she doesn’t hold me accountable for the race of mine,” says Williamson, who grew up and lives with his wife and three children on Chicago’s wealthy North Shore.

As he describes it, Williamson has spent most of his career in “public service,” although he has never run for office. He was an aide to the most conservative congressman in the Illinois delegation, Rep. Philip Crane, and later worked for the Reagan Administration as intergovernmental affairs director and for the Bush campaign in 1988.

A fiscal conservative who has etched out more moderate positions on social issues, Williamson is known as an intellectual who reads Hermann Hesse and gives windy speeches on public policy.

So far, he says, his status as a novice campaigner has created the biggest hurdles for him in formulating positions on the spot. For example, while the former Princeton University religion major personally opposes abortion, he decided after consulting “with my wife and others” that he was pro-choice–although he does not support federal funding for abortion. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, Williamson would support legalizing abortion. But when asked how that law should be defined, on a state or federal level, he bristled: “I’m not going to say any more; I think (reporters) are more interested in this subject than the public.”

The Braun-Williamson competition is as much a horse race for the locals made blase by the oddities of Chicago politics as it is for the national touts who haven’t seen its like since Shirley Chisholm ran for President in the 1970s.

Already, local pundits are joking on the radio that for the first time the Bridgeport neighborhood, home to the late Mayor Richard J. Daley and his son Richard M., the current mayor, may support a black candidate.

“Carol will get the vote,” says the radio announcer, “because Daley wants her out of town and safe in Washington, where she can’t run for mayor.”

The daughter of a policeman and a medical worker, Braun grew up in Hyde Park, an integrated neighborhood near the University of Chicago, admiring such women as Amelia Earhart and Bessie Coleman, a black aviator. After graduating from law school, Braun married a classmate and joined a Republican-controlled federal prosecutor’s office.

Her initiation into politics came in 1977, when she was pushing her young son in his stroller on Hyde Park Boulevard and ran into Kay Clement, a neighbor. Clement was on a search committee to find a replacement for Robert Mann, a well-known liberal state legislator who was among a group that called itself the “Kosher Nostra” and prided itself on being a constant burr in the elder Daley’s side. Clement asked Braun if she’d run.

“She was well-spoken, congenial, and I thought she had the character to continue on in the tradition of us Young Turks,” recalls Mann, now retired.

Braun served 10 years in the Illinois House, eventually becoming assistant majority leader and Chicago Mayor Harold Washington’s floor leader in the mid-1980s.

In the Legislature, she dealt with Democratic politics skillfully but not always defiantly, which angered some of her radical black supporters. Similarly, she riled her white liberal cohorts at times and had problems with Mayor Washington when she formed alliances with his enemies and attempted to run without his approval for lieutenant governor.

“Carol is an ambitious woman, and that’s a sin in our society,” says Mann. “It’s OK for everybody else to be trading horses, making deals, being rainmakers–but not her.”

Braun left the Legislature to be the Chicago recorder of deeds in part to spend more time closer to home; she had been divorced and had a young son and an ill mother to care for.

As an administrator, she updated the deeds system with modern technology and created committees to eliminate patronage. Speaking of the deeds office, a Realtors association spokesman recently told the Chicago Tribune: “It’s not a dungeon anymore. You don’t have to carry your own candle.”

But the administration of Braun’s grass-roots primary campaign did not win as much praise; several members of her staff quit amid reports of conflict over the leadership of campaign manager Kgosie Matthews. And although Braun is likely to draw on the Chicago Establishment, organization is considered her weak point.

Kay Clement, who is on Braun’s committee, says the candidate has confidence in Matthews but plans to bring in more professionals once the money starts rolling in–which is expected at any moment.

Emily’s List, a fund-raising group for women Democratic candidates, gave $5,000 to Braun in the last weeks of the primary campaign and has vowed to support her further. “We will be in the mail for her in the next two weeks and plan to raise an incredible amount of money for her,” vows Ellen Malcolm, the group’s president.

And Chicago women such as Susan P. Kezio are determined that this time around, Braun will get the full respect due her in her hometown.

Kezio, 37, founder of the company Women in Franchising, says she tried during the primary to get Braun as a lunchtime speaker at the city’s Rotary One, the first Rotary Club in America.

“After Dixon spoke to us, I ran up to our director and proudly said, ‘Hey, I can get Carol Moseley Braun to speak,’ ” Kezio recalls. The director suggested they wait until after the primary. Then, a few weeks later, Hofeld came to speak.

Kezio was furious. She complained to the director, who said Hofeld had asked to address the Rotarians and Braun hadn’t. Apparently, Kezio’s request for Braun hadn’t registered.

But this week, according to Kezio, the Rotary director hunted down Braun and eagerly invited her to be a speaker. She said she’d be honored.

“Believe me,” Kezio says, “this time nobody is going to ignore Carol Moseley Braun.”

The NHS has issued crucial advice for anyone planning to travel abroad this year

The NHS has issued an important reminder for anyone planning international travel, emphasising that heeding this advice could prove life-saving. And it may be best to carry out a quick check at least eight weeks before your holiday.

On its website, the health service states: “If you’re planning to travel outside the UK, you may need to be vaccinated against some of the serious diseases found in other parts of the world.”

The NHS guidance continues: “Vaccinations are available to protect you against infections such as yellow fever, typhoid and hepatitis A. In the UK, the NHS routine immunisation (vaccination) schedule protects you against a number of diseases, but does not cover all of the infectious diseases found overseas.”

It takes just a few seconds to check whether you need a booster from your GP or whether your travel destination requires specific vaccinations.

Six to eight weeks

You should consult your GP or a private travel clinic between six and eight weeks before departure. Certain vaccines require time to become effective, while others necessitate several doses administered across multiple weeks.

Additional protection may be needed if you’re backpacking, camping, exploring rural locations, or going on an extended journey. People with pre-existing health conditions may also be more vulnerable to travel-related illnesses.

Which travel vaccines do I need?

It’s advisable to consult the Travel Health Pro website to determine which immunisations are necessary for your journey. Certain nations mandate an International Certificate of Vaccination or Prophylaxis (ICVP) for entry or departure. You should also keep a record of your vaccinations with you whilst travelling.

Where to get a vaccine?

Check with your GP practice to ensure your standard UK immunisations are up to date. They can also provide guidance on matters such as malaria prevention.

Alternatively, you can attend private travel clinics or pharmacies for specialist injections. Not all travel vaccinations are provided free of charge on the NHS.

If payment is required, request a written quotation for the complete course and any certificate charges.

Free jabs

The following travel vaccines are available free on the NHS from your GP surgery:

• polio (given as a combined diphtheria/tetanus/polio jab)
• typhoid
• hepatitis A
• cholera

The NHS says: “These vaccines are free because they protect against diseases thought to represent the greatest risk to public health if they were brought into the country.”

Jabs you need to pay for

You’ll have to pay for travel vaccinations against:

• hepatitis B
• Japanese encephalitis
• meningitis
• rabies
• tick-borne encephalitis
• tuberculosis (TB)
• yellow fever

The NHS further explain: “Yellow fever vaccines are only available from designated centres. The cost of travel vaccines that are not available on the NHS will vary, depending on the vaccine and number of doses you need.”

Where are you travelling?

The NHS have addressed some holidaymakers, adding: “If you’re only travelling to countries in northern and central Europe, North America or Australia, you’re unlikely to need any vaccinations. But it’s essential to check that you’re up to date with the routine vaccinations available on the NHS.

Pregnancy and other worries

If you’re pregnant, it’s advisable to consult your GP before getting vaccinated. While most vaccines are safe, professional advice is always recommended depending on where you are going.

In addition, if you have a condition such as HIV or you are undergoing chemotherapy, or have had a transplant, certain vaccines may not be appropriate for you.

Other things you need to know

There are other things to consider when planning your travel vaccinations, including:

• your age and health – you may be more vulnerable to infection than others; some vaccines cannot be given to people with certain medical conditions
• working as an aid worker – you may come into contact with more diseases in a refugee camp or helping after a natural disaster
• working in a medical setting – a doctor, nurse or another healthcare worker may require additional vaccinations
• contact with animals – you may be more at risk of getting diseases spread by animals, such as rabies

Carlos Aranibar is a former Downey public works commissioner and remains involved in local Democratic politics. But until a few weeks ago, the son of Bolivian and Mexican immigrants hadn’t joined any actions against the immigration raids that have overwhelmed Southern California.

Life always seemed to get in the way. Downey hadn’t been hit as hard as other cities in Southeast L.A. County, where elected officials and local leaders urged residents to resist and helped them organize. Besides, we’re talking about Downey, a city that advocates and detractors alike hyperbolically call the “Mexican Beverly Hills” for its middle-class Latino life and conservative streak.

Voters recalled a council member in 2023 for being too wokosa, and the council decided the next year to block the Pride flag from flying on city property. A few months later, Donald Trump received an 18.8% increase in voters compared to 2020 — part of a historic shift by Latino voters toward the Republican Party.

That’s now going up in flames. But it took a while for Aranibar to full-on join the anti-migra movement — and people like him are shaping up to be a real threat to President Trump and the GOP in the coming midterms and beyond.

On Jan. 27, Aranibar saw a Customs and Border Protection truck on the way home from work. That jolted Aranibar, an electrician with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers’ Local 11, into action.

“It’s not something like that I was in a bubble and I was finally mad — I’ve been mad,” the 46-year-old said. “But seeing [immigration patrols] so close to my city, I thought ‘That’s not cool.’”

He Googled and called around to see how best to join others and resist. Someone eventually told him about a meeting that evening in a downtown Downey music venue. It was happening just a few days after Border Patrol agents shot and killed Minneapolis resident Alex Pretti after he tried to shield a fellow protester from pepper spray, and a few weeks after immigration agents tried to detain two Downey gardeners with legal status before residents hounded them away and recorded the encounter.

Aranibar joined more than 200 people standing shoulder to shoulder for the launch of a Downey ICE Watch group. They learned how to spot and track immigration agents and signed up for email updates. A box of whistles was passed around so people could alert their neighbors if la migra was around.

“Who here has been a member of a patrol?” an organizer asked from the stage.

Only a few people raised their hands.

“I saw familiar faces and new faces, energized — it was really nice,” Aranibar said afterward. “I got the sense that people in Downey have been fired up to do something, and now it was happening.”

A similarly unexpected political awakening seemed to be happening just down the street at Downey City Hall, on the other side of the political aisle.

Mayor Claudia Frometa set tongues wagging across town after video emerged of her whooping it up with other Latino Trump supporters the night he won his reelection bid. Activists since have demanded she speak out against the president’s deportation deluge, protesting in front of City Hall and speaking out during council meetings when they didn’t buy her rationale that local government officials couldn’t do much about federal actions.

“Mayor Frometa is not a good Californian right now,” councilmember Mario Trujillo told me before the Jan. 27 council meeting. During the previous meeting, Frometa cut off his mic and called for a recess after Trujillo challenged Frometa to talk to “her president” and stop what’s going on. “It’s not a time to deflect, it’s not a time to hedge — it’s a time to stand up. She’s giving us a bulls—t narrative.”

Even Downey Mayor Claudia Frometa, a supporter of President Trump, has called out his immigation policies.

(Ronaldo Bolanos/Los Angeles Times)

That night, Frometa listened to critics like Trujillo slam her anew while wearing a wearied smile. When it was her turn to speak at the end of the night, she looked down at her desk as if reading from prepared remarks — but her voice and gesticulations felt like she was speaking from somewhere deeper.

“This issue [of deportations] which we have been seeing unfold and morph into something very ugly — it’s not about politics anymore,” Frometa said. “It’s about government actions not aligning with our Constitution, not aligning with our law and basic standards of fairness and humanity.”

As she repeatedly put on and removed her glasses, Frometa encouraged people to film immigration agents and noted the council had just approved extra funding for city-sponsored know-your-rights and legal aid workshops.

“This is beyond party affiliation,” the mayor concluded, “and we will stand together as a community.”

Suddenly, the so-called “Mexican Beverly Hills” was blasting Trump from the left and the right. Among Latinos, such a shift is blazing around the country like memes about Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl halftime show. Trump’s support among former voters has collapsed to the point that Florida state senator Ileana Garcia, co-founder of Latinas for Trump, told the New York Times that the president “will lose the midterms” because of his scorched-earth approach to immigrants.

Former Assembly member Hector de la Torre said he’s not surprised by what’s happening in a place like Downey.

“When it hits home like that, it’s not hypothetical anymore — it’s real,” he said. De La Torre was at the Downey ICE Watch meeting and works with Fromenta in his role as executive director of the Gateway Cities Council of Governments, which advocates for 27 cities stretching from Montebello to Long Beach to Cerritos and all the southeast L.A. cities.

“People are coming out the way they maybe didn’t in the past “ he continued. “It’s that realization that [raids] can even happen here.”

Mario Guerra is a longtime chaplain for the Downey police department and former mayor who remains influential in local politics — he helped the entire council win their elections. While he seemed skeptical of the people who attended the Downey ICE Watch — “How many of then were actual residents?” — he noted “frustration” among fellow Latino Republicans over Trump and his raids.

“I didn’t vote for masked men picking people up at random,” Guerra said before mentioning the migra encounter with the gardeners in January. “If that doesn’t weigh on your heart, then you’ve got some issues. All this will definitely weigh on the midterms.”

Even before Frometa’s short speech, I had a hint of what was to to come. Before the council meeting, I met with the termed-out mayor in her office.

The 51-year-old former Democrat is considered a rising GOP star as one of the few Republican Latino elected officials in Los Angeles and the first California Republican to head the nonpartisan National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. Her family moved to Downey from Juarez, Mexico when she was 12. Whites made up the majority of the suburban city back then, and it was most famous in those days as the land that birthed the Carpenters and the Space Shuttle.

Now, Downey is about 75% Latino, and four of its five council members are Latino.

So what did Frometa expect of Trump in his second term?

“I was expecting him to enforce our laws,” she replied. “To close our border so that we didn’t have hundreds of thousands coming in unchecked. I was expecting him to be tough on crime. But the way it’s being played out with that enforcement and the tactics is not what we voted for. No. No.”

Over our 45-minute talk, Frometa described Trump’s wanton deportation policy as “heartbreaking,” “racial profiling,” “problematic,” “devastating” and “not what America stands for.” The mayor said Republicans she knows feel “terrible” about it: “You cannot say you are pro-humanity and be OK with what’s happening.”

Asked if she was carrying a passport like many Latinos are — myself included — she said she was “almost” at that point.

A home in Downey shows support for Trump in 2024.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Frometa defended her relative silence compared to other Latino elected officials over the matter.

“We live in a time that is so polarizing that people want their elected officials to come out fighting,” she said. “And I think much more can be accomplished through different means.”

Part of that is talking with other Southern California Republicans “at different levels within the party” about how best to tell the Trump administration to “change course and change fast,” although she declined to offer details or names of other GOP members involved.

I concluded our interview by asking if she would vote for Trump again if she had the chance.

“It’s a very hard — It’s a hard question to answer,” Frometa said with a sigh. “We want our communities to be treated fairly, and we want our communities to be treated humanely. Are they being treated that way right now? They’re not. And I’m not OK with that.”

So right now you don’t know?

“Mm-hmm.”

You better believe there’s a lot more right-of-center Latinos right now thinking the same.

For three decades, the Dropkick Murphys have played their riotous brand of Boston Irish Celtic punk for legions of tattooed, mosh-pitting fans, but it wasn’t until last month that they found a new following among an unlikely demographic: C-SPAN viewers.

Washington policy wonks and political junkies who tuned in to watch former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith testify before the House last month were treated to lurid details about President Trump’s alleged involvement in 2020 election meddling and the Jan. 6 insurrection. What they didn’t bargain for were the animated actions of former D.C. cop Michael Fanone, who was in the chamber wearing a Dropkick Murphys T-shirt that read “Fighting Nazis Since 1996.”

Fanone, who was brutally attacked by a pro-Trump mob while defending the Capitol in 2021, was impossible to miss. He was seated directly behind Smith and the only guy visible in a band T-shirt. Also notable were his reactions to GOP suggestions that the attack on the Capitol never happened, or was everyone’s fault but Trump’s: He coughed out expletives and flashed colorful hand gestures. Dropkick Murphys T-shirt sales spiked.

“It was this crazy, organic thing,” says Ken Casey, lead singer of the band. “We never put up a poster saying, ‘Hey, wear our shirt!’ But over the course of the next week, we sold like 6,000 of those shirts.” And for those who want one now? The shirt is on back order.

Casey, who speaks in a thick, working-class Boston accent (think “The Departed” meets a Ben Affleck Dunkin’ Donuts commercial), isn’t a stranger to mixing music and politics. He has been outspoken onstage and in the recording studio about his opposition to MAGA’s immigration policy, racist rhetoric and war on the working class. And the band announced Tuesday they’re parting ways with the Wasserman Music agency because the namesake of the agency turned up in the Epstein files.

Casey spoke with The Times about challenging MAGA through the rebellion of punk rock.

The Dropkick Murphys’ “Fighting Nazis Since 1996” T-shirt is a hot item now thanks to its appearance on Capitol Hill, via Fanone. He’s been very active and adamant about countering MAGA’s Jan. 6 narratives, including testifying with his colleagues in front of the House select committee investigating the insurrection.

Ken Casey: “Michael is an old friend. He was at our very first Dropkick show in D.C. in 1996, so it’s not like he’s some kind of jump-on-the-bandwagon guy. I appreciate just how vocal he is. It’s one thing to talk the talk, but it’s another to walk the walk and be showing up at all those events, and really putting himself out there.

But why is it important for the Dropkick Murphys to speak out? You’ve no doubt lost fans.

I hate to say it, but in some ways, MAGA needs to be countered with a mirror of them, like in physical appearance. They love painting themselves as righteous warriors and the rest of the country as immigrants, or whatever other stupid s— they come up with. But it seems to trigger them more when someone like Michael Fanone and the Dropkick Murphys speak up to them because it just like explodes their mind. It’s like, “You’re supposed to be on my side!” It’s like no, remember when you were on our side? Before you got twisted up by this lying con man?

In some ways, no band has more to lose because our fan base is the population that might jump into MAGA. But there is that middle ground — the people who don’t have time for politics. Who don’t follow it as closely as you or I do. They hear things about Biden, hear things about Trump, and it’s like “I don’t know what to believe.” That’s where voices like [mine] are important. You’re hearing it from someone who really doesn’t have skin in the game. I’m an American citizen, not a politician. I don’t have corporate interest involved in this.

And then there’s the new interest in your band, from folks who are just discovering you, or maybe just know your material from film soundtracks like “The Departed” (“I’m Shipping Up to Boston”).

It’s also brought back fans and there’s this [renewed] punk rock urgency and importance to our shows. It’s gained us a lot of new fans, in theory, like people who don’t necessarily listen to punk rock, or who wouldn’t listen to our music or come to our shows, they now speak out and say, “I support Dropkick Murphys for what they’re doing.” It’s support in solidarity. For the [longtime] fans, it’s rekindled this new dedication. It’s reconnected us with some old fans who had drifted away.

What do you say to other music artists who are afraid to speak out against what they see as an injustice or wrongdoing?

We’ve already had every death threat, every friggin’ cancellation threat. So what would we say to other bands and other people who are keeping their head down because they don’t want to deal with all the drama that comes along with speaking up? Come on in. The water is great. There’s nothing to worry about. The [trolls] are a vocal minority — online is bots and paid influencer types. Don’t let anybody silence you.

At this year’s Grammy Awards ceremony, every other acceptance speech contained anti-ICE sentiment, so it does appear that more musicians are speaking out against Trump’s policies.

Listen, if executions in the streets of your citizens [by ICE agents] doesn’t get people to speak out, then nothing will. But it’s nice to finally see there’s a wave starting to peak, out of frustration and realization. I can also tell from the amount of attacks we get that there’s some backpedaling. Obviously, there’ll always be the die-hards — Trump could be molesting someone in front of their eyes, and they’d still stick with him. But there’s a lot of people trying to quietly distance themselves.

Ken Casey of Dropkick Murphys

(Riley Vecchione)

If we’re being historically accurate, the Dropkicks have always had something to say about what’s going on in this country.

The very first line sung on our very first album was in regards to how Reagan started the dismantling of unions and [created a] wealth gap, so we’ve been about it the whole time. We’ve been showing up on picket lines the whole time. Social justice, we’ve always been about it. But before Trump, we weren’t necessarily having to make it a social media presence type of thing. But we’re in a different time now.

The Republicans started to cosplay as working-class white males, and people bought right into it. There’s a portion of this country that is sick and twisted and MAGA has been a great vehicle for them, but then there’s also a big portion of the country that just got caught up in the lies and the bull— and the rhetoric.

Your band is part of a new initiative aimed at getting more punk bands to speak truth to power.

The Dropkick Murphys and Michael Fanone, along with the guys in Rise Against, have started a collaborative called Down for the Cause. It’s basically going to be kind of a punk rock collaborative because years from now, we don’t want punk rock to be disgraced by the silence. Just kind of get involved, not necessarily supporting candidates but more like taking back the air waves let people know that we don’t have to accept this unacceptable behavior. Also reminding people to vote, because if all those people didn’t stay on the sidelines in the last election, we probably wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now.

Your band just released a new song, “Citizen I.C.E.” But is it new?

The song is actually 20 years old. It was called “Citizen CIA.” It was basically a mock recruitment song for the CIA, poking fun at the damage the CIA has done around the world. Now we flipped it to a mock ICE recruitment song, with lines like “Too scared to join the military, too dumb to be a cop.” It’ll be out on a split album, “New England Forever,” that we did with a younger Boston band called Haywire. We’re touring with them now [ on the “For The People…In the Pit St. Patrick’s Day Tour”].

What do you say to people who say shut up and sing.

I get that even people who aren’t necessarily MAGA don’t want to listen to someone [on a] soapbox. But I view where we are as five-alarm fire, and if you got a microphone in front of your mouth, you better damn well be talking into it.

The head of the powerful Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, blasted Nithya Raman on Wednesday, calling the city council member an “opportunist” for launching a campaign to unseat Mayor Karen Bass after previously signaling her support for Bass.

Federation president Yvonne Wheeler said in a statement that her organization, which represents an estimated 800,000 workers, will “use every tool” in its arsenal to get Bass reelected.

“With Donald Trump’s ongoing war against the people of Los Angeles, our working families and immigrant communities, now is not the time for distractions from a political opportunist — especially one who backed the Mayor’s re-election campaign just weeks ago,” Wheeler said.

Raman, whose district stretches from Silver Lake to Reseda, was announced as one of the mayor’s endorsers on Jan. 27 in a campaign press release listing Bass’ San Fernando Valley supporters. Two days later, she appeared in a second campaign press release as one of Bass’ female endorsers.

Raman launched her own last-minute mayoral bid on Saturday, saying that City Hall is unable to “manage the basics.”

The primary election is June 2, followed by a November runoff if no candidate secures a majority of the vote.

Raman’s campaign team did not immediately respond to Wheeler’s assertions after being contacted by The Times.

In her statement, Wheeler described Bass as a “lifelong progressive” while suggesting that Raman, whose council campaigns were backed by the Democratic Socialists of America and several other progressive groups, falls short on that front.

“You can’t truly be progressive unless you are a true champion of working people,” she said. “Karen Bass is the only candidate in this race who meets that criteria.”

The federation represents about 300 labor organizations in L.A. County, including unions representing teachers, social workers, construction trades and entertainment industry workers. In previous city elections, the group has spent big on its favored candidates, paying for campaign materials, door-to-door canvassers and other expenses.

Raman broke with the labor federation and her colleagues in September, voting against the $2.6-billion expansion of the Los Angeles Convention Center.

Before that vote, labor unions said the upgrade would generate much-needed construction jobs at a time when housing production has been down. Raman and Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky warned the project was too financially risky and would saddle the city with significant budget shortfalls starting in 2031 — after Bass is out of office.

“What I fear is that we’re going to have a beautiful new Convention Center surrounded by far more homelessness than we have today, which will drive away tourists, which will prevent people from coming here and holding their events here,” Raman said at the time.

Bass supported the project, as did a majority of the council.

Raman also drew the ire of some construction union leaders last month by drafting a last-minute proposal to ask voters to change Measure ULA, a tax on property sales of $5.3 million and up. Raman, who described herself as a supporter of Measure ULA, brought her proposal to the council floor one day before the deadline to take action.

Raman, who backed Measure ULA in 2022, said she now believes it has had unintended consequences, putting a major damper on real estate development and inhibiting the production of much-needed housing.

WASHINGTON — Public health experts warned Tuesday that $600 million in cuts to federal public health funding announced by the Trump administration would endanger one of California’s main early-warning systems for HIV outbreaks, leaving communities vulnerable to undetected disease spread.

The grant terminations affect funding for a number of disease control programs in California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota, but the vast majority target California, according to congressional Democrats who received the full list of affected programs Monday. The move is the latest in the White House’s campaign against what it called “radical gender ideology” at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“These cuts will hurt vital efforts to prevent the spread of disease,” said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “It’s dangerous, and it’s deliberate.”

Under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the CDC has increasingly turned away from evidence-backed HIV monitoring and prevention programs, claiming they “undermined core American values.”

The stoppage will derail $1.1 million slated for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health’s National HIV Behavioral Surveillance Project, according to the president’s budget office.

The program is a “critical” tool used to detect emerging HIV trends, prevent outbreaks before they spread and reduce HIV incidence, said Dr. Paul Simon, an epidemiologist at the UCLA Fielding School and former chief science officer for the county’s public health department.

“Without this program, we’re flying blind. The first step in addressing any public health threat is understanding what’s happening on the ground,” Simon said. “With HIV in particular, people often have no symptoms for years and can unknowingly spread the virus.”

The White House gave little explanation for the move but claimed the programs it targeted “promote DEI and radical gender ideology.”

Simon pushed back on the claim, calling the move “dangerous” and “shortsighted.”

“It’s particularly dangerous to put your head in the sand and pretend there’s not a problem,” Simon said. “The success we’ve had over the past decades comes from finding cases early. … By treating people early, we can prevent transmission.”

Several local front-line service providers were targeted for cuts including the Los Angeles LGBT Center, which is set to lose $383,000 in investments for community HIV prevention programs.

The LGBT Center has not received official notice of the elimination but said the cuts would disproportionately affect LGBTQ+ communities and other underserved populations.

“These decisions are not guided by public health evidence, but by politics — and the consequences are real,” said LGBT Center spokesperson Brian De Los Santos. “Any reduction in funding directly affects our ability to provide care, prevention and lifesaving services to the people who rely on us.”

The Trump administration’s announced cuts are likely to face challenges from states and grant recipients.

The LGBT Center succeeded last year in blocking similar grant cancellations stemming from the president’s executive orders. A federal judge in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction ruling the administration could not use executive orders to “weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds” to bypass statutory funding obligations.

“We stand ready to bring more litigation against this administration if it is required in order to protect our community,” De Los Santos said.

The White House has repeatedly pushed to halt the flow of billions of dollars to California and other states led by Democrats, a strategy that has sharpened partisan tensions and expanded the scope of California’s legal fight against the administration.

In January, administration officials said they would freeze $10 billion in federal child care, welfare and social services funding for California and four other states, but a federal judge blocked the effort.

Trump later said he would begin blocking federal funds to “sanctuary” jurisdictions such as California and Los Angeles, which have long opposed cooperation with federal immigration agencies.

Last year, the administration made broad cuts to federal funding for minority-serving institutions, leaving California colleges scrambling to figure out how to replace or do without the money. Federal officials argued that such programs were racially discriminatory.

In June, California congressional Democrats demanded the release of $19.8 million in frozen HIV prevention grants to the L.A. County Department of Public Health. That freeze forced the county to terminate contracts with 39 community health providers and nearly shut down HIV testing and other services at the Los Angeles LGBT Center.

The administration reversed course after sustained pressure from Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Burbank) and 22 fellow House Democrats.

“These grants save lives,” Friedman said of recent terminations. “They connect homeless people to care, they support front-line organizations fighting HIV, and they build the public health infrastructure that protects my constituents. Just like I did last time the Trump Administration came after our communities, I won’t stop fighting back.”

In a letter to Kennedy last year, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) said that the Cabinet secretary has a history of peddling misinformation about the virus and disease.

Kennedy’s motivations are “grounded not in sound science, but in misinformation and disinformation you have spread previously about HIV and AIDS, including your repeated claim that HIV does not cause AIDS,” Garcia wrote.

Gov. Gavin Newsom called President Trump’s latest threats to public health funding “a familiar pattern,” and shed doubt on their long-term legal viability.

“The President publicly claims he will rip away public health funding from states that voted against him, while offering no details or formal notice,” Newsom said. “If or when the Trump administration takes action, we will respond appropriately. Until then, we will pass on participating in his attempt to chase headlines.”

WASHINGTON — The leaders of the agencies enforcing President Trump’s immigration crackdown faced tough questioning on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, with one Democratic lawmaker asking the head of ICE if he would apologize to the families of two U.S. citizens killed by federal agents and called domestic terrorists by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

Todd Lyons, acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, declined to apologize to the families of Renee Good and Alex Pretti during the hearing but said he welcomed the opportunity to speak to Good’s family in private.

“I’m not going to speak to any ongoing investigation,” Lyons said.

For the first time since the federal operation in Minneapolis led to the deaths of Good and Pretti, the heads of three immigration agencies testified before the House Homeland Security Committee.

Along with Lyons, the other witnesses were Joseph Edlow, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Rodney Scott, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection. Their agencies fall under the Department of Homeland Security.

Democrats and some Republicans have called for increased oversight of the Trump administration’s immigration operations since the shootings last month of Good and Pretti, both 37, by federal agents.

In the aftermath of the shootings, the administration replaced Gregory Bovino, a Border Patrol official who led the charge in Minneapolis, with border policy advisor Tom Homan, a former ICE official. Officials also withdrew some agents and began requiring those in Minneapolis to wear body cameras.

“We must take the temperature down and look at the record of enforcement actions through rational eyes,” said the committee’s chair, Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.).

Garbarino asked for commitment from the ICE and CBP leaders to give the committee the full reports and findings of the investigations into the shootings of Good and Pretti once those conclude. Scott and Lyons agreed.

Scott, the CBP commissioner, told the committee members that officers face an unprecedented increase in attacks by people who interfere with law enforcement action. He said these actions are “coordinated and well-funded.”

“This is not peaceful protest,” he said.

Lyons, the ICE leader, told lawmakers that his agency has removed more than 475,000 people from the U.S. and conducted nearly 379,000 arrests since President Trump returned to the White House. He said the agency has hired more than 12,000 officers and agents.

He condemned so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, which limit the collaboration between local law enforcement and ICE, as well as the rhetoric from public officials against ICE.

Lyons testified that 3,000 out of 13,000 ICE agents wear body cameras. Scott estimated that about 10,000 of 20,000 Border Patrol agents wear cameras, adding that “we’re building that program out.”

The agency heads faced intense questioning from Democrats on the committee, including those from California.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) asked Lyons about his comment last year that the deportation process should work “like Amazon Prime, but with human beings.”

Lyons said the comment had been taken out of context.

“I did say that we need to be more efficient when it comes to removing individuals from the United States, because ICE doesn’t detain people punitively — we detain to remove,” he said. “I don’t want to see people in custody.”

“Well, speaking of human beings, how many times has Amazon Prime shot a nurse 10 times in the back?” Swalwell responded.

Swalwell asked how many agents have been fired for their conduct under Lyons’ leadership. Lyons said he would get that data.

“Can you tell us if, at least — God, I hope at least one person has been fired for their conduct since these operations have begun,” Swalwell said.

Lyons said he wouldn’t talk about personnel.

Swalwell was the one who asked Lyons if he would apologize to the families of Good and Pretti. He also asked if Lyons would resign from ICE. Lyons declined.

Rep. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) questioned Lyons about whether carrying a U.S. passport is enough for people to avoid being detained or deported. An October report by ProPublica identified more than 170 instances of U.S. citizens who were detained at raids or protests.

Lyons said U.S. citizens shouldn’t feel the need to carry their passports.

“No American citizen will be arrested for being an American citizen,” Lyons said.

Correa said a number of U.S. citizens in his district, which is majority Latino, have been detained, some for several days.

Lyons said he wasn’t aware of any cases of detained American citizens.

“Are you surveilling U.S. citizens today?” Correa asked.

Lyons said there is no database for protesters.

“I can assure you there is no database that’s tracking down citizens,” he said.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

When LAFC promoted Marc Dos Santos from assistant coach to manager two months ago, there were some perks that came with the new job. A raise, certainly. A better seat on the team charter.

But not as many as you might think.

“The office is a little bit bigger,” he said. “My parking space is exactly the same.”

The biggest perk, however, could also prove the more difficult. After five seasons working under Bob Bradley and Steve Cherundolo, Dos Santos is now the guy calling the shots. And if he misfires, it will be clear who deserves the blame.

Dos Santos welcomes the scrutiny.

“I never coach with the intention of what people think or what people are going to say,” he said. “I’m focused on the group and my job; the validation that is the most important for me is from my owners, from the people in the club that believe in me.

“I’m blessed with the pressure of coaching LAFC, It’s a privilege to be under pressure. But at the same time, I want to start well.”

He’ll get that chance Tuesday, when LAFC faces Honduran club Real España in the first round of the CONCACAF Champions Cup in San Pedro Sula. The MLS season will start four days later against Lionel Messi and Inter Miami, the reigning league champion, at the Coliseum.

Dos Santos, who speaks four languages, has already started putting his stamp on the team by tweaking LAFC’s playing style. Under Cherundolo, who spent his whole playing career in Germany, the team ran a German-influenced, high-press system that combined fast-paced attacking with defensive discipline, emphasizing quick transitions and a compact defensive organization.

But Cherundolo’s teams were also content to concede the ball as much as they controlled it. Dos Santos, conversely, spent the preseason implementing an aggressive possession-based attacking game.

“Marc had a lot to do with what we thought was really good about LAFC. But he had some ideas on how to tweak things,” said general manager John Thorrington, whose team is unbeaten in four preseason games, outscoring opponents 7-3. “What is really impressive is Marc and the staff have begun implementing these tweaks. Everybody is really buying in.”

Which is good since Dos Santos won’t have much of a chance to do any teaching once the season begins. LAFC will start the year with four games in 12 days; if it advances to the second round of the Champions Cup, the team will play nine times in 33 days.

Then in late May, after 16 MLS match days, the season will pause for more than seven weeks for the World Cup.

The vagaries of that schedule will require flexibility and depth and will likely force Dos Santos to rotate players in and out of the lineup. And though LAFC’s roster, led by South Korean captain Son Heung-min and former MLS Golden Boot winner Denis Bouanga, appears top heavy, the coach lauds the depth, with offseason additions including wingers Jacob Shaffelburg and Tyler Boyd and midfielder Amin Boudri.

“People could look very superficially,” he said. “But it’s also a league with a salary cap and there’s so many players that support what are called the more known or star players. That’s important.

“The focus is to surround these players with a system and a way of playing that is going to maximize everybody.”

Dos Santos, 48, has won everywhere he’s managed with one exception: his only other MLS head coaching stint in Vancouver, where he spent parts of three seasons, two of which were impacted heavily by the coronavirus pandemic.

He got his coaching start in his native Canada, then moved to Brazil, where he coached in the youth programs of two clubs and worked as a technical director for another. He returned to North America to manage three lower-division clubs and worked as an assistant with Sporting Kansas City of MLS before Bradley named him to the first LAFC staff in 2018.

After Bradley moved on, Dos Santos returned to LAFC as part of Cherundolo’s first staff. And now, as manager, he’s brought in his own lieutenants, replacing original LAFC assistant Ante Razov with former Seattle assistant Andy Rose — who played for Dos Santos in Vancouver — and adding Spanish coach Xavi Tamarit.

“When you go from assistant coach to head coach, you have to take a few steps back. But you need to make sure you delegate to competent people,” he said. “The people that have joined are really competent and do a really good job.”

The proof of that will come on the field and Dos Santos knows he has big shoes to fill. Under Bradley and Cherundolo, LAFC was the best club team in U.S. soccer over the past eight years, winning more games, earning more points and scoring more goals than any team in MLS. It made the playoffs seven times, played in two MLS Cup finals and two CONCACAF Champions League finals, won two Supporters’ Shields and a U.S. Open Cup.

Thorrington expects the winning to continue under Dos Santos.

“I am confident that we made this decision for the right reasons,” he said. “And those who are not convinced yet will be convinced very soon.”

If they aren’t, LAFC’s famously demanding fans will be calling for the coach’s head. So even though MLS is heavily promoting the regular-season opener with Messi and Inter Miami, Dos Santos isn’t looking past his real first game in charge, which is the Champions Cup game with Real España.

“For me, the only game that counts in my head right now is the game of Feb. 17 in Honduras,” he said. “That’s where I put my energy. And then we’ll deal with the Miami game.”

A plane passenger has sparked a debate after bringing up an unspoken ‘middle seat rule’ that she demands all fliers follow, but some people have claimed she’s being ‘cheeky’

Nobody relishes being stuck with the middle seat on a plane. We all have our preferences when it comes to flying, and for virtually everyone, that means either bagging the window or aisle seat, while the dreaded middle spot remains the universally unwanted option for most travellers.

The middle seat earns its poor reputation because it offers none of the perks associated with its neighbours. You’re denied the scenic views enjoyed by window-seat occupants, and you miss out on the additional legroom that comes from stretching into the aisle. What’s more, if you’re flying solo, you’ll typically find yourself sandwiched between two strangers.

One woman has recently taken to social media to argue that there should be an unwritten “rule” observed by all air travellers, granting middle-seat passengers a modest degree of comfort – though whilst many backed her stance, others branded her simply “cheeky”.

Australian Molly Wroe posted a video on TikTok documenting her middle-seat ordeal on a recent flight. Throughout her journey, she found herself trapped between two male passengers who wouldn’t allow her access to either armrest – which she insisted violated a crucial unspoken aviation etiquette.

She questioned: “Who’s gonna tell these men I get both arm rests because I’m in the middle??”

She reinforced her position in the caption, stating: “Middle person gets both armrests.”

This unofficial etiquette surrounding the middle seat has been debated before. It’s frequently suggested that passengers occupying the window and aisle seats shouldn’t monopolise their inner armrests, given they already benefit from an outer armrest plus the additional perks of avoiding the middle position.

Consequently, many argue that the middle seat passenger ought to have access to both armrests flanking their seat, as they’re denied the privilege of a decent view or extra legroom. This was precisely Molly’s argument in her video – though not everyone saw eye to eye with her stance.

Several commenters on her clip branded her “cheeky” for expecting access to both armrests. They contended there’s no “airline rule” stipulating the middle seat gets armrest priority, suggesting instead that she should simply ask her neighbouring passengers if they’d mind shifting their arms.

One person questioned: “Why would you get both, and they both get zero?” Another remarked: “Absolutely not, one each, which is fair; there are no rules regarding arm rests.”

A third commented: “Why don’t you tell them instead of filming? It’s not an official rule that the middle seat gets both armrests.”

However, others leapt to Molly’s defence, insisting it’s an unwritten rule rooted in basic courtesy. Whilst it’s neither a legal requirement nor an airline regulation that’s actively enforced, most passengers would willingly relinquish the armrest out of compassion, recognising that the middle seat is utterly miserable and warrants some degree of comfort.

One commenter remarked: “Everyone in the comments is not getting it, but you’re right. It’s an unofficial rule, but it’s just polite. Middle gets nothing, so they get both armrests. The window and the aisle each get their outer armrest and all the other perks.”

Another contended: “The window seat gets one armrest and the window, aisle seat gets one armrest and obviously the aisle to get up whenever they like, and the centre seat gets no window, no getting up when they like and BOTH armrests. THAT’S THE RULE ON ANY AND ALL AIRLINES.”

A third added: “They both have one on the outside, one gets the window, and one has free access to the toilet. Would seem fair to me.”