problem

The Lakers underwent some soul-searching at practice Saturday, with coach JJ Redick starting the conversation before allowing players to speak freely about the team’s issues.

It was an attempt by Redick and the team to prevent things from spiraling out of control after three consecutive losses.

When the Lakers faced the Sacramento Kings on Sunday night at Crypto.com Arena, Redick wanted to see players executing on defense and playing harder.

The Lakers did exactly that, with Luka Doncic and LeBron James leading the way to a 125-101 win.

For the Lakers, it was more than Doncic finishing with 34 points, seven assists and five rebounds. It was Doncic playing defense, illustrated best when he blocked a shot by DeMar DeRozan. It was Doncic hustling, such as when he dove to the floor for a loose ball.

It was more than James scoring 24 points and handing out five assists. It was James throwing down a reverse dunk and offering words of wisdom to teammates.

And it also was reserve Nick Smith Jr. finding a role in the rotation and producing, one of the six Lakers scoring in double figures. Smith had 21 points on eight-for-14 shooting, making five of 10 threes.

Rui Hachimura had 12 points, Deandre Ayton had 11 points and 11 rebounds, and Jake LaRavia had 11 points.

The Lakers (20-10) took control from the start of the third quarter, going on a 13-2 run to give them a 26-point lead that reached as high as 30 in the fourth quarter.

Granted, the Kings (8-24) have the second-worst record in the West and were missing injured stars Zach LaVine, Domantas Sabonis and Keegan Bradley, three of their top four scorers.

But the Lakers lost three straight games because of poor defense and an overall effort that Redick described as “terrible.”

And with Austin Reaves out for at least a month because of a calf strain, getting the chance to talk through their issues might end up changing the team’s fortunes.

“They’re trying, and you know, I told the guys, this is normal,” Redick said. “There’s very few teams that don’t hit troughs throughout the season. It’s not all peaks. … It’s just a natural cycle that every team goes through.

“So we need to identify the problems and then come up with the solutions. So that’s just the process that we’re in the middle of right now.”

Collum agreed with the VAR decision not to award a penalty against Fernandez in Rangers’ 2-2 draw with Dundee United at Tannadice. On that occasion, the ball appeared to clip the defender’s arm as it dropped from a United throw-in.

The head of refereeing said the incident was “not punishable in any shape or form” and also agreed with the awarding of a late Rangers penalty, which Nedim Bajrami converted after a foul by Will Ferry on Max Aarons.

Collum similarly backed the decision not to award a spot-kick against Hearts’ Harry Milne as he blocked a Kyrell Wilson shot on the line as hosts Falkirk attacked. Collum said it was “one million per cent not a penalty kick” because Milne had his arm tucked in against his body.

Celtic defender Liam Scales had a penalty awarded against him for handball in his side’s 2-1 win at Hibernian and Collum again agreed, saying: “It’s the right decision.”

Hearts claimed unsuccessfully for a spot-kick in their 1-1 draw at home to Kilmarnock after Dominic Thompson appeared to head the ball on to his hand. Collum again backed his officials’ decision.

Two incidents during Rangers’ 3-0 win at Kilmarnock were also given Collum’s approval.

Goalkeeper Jack Butland’s challenge on Killie’s Bruce Anderson outside the box was not judged to have merited a red card, and an off-the-ball pull by Mohamed Diomande on David Watson on the edge of the box also went unpunished. Collum believes both incidents were judged correctly.

The holidays have arrived once again. You know, that annual festival of goodwill, compulsory spending and the dawning realization that Santa and Satan are anagrams.

Even in the best of years, Americans stagger through this season feeling financially woozy. This year, however, the picture is bleaker. And a growing number of Americans are feeling Grinchy.

Unemployment is at a four-year high, with Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, declaring, “The U.S. economy is in a hiring recession.” And a new PBS News/NPR/Marist poll finds that 70% of Americans say “the cost of living in the area where they live is not very affordable or not affordable at all.”

Is help on the way? Not likely. Affordable Care Act subsidies are expiring, and — despite efforts to force a vote in the House — it’s highly likely that nothing will be done about this before the end of the year. This translates to ballooning health insurance bills for millions of Americans. I will be among those hit with a higher monthly premium, which gives me standing to complain.

President Trump, meanwhile, remains firmly committed to policies that will exacerbate the rising cost of getting by. Trump’s tariffs — unless blocked by the Supreme Court — will continue to raise prices. And when it comes to his immigration crackdown, Trump is apparently unmoved by the tiresome fact that when you “disappear” workers, prices tend to go up.

Taken together, the Trump agenda amounts to an ambitious effort to raise the cost of living without the benefit of improved living standards. But if your money comes from crypto or Wall Street investments, you’re doing better than ever!

For the rest of us, the only good news is this: Unlike every other Trump scandal, most voters actually seem to care about what’s happening to their pocketbooks.

Politico recently found that erstwhile Trump voters backed Democrats in the 2025 governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia for the simple reason that things cost too much.

And Axios reports on a North Carolina focus group in which “11 of the 14 participants, all of whom backed Trump last November, said they now disapprove of his job performance. And 12 of the 14 say they’re more worried about the economy now than they were in January.”

Apparently, inflation is the ultimate reality check — which is horrible news for Republicans.

Trump’s great talent has always been the audacity to employ a “fake it ‘till you make it” con act to project just enough certainty to persuade the rest of us.

His latest (attempted) Jedi mind trick involves claiming prices are “coming down tremendously,” which is not supported by data or the lived experience of anyone who shops.

He also says inflation is “essentially gone,” which is true only if you define “gone” as “slowed its increase.”

Trump may dismiss the affordability crisis as a “hoax” and a “con job,” but voters persist in believing the grocery scanner.

In response, Trump has taken to warning us that falling prices could cause “deflation,” which he now says is even worse than inflation. He’s not wrong about the economic theory, but it hardly seems worth worrying about given that prices are not falling.

Apparently, economic subtlety is something you acquire only after winning the White House.

Naturally, Trump wants to blame Joe Biden, the guy who staggered out of office 11 months ago. And yes, pandemic disruptions and massive stimulus spending helped fuel inflation. But voters elected Trump to fix the problem, which he promised to do “on Day One.”

Lacking tangible results, Trump is reverting to what has always worked for him: the assumption that — if he confidently repeats it enough times — his version of reality will triumph over math.

The difficulty now is that positive thinking doesn’t swipe at the register.

You can lie about the size of your inauguration crowd — no normal person can measure it and nobody cares. But you cannot tell people standing in line at the grocery store that prices are falling when they are actively handing over more money.

Pretending everything is fine goes over even worse when a billionaire president throws Gatsby-themed parties, renovates the Lincoln Bedroom and builds a huge new ballroom at the White House. The optics are horrible, and there’s no doubt they are helping fuel the political backlash.

But the main problem is the main problem.

At the end of the day, the one thing voters really care about is their pocketbooks. No amount of spin or “manifesting” an alternate reality will change that.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

The Thai-Cambodian tension is almost uniformly treated as a manageable bilateral issue, serious but contained, sensitive but familiar. This is a mistake. The real implication of the dispute is not the danger it poses of immediate escalation but rather what it indicates of the future security order of Southeast Asia and of ASEAN’s decreasing strategic relevance in the formation of that order. The problem is not that ASEAN lacks goodwill or experience, but that it is increasingly misaligned with the type of conflicts now emerging within its own region. At the heart of the dilemma is a category mistake: ASEAN was never constituted to arbitrate or adjudicate, only to regulate. Its diplomatic culture emphasizes confidence-building practices and the maintenance of open, institutionalized avenues for dialogue. Those are things necessary and reasonable. Territory sovereignty is different; it is zero-sum and domestically chiseled. As such, solving such disputes with ASEAN’s traditional toolkit is to operate outside one’s skill set, not unlike an artist trying to bake a cake.

Border tensions play a role in domestic politics on both sides. They play into narratives of sovereignty, justify military readiness, and distract from internal pressures. Crucially, escalation is not an end in itself. Escalation has its risks; resolution has its concessions. Protracted ambiguity, on the other hand, can be handled politically. ASEAN’s preference for dialogue without deadlines, restraint without enforcement, and consensual rather than arbitrated decision-making seems to reproduce this state of equilibrium. This dynamic is often misinterpreted as diplomatic paralysis. It is instead the reflection of a stable, albeit fragile, strategic equilibrium. ASEAN offers a forum for de-escalation. From the standpoint of member states, this is not an institutional malfunction but a rational outcome. The costs of change exceed the benefits, especially when national leaders must answer to domestic audiences that reward toughness over compromise. Where this method turns strategically perilous is in the aggregate. Managed conflicts are not frozen conflicts; they harden over the years. Military interventions are normalized, crisis rhetoric becomes established, and trust dribbles away. What begins as stability based on restraint gradually transforms into militarized coexistence. This process is not the escalation of the crisis but its solidification. As strife becomes routine, the region becomes accustomed to permanent insecurity, and politicians come to treat it as usual, not abnormal.

The regional context renders this trend more significant. Southeast Asia is not functioning in a permissive strategic environment today. Competition among the great powers is increasingly shaping the calculations of states in the region. Thailand’s security ties and Cambodia’s external alignments are not marginal to the conflict; they are part of its strategic backdrop. With external alignments solidifying, tensions within the region are becoming less easy to isolate. Even when they are not directly involved, the great powers’ presence changes bargaining behavior, threat perceptions, and strategic confidence. ASEAN can least afford to see its centrality challenged now. Centrality is strategically and politically meaningful when regional institutions make rather than take outcomes. When disagreements are settled outside the ASEAN framework through bilateral interests, external balancing, or strategic ambiguity, the organization’s role is so minimal as to be symbolic at worst. The consultations and statements continue, but the real influence is shifting elsewhere. ASEAN, over time, also runs the risk of becoming a platform on which it simply reacts rather than organizes and shapes regional strains.

The economic aspect makes the matter even more complex. ASEAN’s integration project presupposes a degree of predictability and strategic restraint. However, it is not entirely effective while security tensions between the two remain unresolved. Border disputes impede cross-border trade and infrastructure planning and introduce risk into investment calculations. They seldom produce immediate or dramatic changes, but they do build up. For a while, economic integration can coexist with political tensions, but not forever. Often, uncertainty begins to erode confidence, particularly in mainland Southeast Asia, where connectivity is most vulnerable to instability. The fundamental problem, then, is not whether ASEAN can stop war. It pretty much can, and it often does. The more profound question, then, is whether war prevention is sufficient in a region under such long-term strategic duress. A security order based solely on restraint, without avenues for resolution, will erode its ability to adapt. It treats the symptoms and not the causes of these problems. This does not necessitate that ASEAN turn away from its founding principles, but rather that it apply them in new and innovative ways. Consensus and respect for non-interference continue to be the pillars of regional cohesion. However, they no longer suffice. Without additional tools in the toolbox, such as informal arbitration, issue-specific mediation regimes, or more explicit regional norms on appropriate dispute behavior, ASEAN will remain trapped in a stance of containment, with no progress.

Overall, the Thai–Cambodian tension is no mere side issue. It shows how latent tensions, domestic politics, and external competition converge in ways that ASEAN cannot fully control. The risk is not a sudden breakdown but strategic stagnation: a region at peace but progressively divided, stable but strategically tenuous, and whose members continue to hesitate over which direction they want to take. If ASEAN is ever to have a fundamental, not just a token, role, it has to face up to this fact, not just in rhetoric but in its structures. This decision will determine whether the future security structure in Southeast Asia is built on deterrence of conflict or on the tolerance of latent tensions as the price of regional cohesion.

Sunday, 10 a.m. TV: CBS, Paramount+.

Line: Bills by 10½. O/U: 41½.

After an amazing comeback against a really strong New England team last Sunday, the Bills are emboldened and Josh Allen is on an MVP pace. Cleveland relies on its stout defense, but that unit didn’t show up in Week 15 against Chicago, surrendering 31 points. Buffalo, which is 7-2 outside the division, wins this going away.

Pick: Bills 27, Browns 16