women

When Diane Keaton was 11, her father told her she was growing into a pretty young woman and someday, a boy would make her happy. She was horrified. One boy? Keaton — then going by her birth name of Diane Hall — needed to be loved by everyone. It was an early sign that she was meant to be an actor.

“Intimacy meant only one person loved you, not thousands, not millions,” Keaton wrote decades later in her 2011 memoir “Then Again.” Like drinking and smoking, she added, intimacy should be handled with caution.

“I wanted to be Warren Beatty, not date him,” Keaton confessed, romancing fellow artists as long as their relationship was mutually stimulating and then after that, remaining friends. “I collect men,” she jokingly told me when I interviewed her a decade ago, referring to a photo wall in her Los Angeles home of fellows she admired, including Morgan Freeman, Abraham Lincoln, Gary Cooper and John Wayne. She wanted an excuse to add Ryan Gosling and Channing Tatum, so I suggested a love-triangle comedy as a twofer. “No! Not one movie!” Keaton exclaimed. “I want to keep my career going.”

Just as she hoped, millions of us did fall in love with Keaton, who died Saturday at age 79. She captivated us for over 50 years, from awards heavy-hitters to a late-career string of hangout comedies that weren’t about anything more than the joy of spending time with Diane Keaton, or in the case of her 2022 body swap movie “Mack & Rita,” the thrill of becoming Diane Keaton.

In her final films, including “Summer Camp” and the “Book Club” franchise, Keaton pretty much only played variations of herself, providing reason enough to watch. I looked forward to the moment her character fully embraced looking like Diane Keaton, writing in my otherwise middling review of “Mack & Rita” that the sequence in which she “picks up a kooky blazer and wide belt is presented with the anticipation of Bruce Wayne reaching for his cowl.”

I wanted to be Diane Keaton, even if she wanted to be Warren Beatty.

The contradiction of her career is that the things we in the audience loved about her — the breezy humor, the self-deprecating charm, the iconic threads — were Keaton’s attempts to mask her own insecurities. She struggled to love herself. Even after success, Keaton remained iffy about her looks, her talent and her achievements. In interviews, she openly admitted to feeling inadequate in her signature halting, circular stammers. That is, when she’d consent to be interviewed at all, which in the first decade of her career was so rare that Keaton, loping across Central Park in baggy pants to the white-on-white apartment where she lived alone, was essentially a movie star Sasquatch.

Journalists described her as a modern Garbo. “Her habit is to clutch privacy about her like a shawl,” Time Magazine wrote in 1977, the year that “Annie Hall” and “Looking for Mr. Goodbar” established Keaton as a kooky sweetheart with serious range. I love that simile because she did refer to her wardrobe as an “impenetrable fortress.” The more bizarre the ensemble — jackets over skirts over pants over boots — the less anyone would notice the person wearing it.

Odd ducks like myself adored the whole package, including her relatable candor. She showed us how to charge through the world with aplomb, even when you’re nervous as heck.

Once young Keaton decided she wanted to perform, she set about auditioning for everything from the church choir and the cheerleading squad to the class play. But her school had a traditionally beautiful ingenue who landed the leads. This was Orange County, after all. Keaton would go home, stare at the mirror and feel disappointed by her reflection. She dreamed of looking like perky, platinum blond Doris Day. Instead, she saw a miniature Amelia Earhart. (She’d eventually get a Golden Globe nomination for playing Earhart on television in 1994.)

Keaton stuck a clothespin on the tip of her nose to make it smaller, and acted the part of an extrovert: big laugh, big hair and, when she stopped liking her hair, big hats. By age 15, she was assembling the bold, black and white wardrobe she’d wear forever and her taste for monochrome clothes was already so entrenched that she wrote Judy Garland a fan letter wondering why Dorothy had to leave Kansas for garish Oz. She might have been the only person to ever ask that question.

Not too long after that, Keaton flew across the country to New York where several things happened in short succession that would have puffed up anyone else’s ego. The drama coach Sanford Meisner gave her his blessing. The Broadway hit “Hair” gave her the main part (and agreed she could stay fully clothed). And “The Godfather,” the No. 1 box office hit of 1972, plucked Keaton from stage obscurity to give the fledgling screen actor its crucial final shot, a close-up.

Keaton made $6,000 for “The Godfather,” less than a quarter of her salary for the national deodorant commercial she’d shot a year earlier. Her memories from the set of the first film were uncharacteristically terse. Her wig was heavy, her part was “background music” and the one time Marlon Brando spoke to her, he said, “Nice tits.”

Nevertheless, Keaton’s Kay is so soft, friendly and assured when she first meets the Corleone clan at a wedding, sweetly refusing to let her boyfriend Michael dodge how the family knows the pop singer Johnny Fontane, that it’s heartbreaking (and impressive) to watch her become smaller and harder across her few scenes. But Keaton says she never saw the finished movie. “I couldn’t stand looking at myself,” she wrote in “Then Again.”

Woody Allen put the Keaton he adored front and center when he wrote “Annie Hall.” He wanted audiences to fall in love with the singular daffiness of his former girlfriend and it worked like gangbusters. It’s my favorite of his movies and my favorite of hers, and there’s just no use in pretending otherwise, as obvious of a pick as it is. Even now that I know the Annie Hall I worship is a shy woman putting on a show of being herself, the “la-di-dah” confidence she projects makes her the most precious of screen presences: the icon who feels like friend.

But I wonder if Allen also made “Annie Hall” so that Diane Keaton could fall in love with Diane Keaton just as he had. Maybe if she saw herself through his eyes, it could convince her that she really was sexy, sparkling and hilarious. But Keaton only watched “Annie Hall” once, in an ordinary theater well after it opened, and she found the experience of staring at herself miserable. She never absorbed her lead actress Oscar win. “I knew I didn’t deserve it,” she said. “I’d won an Academy Award for playing an affable version of myself.”

Nearly herself, that is. The onscreen version of Keaton is stumped when Alvy Singer brings her a copy of the philosophical tome “Death and Western Thought.” But a decade later, Keaton directed “Heaven,” an entire documentary about the subject, in which she asked street preachers and Don King and her 94-year-old grandmother how they imagined the afterlife. (As in Allen’s movie, her grandmother actually was named Grammy Hall.)

“Heaven” is an experimental film that’s heavy on dramatic shadows and surreal old movie footage, the sort of thing that would play best on an art gallery wall. It flopped, as test screenings warned it would, cautioning Keaton that her directorial debut only appealed to female weirdos — people like her. Keaton isn’t a voice in the film. Yet, that she made it at all makes every frame feel personal, and you hear her affection for the cadence of her occasionally tongue-tied subjects. Her first interviewee stutters, “Uh, heaven, heaven is, uh, um, let me see.” Exactly how Annie Hall would have put it.

Today more than ever, I’m wishing Keaton had been comfortable turning her camera on herself. I’d have liked to watch her explain where she thinks she’s gone, however adorably flustered the answer. But in her four memoirs, she safely bared all in print, openly confronting her harsh inner critic, her battle with bulimia, and — yes, Alvy — her musings on death.

“I don’t know if I have the courage to stare into the spectacle of the great unknown,” Keaton wrote in 2014’s “Let’s Just Say It Wasn’t Pretty,” sounding as apprehensive as ever. “I don’t know if I will make bold mistakes, go out on a blaze of glory unbroken by my losses, defy complacency, and refuse to face the unknown like the coward I know myself to be.”

At last, a sliver of confidence peeks out. “But I hope so.”

On behalf of her millions of fans, I hope so too.

ROME — The Vatican took the unusual step on Monday of announcing that it had named judges to decide the fate of a famous ex-Jesuit artist, whose mosaics decorate basilicas around the world and who was accused by more than two dozen women of sexual, spiritual and psychological abuse.

The case of the Rev. Marko Ivan Rupnik badly tarnished the legacy of Pope Francis, given suggestions that the Jesuit pope, the Jesuit religious order and the Jesuit-headed Vatican sex abuse office protected one of their own over decades by dismissing allegations of misconduct against him.

The Vatican office that manages clergy sex abuse cases, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said that the five judges named to hear the Rupnik case in a canonical court include women and priests who don’t hold jobs in the Vatican bureaucracy.

It said that such a composition was “done in order to better guarantee, as in any judicial process, the autonomy and independence of the aforementioned court.”

The statement suggested an implicit recognition that prior to now, the Vatican’s handling of the Rupnik file had been anything but autonomous or independent.

Famous artist accused

Rupnik’s mosaics grace some of the Catholic Church’s most-visited shrines and sanctuaries around the world, including at the shrine in Lourdes, France, in the Vatican, a new basilica in Aparecida, Brazil, and the chapel of Pope Leo XIV’s own Augustinian religious order in Rome.

The Rupnik scandal first exploded publicly in late 2022 when Italian blogs started reporting the claims of nuns and other women who said they had been sexually, spiritually and psychologically abused by him, including during the production of his artwork.

Rupnik’s Jesuit religious order soon admitted that he had been excommunicated briefly in 2020 for having committed one of the Catholic Church’s most serious crimes — using the confessional to absolve a woman with whom he had engaged in sexual activity. But he continued working and preaching.

The case continued to create problems for the Jesuits and Francis, though, since more women came forward saying they too had been victimized by Rupnik, with some of their claims dating back to the 1990s.

The Jesuits eventually kicked him out of the order after he refused to respond to allegations by about 20 women, most of whom were members of a Jesuit-inspired religious community that he co-founded in his native Slovenia, which has since been suppressed.

The Vatican initially refused to prosecute, arguing the women’s claims were too old. The stall exposed both the Vatican’s legal shortcomings, where sex crimes against women are rarely prosecuted, and the suggestion that a famous artist like Rupnik had received favorable treatment.

Trial about to start

While Francis denied interfering in a 2023 interview with the Associated Press, he eventually caved to public pressure and waived the statute of limitations so that the Vatican could open a proper canonical trial.

Two years later, the Vatican statement on Monday indicated that the trial was about to start. The judges, appointed on Oct. 9, will use the church’s in-house canon law to determine Rupnik’s fate, though it’s still not even clear what alleged canonical crimes he is accused of committing. The Vatican statement didn’t say. He hasn’t been charged criminally.

To date, Rupnik hasn’t responded publicly to the allegations and refused to respond to his Jesuit superiors during their investigation. His supporters at his Centro Aletti art studio have denounced what they have called a media “lynching.”

Some of Rupnik’s victims have gone public to demand justice, including in a documentary “Nuns vs. The Vatican” that premiered last month at the Toronto International Film Festival. They welcomed word on Monday that the trial would finally start, attorney Laura Sgro said.

“My five clients requested 18 months ago to be recognized as injured parties in the proceedings, so we hope that their position will be established as soon as possible,” Sgro said in a statement. “They have been waiting for justice for too many years, and justice will be good not only for them but also for the church itself.”

The Catholic Church’s internal legal system doesn’t recognize victims of abuse as parties to a canonical trial but merely third-party witnesses. Victims have no right to participate in any proceedings or have access to any documentation.

At most, they are entitled to learn the judges’ verdict. Unlike a regular court, where jail time is possible, canonical penalties can include sanctions such as restrictions from celebrating Mass or even presenting oneself as a priest, if the judges determine a canonical crime has occurred.

Legal hurdles to justice

But it’s not even clear whether the Vatican considers the women to be abuse “victims” in a legal sense. While the Holy See over the last 25 years has refined the canonical rules to prosecute priests who sexually abuse minors, it has rarely prosecuted sex-related abuse cases involving women, contending that any sexual activity between adults is consensual.

The Rupnik case, though, also involves allegations of spiritual and psychological abuse in relations where there was an imbalance of power. It’s one of many such #MeToo cases in the church where women have said they fell prey to revered spiritual gurus who used their power and authority to manipulate them for sexual and other ends.

The Vatican, though, has generally refused to prosecute such cases or address this type of abuse in any canonical revisions, though Francis authorized a study group to look into allegations of “false mysticism” before he died.

Leo has expressed concern in general that accused priests receive due process. But he had firsthand experience dealing with an abusive group in Peru that targeted adults as well as minors, including through spiritual abuse and abuse of conscience.

In a letter earlier this year to a Peruvian journalist who exposed the group’s crimes, Leo called for a culture of prevention in the church “that does not tolerate any form of abuse — whether of power or authority, conscience or spiritual, or sexual.”

Winfield writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Sen. Alex Padilla apparently dreams of becoming California’s next governor. He’s thinking hard about entering the race to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom. And Katie Porter may have just opened the starting gate for him.

Porter has been regarded as the early front-runner. But she tripped and stumbled badly during a contentious, unprofessional and rude performance in a recent routine TV interview that went viral.

We don’t know the extent of her injury. But it was certainly enough to make Padilla’s decision a lot easier. If he really deep down covets the job of governor, the time seems ripe to apply for it.

Padilla wouldn’t need to vacate the Senate merely to run. He’d have what’s called a “free ride”: He doesn’t face reelection next year because his Senate term runs through 2028.

But a Senate seat is gold plated. No term limits — a job often for life. It offers prestige and power, with sway over a global array of issues.

Why would Padilla trade that to become the governor whose state is plagued by homelessness, wildfires and unaffordable living for millions?

For starters, it’s not much fun these days to be in the toothless Senate minority as a Democrat.

The California governor has immense power over spending and taxes, the appointment of positions ranging from local fair board members to state Supreme Court justices and the fate of hundreds of bills passed each year by the Legislature.

You lead the most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy.

The office provides an automatic launching pad for anyone with presidential aspirations, such as the termed-out present occupant.

Anyway, Padilla, 52, is a proud native Californian, raised in the San Fernando Valley with strong ties to the state.

And he’s immensely qualified to be governor, having served well in local, state and federal branches of government: Los Angeles City Council, state Senate, California secretary of State and the U.S. Senate.

There has been speculation for weeks about his entering the gubernatorial race. And in a recent New York Times interview, he acknowledged: “I am weighing it.”

“Look, California is home,” he said. “I love California. I miss California when I’m in Washington. And there’s a lot of important work to do there. … I’m just trying to think through: Where can I be most impactful.”

How long will he think? “The race is not until next year,” he said. “So that decision will come.”

It should come much sooner than next year in order to be elected governor in this far-flung state with its vast socio-economic and geographic diversity.

Former Democratic Rep. Porter from Orange County has been beating him and every announced candidate in the polls — although not by enough to loudly boast about.

In a September poll by Emerson College, 36% of surveyed voters said they were undecided about whom to support. Of the rest, 16% favored Porter and just 7% Padilla.

In an August survey by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, 38% were undecided. Porter led with 17%. The nearest Democrat at 9% was Xavier Becerra, former secretary of U.S. Health and Human Services, state attorney general and 12-term congressman. Padilla wasn’t listed.

Why Porter? She gained renown during congressional hearings while grilling corporate executives and using a white board. But mainly, I suspect, voters got to know her when she ran statewide for the U.S. Senate last year. She didn’t survive the primary, but her name familiarity did.

By contrast, Padilla has never had a tough top-of-the-ticket statewide race. He was appointed by Newsom to the Senate in 2021 to fill the vacancy created by Kamala Harris’ election as vice president.

Democratic strategist Garry South says it would be “risky” for Padilla to announce his candidacy unless he immediately became the front-runner. That’s because he’d need that status to attract the hefty campaign donations required to introduce himself to voters.

“Unlike the governor, a California senator is not really that well known,” the strategist says. “And he hasn’t been a senator that long. I don’t think voters have a sense of him. In order to improve his [poll] numbers, he’s going to have to spend a lot of money. If he were an instant frontrunner, the money would flow. But if he jumps in with only half the votes [of

the frontrunner], there’s no reason for money to flow.

“And the longer he waits, the less time he has to raise the money.”

Porter may have eased the way for Padilla.

The UC Irvine law professor came unglued when CBS Sacramento reporter Julie Watts asked what she’d tell California’s 6 million Donald Trump voters in order to win their needed support for governor. Porter reacted like a normal irritated person rather than a seasoned politician.

She tersely dismissed the question’s premise and replied that the GOP votes wouldn’t be needed.

When the interviewer persisted, Porter lost her cool. “I don’t want to keep doing this. I’m going to call it,” she said, threatening to walk out. But she didn’t.

It was raw meat for her campaign opponents and they immediately pounced.

Former state Controller Betty Yee called on Porter to “leave this race” because she’s “a weak, self-destructive candidate unfit to lead California.”

Veteran Democratic consultant Gale Kaufman, who’s not involved in the contest, says the TV flub “hurts her a lot because it goes to likability.”

If Padilla really longs for the job, he can stop dreaming and take advantage of a golden opportunity.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California tightens leash on puppy sales with new laws signed by Newsom
Wut?: Inside tech billionaire Peter Thiel’s off-the-record lectures about the antichrist
The L.A. Times Special: At Trump’s Justice Department, partisan pugnacity where honor, integrity should be

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

Hebden Bridge has always buzzed with female energy. As a child I remember the feisty women behind the bar at the pubs where my dad used to drink, the punk-haired cafe owner and the redoubtable librarian always up for a noisy chat when we checked out our books. That was before it became known as the lesbian capital of the UK (my gay cousin from Australia once told me she was coming to Europe: “Hebden Bridge?” I asked. “How did you know?” she gasped).

Now the lass spirit of the West Yorkshire town is on display again, this time in Sally “Happy Valley” Wainwright’s new BBC One drama Riot Women, which tells the story of a group of women in their late 50s who set up a rock band.

Like me, Wainwright grew up in Calderdale; like me, she’s 62. So she too must remember the days when Hebden Bridge was more famous for its flat-capped eccentricity than its edgy coolness. At university (and spookily, Wainwright and I were both at York, though we didn’t know one another), I would regularly boast that I lived close to where poet Ted Hughes grew up (he was born in Mytholmroyd, just along the valley) and near to where his erstwhile wife and fellow poet Sylvia Plath was buried (Heptonstall, on the hill above Hebden Bridge). But I certainly didn’t dwell on the smoky, cramped pubs or the greasy spoon cafes or the unremarkable warehouse-like unbranded store where my mum bought the groceries. The town felt deeply frumpy back then.

Things are different today. I name-drop the Nisa Local on Crown Street, where my mum buys her Guardian, because it’s where Catherine Cawood’s partner Neil worked in Happy Valley. More thrillingly, my mother’s flat is at the top of the street where Cawood (played magnificently by Sarah Lancashire) lived: the climactic final car park scene after James Norton’s character, Tommy Lee Royce, sets himself alight must have been visible from her balcony. And now the souped-up Albert, on Albert Street – one of my dad’s haunts in the 70s and 80s – has been transformed into the Duke of Wellington for Riot Women, with Lorraine Ashbourne, playing alongside Tamsin Greig and Joanna Scanlan, as the landlady.

Right now I’m having breakfast opposite the Albert, at a table in the sunshine outside Leila’s Kitchen, whose Iranian owner tells me it was the original vegetarian cafe of Hebden Bridge, set up in the 1980s. She’s run it since 2019, and her Persian breakfast – eggs, walnuts, feta cheese, salad and flatbread – is a renowned speciality, as is her noodle soup and saffron and pistachio ice-cream.

In a town with a penchant for revolving doors and pop-up shops, one of the joys of visiting Hebden Bridge regularly is that it’s never the same twice. In fact, there’s currently another top-class breakfast venue, with queues heading down Valley Road while they’ve still got buns to sell: Mother, home of just-baked croissants including the almond one I tried. “It’s a bit hefty,” the assistant said as I pointed to it; in the event, I didn’t need another meal for the rest of the day.

It’s quicker to say what has been constant rather than what’s changed since I was a child. The Town Hall, with its big green doors, is the same (though they certainly didn’t have art exhibitions and a cafe there when I was a kid). The rush of the river, fast-flowing through the town and whizzing under the packhorse bridge that gave the town its name, is a welcome constant. And the Picture House is still there: where once I watched Grease, Jaws and An Officer and a Gentleman, the BBC premiered Riot Women here last week, as a thank you to the locals who put up with weeks of filming last summer.

The shop I remember best from my childhood is Innovation – and it’s still here, the institution that relaunched this unfashionable Yorkshire market town into one of the quirkiest, and coolest, spots in the north of England. It was back in 1972 that a local legend called David Fletcher bought a disused mill in the centre of the town and turned it into the quintessential gift shop-cum-cafe, the business all the other shops that came after wanted to emulate (in terms of its longevity and success, anyway). The Trades Club was always there, and always a trades union club – but now, still owned by the Labour party, it’s one of the funkiest live music and comedy venues in Britain. Sadly, Riot Women are a fictional band, but the October lineup included Grace Petrie (“the British folk scene’s funniest lesbian”), DJ Red Helen and Josie Long.

The police station I knew on Hope Street is now an antique shop; the newsagent’s on the square (now pedestrianised) has become The Remedy, where you sit at high-up tables and taste a flight of wines, also available to buy. My sister’s old bank is Coin brasserie, where she and I recently reminisced, while sipping a delicious and reasonably priced bottle of fizz, about the ancient art of cashing cheques in the very room where she’d done just that. The cashier’s counter from my own former bank, round the corner on Market Street, has been moved to the shop next door which is full of rhubarb and ginger cake and strawberries and cream cupcakes: but they’re not baked goods, they’re bath time treats – it’s the Yorkshire Soap Company. They make scented candles too, and for Happy Valley they created a special edition – watch this space for a flaming Riot Women.

A few doors along is Heart Gallery, in what was a rambling antiques centre when I was a kid: today, its Scandi-style interior showcases locally produced artworks. Across Market Street is Earth Spirit: it’s the essence of Hebden Bridge, a place to buy spices and jams, colourful knitted berets and weave-your-own brooch kits. For the inner sanctum, head up the small staircase at the back for the incense-infused den of crystals and tarot cards, pictures of hares and goddesses, witches’ guides to hats and flowers, books of spells and handbooks on angels and sacred animals. And when you’ve chosen your tome, head to the Hermit on Hope Street, settle into the coven-like basement, dimly lit by strings of fairy lights, and enjoy a proper Yorkshire brew.

Riot Women is on Sundays, BBC One, 9pm.

MEXICO CITY — Jasmín Ordóñez looks out from a wooden boat at the water as she crosses a narrow channel that connects a labyrinth of chinampas, island farms that were built by the Aztecs thousands of years ago.

“Let’s close our eyes and ask our Mother Water for permission to sail in peace,” she said as the boat moves slowly, in contrast to the frenetic traffic of Mexico City just a few miles away.

Ordóñez owns one of these island farms, first created with mud from the bottom of the lakes that once covered this area. When the boat arrives at her island, she proudly shows the corn and leafy greens she grows. Her ancestors owned chinampas, but she had to buy this one because women traditionally haven’t inherited them.

“My grandmother didn’t get any land. Back then, most was left in the hands of men,” she said. At her side, Cassandra Garduño listens attentively. She also didn’t inherit the family chinampa.

Today both are part of a small but growing group of women who have bought chinampas to cultivate sustainably in an effort to preserve an ecosystem that is increasingly threatened by urban development, mass tourism and water pollution.

Making their way in an area still dominated by men hasn’t been easy. In the chinampas of the boroughs of Xochimilco and San Gregorio Atlapulco, hardly any women work the land.

“People believe that men are the [only] ones who have the physical abilities to work them,” said Garduño. The mud stains her pale pink shirt, matching her boots. She knows her outfit gets funny looks from longtime male chinampa workers, but instead of getting upset, she finds it amusing.

After years away, she returned to San Gregorio in 2021 to dedicate herself to chinampa farming. She had gone to college and then spent long periods in Ecuador working in conservation efforts to protect manta rays and sharks. Then one day she came back to San Gregorio and was struck by the degradation of her own land: the lower water levels of the canals, the increasing pollution, the abandoned chinampas.

“That’s where I started to realize: ‘You are part of this space. And part of your responsibility is to safeguard it,’” she said.

After saving up for a year, she bought a chinampa — and was shocked to find it in such a bad state. A cleanup found pieces of armchairs, televisions and beer bottles. She worked to reopen canals that had been crammed with garbage and began planting crops. The distrust among the neighbors was palpable.

“They said: ‘Let’s see, this girl has never been down to this place, nobody knows her. And she’s already doing what she wants,’” she recalled.

But she knew much more than they thought. Garduño had learned a lot as a little girl who ran around her grandfather’s chinampa — “a paradise” of flowers. She learned that the mud from the bottom of the canals is the best fertilizer because it contains the mineral-rich ashes from the volcanoes surrounding Mexico City. She learned that planting a variety of crops keeps frost from destroying one entire crop and that the flowers attract insects, so they don’t eat the cabbage or kale.

Sharing the knowledge

“Chinampas can have up to eight rotations per year, whereas in other systems you might have two or three,” Garduño explained.

That’s why the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations recognized chinampas as one of the most productive agricultural systems on the planet. Today, her field is a melting pot of colors: the pale green of broccoli to the vivid yellow of marigolds.

Since 2016, she has been collaborating with Mexico’s National Autonomous University, advising other farmers who want to stop using agricultural chemicals and recover these traditional practices which also help preserve the ecosystem. Kneeling next to a planting bed, Garduño suggests elevating it so it won’t flood when it rains. Ordóñez takes note.

She bought this chinampa three years ago and is now seeking to obtain the “Etiqueta Chinampera,” the sustainability tag granted by the university to producers who, among other things, use mud as fertilizer instead of chemicals. With this label, their products can fetch higher prices.

Sixteen farmers have obtained the label so far, four of them women, said Diana Laura Vázquez Mendoza, of the university’s Institute of Biology, adding that the project encourages women to “take back their chinampas and produce.”

Cleaning the canals

In the chinampas supported by the university, filters made from aquatic plants are installed to clean the water and prevent the passage of carp and tilapia. Introduced in Xochimilco in the 1980s, these invasive species became predators of the most distinguished inhabitants of this ecosystem: Mexico’s salamander-like axolotl. Today, this amphibian is on the verge of extinction because of these invasive species and a combination of factors polluting the canals: the discharge of sewage from urban growth, mass tourism and agricultural chemicals in many chinampas.

“Chinampas are an artificial agro-ecosystem that was created to supply food in pre-Hispanic times to the entire population. And that endures to this day,” Mendoza said. “So the way to conserve Xochimilco is to also conserve the chinampa.”

But a walk through the area on any given Sunday makes it clear that fewer chinampas are dedicated to agriculture. Every weekend, hundreds of people come here to play soccer on chinampas converted into fields or to drink aboard the brightly painted boats known as “trajineras.” The impact of this transformation to the wetland is evident: contaminants have been found there, from heavy metals such as iron, cadmium and lead to oils, detergents and pesticides, according to a study by biologist Luis Bojórquez Castro, of the Autonomous Metropolitan University.

Most come from the treatment plants that discharge their water in Xochimilco and from the chinampas that use agrochemicals, according to Castro’s study.

Preserving what’s left of the past

“Look at the clarity of the water,” said Ordóñez as she reaches into the canal where she has installed her biofilter. She knows that taking care of the water is essential to preserving this ecosystem. This wetland is the last remnant of what was once the great Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec Empire built on the lakes that once filled the Valley of Mexico. Although today what remains of Xochimilco represents only 3% of the original extent of those lakes, it’s still key to the stability of the city. If it were to disappear, the average temperature of the capital could rise by up to 3.6 degrees, according to biologist Luis Zambrano.

Xochimilco and San Gregorio also reduce flooding during the rainy season, provide a natural carbon dioxide reservoir and are home to hundreds of species, such as herons and the Tlaloc frog. “Look at the red-headed birds in the lagoon!” exclaimed Garduño, driving home at dusk along a dirt road after a long day at her chinampa.

For her, this is still the paradise she roamed with her grandfather. She’s convinced that women are needed to preserve chinampas and hopes that within 10 years, many more will own and take care of them.

“From the shared labor of women and men, we can do what we all want, which is conserve what we have left for as long as possible,” she said.

De Miguel writes for the Associated Press. This article is a collaboration between AP and Mongabay.

Keaton was best known for her roles in Annie Hall, Reds and The Godfather films.

American actress Diane Keaton, known for her Oscar-winning performance in 1977’s Annie Hall and her role in The Godfather films, has died at the age of 79.

Keaton died in California and her loved ones have asked for privacy, a family spokesperson told People magazine on Saturday.

Keaton, who appeared in more than 60 films, stood out in Hollywood with a personal style that favoured androgynous looks: suits, turtleneck sweaters and her trademark hats.

The actress shot to fame in the 1970s with her role as Kay Adams, the girlfriend and eventual wife of Al Pacino’s Michael Corleone in The Godfather trilogy as well as her collaborations with director Woody Allen.

Keaton frequently worked with Allen, portraying the titular character in Annie Hall, the charming girlfriend of Allen’s comic Alvy Singer.

“It was an idealised version of me, let’s put it that way,” Keaton said about the film in an interview with the United States TV network CBS News in 2004.

The film also garnered Oscars for best picture, best director and best original screenplay, cementing Keaton’s place as one of the industry’s top actresses and an offbeat style icon as well.

She made a total of eight films with Allen, including 1979’s Manhattan.

Her star-making performances in the 1970s were not a flash in the pan as she would continue to charm new generations for decades, thanks in part to a longstanding collaboration with filmmaker Nancy Meyers, with whom she made four films.

A BAFTA and Golden Globe winner, Keaton scored Oscar nominations three other times for best actress for Reds, Marvin’s Room and Something’s Gotta Give.

Her many beloved films included The First Wives Club, Father of the Bride, The Family Stone and the Book Club movies.

Born Diane Hall in Los Angeles on January 5, 1946, Keaton was romantically involved with Allen, Pacino and Warren Beatty (her Reds costar), but she never married.

“I think I was really afraid of men and also very attracted to extremely talented people that were dazzling,” she told Elle magazine in 2015. “I don’t think that makes for a good marriage with a person like me, someone who just didn’t adjust well.”

Keaton is survived by her two children, Dexter and Duke, whom she adopted in her 50s.

CORONATION Street fans have been left with their mouths open after discovering TWO of the soap’s legends once were a couple.

What is even more surprising, is that these pair of actors were on the soap almost a decade apart.

7

7

7

7

The soap stars in question are Phil Middlemiss, who played love rat Des Barnes in the 90s, and current Corrie star Alison King, who is known for her role of Carla Connor.

Reddit sleuths have unearthed an old article from October 8, 1995 that confirmed they were once a couple who were “madly in love”.

The story was from when actor Phil was at the height of his Corrie fame.

Alison, however, who was just 22 at the time, was not famous and was referred to as a “surf shop girl” in the story.

In the article Phil claimed that he had “bedded 100 women” but was now “in love” with Alison.

Posting the story on the discussion forum, fans went wild at this revelation.

One wrote: “No way!!”

Another added: “How random,”

This Corrie fan said: “I still can’t get my head around this!”

A fourth added: “Small world!”

According to reports the pair dated for five years, Phil telling the Scottish Daily Record: “I’ve never been happier. She is a wonderful girl. I love her to death.”

They reportedly met at a Tenerife bar in March 1995, before splitting in 2000.

Phil confessed: “I was in love with Allie. She’s the only person I’ve ever really loved.

“But she was working in London and I was in Manchester.

7

“In another life, if I had been a bus driver and she had worked at the local baker’s shop, we would have got married and had kids by now.”

Corrie fans will well remember lothario Des Barnes who graced the cobbles throughout the 90s.

Actor Phil was a regular fixture of the ITV soap from 1990 to 1998 when he quit the show.

Phil’s character Des was known for being a charming ladies man.

7

On the soap he was married to Natalie Barnes, the Rovers landlady played by Loose Women star Denise Welch.

However, during his time on Coronation Street, Des went onto to also have an off-again romance with Raquel, who was played by the legendary Sarah Lancashire.

Raquel later moved onto her famous screen partner, Curly Watts, but it was Des that played havoc with the pair in a bid to get revenge on Raquel leaving him.

Des even sabotaged their engagement party as an act of jealousy and rage.

7

Since quitting the cobbles in the late 90s, when his character was killed off, Phil has enjoyed a varied career mixed with a series of personal setbacks.

In 2012, the actor faced bankruptcy after a film he had put his life-saving into in 2008 failed to take off as a result of the financial crisis.

It forced Phil to take money from family and friends as he told the  Manchester Evening News: “It was partly-funded by myself but I didn’t have the money to fund the rest of the film.

“Filming came to a grinding halt. It was nearly three-quarters of the way along the line. It has been a difficult time. Three-and-a-half years is a long time to fund myself without any income.

” I have had to get money from family and friends.”

Meanwhile, his former girlfriend Alison joined the soap in 2006, almost a decade after Phil left, and six years after their split.

The actress’ character Carla is best known for being the boss of the knicker factory, Underworld.

Over the last two decades she has been involved in numerous high-profile storylines, from steamy affairs to battles with alcoholism.

This is turn has seen her win numerous awards, including Best Actress at the British Soap Awards in 2012.

Coronation Street Spoilers: News & Cast Updates

The beloved British soap has been captivating audiences for decades.

The show follows the lives of the residents as they navigate love, loss, family drama, and community struggles.

Here’s the latest on:

WASHINGTON — A peace plan for Gaza touted by President Trump as a historic breakthrough is facing its first test this week after Israel and Hamas agreed in principle to an initial list of terms that could end the war.

The 20-point American plan reflects an administration losing patience with Israel, while also leveraging its relationships with Arab partners to finally pressure Hamas into a deal that would release the Israeli hostages still in its custody two years since the Oct. 7 attack.

On Wednesday evening, Trump said both parties had agreed to the first phase of his plan, securing the hostage release in exchange for a limited Israeli troop withdrawal.

“I am very proud to announce that Israel and Hamas have both signed off on the first Phase of our Peace Plan,” Trump wrote on social media. “This means that ALL of the Hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their Troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps toward a Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace.”

The president’s push comes amid an unexpected and growing divide within the Republican base over support for Israel — once seen as a bedrock of the alliance — and as Trump presents himself as a global peacemaker, ahead of the announcement of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize on Friday.

The president is expected to travel to the region over the weekend to secure the deal.

“All Parties will be treated fairly!” Trump wrote. “BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS!”

Who controls Hamas?

People attend a pro-Palestinian vigil and protest on Tuesday outside Columbia University.

(Adam Gray / Getty Images)

One former senior Biden administration official who worked on the Gaza crisis told The Times that Trump’s 20-point plan “is credible,” if not fully baked, and that Trump’s position of influence over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may give the proposal “a real chance of success.”

Devastated after two years of war, Hamas had seen its continued holding of the hostages as its only remaining leverage to ensure later stages of a peace agreement are implemented by the Israelis. Trump’s plan demands an immediate release of all of the hostages, both dead and alive, in an initial phase, preceding reconstruction of the Strip that removes Hamas from power.

An opening emerged for progress in the talks after Israel conducted an extraordinary strike on a Hamas target in Doha, shaking the confidence of the Qatari government, a key U.S. ally. While Doha has hosted Hamas’ political leadership for years, Qatar’s leadership thought their relationship with Washington would protect them from Israeli violations of its territory.

“A lot of this stems from the Israeli attack on Hamas in Doha,” said Elliott Abrams, a veteran diplomat from the Reagan, George W. Bush and first Trump administrations. “The Qataris panicked, and went to Trump to ask for defense and assurance that Israel would never do that again. And I think he had a price: to deliver Hamas.”

“Can they deliver Hamas? They can deliver the guys in Doha,” Abrams continued. “They can threaten them with expulsion. They can tell them that they’re living in fancy hotels, but they can be Palestinian refugees tomorrow morning. But the relationship between those people and the leadership on the ground is very unclear.”

U.S. officials believe it is the Egyptians, more so than the Qataris, with intelligence, sourcing and leverage on the ground in the Gaza Strip that can bring Hamas’ chain of command in compliance with a settlement. But whether Egyptian leadership is willing to exert its leverage is unclear. An unusual Egyptian military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula, in violation of the Camp David Accords that have secured Israel’s peace with Egypt since 1979, is causing widespread concern in diplomatic circles over Cairo’s intentions.

Talks over Trump’s plan have moved from Doha to Cairo.

“If talks in Cairo focus solely on the first phase of the peace plan — the release of hostages and prisoners, the first Israeli withdrawal in Gaza and the flood of humanitarian goods — there is a good chance of success,” said Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute. “But if the talks range into subsequent phases of the plan, including Hamas disarmament and deployment of third-country troops to Gaza, it will likely get bogged down as has been the case before.”

Pressure on Israel

Trump’s diplomatic push has also exposed growing concern within his administration over the damage Israel’s continued military campaign is inflicting on its global reputation — and on its support within the United States.

Over the weekend, speaking with an Israeli news outlet, Trump said that Netanyahu had “gone too far in Gaza, and Israel has lost a lot of support in the world.” It came amid reports that Trump had scolded Netanyahu over his initial reaction to Hamas’ willingness to negotiate over the plan.

“Whether you believe it was justified or not, right or not, you cannot ignore the impact that this has had on Israel’s global standing,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told CBS News on Sunday.

Much of the world supports Trump’s plan, which would see a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee oversee governance in the strip, and an international coalition funding the reconstruction of its economy and infrastructure. Palestinians would not be forced to leave the territory.

The proposal comes amid signs that Israel is rapidly losing support within the United States, with new polls showing 59% of Americans disapprove of its actions. A Pew poll showed that 55% of Republicans said they view Israel favorably — but that a growing generational divide, across party lines, risks eroding support for Israel over time.

“I think it’s gone on too long,” Megyn Kelly, a conservative commentator and former Fox News host, said last week on the Fifth Column Podcast. “I know what Hamas does, trust me. And I’ve been covering it. But that doesn’t mean that the devastation and destruction can go on forever.”

Other prominent figures on the right, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and commentators Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, have become more vocal criticizing Israel in recent months.

“Israel’s now taken out Hezbollah, it’s decimated Hamas, it had a war with Iran that we almost got dragged into,” Kelly added. “It’s time to wrap it up in this American’s view. I am entitled to that opinion. And I will not be shamed out of it by being called an antisemite.”

Netanyahu and his closest allies, including Ron Dermer, Israel’s minister of strategic affairs and a former ambassador to Washington, have long believed that Israel is best served relying more on deep ties to the American right than on Jewish Americans overall or on balanced bipartisanship. Increased opposition to the war among MAGA Republicans may force Netanyahu’s team to expedite its end.

Whether discontent on the right is driving Trump to push for a peace deal is unclear. But his personal involvement could prove key to success, regardless of his motives, Satloff said.

“The key new factor that is giving a chance to phase one is President Trump’s intense personal interest in freeing the hostages and the desire of key Arab players not to disappoint him,” Satloff said. “But we shouldn’t exaggerate the importance of even this critical factor — the entire house of cards can still collapse.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: ‘I don’t want this all on camera,’ gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter says in testy interview
The deep dive: Your guide to Proposition 50: California redistricting
The L.A. Times Special: Those hyper-realistic videos you’re seeing could be fake news — because they’re actually AI ads

More to come,
Michael Wilner

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

THE NOTORIOUS “Tinder Swindler” has claimed from his jail cell that he doesn’t remember “conning women out of hundreds of thousands.”

Simon Leviev, 35, has spoken out for the first time since his arrest in Georgia for alleged fraud.

10

10

10

Talking from his prison cell, the Israeli scammer admitted to a local celebrity lawyer Mariam Kublashvili that he is no angel but has no recollections of the alleged crimes he has been accused of, reports MailOnline.

The infamous scammer has appointed Ms Kublashivili as his new lawyer, who has since likened him to The Wolf of Wall Street.

Like the disgraced stockbroker played by Leonardo di Caprio, she believes Leviev has turned over a new leaf.

His latest claim follows an arrest made last month under mysterious circumstances following an Interpol Red Notice for alleged fraud in Germany.

Mr Leviev was cuffed at Batumi International Airport, Georgia, on September 14th.

He is currently being held in Kutaisi Penitentiary Establishment No 2 and awaiting extradition proceedings.

If convicted, he could face up to ten years behind bars.

Yesterday, Mr Leviev spoke out via Ms Kublashivili for the first time since the dramatic arrest, where he has claimed to have no recollection of this.

He said: “Under the circumstances, I believe I’m either being set up or there’s been some kind of misunderstanding.”

Leviev, whose real name is Shimon Yehuda Hayut, became the subject of a 2022 Netflix documentary after he spent years luring women on dating app Tinder, while posing as an heir to the Leviev diamond fortune.

He told his victims he was the son of Israeli diamond tycoon Lev Leviev – but he has no relation to the family whatsoever.

He was arrested in 2019 in Greece then extradited to Israel where he served a 15-month sentence for fraud, forgery and theft.

His legal team are now questioning why an Interpol notice was triggered when he entered Georgia without the Germans first going to authorities in his homeland.

Mr Leviev’s Israeli lawyer Sharon Nahari said: “To arrest him in a third country, rather than addressing the matter openly through Israel, is unfair and unacceptable.”

Mr Nahari also characterised the case as “disproportionate” and “based on weak evidence.”

10

10

10

The newly appointed Ms Kublashvili added that she fears he will not receive a fair trail due to a pre-existing biased narrative.

Referencing The Wolf of Wall Street, she claimed that Mr Leviev is now a very different person.

She highlighted that since 2022 he has embarked on a new and completely legal career and published his own memoir.

In addition to fighting his extradition, Ms Kublashvili also hopes to move Leviev from his current prison to one in Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi.

She claims that the current conditions he is being held in fail to meet basic hygiene standards.

Ten years on from being conned out of thousands, Mr Leviev’s victims remain traumatised.

While the Netflix documentary The Tinder Swindler brought their story to the world, the women he affected say the aftermath and the long road to recovery were far more difficult than anyone could have imagined.

“I’m still traumatised,” Cecilie, 36, told The Times.

Cecilie was conned into taking out nine loans totaling $250,000 (£190,000), and was hounded by creditors to the point where she contemplated suicide. 

She eventually sought help at a psychiatric unit and has spent the last seven years in therapy. 

She “never wanted to be on” antidepressants but explains that she “needed them.” 

Pernilla, 38, also contemplated suicide after learning the truth about the man she once considered a friend.

She lost the $45,000 (£33,840) she had saved for a home deposit and then doubled that amount in legal fees when she tried to take her bank to court. 

The pair have since released a book, Swindled Never After: How We Survived (and You Can Spot) a Relationship Scammer, deep dives into their traumatic journey in a bid to prevent others from falling for the same cruel tricks.

10

10

10

10

SACRAMENTO — Regardless of all the campaign jabber, Proposition 50 is not about saving democracy, stopping power grabs or veering off the moral high road. It’s about which political party controls Congress.

Or whether Republicans and Democrats share the power.

It’s also about exerting some control over unhinged President Trump. That would happen if voters across America next year flip the House of Representatives from Republican to Democrat, ending one-party rule of the federal government. Proposition 50 could help do that.

Does an obedient Republican Congress continue to allow Trump to walk all over it? Or does a new Democrat-led House exercise its constitutional duty to provide checks and balances over the executive branch?

This is what’s potentially at stake in California’s special election on Nov. 4. And it’s mostly what has motivated political donors to kick in an astronomical $128 million so far for the fight.

But let’s back up.

For many decades, state legislators drew their own districts — gerrymandering them to blatantly help themselves and their party win elections. And with some creative hands from California’s House delegation, Sacramento’s lawmakers also gerrymandered congressional districts.

It was unethical but perfectly legal. The final straw came in 2001 when legislators of both parties conspired to draw districts that protected every incumbent, whether Democrat or Republican.

California voters finally had enough and in 2008 banned gerrymandering. They assigned legislative redistricting to an independent bipartisan citizens’ commission. In 2010, voters also gave the panel responsibility for drawing House seats.

It has worked great. Politicians no longer get to choose their own voters. And the districts have become much more competitive.

District maps have always been drawn at the beginning of each decade after the decennial census — until now.

This time, Trump got worried that Republicans could lose the House in next year’s elections — a fate that has often befallen a president’s party during a midterm.

So Trump pressured Texas Gov. Greg Abbott into orchestrating a mid-decade legislative gerrymandering of his state’s House districts, with the aim of gaining five more Republican seats. The president has also been browbeating other red states to rig their congressional lines.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom quickly retaliated. He asked an eager Democrat-controlled Legislature to draw up new House maps designed to gain five new Democratic seats, neutralizing Texas’ action.

Democrats already outnumber Republicans in the California House delegation, 43 to 9. In Texas, Republicans hold 25 of the 38 House seats. Nationally, Democrats need to gain just three seats to retake House control.

Unlike in Texas, Newsom needs the voters’ permission to resume gerrymandering. That’s what Proposition 50 does, along with granting voter approval of proposed new weird-looking congressional maps drawn by Democratic lawmakers.

How weird? To make a new 2nd District Democrat-friendly, it was stretched hundreds of miles from the rural northeastern Oregon border southwestward into the urban San Francisco Bay Area.

Under the ballot measure, the independent commission would resume redistricting in 2031 after the next census. Proposition 50’s opponents contend Democrats can’t be trusted to keep the gerrymandering temporary.

And they’re hypocritically screaming about a “Newsom power grab” — without also pointing the finger at Trump and Abbott, who started this fight.

At its core, this is a brawl over raw political power. Forget any idealism.

Longtime Republican operative Jon Fleischman mixed his party’s principal talking point with reality in a recent blog:

“Prop. 50 is a naked power grab by Gavin Newsom,” he wrote.

“If it passes, five of nine safe GOP House seats in California will flip to safe Democrat, potentially flipping the House next year.”

In trying to rally Democratic voters — who outnumber Republicans by nearly 2 to 1 in California — Newsom frames Proposition 50 as essential for democracy.

“It’s all at stake,” the governor asserts, sounding a bit hyperbolic. “This is a profound and consequential moment in American history. We can lose this republic if we do not assert ourselves … and stand guard for the republic and our democracy.”

Come on, our republic will survive regardless of what happens to Newsom’s gerrymandering proposal — even if Trump does strain democracy.

Proposition 50 also is opposed on idealistic grounds — particularly by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and wealthy GOP donor Charles Munger Jr. Both were strong backers of creating the independent redistricting commission. Munger has contributed $33 million to the anti-50 effort.

“Gerrymanders are a cancer and mid-decade gerrymanders are metastasis,” Munger wrote in a New York Times op-ed last month.

If Democratic politicians gerrymander California, he asserted, “then they lose the moral high ground.”

Well, if this is the moral high ground we’re living in under the Trump regime, I’d like to move to another level.

My definition of a moral high ground doesn’t include a Congress that won’t push back against a bully president who cuts back millions in research aid to universities because he doesn’t like what they teach, who sics his own masked police force of unidentified agents on California residents, who sabotages our anti-pollution programs.

Isra Ahmad, a member of the independent commission, noted in a recent Los Angeles Times opinion piece that “California has embraced [redistricting] equity and transparency while states like Texas entrench partisan advantage.”

And she asked: “Does taking the high road matter when your opponents are willing to play dirty?”

The answer: We should all play by the same rules — even if it unfortunately requires temporary gerrymandering. After Trump leaves, we can return to the high road.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California voters were mailed inaccurate guides ahead of November special election
The interpersonal read: He’s a real pain for Gavin Newsom. And a rising Democratic star
The L.A. Times Special: In the biggest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history, some claim they were paid to sue

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

Happy Thursday. Your usual host, D.C. Bureau Chief Michael Wilner, is on assignment. So you’re once again stuck with me, California columnist Anita Chabria.

Welcome to another week of the onslaught and overload that is Trump 2.0. What should we talk about?

President Trump’s threat to use the military in more American cities? Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth’s He-Man rant to top military brass?

Or what about the government shutdown?

In a week with enough drama to make the Mormon wives on Hulu seem tame in comparison, it’s hard to know whether all of it matters or none of it. Because, of course, we desperately want none of it to matter, since it’s all just too much.

But too much is never enough for Trump. So let’s break it down, starting with the big man himself.

A protester holds a sign outside of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building on Sept. 28, 2025, in Portland, Ore.

(Mathieu Lewis-Rolland / Getty Images)

The ‘enemy within’

“I told Pete, we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military,” the Commander-in-Beef said during his Kim Jong Il-style televised address to military leaders.

“San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, they’re very unsafe places and we’re gonna straighten them out one by one,” Trump said. “This is going to be a big thing for the people in this room because it’s the enemy from within and we have to handle it before it’s out of control.”

Yes, Los Angeles, you, with your whimsical opera whodunits and Hollywood ghost tours, are a threat to American stability. Knock it off or the National Guard will knock it off for you.

Those statements from Trump came minutes after Hegseth said to his military officers, “You kill people and break things for a living. You are not politically correct and don’t necessarily belong always in polite society.”

Senior military leaders look on as President Trump speaks at Marine Corps Base Quantico on Sept. 30, 2025, in Quantico, Va.

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

Which sounds exactly like the kind of guy we should sent in to do crowd control at the Olympics. But before you dismiss the entire performance as strongman cosplay, consider how indifferent most Americans are to threats that the military will soon roll into Portland, Ore., or even our acceptance of troops in Chicago.

After L.A. and Washington, D.C., Trump has done exactly what he set out to do: Reduce our alarm at the use of the military on our streets so that it seems normal, almost benign. In fact, many now agree that this is the way to go. A recent study from the UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention found that “nearly one third of respondents (32%) agree at least somewhat that the current federal government ‘should use the military to help enforce its policies.’”

Yikes.

It is, in fact, not OK. Protesting citizens are not the “enemy within.” Democrats are not the enemy. Jimmy Kimmel is not the enemy. Heck, even tech-bro libertarians aren’t the enemy, no matter how arrogant they are.

But the last few days have seen the president, through executive orders and speeches, label all dissent and dissenters as enemies — even using state agencies to do it. After the government shutdown, the Department of Housing and Urban Development displayed a banner on its homepage that blamed the “Radical Left.”

So the president has defined the “enemy within” as those who oppose him, and now informed the military personnel that they “have to handle it.”

Armed members of the National Guard patrol on Aug. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

What about the ‘beardos’?

That Hegseth, so clever. In between celebrating death and violence, he found time to attack female service members, “weak” men, those who would dare investigate wrongdoing in the military and of course, the most dreaded of insurgents: the “beardos.”

An apparent mash-up of “beard” and “weirdo,” which would please most eighth-grade boys, Hegseth used the term to describe what he said was an “unprofessional” look of some soldiers that is henceforth forbidden.

Of all the crazy and concerning in his 45-minute rant, why do I care about this moment?

Those beardos are mostly Black and brown men. Black men are prone to a shaving bump condition called pseudofolliculitis barbae and are sometimes granted permanent shaving waivers because of it. Hegseth wants to kick out of the military men with this painful condition who don’t shave.

It’s likely also aimed at Sikh service members, who grow beards as part of their religious observance. Until now they’ve been granted exemptions too. While this is a small number of servicemen, it’s significant that Hegseth’s “unprofessional” policy targets minorities.

Hegseth made it clear what he thinks of inclusion in any form, dubbing it an “insane fallacy” that “our diversity is our strength.”

Instead, he argued that it is widely accepted that “unity is strength.”

The troubling idea there is the confusion between unity and uniformity. Can’t a Black, bearded soldier have unity with a white, clean-shaven one? Can’t a female soldier share unity and purpose, a American identity, with a male fighter? Of course.

But Hegseth, who fired top Black and female military leaders this year, was never really talking about unity, was he? At least not the pluralism that has defined American unity until now.

The bipartisan flop

Let’s bounce to JD Vance, a “beardo” whose humorlessness has become his defining trait.

“There’s a lot of emergency healthcare at hospitals that are provided by illegal aliens,” he said on Fox News, in his ongoing press tour to blame the government shutdown on Democrats. The line here, a false one, is that Democrats are demanding the federal government pay healthcare costs for undocumented immigrants.

“We turned off that funding because of course we want American citizens to benefit from those hospital services,” Vance said.

Maybe if immigrants weren’t eating so many cats and dogs, they wouldn’t need so much healthcare. But I digress.

What Vance is maybe alluding to, disingenuously, is federal law that says anyone who enters an emergency room must be provided lifesaving services. So if an undocumented immigrant is in a serious car accident and is taken to a hospital, it is required to at least stabilize the person.

The same law was used, much to MAGA consternation, to protect some abortion services in dire cases — a protection Trump largely undid.

This raises the question, should we just let seriously injured brown people die in the waiting room because they can’t produce a passport?

But it’s also true that some states — through state funds — do insure undocumented immigrants, especially children and pregnant women. California is one of the few states that offer undocumented residents of all ages and genders access to its Medi-Cal coverage, though Newsom was forced by budget concerns to scale back that access in coming years. But states that do offer this coverage are, through a quirk in federal law, reimbursed at a higher rate for emergency services, also likely what has Vance in a tizzy.

The rationale behind offering this insurance has been proved out multiple times — preventative care is cheaper than emergency care. Give a guy a prescription for heart medication and he may not have a heart attack that lands him in the emergency room.

Federal programs, though, aren’t open to noncitizens, and no federal dollars are used to support California’s expansion of healthcare to undocumented people. That ban includes folks who want to buy their own affordable insurance through the marketplaces created by Obamacare.

The real issue around insurance and the shutdown is how much the cost of this marketplace insurance is about to skyrocket for average Americans. About 24 million Americans get their health insurance through these plans, with most receiving a tax credit or subsidy to help with the costs. The Republican plan would take away those credits, leaving consumers — many in the middle class — with premiums that would at least double in the coming year.

It is somewhat shocking that Democrats are doing such a terrible job getting the word out about this — instead going on the defensive to the claims about undocumented insurance. Average people — Republican or Democrat — cannot afford a doubling of their insurance costs. This is a bipartisan issue. All Americans want affordable healthcare.

We should not sacrifice affordable insurance in favor of billionaire-friendly policies and because Democrats are fumbling an easy message.

So, unfortunately, in a week of chaos, yes, it all matters.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Here’s how the U.S. government shutdown will impact California
The what happened: Pentagon plans widespread random polygraphs, NDAs to stanch leaks
The L.A. Times special: Jane Fonda, derided as ‘Hanoi Jane’ and a traitor during the Vietnam War, is a modern-day force in Democratic politics

P.S. I’m starting a propaganda watch, because it’s becoming off the hook. This is from the Department of Homeland Security. “Defend your culture.” You mean, like, your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free?

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

Police in Peru say they have arrested the main suspects in the murders of two women and a girl whose torture was streamed live on social media in Argentina, prompting outrage and mass protests.

SACRAMENTO — A former state legislative leader says fellow Democrats in Sacramento have long ignored the housing needs of middle-class Californians. And he has a plan to help them buy a new home.

To their credit, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic lawmakers have been chipping away at regulatory obstacles to home building in recent years, particularly in the just-concluded legislative session.

But the building pace is still far behind what’s sorely needed — and what Newsom promised when he first ran for governor seven years ago. Supply doesn’t come close to meeting demand and that pushes home prices much higher than millions of middle-class families can afford.

One of the biggest raps on California is that housing costs have skyrocketed out of reach for many. That’s a big reason why lots of middle-class folks have fled the so-called Golden State for less expensive regions.

“Much of the work by the governor and the Legislature in recent years has focused on homelessness and affordable housing, both of which require taxpayer subsidies and leave the middle class behind,” says former Van Nuys lawmaker Bob Hertzberg, who was an Assembly speaker and Senate majority leader.

“Middle-class Californians just can’t save up enough for a down payment. And the few government programs to assist middle-class buyers are complex, underfunded and are restricted to first-time homebuyers.”

He notes the political consequences: “We [Democrats] haven’t done enough for them. And they’re punishing us in their voting patterns.”

Yes, the middle class has been turning right all across the country. Housing affordability is a problem in many states, but is particularly acute in California.

In July, the median price for an existing single-family home in California was $884,050, according to the California Assn. of Realtors. The normal 20% down payment would require a buyer to lay out $176,810 in cash. Not many young couples — or middle-aged either — have that much spare money on them.

The median home price varies greatly throughout the state. In San Mateo County, it’s $2.1 million; in San Francisco, $1.6 million. Other counties: Orange, $1.4 million; Riverside, $630,000; Ventura, $949,500; Kern, $390,000; Sacramento, $559,000.

Hertzberg has submitted a proposed ballot initiative for the 2026 election that would allow middle-class buyers of brand-new homes to borrow most of their down payment.

Rather than putting up 20% of the selling price in cash, the buyer would fork over just 3% — $26,522 based on the July statewide median price — and borrow the remaining 17%, or $150,289.

So, there’d be the regular first mortgage on 80% of the selling price, plus a second mortgage on the down-payment loan.

Based on Hertzberg’s calculations, for example, a three-bedroom, three-bath Santa Clarita home selling for $700,000 would require monthly payments of $4,253 on the two mortgages. That assumes a combined interest rate of 7%.

New townhouses and condos also would qualify under the program. The statewide median price for those in July was $647,000.

Why only new homes? Hertzberg says it’s “critically important” to increase the housing supply and the only way to do that is to build more. At the same time, it creates construction jobs.

Also, politically, it draws the support of developers, carpenters unions and Realtors.

And for local governments, it generates more property and sales taxes.

Who’s defined as middle class? Buyers whose household income is less than 200% of the median for their local area. Statewide, that’s $193,000. But it varies: $213,200 in Palmdale, $262,600 in Camarillo, $207,800 in San Bernardino, $177,000 in Fresno, $311,720 in San Francisco.

Unlike other government housing programs, this one isn’t limited to just first-time homebuyers. It only requires buyers to be Californians and to live in the home as their primary residence. No renting out.

The program would be administered and implemented by the California Housing Finance Agency.

“Most importantly — no cost to taxpayers,” Hertzberg says.

The “Middle Class Homeownership” act would be financed by the sale of $25 billion in revenue bonds that would create the down-payment loan pot. Borrowers must repay their second mortgage if the home is sold or refinanced within 15 years.

Regular lending institutions would arrange the loans and charge minimum fees.

“It’s very difficult to work with a government bureaucracy, so we’ll have banks handle all the paperwork,” Hertzberg says.

He says the program would be self-financed. Loan repayments would resupply the pot for additional homebuyers. He figures the $25-billion kitty would generate up to 150,000 new homes — helpful, but still well below the millions more that California needs.

Dan Dunmoyer, president and chief executive of the California Building Industry Assn., says California would need to be building 437,000 new homes annually to reach Newsom’s original campaign promise of 3.5 million by the time he leaves office after next year. Instead, we’re building only 112,000.

Hertzberg recalls that about five years ago he introduced legislation to spur middle-class home ownership. “It got loaded up with taxpayer-subsidized affordable housing and provisions from so many interest groups, I just walked away,” he says.

“Anytime there’s a nickel on the table, the interest groups find a way to grab it.”

“I was majority leader of the Senate,” he continues. “I know how to do this stuff. But I couldn’t get something just focused on the middle class.

“Let’s get them a home. Home is where the wealth is. Home is a dream.”

Hertzberg’s plan makes sense in concept. We rightly help veterans buy homes. Why not also help the entire struggling middle class.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Supporters of redrawing California’s congressional districts raise tens of millions more than opponents
The deep dive: DC Explained: Medi-Cal Cuts Loom in San Diego as ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Begins to Hit Home
The L.A. Times Special: Who’s winning the redistricting fight? Here’s how to read the polls

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

Drug gang suspected in torture and murder of two young women, and a 15-year-old girl, in crime that shocks Argentina.

Clashes have erupted between demonstrators and police as thousands protested in Argentina’s capital, Buenos Aires, to demand justice over the torture and killing of two young women and a teenager, which was livestreamed on social media by a purported drug gang.

Thousands of protesters took to the streets on Saturday to denounce the killings that shocked Argentinians after it was revealed that the murders were perpetrated live on the Instagram platform and watched by 45 members of a private account, officials said.

The bodies of Morena Verdi and Brenda del Castillo, cousins aged 20, and 15-year-old Lara Gutierrez were found buried on Wednesday in the yard of a house in a southern suburb of Buenos Aires, five days after they went missing.

Investigators said the victims, thinking they were going to a party, were lured into a van on September 19, allegedly as part of a plan to “punish” them for violating gang code and to serve as a warning to others.

Police discovered a video of the triple murder after a suspect in the disappearance of the three revealed it under questioning, according to Javier Alonso, the security minister for the Buenos Aires province.

In the footage, a gang leader is heard saying: “This is what happens to those who steal drugs from me.”

Argentinian media reported that the torturers cut off fingers, pulled out nails, and beat and suffocated the victims.

While most of the protesters who took part in the demonstration on Saturday marched peacefully, some confronted police who responded by aggressively pushing them away using their batons and shields, according to video clips and images posted by the La Izquierda Diario online news site.

As they marched towards the Argentinian parliament with thousands of supporters, family members of the victims held a banner with their names, “Lara, Brenda, Morena”, and placards with the images of the three.

“Women must be protected more than ever,” Brenda’s father, Leonel del Castillo, was quoted by the AFP news agency as telling reporters at the protest. He had earlier said he had not been able to identify his daughter’s body due to the torture she had endured.

“It was a narco-femicide!” read a sign at the protest. Another declared, “Our lives are not disposable!”

The protesters also banged on drums as they marched and denounced the “inaction” of the administration of President Javier Milei against what they called the growing “narco” influence in the country.

An image posted on social media showed protesters burning an image of Milei and other political allies of his administration.

Antonio del Castillo, the grandfather of the slain 20-year-old cousins, was in tears, calling his granddaughters’ killers “bloodthirsty”.

“You wouldn’t do what they did to them to an animal,” he said.

On Friday, Minister of National Security Patricia Bullrich announced the arrest of a fifth suspect in the case, bringing the total to three men and two women. The fifth suspect, accused of offering logistical support in the killing by providing a vehicle involved in the crime, was arrested in the Bolivian border city of Villazon .

Authorities have also released a photograph of the alleged mastermind, a 20-year-old Peruvian, who remains at large.

Meta, the parent company of Instagram, has disputed that the livestream occurred on its platform, according to the AFP, citing a company spokesperson.

WASHINGTON — In an interview with Rachel Maddow this week promoting her new memoir, Kamala Harris was asked whether her book tour is part of a strategy to run again for the presidency in 2028.

“That’s not my focus at all,” Harris replied, dismissive of the idea. “It really isn’t.”

Democratic strategists agree that her book, “107 Days,” and the tour that has followed suggests Harris lacks a serious plan for a future in elected politics, generating more questions than clarity on her path forward and future role in public life.

The book has reopened a fractious intraparty debate over who is to blame for last year’s loss to President Trump. Polls show Harris’ standing in the field of 2028 Democratic presidential contenders as relatively weak for a figure who led the party less than a year ago. And even in California, her home state, Democrats prefer another potential candidate, Gov. Gavin Newsom, over her for the next contest.

A historically weak showing

Harris argues in her book she had too little time to mount a competitive campaign after President Biden announced he would drop out of the race that July, handing the party mantle to her with little notice.

She called it “reckless” to allow Biden to make the decision to run for reelection on his own, and on tour, has acknowledged responsibility for not speaking up more on the matter herself. But she has not stated explicitly that it was a mistake for him to enter the race in the first place.

Harris would ultimately post the worst electoral college showing for a Democrat since Michael Dukakis in 1988.

“I realize that I have and had a certain responsibility that I should have followed through on,” she told Maddow. “When I talk about the recklessness, as much as anything, I’m talking about myself.”

Potential 2028 candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, many of whom already are making visits to battleground states, have seized the moment of her tour to criticize her handling of the 2024 race. Harris wrote in the book that it was her duty as Biden’s vice president to remain loyal to him, despite acknowledging that, at 81, Biden “got tired” on the job.

“She’s going to have to answer to how she was in the room and yet never said anything publicly,” Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro told a SiriusXM podcast last week.

The book touches on Shapiro as well as Pete Buttigieg, Biden’s former Transportation secretary and another possible contender in 2028, as figures she considered as potential running mates. But airing her assessments of active political aspirants has only drawn more scrutiny. On “Good Morning America” this week, asked whether her book had hurt her relationships with fellow Democrats, Harris replied, “that’s not my intention, and I hope not.”

“Harris, like other well-known Democrats, naturally wants to be a part of the national conversation — about 2024, 2026 and 2028. What happened, what should the party do, and who should lead it forward?” said Andrew Sinclair, an assistant professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. “These are all questions Democrats are actively debating now, and even if she decides not to run in the future, Harris has a high enough profile in the party to have a role in answering those questions.”

Passing on a potential run for governor of California, Harris told Stephen Colbert that she had decided America’s system of elected offices was no longer the venue for her to enact change. “I think it’s broken,” she said.

But her memoir and book tour have shed little light on what alternatives she might have in mind to remain a relevant figure in public life — or what vision she has for the Democratic Party going forward.

She concludes the book with a handful of platitudes on the need to invest in Gen Z.

“We need to come up with our own blueprint that sets out our alternative vision for our country,” she wrote.

Newsom better positioned

High-quality polls show Harris remains a leading choice for Democrats in the next campaign cycle, tied or slightly edged out by Newsom. But under the hood, data indicate that less than 20% of Democrats view her as an ideal party leader entering the coming race.

Newsom’s polling trajectory, on the other hand, has begun moving in the opposite direction.

A series of polls published late last month found support for the California governor had surged over the summer, as Newsom embraced high-profile battles with Trump over ICE raids in Los Angeles, national gerrymandering efforts and the cultural memesphere.

And after Trump took substantial time in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly this week to deride climate change as a “hoax,” Newsom is in New York, as well, to attend Climate Week, highlighting California initiatives in interviews with Colbert and the New York Times.

His combative appearances, looking forward to 2028 and beyond, offer a contrast with a book tour by Harris that has thus far focused on the past.

“Governor Newsom has deftly positioned himself as the national Democrat most consistently ready to stand up to the president, adopting the tools — his podcast — and tactics — in-your-face-social media — that proved so effective for the GOP ticket last time,” said Bruce Mehlman, a bipartisan campaign consultant in Washington.

But the pace of political change in Trump’s America makes current polling unreliable, Sinclair said.

“The 2028 election is far away at a time when the political situation in the United States is changing rapidly,” he said, adding: “At best, Democratic leaders today can put themselves in a position to be influential, but I do not think anyone knows enough about what is going to happen next to have much more of a plan than that.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Family of former DACA recipient who died in ICE custody says officials ignored his pleas for help
The deep dive: RFK Jr. wants an answer to rising autism rates. Scientists say he’s ignoring some obvious ones
The L.A. Times Special: How viral rumors worsened the fallout from an ICE raid at Santa Fe Springs Swap Meet

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Sept. 24 (UPI) — The Trump administration has terminated the nearly 75-year-old advisory committee aimed at encouraging and retaining women in the armed forces over accusations of promoting a “divisive feminist agenda,” Pentagon officials said.

The decision to disband the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services was made by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said in a Tuesday statement on X.

“The committee is focused on advancing a divisive feminist agenda that hurts combat readiness, while Secretary Hegseth has focused on advancing uniform, sex-neutral standards across the department,” she said.

Joel Valdez, Department of Defense acting deputy press secretary, defended the decision to disband DACOWITS, suggesting online that the committee was no longer needed.

“The panel, DACOWITS, existed during the last administration’s recruitment and retention crisis,” he said on X.

“With female recruitment numbers soaring under President Trump @SecWar’s leadership, it is clear that DACOWITS is not the reason women are joining the military.”

The Pentagon added: “We are cleansing the Department of wokeness.”

The committee was established in 1951, making it one of the Defense Department’s oldest advisory bodies. According to its website, it is composed of civilian women and men appointed by the Defense secretary to advise on matters and policies related to the recruitment, retention, employment, integration and well-being of women in the military.

Its disbandment comes as the Trump administration conducts a cultural overhaul of the military, in an effort to remove so-called left-leaning ideology.

Among the changes imposed by Hegseth are grooming standards to be clean-shaven and “neat in presentation,” banning transgender Americans from serving in the armed forces, tightening restrictions on media coverage and eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, among others.

It has also signaled a cultural transformation through promoting a so-called warrior ethos as counter to a “woke” culture as well as renaming military bases after Confederate soldiers who fought against the United States in the Civil War.

He has also attempted to rename the Department of Defense the department of war, a change that requires congressional approval.

During his confirmation hearings, Hegseth came under Democratic criticism for sexual misconduct, which he denied, as well as for saying that women should not serve in combat roles in the U.S. military.

The Scotland women’s national team play most home games at Hampden Park but have also used Tannadice and Easter Road of late.

Andreatta’s reign as head coach began with a narrow home defeat by Austria, which confirmed relegation back to League B, but her second game was an impressive draw away to the Netherlands.

The Scots will view the October and November friendly windows as preparation for next year’s World Cup qualification campaign, which begins in February.

Scotland have failed to qualify for the past three major tournaments, most recently missing out on this summer’s Euros following a play-off defeat by Finland last December.

Shortly after that loss, Pedro Martinez Losa left his job as head coach and Andreatta was appointed in April.

United States President Donald Trump has urged pregnant women to avoid Tylenol, the brand name for paracetamol, over the painkiller’s unproven links to autism, prompting a swift backlash from doctors and scientists.

Trump issued the warning on Monday as the US drug regulator announced plans to add a label to paracetamol warning of an increased risk of autism and ADHD in children.

“Don’t take Tylenol. Don’t take it,” Trump said during a news conference at the White House while flanked by top public health officials.

“Fight like hell not to take it,” Trump said.

“There may be a point where you have to, and that you’ll have to work out with yourself.”

Trump also cast doubt on the medical consensus on childhood vaccines, suggesting that inoculations for measles, mumps and rubella should be administered separately instead of in the combined MMR shot.

“This is based on what I feel. The mumps, measles – the three should be taken separately,” Trump said.

“And it seems to be that when you mix them, there could be a problem.”

Trump’s comments drew condemnation from medical bodies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), which have long recommended paracetamol as one of the few painkillers that is safe for women during pregnancy.

About half of pregnant women worldwide are estimated to take paracetamol – which is sold in different countries under brand names including Dyman, Panadol and Panamax – for pain relief and to reduce fevers, which can be potentially dangerous to both the foetus and the expectant mother.

ACOG president Steven J Fleischman called the suggestions of a link between paracetamol and autism “irresponsible”.

“When considering the use of medication in pregnancy, it’s important to consider all potential risks along with any benefits,” Fleischman said in a statement.

“The data from numerous studies have shown that acetaminophen plays an important – and safe – role in the well-being of pregnant women,” Fleischman said, using the name for paracetamol in the US.

While some research has found evidence of an association between paracetamol and neurological conditions such as autism, medical experts have cautioned that more robust studies have found no link, and that causation remains unproven.

One of the biggest population-based studies, published by Swedish researchers last year in The Journal of the American Medical Association, found no link when comparing children who had been exposed to the painkiller with siblings who had not.

Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, described the Trump administration’s moves as “hugely negative” for public health.

“The big reveal about autism was a total bust full of misinformation, a lack of evidence, bad advice and a bogus answer about the cause,” Caplan told Al Jazeera.

“I think mainstream medicine will ignore what he said today,” Caplan said.

“I think patients can’t trust federal science in the USA and must turn to other reputable sources.”

Catherine Lord, a professor of psychiatry at UCLA who specialises in autism, said studies showing a link between paracetamol use and autism were limited by the presence of confounding factors that are difficult to control for.

“I think the medical community will be firm that Tylenol in pregnancy does not cause autism, but will probably tell pregnant women they should always be careful about medication,” Lord told Al Jazeera.

“But they also need to realise that having a high fever or being in pain is not good for a growing baby either, so they should consult their doctor.”

In its updated guidelines announced on Monday, the US Food and Drug Administration cited evidence of a “correlation” between paracetamol use and autism, and noted studies suggesting a heightened risk when the drug is taken “chronically” throughout pregnancy.

Still, the drug regulator was notably less emphatic than Trump, noting that a causal relationship had yet to be established, and the existence of “contrary studies in the scientific literature”.

“It is also noted that acetaminophen is the only over-the-counter drug approved for use to treat fevers during pregnancy, and high fevers in pregnant women can pose a risk to their children,” the regulator said, using the other generic name for paracetamol.

Autism has no known single cause, but is believed to be related to an interplay of genetic and environmental factors, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

SACRAMENTO — John Burton was the unique sort of political leader we need much more of in today’s hate-spewing politics.

First, he dedicated his life to fighting for a cause that earned him only personal satisfaction and absolutely no political gain: the powerless poor, particularly the aged, blind and disabled.

These aren’t folks with any money to donate to political coffers. They’re not members of unions harboring large piles of campaign cash. They don’t volunteer to walk precincts before elections. Many can barely walk. They’re not organized. More likely they live lonely lives. And they never heard of John Burton.

Burton — and only Burton — had these peoples’ backs in Sacramento’s halls of power for many years. And no one has taken his place.

Second, this bleeding-heart San Francisco liberal instinctively liked and befriended many political opposites with whom he developed working relationships to achieve his and their goals. He’d loudly denounce their conservative positions on issues but not them personally — in contrast to today’s ugly, click-driven, opportunistic American politics.

Right-wingers? “I never held that against anybody,” Burton writes in his recently released autobiography, “I Yell Because I Care: The Passion and Politics of John Burton, California’s Liberal Warrior.”

“Like, you never know when you might need a right-winger for something. And when you do, it’s best to give them something in return. And it’s even better when what they want is something you don’t really care about. Sometimes, that’s the way s— gets done in politics.”

When it gets done, which is almost never these days in Congress. Things might get done in Sacramento — for good or bad — because Democrats wield ironclad control over all branches of government, unlike when Burton was a legislator during decades that required bipartisan compromise.

Burton was infamously foul-mouthed and often rude. But colleagues, staffers, lobbyists and reporters rolled their eyes and adjusted. OK, so you couldn’t always quote his exact words in a family newspaper or on TV.

At heart, Burton was a softie and extrovert who genuinely liked people of all political persuasions. And they liked him because he was a straight shooter whose word was golden — the No. 1 asset for most anyone in politics.

Softie? Longtime Burton spokesman David Seback recalls this incident when the lawmaker was Senate president pro tem, the No. 2 most powerful office in the Capitol:

“There was a guy who was pretty severely disabled who would go with difficulty using crutches from office to office delivering copies of these multi-page conspiracy theory laden packets he put together to all 120 legislators. There were some typewritten parts, some handwritten, some xeroxed photos.

“One day John stopped him and said, ‘From now on, you deliver one copy to my office.’ After that, all the legislators got a copy of these packets stamped, ‘Compliments of John Burton.’”

Most Capitol denizens — if they noticed him at all — probably dismissed this packet-carting conspiracy theorist on crutches as a sad kook. But he’s the type who was Burton’s purpose in life to help.

Burton, 92, died Sept. 7 at a hospice facility in San Francisco.

The Times ran an excellent Page 1 obituary on Burton written by former Times staffer Dan Morain. It covered the bases well: A pro-labor lawmaker instrumental in shaping California politics over six decades on topics as varied as welfare, foster care, mental health, auto emissions and guns.

Burton was integral to a powerful political organization founded by his older brother, U.S. Rep. Phil Burton, that included two of John’s closest pals: future San Francisco mayors George Moscone and Willie Brown. The organization kick-started the political careers of future U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

John Burton left Congress in 1982 to fight cocaine addiction and remained clean and sober the rest of his life. He was reelected to the Legislature in 1988, ultimately chosen as Senate leader and termed out in 2004. Then he became state Democratic Party chairman for the second time.

When Burton died, I was recovering from an illness and missed out writing about him. That bothered me. So I’m doing it now.

I got to know Burton when he was first elected to the Assembly with Willie Brown in 1964. Both were fast learners about how the Capitol worked and ultimately each was elected leader of his house.

“Sometimes all it takes to succeed in politics is to make sure somebody has a nice view of Capitol Park and an extra secretary,” Burton writes in his autobiography of rounding up enough of Senate votes to become leader.

In the entertaining book, co-written with journalist Andy Furillo, Burton writes extensively about “the neediest of the needy…. My district included a ton of single-room occupancy hotels south of Market Street that were filled with people who cooked off hot plates and had to go down the hall to the bathroom. They survived on their federal and state assistance checks.”

Governors and legislative leaders of both parties routinely ripped off these poor folks’ federal aid increases to help balance the state budget in tough economic times. Or they’d try to until Burton blocked them.

“For some people,” Burton once told me, “it can be the difference between tuna fish and cat food for lunch.”

Without calling up local TV — as most politicians would — Burton bought blankets and drove around San Francisco by himself handing them out to the homeless.

“We were brought up to be that way,” Burton told me. “My old man [a doctor], he’d do house calls in the Fillmore, a Black area, at 2 in the morning. And if the family looked like it didn’t have money, he’d say, ‘Forget it. Go buy the kid a pair of shoes.’”

Thanks to Burton, the state was forced into buying lots of tuna fish lunches for the neediest of the needy.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: ‘We’re not North Korea.’ Newsom signs bills to limit immigration raids at schools and unmask federal agents
The TK: Here’s why the redistricting fight is raging. And why it may be moot
The L.A. Times Special: Don’t hold your breath, but as raids stifle economy, Trump proves case for immigration reform

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

Donald Trump boasted crudely about groping women in a 2005 video recording made a few months after his marriage to Melania Trump, saying “when you’re a star, they let you do it.”

The recording, obtained by the Washington Post and released Friday, features Trump making lewd comments about women and saying some let him grab them in the crotch.

The disclosure plunged Trump’s campaign into crisis as GOP leaders roundly condemned their party’s presidential nominee just a month before the election.

“No woman should ever be described in these terms or talked about in this manner. Ever,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan had planned to campaign with Trump on Saturday in his Wisconsin congressional district, but said Trump was no longer attending the event.

“I am sickened by what I heard today,” said Ryan, who has previously faulted Trump for making what he called racist comments about a Latino federal judge.

“Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.”

Trump is heard in the recording talking with Billy Bush of “Access Hollywood” as they were riding a bus to the set of “Days of Our Lives” for a Trump cameo.

“I moved on her and I failed — I’ll admit it,” Trump is heard saying about a woman who was identified Friday by “Access Hollywood” as Nancy O’Dell, a former host of the show. Using a vulgar term, Trump says he tried to have sex with her and mentions that she was married at the time.

Live coverage from the campaign trail »

Trump then talks about taking the woman furniture shopping in an attempt to seduce her.

“She wanted to get some furniture,” Trump says. “I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’”

“I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married,” Trump says. “Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.”

It’s unclear from the recording whether he was already married to Melania Trump when he says these events occurred.

Trump released a terse statement when the Post published the story.

“This was locker-room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago,” Trump said. “Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course — not even close. I apologize if anyone was offended.”

In a video he posted late Friday night on Facebook, Trump apologized again, but also dismissed the uproar as “nothing more than a distraction.”

“Anyone who knows me knows these words don’t reflect who I am,” said Trump, whose frequent derogatory comments about women have proved a major liability.

Hillary Clinton, Trump’s Democratic opponent, reacted on Twitter: “This is horrific. We cannot allow this man to become president.”

For Trump, the timing of the recording’s release could hardly be worse: It came two days before a crucial debate in St. Louis — one of his last opportunities to shift public opinion and overcome Clinton’s persistent edge in the polls. Early voting has already begun in some battleground states.

Trump is struggling to improve his dismal standing among female voters. Clinton, who would be the nation’s first female president, was leading Trump among women 53% to 33% in a Quinnipiac poll released Friday.

To the dismay of fellow Republicans who fear he is hurting the party’s down-ballot candidates in the Nov. 8 election, Trump has been attacking Clinton for “enabling” her husband’s extramarital affairs.

Last weekend, Trump also accused Clinton of being disloyal to her husband, offering no evidence for the allegation.

In the 2005 recording, Trump boasts of how he likes to make advances on women.

“You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait,” he says. “And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.”

He uses another vulgarity to describe how he gropes women in the crotch. “You can do anything,” he says.

Trump’s history of making derogatory remarks about women has dogged him for more than a year.

In the first GOP primary debate, Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly asked him to explain why he’d called women “fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.”

Angered by the question. Trump later called Kelly a bimbo and said she had “blood coming out of her wherever,” widely construed as a remark about menstruation.

Clinton and her allies have hammered Trump in television and radio ads for his caustic comments about women dating as far back as the 1980s. At their first debate last week in New York, Clinton castigated Trump for calling a Latina beauty pageant winner “Miss Piggy” and “Miss Housekeeping.”

Trump later criticized the woman and urged voters to check out a sex tape that she’d allegedly appeared in. There was no sex tape.

Earlier this week, Trump said some of his past comments about women were for purposes of “entertainment.”

Bush, now a co-anchor on NBC’s “Today” show, released a statement saying he was “embarrassed and ashamed” by his conversation with Trump.

“It’s no excuse, but this happened eleven years ago — I was younger, less mature, and acted foolishly in playing along,” said Bush, a cousin of former President George W. Bush. “I’m very sorry.”

[email protected]

Twitter: @finneganLAT

ALSO

Speaker Paul Ryan disinvites Trump to his campaign event, says he’s ‘sickened’ by tape

Love Trump or leave Trump? Which Republicans are with Trump and which are against him?

Years after the Central Park Five were exonerated, Trump still suggests they’re guilty

To win Sunday’s town hall debate, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump should take a page from Bill Clinton’s book

UPDATES:

10:25 p.m. This article was updated with Trump’s video apology.

7:05 p.m.: This article was updated with reaction from Republicans.

4:50 p.m.: This article was updated with changes.

This article was originally published at 3:50 p.m.