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!”
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know in 2024. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
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.”
Oct. 8 (UPI) — Government shutdowns are the mark of some of the most tumultuous times on Capitol Hill in the United States, grinding government operations to a halt as lawmakers reach an impasse over funding.
Last week, the U.S. government was shut down after Congress failed to pass an appropriations bill or continuing resolution to continue funding employees and programs.
Republicans and Democrats stand apart on funding for Medicaid after the Republican majority and President Donald Trump passed a plan to cut access for an estimated 15 million people.
It is the third time the government has shut down during a Trump presidency.
In the last 50 years the government has come to at least a partial shutdown 11 times. Some have lasted a day or more. Others have stretched into weeks.
The Civiletti opinions
The U.S. government has faced a number of funding gaps that did not result in government shutdowns. Between 1976 and 1979, there were six funding gaps that lasted eight days or more. Government agencies continued to function.
In 1980 and 1981, everything changed. U.S. Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti penned a series of opinions that outlined how and why a government shutdown would happen.
Charged with interpreting the Antideficiency Act, a law passed by Congress in 1870, Civiletti determined that government agencies are not allowed to spend funds without approval under congressional appropriations unless “necessary for the safety of human life or the protection of property.”
Based on this interpretation, most federal employees would be furloughed during a funding gap.
Civiletti loosened his interpretation slightly in a third opinion, stating that agencies can do what is necessary to shut down in an orderly manner.
Since Civiletti’s opinions, funding gaps have resulted in government shutdowns.
Reagan administration
The federal government had funding gaps on eight occasions during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, leading to at least some government agencies shutting down. It is the most shutdowns under a single president.
Three times during Reagan’s presidency, federal employees were furloughed.
In November 1981, the government shut down for two days after Reagan vetoed an emergency resolution put forward by Congress because he sought deeper funding cuts to domestic spending while maintaining defense spending.
The House, under a Democratic majority, sought to cut defense spending, and protect spending on social safety-net programs domestically.
On Nov. 23, 1981, Congress passed a joint resolution with broad support to make continuing appropriations. Reagan signed the bill that in effect bought time for the two sides to work out a longer term funding strategy.
In 1984, Reagan and Congress sparred over a crime bill, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act. It resulted in a two-day shutdown with about 500,000 federal workers being furloughed.
Reagan wanted the bill to impose stricter penalties and limit the efficacy of the insanity defense. Democrats sought to reverse a U.S. Supreme Court decision that peeled back Title IX protections.
Democrats also wanted to approve funding for local clean water projects, which Reagan opposed.
Democrats ultimately did not get the provisions they wanted in the final bill. Reagan meanwhile achieved his goal of installing stricter sentencing guidelines such as mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related crimes and no-bail detentions. The bill also raised the standard for defendants to prove insanity.
The third shutdown during Reagan’s presidency lasted about two days. On Oct. 16, 1986, a continuing resolution that averted a shutdown earlier expired.
Welfare was at the center of the disagreement between House Democrats and Reagan. Democrats again attempted to protect and enhance social safety nets with an expansion of welfare access for families with dependent children.
Reagan’s vision was starkly different. He framed welfare as a tool that made people dependent on government support.
Democrats yielded on their push to expand welfare access with a promise that it would be discussed again in the future.Congress passed an omnibus spending bill after two days of a shutdown.
The debate over welfare in 1986 set the stage for the Family Support Act of 1988, a bipartisan bill that established the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program and created a new framework for child support payments, including wage withholding.
The 1990s
The first government shutdown of the 1990s was under the watch of President George H.W. Bush. The president wanted a funding bill that included a plan to reduce the federal deficit.
Democrats had a majority in the House and Senate.
On Oct. 5, 1990, government operations halted as Bush threatened to veto any bill that did not include the federal deficit plan he wanted. He vetoed such a bill the day after the shutdown began.
Two days later, the House and Senate passed a continuing resolution that was effectively the same as the bill they proposed just days earlier. Congress had the votes to sustain Bush’s veto this time, passing a bill to open the government.
The first of two shutdowns under President Bill Clinton began on Nov. 13, 1995, but the battle at the center of it caused a second shutdown to follow just weeks later.
Clinton and the Republican majority in the U.S. House, led by Speaker Newt Gingrich, were apart on spending cuts. Republicans were seeking cuts to Medicare as well as agenda items Clinton favored such as public health, public education and environmental programs.
Republicans put forward a spending proposal that included the cuts Clinton opposed. Gingrich said the House would not raise the debt limit either. After five days, the shutdown ended when Congress agreed to a stopgap funding bill.
On Dec. 15, the stopgap funding expired and a long-term agreement had not been made. The longest government shutdown to that point commenced through the holiday season, lasting 21 days.
Senate-majority leader Bob Dole, Clinton’s opponent in the 1996 election, urged his side to end the standstill and both sides agreed to a compromised budget bill. The bill included tax increases and restored funding to education, health and environmental programs.
Healthcare and immigration
The Affordable Care Act has been one of the more polarizing pieces of legislation on Capitol Hill in modern history. In 2013, House Republicans attempted to undercut the law by defunding it and delaying its implementation.
The Democratic majority in the Senate rejected attempts by the Republican-led House to strip funding from the ACA on multiple occasions throughout the budget negotiation process. The deadline to pass a budget bill came and went with no resolution and a 16-day shutdown began.
On Oct. 17, Congress passed the Continuing Appropriations Act to fund the government and suspend the debt limit in 2014. The bill did not include the Republican cuts to the ACA.
The first of three shutdowns under Trump began on Jan. 20, 2018. Congress failed to pass a government funding bill due to disputes between Trump’s Republican Party and Democrats over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy.
The Trump administration attempted to end the Obama-era policy, calling on Congress to replace it within six months. A federal judge thwarted Trump’s plan and the U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled against the president but the policy remained central to budget negotiations in the months to come.
The shutdown lasted less than three days before Congress passed a continuing resolution. A replacement for DACA was not included and the courts rejected Trump’s attempt to end the program by the time the continuing resolution expired. No protections for dreamers were included either.
Immigration remained a key issue when the government shut down again in late 2018. Trump called for funding for a border wall across the southern border to be included in the next budget bill. He demanded more than $5 billion for the project, saying the shutdown would not end until that funding was approved.
The shutdown lasted 35 days, the longest of any government shutdown in U.S. history. It began on Dec. 21, 2018 and ended on Jan. 25, 2019.
About 800,000 federal workers were furloughed during those 35 days. The Congressional Budget Office estimated it costs the United States about $11 billion in gross domestic product lost.
Trump signed a continuing resolution to open the government back up without any border wall funding included. When the continuing resolution expired, Congress approved $1.375 billion for border fencing, more than $4 billion less than what Trump demanded.
Mel Giedroyc and Sue Perkins’ new ITV show Win Win is set to make history this weekend as one lucky winner will walk away with the biggest prize in British TV history
ITV’s Win Win set to award record-breaking £1.5 million prize package(Image: PA)
One lucky winner is to clinch the biggest prize in British quiz-show history on Saturday night – courtesy of Mel and Sue’s big new ITV show Win Win.
The many rewards, built up over the weeks as players traded their prizes for a chance to be in the final, comprise £1million in cash plus two cars, two luxury holidays, a new kitchen, a trip to Australia to see The Ashes, a trip to Monaco to watch Formula E, Take That tickets with a meet and greet and a tech bundle comprising 16 items including a MacBook Air, smart TV and Sony Playstation 5.
And the winner of the grand final, which has not yet been filmed, could be a contestant who started off by playing along at home then went on to land themselves a spot in the studio.
This weekend’s final will see one person take away the whole lot. Over the weeks, contestants have been trading the prizes they have won for a place on the final’s Millionaire’s Row, which is how the extra prizes have been added to the £1m jackpot.
And every time a player in the studio got offered the chance to trade, one viewer at home also won a spot on Millionaire’s Row.
A total of 19 people have made it to the final – either by trading a prize in studio, or by winning the spot from home – and on Saturday they will go head-to-head in a bid to win it all.
Presenter Sue Perkins told the Mirror : “Saturday’s show really is going to be a night like no other. The prizes are phenomenal – Ashes tickets, holidays, cars, a brand-new kitchen, and a cuddly toy. No, there’s no cuddly toy, but there is ONE MILLION POUNDS.”
She added: “The thrilling thing, of course, is that all of this is going to be won by one person, and that person might even be a viewer turned contestant, who simply signed up, joined in from their sofa and got the surprise of their life.”
Co-host Mel Geidroyc agreed: “Imagine winning £1m and then someone saying, ‘Oh, don’t forget you’ve also won a holiday, a car, tickets to the Ashes, Take That tickets…’ and on and on it goes. The fact it could be a viewer-turned-contestant adds another incredible layer of drama. It’s the finale to end all finales.”
The collective prize pot amounts to around £1.5million, putting it on a par with the prize won on Ant and Dec’s former gameshow Red or Black? in 2012.
One insider said: “The beauty of Win Win is that you don’t have to be a contender for Mastermind to walk away with the prizes. The questions are ones that normal people can answer. It’s a quiz for all comers.”
The largest prize previously won on a UK TV show was when Graham Fletcher walked away with the jackpot after spinning a roulette wheel and correctly guessing it would land on black. But the gambling show Red or Black? came in for criticism for being based on luck rather than skill, and it was axed after two runs.
The multiple prizes being offered on Mel & Sue’s Win Win amount to far more than has been traditionally offered on Saturday night shows. On Bullseye, which had its heyday with host Jim Bowen in the 1980s, the top prizes were often a car, a caravan or a holiday with the smaller rewards likely to be a slow cooker, hi-fi stereo, exercise bike or portable cassette player.
Similarly, on the BBC ’s Generation Game during the same era, the biggest prizes could include a mink coat, luggage, a holiday or a car while the lesser items on the conveyor belt being fondue sets, kettles and toasters – along with the famous cuddly toy.
– Win Win with People’s Postcode Lottery, Saturday, 7.35pm on ITV1 and ITVX )MUST)
The Prize List
£1million cash
BMW 1 Series (worth over £32,000)
Volkswagen T-Roc SUV (worth over £32,000)
Orlando Holiday with £5,000 spending money
Maldives – 5-star all-inclusive holiday
New Wren Kitchen (worth over £15,000)
Formula E – VIP trip to Monaco to watch E Prix, plus £1,000 spending money
The Ashes – Trip to Australia to see The Ashes, with New Year in Sydney and £1,000 spending money
Take That – Circus Tour tickets with meet and greet with the band, 5-star hotel and £1,000 spending money
Tech Bundle – 16 items including MacBook Air, Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra, 65″ 4k Smart TV & Sony Playstation 5 Pro
The Egyptologist and former minister of antiquities will be the first Arab to lead the UN’s cultural organisation.
The board of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has nominated Egypt’s Khaled el-Enany, an academic and former minister of tourism and antiquities, as its next head, ahead of the organisation’s general conference next month.
If confirmed, el-Enany, a professor of Egyptology at Cairo’s Helwan University, would become the first Arab director-general of the organisation, which oversees the UN’s handling of cultural heritage, alongside international cooperation efforts in other areas including science and education.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
The former minister campaigned widely for the role, which was also contested by Firmin Edouard Matoko of the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Gabriela Ramos of Mexico, who withdrew from the race earlier this year.
The decision by the board, which represents 58 of the agency’s 194 member states, is expected to be finalised at a meeting of UNESCO’s general assembly in Uzbekistan next month.
The organisation’s next leader will replace France’s former Minister of Culture Audrey Azoulay who has served in the role since 2017.
Azoulay notably helped lead a high-profile effort to rebuild the ancient Iraqi city of Mosul after it was devastated during fighting between the ISIL (ISIS) armed group and combined US and Iraqi forces.
El-Enany’s nomination comes as the Paris-based UN body continues to face political challenges, including in its work of choosing which cultural heritage sites to help preserve from threats including wars, pollution and climate change.
The organisation is also set to face an eight percent funding cut at the end of 2026, when the United States again formally withdraws its membership, along with its funding.
It will be the second time that the Trump administration has pulled the US out from the UN cultural organisation in protest at its members’ decision to admit the State of Palestine as a member in 2011.
The State of Palestine is also a Permanent Observer State member of the United Nations General Assembly, where more than 80 percent of member states now back its full membership.
Explaining the US decision to withdraw again, US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce claimed that allowing Palestine to remain a member of UNESCO had “contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organisation.”
The organisation has been remotely monitoring damage to cultural heritage sites in the Gaza Strip during Israel’s war, and says that it has verified damage to a total of 110 sites since October 7, 2023, including 13 religious sites, 77 buildings of historical or artistic interest, three depositories of movable cultural property, nine monuments, one museum and seven archeological sites.
Ancient Pharaonic drawings inside the newly-opened Tomb of Pharaoh Amenhotep III in Luxor, Egypt, on October 4, 2025 [Stringer/EPA]
El-Enani, 54, worked earlier in his career as a tour guide at ancient Egyptian sites, earned a doctorate in France and became a famed Egyptologist prior to serving in government.
He was minister of antiquities, and later tourism, under Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi from 2016 to 2022.
El-Sisi welcomed the news of el-Enani’s nomination, calling the nomination a ‘’historic achievement that shall be added to Egypt’s diplomatic and cultural record and to the achievements of the Arab and African peoples.”
During his tenure in government, el-Enani oversaw the start of mega-tourism projects including the National Museum of Egyptian Civilisation in Cairo, the Jewish Temple and multiple ancient discoveries that helped revive the country’s battered tourism sector.
He is expected to focus on UNESCO’s cultural programs, and has pledged to continue UNESCO’s work to fight anti-Semitism and religious intolerance according to the Associated Press news agency.
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.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Anita Chabria and David Lauter bring insights into legislation, politics and policy from California and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
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.
A pretty UK seaside town may look like a picturesque holiday spot – but it has a dark history. Now locals are remembering those who were brutally killed in the 17th century with a new plaque
Weymouth is a popular seaside town (Image: Jacob Crossingham)
While it may be a picturesque seaside spot, this pretty town has quite a dark history behind it.
Weymouth is a seaside town located in Dorset, southern England and it’s know for it’s sandy beach, decorated with colourful beach huts and backed by Georgian houses. But what we see Weymouth as today was the total opposite to the dark chapter in history in the 17th century filled with brutal killings and bloody streets.
Two hundred and forty years ago, in September 1785, 12 local men were hanged, drawn and quartered in the town for their involvement in the Monmouth Rebellion.
The brutal sentence was delivered by Judge Jeffreys at the Antelope Hotel in Dorchester during the infamous ‘Bloody Assizes’. This new plaque brings the total number of installations on the trail to 19.
Nowadays, Greenhill gardens is an award-winning gardens in Weymouth, with a tennis court, putting, bowling, live music events and two cafes. It has become a picturesque haven, beloved by locals and visitors for its vibrant floral displays and sweeping sea views, and the contrast between its serene present and brutal past adds a poignant depth to the town’s historical narrative.
Now locals from the We Are Weymouth group have unveiled a powerful new addition to the town’s heritage trail: a commemorative plaque on the Promenade at Greenhill, marking one of the darkest chapters in Weymouth’s history.
Graham Perry, chair of We Are Weymouth, said: “It is ironic that the first historical mention of Greenhill, one of the most beautiful spots in Weymouth, is in relation to this horrific event.
“The installation of this plaque helps us to remember the many layers of Weymouth’s history – both the celebrated and the sombre – and ensures they are not forgotten.”
The heritage trail, which celebrates the unification of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis in 1571 under Queen Elizabeth I, takes visitors on a journey through the town’s rich past. Highlights include the arrival of the Black Death, Weymouth’s rise as a Georgian resort, and its strategic role in the D-Day invasion.
Later this year, two additional plaques will be installed along Preston Beach, sharing stories from Lodmoor, a saltmarsh reserve with diverse wildlife, including waders, ducks, terns, and winter birds, and a reedbed with Bitterns and Bearded Tits.
Once complete, the trail will form a continuous historical journey from the Roman temple at Bowleaze to the iconic Nothe Fort, offering a superb and immersive experience for residents and visitors alike.
These initiatives reflect We Are Weymouth’s ongoing commitment to placemaking, community engagement, and celebrating the town’s unique heritage.
Tony Shalhoub is loath to compare his upcoming CNN series, “Breaking Bread,” to the travel food shows hosted by his frequent collaborator Stanley Tucci, who directed him in the gourmand classic “Big Night.”
“I don’t consider myself a foodie,” Shalhoub says in a video interview. “He is the ultimate foodie, amazing chef. He really knows what he’s talking about and I don’t know anything.”
But Shalhoub, best known these days as one of the stars of “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel,” makes up for his lack of knowledge with utter enthusiasm. As host and executive producer of “Breaking Bread,” premiering Sunday at 9 p.m. Pacific, he traipses the globe trying different breads and bread-related products while uncovering stories of how these staples relate to migration, labor and his own family history. In fact, the legacy of Shalhoub’s father, who settled in Wisconsin after leaving Lebanon, is present in multiple episodes. The elder Shalhoub’s love of the stuff served as one of the inspirations for the whole enterprise.
“We were eating most often bakery bread rather than just commercial store-bought packaged bread, and he really had a great appreciation for it and wanted to model that for us,” Shalhoub says.
Still, Shalhoub’s goals go beyond food porn. Days before the premiere, Shalhoub spoke about why he sees “Breaking Bread” as being about something bigger. This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
How did doing a food show even come to you?
Well, I was so enamored of Stanley [Tucci’s] show.
I was going to ask if Stanley had something to do with it.
We never really talked about it a lot, but I’ve been inspired by Stanley for so many things. But even prior to his travel food show [“Searching for Italy”], a nephew of mine [Michael Matzdorff], when I lived in Los Angeles, came to me and he was making bread at the time. This was way before the pandemic, when that became the thing to do. We got into talking about bread, and I was so impressed by what he was doing in his own kitchen, and he just casually mentioned, “Wouldn’t it be cool to explore bread making all over the globe?” We got a pitch together. It didn’t really get a lot of traction then, and this was a couple decades ago, but the idea stayed with me. I mentioned it to another friend who’s a producer on the show, Tamara Weiss, and she just kind of had this great idea to reformat it, and I guess the timing was right.
Was this your nephew that appears in the Tokyo episode or a different nephew?
This is an older nephew than that. I have many nephews and many nieces and they’re all geniuses. But there’s another leg to this too, aside from my fascination with bread and bread around the world. I’ve been acting for so many years and felt very fortunate with all of the breaks that I’ve gotten. But I’ve been starting to feel a little bit like I wanted to reconnect to the world again, in some way. When you are working and your experiences are mostly coming through scripted, mostly fictional stuff, after a while, there’s that possibility that you start to feel a little disconnected from actual life and the world. That also was one of the main drivers here. I wanted to meet new people, travel to new places or even familiar places, but with a different point of view. In a lot of ways, it’s been eye-opening. The food component aside, I’ve found it’s been really good for me. You get out of your own head and out of your own sphere, and you’re reminded that there’s so much else going on out there.
How did you choose where you were going to go? So many of the places have a personal connection for you: You said you wanted to start in Lebanon, where your father is from, but the political situation didn’t allow for it so you went to Brazil, where there is a large Lebanese population. You spend time in New York, where you live, and Wisconsin, where you are from.
We initially had a list of about 12 different locations, and some of those were locations that I just thought, “Boy, it would really be fun to travel there.” When we got into it with CNN, you know, especially for the first season, they wanted for me to have a personal connection to each of these locations. We gave them a list of about 10 places, and they chose six. So obviously New York, because this is now my second time living here in the city, and I love it. I consider it my home and where so much of my career has taken place. I think Marseille, because even though I traveled to France several times, is a place where my father, when he was immigrating from Lebanon over a hundred years ago, as many immigrants did, had to stop in Marseille in the process. We’ve always been curious about that part of his journey because we knew about his departure from Beirut, and we knew about his arrival in Ellis Island, but we didn’t know about the middle part of his journey. So we were able to explore that and get some more new information about that.
Members of your family also show up, including your daughter Josie Adams and another nephew. Why did you want to involve them?
Whenever there’s a discussion about bread or about food in general, it mostly stems from or grows out of my childhood, growing up, my parents, my other older relatives, and I guess that’s the closest connection for me. It has been such a part of what connects us all.
Tony Shalhoub with his daughter Josie Adams and pastry chef Pierre Ragot in the Marseille episode of “Breaking Bread.”
(CNN Original Series)
How did your relationship to bread, clearly something you love, change over the course of making the show?
The main takeaway was that the show, for me, really became more about the people that I met than the product itself. There were familiar things, some of them done in a kind of innovative and new way and other things that I had not experienced before or tasted before, but [it was] really more about the people and their devotion to that work and the reasons that they become so obsessed and so devoted to that kind of work. For me, the show really becomes about those stories and those histories, whether it’s a family history or a story about immigration or a story of a war-torn country. To be really frank about it, bread is really more the vehicle that brings us into these other discussions.
I want to say this in a very tactful way, but the risk of doing this kind of show is that there is a point, I believe, of diminishing returns when we talk about food. This is my fear. It was like, will someone stand up and say, “Stop it.” There’s so many important things that are going on that deserve our focus and our attention, but because we’re talking about food, it’s inevitable because we have to have it every day. It sustains us, and that’s all fine and good, but I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and I want bread to be that thing that sparks other conversations.
In the Marseille episode, you uncover part of your father’s story, discovering details of his trip to America in the municipal archives. What was that experience like?
It was quite moving and also doing it with my daughter and having those discussions with my daughter. She didn’t know my father because he passed away before she was born. But I don’t think I would’ve had the opportunity or the access to uncover these things had I not been doing this show at this time in that city. It would’ve just gone undiscovered and unknown.
Obviously, you’ve eaten on screen before, that’s part of an actor’s job, but did you think about how you were going to react to what you try?
I didn’t really think about it or plan it. I wanted to figure out ways to avoid or sidestep stock reactions. “God, that’s delicious.” Of course, that’s what everyone says when they’re eating something exciting and new. But I was really trying to stay open and rather than using words, a lot of times I just felt I let it go into my body and my body kind of did the work.
There’s a moment when you almost do a little dance.
Because some of this stuff just transcends words.
Was there something you tried that truly surprised you?
Certainly, I think given the amount of pastry I consume and have consumed in my lifetime, I thought that Mary O’s Irish Soda Bread scones were kind of a revelation. I’ve made scones. I’ve had scones. I love them, but this was revelatory. In Brazil they couldn’t grow wheat for a time, and before they were importing it, they were relying on cassava flour everywhere. They make a cheese bread. They were making it out of cassava flour, which is delicious, not heavy, and no gluten and all of that, and with cheese. Somehow miraculously, you’re eating these things and you’re never feeling full or bloated.
WASHINGTON — Historically, the U.S. military has been an engine for cultural and social change in America. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s vision for the armed forces he leads runs counter to that.
In comments Tuesday to hundreds of military leaders and their chief enlisted advisers, Hegseth made clear he was not interested in a diverse or inclusive force. His address at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, verbalized what Hegseth has been doing as he takes on any program that can be labeled diversity, equity or inclusion, as well as targeting transgender personnel. Separately, the focus on immigration also is sweeping up veterans.
For too long, “the military has been forced by foolish and reckless politicians to focus on the wrong things. In many ways, this speech is about fixing decades of decay, some of it obvious, some of it hidden,” Hegseth said. “Foolish and reckless political leaders set the wrong compass heading, and we lost our way. We became the woke department, but not anymore.”
Hegseth’s actions — and plans for more — are a reversal of the role the military has often played.
“The military has often been ahead of at least some broader social, cultural, political movements,” said Ronit Stahl, associate professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley. ”The desegregation of the armed forces is perhaps the most classic example.”
President Harry S. Truman’s desegregation order in 1948 came six years before the Supreme Court ordered school desegregation in the Brown vs. Board of Education case — and, Stahl said, “that obviously takes a long time to implement, if it ever fully is implemented.”
It has been a circuitous path
Truman’s order was not a short progression through American society. Although the military was one of the few places where there was organizational diversity, the races did not mix in their actual service. Units like the Tuskegee Airmen, the Navajo Code Talkers and the Buffalo Soldiers, formed in 1866, were segregated until the order opened the door to integrated units.
Women were given full status to serve in 1948 with the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act. There were restrictions on how many could serve and they were generally not allowed to command men or serve in combat. Before then, they had wartime roles and they did not serve in combat, although hundreds of nurses died and women were pilots, including Women Airforce Service Pilots, or WASPs.
The WASPs and Tuskegee Airmen were among the first groups this year to be affected when Hegseth issued his DEI order. The Air Force removed training videos of the airmen along with ones showing the World War II contributions of the WASPs at the basic training base in San Antonio. The videos were restored after widespread bipartisan outcry over their removal.
Other issues over time have included “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the policy that allowed gay and lesbian service members to serve as long as their sexual orientation was not public. That was repealed during the Obama administration. Women were allowed to serve on combat aircraft and combat ships in the early 1990s — then all combat positions after a ban was lifted in 2015.
“The military has always had to confront the question of social change and the question of who would serve, how they would serve and in what capacity they would serve. These are questions that have been long-standing back to the founding in some ways, but certainly in the 20th century,” said David Kieran, distinguished chair in Military History at Columbus State University in Columbus, Georgia. “These are not new questions.”
Generally the answer has come down to what “the military writ large” has concluded. “‘How do we achieve our mission best?’” Kieran said. “And a lot of these things have been really hotly debated.”
Part of a larger, longer debate
Kieran offered one example: changes the Army made in the 1960s when it was dealing with a climate of racism and racial tensions. Without that, he said, “the military can’t fight the war in Vietnam effectively.”
The same considerations were given to how to address the problem of sexual harassment. Part of the answer involved what was morally right, but “the larger issue is: If soldiers are being harassed, can the Army carry out its mission effectively?”
While “it is important to see these actions as part of a longer history and a larger debate,” Kieran said, “it’s certainly also true that the current administration is moving at a far more aggressive and faster pace than we’ve seen in earlier administrations.”
Michael O’Hanlon, director of research in the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution, questioned some of the actions that Trump’s Defense Department has taken, including replacing the chairman of the joint chiefs, Air Force Gen. CQ Brown Jr.
“He was a fine Air Force officer,” O’Hanlon said. Even if he got the job in part because of his race, “it wouldn’t be disqualifying in my book, unless he was unqualified — and he wasn’t.”
Matthew Delmont, a professor of history at Dartmouth College, said the current attitudes he is seeing toward the military suggest a misunderstanding of the armed forces and why the changes have been made.
“The military, for more than seven decades now, has been more on the leading edge in terms of figuring out how to put together an organization that tries to take advantage of the talents and capacities of all Americans,” Delmont said. Since Truman signed his executive order, “the military has moved faster and farther than almost any other organization in thinking about issues of racial equality, and then later thinking about the issues related to gender and sexuality.”
Delmont said bias, prejudice and racism remain in the military, but the armed services have done more “than a lot of corporations, universities, other organizations to try to address those head-on.”
“I wouldn’t say it was because they were particularly interested in trying to advance the social agenda,” he said. “I think they did it because they recognized you can’t have a unified fighting force if the troops are fighting each other, or if you’re actively turning away people who desire to serve their country.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
The United States federal government shut down at 12:01am East Coast time (04:01 GMT) on Wednesday after Congress failed to pass a new spending bill, forcing operations considered inessential to close.
President Donald Trump has threatened to use the budget deadlock to push through mass layoffs of federal employees.
Democrats and Republicans remain divided over spending priorities as Democrats push to protect healthcare, social programmes and foreign aid while Republicans demand cuts.
This is not the first time Washington has faced such a standoff. The graphic below shows every US funding gap and government shutdown since 1976, including how long each lasted and under which administration it occurred.
(Al Jazeera)
What is a government shutdown?
A government shutdown happens when Congress does not agree on a budget, so parts of the federal government have to close until a spending plan is approved.
Shutdowns tend to happen in October because the government’s fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30.
How many times has the government shut down?
The current budget process was established in 1976. Since then, the government has had 20 funding gaps, resulting in 10 shutdowns.
A funding gap occurs whenever Congress misses the deadline to pass a budget or a stopgap spending bill (also called a continuing resolution), leaving the government without legal authority to spend money.
A single shutdown can involve multiple funding gaps if temporary funding measures expire before a long-term agreement is reached.
A shutdown happens only if government operations actually stop because of that funding gap.
Before the 1980s, funding gaps did not usually lead to shutdowns, and agencies kept operating, assuming funding would be restored soon.
After 1980, Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued legal opinions stating that, under federal law, agencies may not spend money without congressional approval. Only essential services – such as national security, air traffic control and law enforcement – could continue.
Since 1982, with this new legal basis in place, funding gaps have more often resulted in full or partial government shutdowns until Congress resolves the standoff.
When was the last government shutdown?
The last government shutdown occurred in December 2018 and January 2019 after President Donald Trump, then in his first term, and Democratic politicians hit an impasse over the president’s request for $5bn in funding for a wall on the US-Mexico border, a demand the Democrats opposed.
When was the longest shutdown?
The last shutdown was also the longest in US history, lasting 35 days from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019, when Trump announced he had reached a tentative deal with congressional leaders to reopen the government for three weeks while negotiations on the border wall continued.
What happens during a shutdown?
During a government shutdown, nonessential federal services are halted or reduced, and many government employees are furloughed, or placed on unpaid leave.
Meanwhile, essential personnel – such as military service members, law enforcement officers and air traffic controllers – are required to keep working, often without pay until funding is restored.
How are government shutdowns resolved?
Shutdowns are typically resolved when Congress passes a continuing resolution, which provides short-term funding while negotiations for a longer-term budget continue.
Since 1990, every shutdown has ended through the passage of a continuing resolution.
Which services are halted?
A shutdown primarily affects nonessential federal employees as well as people and businesses that rely on government services.
The federal government is the nation’s largest employer. As of November, it had a little more than 3 million workers – about 1.9 percent of the civilian workforce – according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data reported by the Pew Research Centre.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that if funding lapses in fiscal year 2026, about 750,000 federal employees could be furloughed each day, and their lost pay would add up to about $400m daily. The exact number of furloughed workers could change over time because some agencies might increase layoffs the longer a shutdown continues while others could bring some employees back.
Past shutdowns have affected numerous services and agencies, including:
National parks and monuments
Federal museums
Federal research projects
Processing of certain government benefits
IRS taxpayer services
Which services are still in operation?
Even during a shutdown, many core government functions remain in operation. Some continue because they are classified as essential for public safety and welfare while others are funded separately from the annual budget process through mandatory or self-sustaining programmes. Examples include:
Maybe this was a pressure-creating-diamonds situation.
Somehow in the 1930s, amid the immense stresses of economic collapse, natural disaster, Olympic anxiety and the looming shadow of World War II, Los Angeles built some of its best-loved architectural gems. The jaw-dropping lobby of the Pantages Theatre (1930), the hilltop domes of Griffith Observatory (1935), the grand halls of Union Station (1939) — all were produced in that harrowing decade.
How rough were the ’30s in L.A.? The Depression, beginning with the stock market crash in October 1929, put the brakes on new construction and farm production, pushing California unemployment to an estimated 28% in 1932. The City Council, meanwhile, was led by one of the most corrupt politicians in L.A. history, Mayor Frank Shaw.
The city did pull off the 1932 Summer Olympics, drawing a record 101,000 people to the Memorial Coliseum opening ceremony. But those Games drew only 1,332 athletes from 37 countries — half as many athletes as gathered for the 1928 Games in Amsterdam.
In 1933, the Long Beach quake killed more than 100 people and destroyed at least 70 schools. The 19-story Los Angeles General Medical Center was completed (and after decades mostly idle, is now being repurposed).
In 1934 and 1938, major floods along the Los Angeles, Santa Ana and San Gabriel rivers took scores of lives and prompted the Army Corps of Engineers to build Hansen Dam in the San Fernando Valley and encase 51 miles of the L.A. River in a concrete channel.
Begun in 1936 and completed in 1959, that channel might be among the city’s largest and least attractive man-made landmarks — in the words of historian Kevin Starr, “A tombstone of concrete.” But it does its job.
As the city weathered these changes, its signature industry shrunk, then bloomed, as movies (priced at about 25 cents) distracted the masses. The arrival of color deepened the spell, as did blockbusters like 1939’s “Gone With the Wind” and “The Wizard of Oz.”
About This Guide
Our journalists independently visited every spot recommended in this guide. We do not accept free meals or experiences. What should we check out next? Send ideas to [email protected].
The landmarks that went up during those years aren’t all great architectural innovations; many flow directly from the Art Deco and Streamline Moderne trends of the 1920s. But all carry hints about how Angelenos changed with the times.
As critic and author David Kipen has written: “If you don’t like the weather in San Francisco, they say, just wait five minutes. If you don’t like the architecture in Los Angeles, maybe give it ten.”
Here we take a year-by-year architectural stroll through the 1930s. You can enter most of these buildings, in some cases for free, in some cases by booking a tour, buying beer or seeing a show.
LeBron James chuckled at the question he knew was coming as a a smile crossed his face when he was asked about the word “retirement.”
James stammered as he tried to answer the question during his session at the Lakers’ media day on Monday.
He never provided a definitive answer about his future. He’s about to enter his 23rd season in the NBA, which will mean James will have played more seasons in the league than anyone in history. He turns 41 on Dec. 30, but if last season was any indication, James hasn’t slowed down.
When James was asked about his approach to this season, knowing that retirement is near, he seemed unsure how to answer.
“I mean, I don’t know,” he said. “I mean, I’m excited about today, I’m excited about an opportunity to be able to play a game that I love for another season. And whatever the journey, however the journey lays out this year, I’m just super invested, because like you just said, I don’t know when the end is, but I know it’s a lot sooner than later.
“So just being super appreciative of the fact that I could come up here, do another media day and talk to you guys and do all this stuff around here, so just excited about the journey and whatever this year has in store for me.”
James exercised his player option for $52.6 milllion this summer to play with the Laker, the final year of his deal. He did not sign an extension with the Lakers, meaning that James will be a free agent after the 2025-26 season if he does not retire.
James already is the NBA’s all-time leading scorer during the regular season with 42,184 points. He has played the second-most regular-season games in history at 1,562, just 50 behind the leader, Robert Parish.
James averaged 24.4 points,7.8 rebounds and 8.2 assists last season
It was clear that he still was on top of his game.
“The things that still pushes me is the fact that the love of the game is still high,” James said. “The love of the process is even higher. So that’s what continues to push me to play this game. I mean, it’s really that simple. Me training and working on my body and trying to get my body as close to 100% as possible every year, it’s something that’s like —- it’s a beautiful thing for me. Just continue to challenge to see how well I can push myself to play the game at a high level, recover at a high level, be able to sleep better, mentally prepare, try to stay sharp throughout the course of a long season. And just the roller coaster of an NBA season, that’s all like, gratifying to me, no matter the good, the bad, the ugly. I love that process. So it’s a bigger. … So much that goes into it, more than just picking up a basketball and shooting at the rim.”
James is teaming up with another superstar in Luka Doncic, who signed a three-year extension for $165-million.
Doncic, 26, is considered one of the top players in the league, giving James a top-notch running partner.
James was asked how much having a player like Doncic beside him will weigh in his decision to retire.
“Nah, nah. As far as how long I go in my career? Nah. Zero,” James said. “The motivation to be able to play alongside him every night, that’s super motivating. That’s what I’m going to train my body for. Every night I go out there and try to be the best player I can for him, and we’re going to bounce that off one another. But as far as me weighing in on him and some other teammates of how far I go in my career, nah. It would be, literally my decision, along with my wife and — two of my boys [Bronny and Bryce] already gone. … So it’ll be a decision between me, my wife [Savannah] and my daughter [Zhuri]. It won’t be, ‘Hey, having a meeting with my teammates.’ It won’t be that.”
James and Austin Reaves have been teammates for four years now, and Reaves has seen no decline in his famous teammate.
Reaves, who declined a four-year, $89.2-million contract offer from the Lakers over the summer, hasn’t talked to James about retirement but doesn’t see it happening any time soon.
“Every time you see him, he’s got a big smile on his face, he’s the biggest kid in the room, has a great time and you got to appreciate that for somebody who has been going at it for so long, 23 years,” Reaves said. “At some point you feel like the joy might not be there. But every time you see him, it reinsures that he’s here for one thing and one thing only and that’s to win. But I don’t know about retirement. He might play for another 10 years.”
James returns to a Lakers team that was 50-32 last season and finished third in the Western Conference. The Lakers then lost in the first round of the playoffs to the Minnnesota Timberwolves.
But the Lakers have retooled, adding center Deandre Ayton, guard Marcus Smart and wing Jake LaRavia.
James has won four NBA championships, and yearns for another.
“I don’t know, just to know how many miles I got as far as this game in my 22 years, now starting 23 years, and to still be able to play at a high level, to still to be able to go out there and can make plays and be respectful on the floor,” James said.
“It’s just super humbling and gratifying for me, personally. I love to play the game, and I love to play at a high level. And for me, age is kind of just a number, but it is reality too, though. I mean, you look at the history of the game, it’s not been many guys at my age, or especially going into Year 23 that’s been able to play at a level like that. And I’ve just tried to not take it for granted and just try to give the game as much as I can, inspire whoever I can: the younger generation, my generation, the generation after me, the generation to come. I think you are of the age what you, I guess, tell your mind you are.”
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.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know in 2024. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
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.
At a tense political moment in the wake of conservative lightning rod Charlie Kirk’s killing, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum focusing federal law enforcement on disrupting “domestic terrorism.”
The memo appeared to focus on political violence. But during a White House signing Thursday, the president and his top advisors repeatedly hinted at a much broader campaign of suppression against the American left, referencing as problematic both the simple printing of protest signs and the prominent racial justice movement Black Lives Matter.
“We’re looking at the funders of a lot of these groups. You know, when you see the signs and they’re all beautiful signs made professionally, these aren’t your protesters that make the sign in their basement late in the evening because they really believe it. These are anarchists and agitators,” Trump said.
“Whether it be going back to the riots that started with Black Lives Matter and all the way through to the antifa riots, the attacks on ICE officers, the doxxing campaigns and now the political assassinations — these are not lone, isolated events,” said Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff. “This is part of an organized campaign of radical left terrorism.”
Neither Trump nor Miller nor the other top administration officials flanking them — including Vice President JD Vance, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel — offered any evidence of such a widespread left-wing terror campaign, or many details about how the memo would be put into action.
Law enforcement officials have said Kirk’s alleged shooter appears to have acted alone, and data on domestic extremism more broadly — including some recently scrubbed from the Justice Department’s website — suggest right-wing extremists represent the larger threat.
Many on the right cheered Trump’s memo — just as many on the left cheered calls by Democrats for a clampdown on right-wing extremism during the Biden administration, particularly in light of the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters. In that incident, more than 1,500 were criminally charged, many convicted of assaulting police officers and some for sedition, before Trump pardoned them or commuted their sentences.
Many critics of the administration slammed the memo as a “chilling” threat that called to mind some of the most notorious periods of political suppression in the nation’s history — a claim the White House dismissed as wildly off base and steeped in liberal hypocrisy.
That includes the Red Scare and the often less acknowledged Lavender Scare of the Cold War and beyond, they said, when Sen. Joseph McCarthy and other federal officials cast a pall over the nation, its social justice movements and its arts scene by promising to purge from government anyone who professed a belief in certain political ideas — such as communism — or was gay or lesbian or otherwise queer.
Douglas M. Charles, a history professor at Penn State Greater Allegheny and author of “Hoover’s War on Gays: Exposing the FBI’s ‘Sex Deviates’ Program,” said Trump’s memo strongly paralleled past government efforts at political repression — including in its claim that “extremism on migration, race and gender” and “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity” are all causing violence in the country.
“What is this, McCarthyism redux?” Charles asked.
Melina Abdullah, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter-Los Angeles, said the Trump administration is putting “targets on the backs of organizers” like her.
Abdullah, speaking Friday from Washington, D.C., where she is attending the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual legislative conference, said Trump’s efforts to cast left-leaning advocacy groups as a threat to democracy was “the definition of gaslighting” because the president “and his entire regime are violent.”
“They are anti-Black. They are anti-people. They are anti-free speech,” Abdullah said. “What we are is indeed an organized body of people who want freedom for our people — and that is a demand for the kind of sustainable peace that only comes with justice.”
Others, including prominent California Democrats, framed Trump’s memo and other recent administration acts — including Thursday’s indictment of former FBI Director James Comey over the objections of career prosecutors — as a worrying blueprint for much wider vengeance on Trump’s behalf, which must be resisted.
“Trump is waging a crusade of retribution — abusing the federal government as a weapon of personal revenge,” Gov. Gavin Newsom posted to X. “Today it’s his enemies. Tomorrow it may be you. Speak out. Use your voice.”
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, left, FBI Director Kash Patel and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi listen to President Trump Thursday in the Oval Office.
(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta noted that the memo listed various incidents of violence against Republicans while “deliberately ignoring” violence against Democrats, and said that while it is unclear what may come of the order, “the chilling effect is real and cannot be ignored.”
Bonta also sent Bondi a letter Friday expressing his “grave concern” with the Comey indictment and asking her to “reassert the long-standing independence of the U.S. Department of Justice from political interference by declining to continue these politically-motivated investigations and prosecutions.”
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said the Trump administration is twisting Kirk’s tragic killing “into a pretext to weaponize the federal government against opponents Trump says he ‘hates.’”
“In recent days, they’ve branded entire groups — including the Democratic Party itself — as threats, directed [the Justice Department] to go after his perceived enemies, and coerced companies to stifle any criticism of the Administration or its allies. This is pure personal grievance and retribution,” Padilla said. “If this abuse of power is normalized, no dissenting voice will be safe.”
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said it was “the highest form of hypocrisy for Democrats to falsely claim accountability is ‘political retribution’ when Joe Biden is the one who spent years weaponizing his entire Administration against President Trump and millions of patriotic Americans.”
Jackson accused the Biden administration of censoring average Americans for their posts about COVID-19 on social media and of prosecuting “peaceful pro-life protestors,” among other things, and said the Trump administration “will continue to deliver the truth to the American people, restore integrity to our justice system, and take action to stop radical left-wing violence that is plaguing American communities.”
A month ago, Miller said, “The Democrat Party is not a political party. It is a domestic extremist organization” — a quote raising new concerns in light of Trump’s memo.
On Sept. 16, Bondi said on X that “the radical left” has for too long normalized threats and cheered on political violence, and that she would be ending that by somehow prosecuting them for “hate speech.”
Constitutional scholars — and some prominent conservative pundits — ridiculed Bondi’s claims as contrary to the 1st Amendment.
On Sept. 18, independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported that unnamed national security officials had told him that the FBI was considering treating transgender suspects as a “subset” of a new threat category known as “Nihilistic Violent Extremists” — a concept LGBTQ+ organizations scrambled to denounce as a threat to everyone’s civil liberties.
“Everyone should be repulsed by the attempts to use the power of the federal government against their neighbors, their friends, and our families,” Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said Wednesday. “It creates a dangerous precedent that could one day be used against other Americans, progressive or conservative or anywhere in between.”
In recent days, Trump has unabashedly attacked his critics — including late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, whose show was briefly suspended. On Sept. 20, he demanded on his Truth Social platform that Bondi move to prosecute several of his most prominent political opponents, including Comey, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James.
“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” wrote Trump, the only felon to ever occupy the White House. “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
Comey’s indictment — on charges of lying to Congress — was reported shortly after the White House event where Trump signed the memo. Trump declined to discuss Comey at the event, and was vague about who else might be targeted under the memo. But he did say he had heard “a lot of different names,” including LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and George Soros, two prominent Democratic donors.
“If they are funding these things, they’re gonna have some problems,” Trump said, without providing any evidence of wrongdoing by either man.
The Open Society Foundations, which have disbursed billions from Soros’ fortune to an array of progressive groups globally, said in response that they “unequivocally condemn terrorism and do not fund terrorism” and that their activities “are peaceful and lawful.” Accusations suggesting otherwise were “politically motivated attacks on civil society, meant to silence speech the administration disagrees with,” the group said.
John Day, president-elect of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said his organization has not taken a position on Trump’s memo, but had grave concerns about the process by which Comey was indicted — namely, after Trump called for such legal action publicly.
“That, quite frankly, is very disturbing and concerning to us,” Day said. “This is not the way the legal system was designed to work, and it’s not the way it has worked for 250 years, and we are just very concerned that this happened at all,” Day said. “We’re praying that it is an outlier, as opposed to a predictor of what’s to come.”
James Kirchick, author of “Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington,” which covers the Lavender Scare and its effects on the LGBTQ+ community in detail, said the “strongest similarity” he sees between then and now is the administration “taking the actions of an individual or a small number of people” — such as Kirk’s shooter — “and extrapolating that onto an entire class of people.”
Kirchick said language on the left labeling the president a dictator isn’t helpful in such a political moment, but that he has found some of the administration’s language more alarming — especially, in light of the new memo, Miller’s suggestion that the Democratic Party is an extremist organization.
“Does that mean the Democratic Party is going to be subject to FBI raids and extremist surveillance?” he asked.
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.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know in 2024. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
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.”
The hoard may have been buried for safekeeping by an exceptionally wealthy church cleric during the time of Henry VIII’s Dissolution of the Monasteries and Catholic priories.
The couple, who have asked not to be named for fear treasure hunters may descend on their quiet street, notified the authorities of their find in 2020.
Although the hoard was initially declared as treasure, it was later disclaimed and returned to the couple as no museums or institutions were in a position to buy it during the pandemic.
The coins are now set to go under the hammer at David Guest Numismatics’ auction in Switzerland where they will be sold individually.
It’s usually the case with coin hoards that a portion of the proceeds must go to the landowner, but in this case the finders are the landowners.
Aldi’s Record-Breaking Expansion: 35 New Stores Coming This Fall
The couple are said to be “excited” about the sales which will be like a lottery win for them.
Auctioneer David Guest said: “It is a fantastic hoard found by a couple while they were gardening at the end of the garden of their home in Milford-on-Sea.
“They were digging in a flower border and found these circular discs in a clump of clay soil.
“They put them on the decking and washed them off and realised they were gold coins so they carried on digging and found a total of 64 of them in the same spot.
6
A large number of the coins date back to the reign of Henry VIII including this one which was struck between 1513 and 1536Credit: BNPS
6
Others contain the initials of two of Henry’s wives, Catherine of Aragon and James SeymourCredit: BNPS
“After they notified the Portable Antiquities Scheme the coins were examined by the British Museum.
“They organised a further archaeological dig of the site and found six more coins.
“The earliest coins are from the reign of Henry VI in the 1420s and they go right up to 1537 and the reign of Henry VIII.
“They are in a remarkable state of preservation.”
Guest added that it was clearly a hoard assembled over a long period of time and that the coins amounted to £26 which was the equivalent price of a house back then.
“It was a lot of money. I doubt most people in England at the time ever saw a gold coin,” he said.
“The gold coins could have belonged to a merchant of considerable wealth or a church cleric who was very rich.
“Milford-on-Sea would have been part of the estate of Christchurch Priory at the time.
“The dissolution of the monasteries was a very tumultuous time and we know that other hoards were buried at this time to keep money away from the King’s commissioners that sought to take control of lands.”
He said the couple who made the find were in their 50s with two children and added “they were sitting on a gold mine”.
“I don’t think anyone digging in their back garden can imagine what it would be like to find one gold coin from Tudor times let alone a hoard of 70.
“The combined pre-sale estimate is a considerable amount of money and a life changing amount for the vendors.
“I have invited them out for the sale but I don’t know if they are coming yet but they are very excited. We have considerable interest in the sale.
“Hoards always attract interest as people love stories about the thrill of finding buried treasure.
“Combined with the quality of many of the coins and the state of preservation adds to the appeal.”
6
This coin was struck around 1465-1466 during the reign of Edward IVCredit: BNPS
Cardiff, Swansea and Wrexham will find out who they will play next when the fourth round draw is made at around 22:00 BST on Wednesday, following Arsenal’s televised third-round tie at Port Vale.
There are seven Premier League sides in the hat so far – Liverpool, Chelsea, Brighton, Crystal Palace, Brentford, Fulham and Wolves – along with Wycombe Wanderers, of League One, and League Two club Grimsby Town, who knocked out Manchester United in round two.
As well as the Arsenal tie, Manchester City are in action on Wednesday at Huddersfield Town, while Newcastle United host Bradford City and Tottenham Hotspur are at home to Doncaster Rovers.
There is a decent chance, therefore, that Cardiff, Swansea and Wrexham could face heavyweight opposition as they look to reach the quarter-finals.
There is also the possibility, of course, of a Carabao Cup Welsh derby.
Hi and welcome to another edition of Dodgers Dugout. My name is Houston Mitchell, reminding you to return your tray table to its full upright and locked position before the regular season comes to a landing.
So, what do we talk about as we prepare for another postseason? The same thing we’ve been talking about pretty much all season. The bullpen. It hasn’t been all that great this year. There have been flashes of solid work, but for the most part, you hold your breath any time a reliever comes into the game.
Newsletter
Are you a true-blue fan?
Get our Dodgers Dugout newsletter for insights, news and much more.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
And that’s the way it’s going to be all postseason. It doesn’t matter if the relievers don’t give up a run in the final six games of the season. It will still be nervous time once Game 1 against whomever begins.
One thing readers ask me often is, is this the worst Dodgers bullpen ever? Well, no, but let’s take a look:
Worst bullpen ERAs since the Dodgers moved to L.A.:
1. 1958, 4.74 (team record: 71-83)
2. 2001, 4.70 (86-76)
3. 1994, 4.69 (58-56)
4. 2005, 4.42 (71-91)
5. 1999, 4.37 (77-85)
6. 2025, 4.28 (88-68)
7. 1995, 4.22 (78-66)
8. 1979, 4.17 (79-83)
9. 1961, 4.15 (89-65)
10. 2006, 4.12 (88-74)
11. 2010, 4.07 (80-82)
Those are the only L.A. Dodger teams with a bullpen ERA over four. This year’s Dodgers are the sixth-worst among the 68 L.A. Dodger bullpens.
Just to complete the thought, here’s the 10 best bullpen ERAs since they moved to L.A. before the 1958 season:
1. 1968, 2.14 (76-86)
2. 1988, 2.35 (94-67)
3. 1966, 2.38 (95-67)
4. 2003, 2.46 (85-77)
5. 1983, 2.50 (91-71)
6. 2020, 2.74 (43-17)
7. 1989, 2.75 (77-83)
8. 1980, 2.83 (92-71)
9. 1978, 2.84 (95-67)
10. 1964, 2.86 (80-82)
Last season’s World Series champion team had a bullpen ERA of 3.53, which puts them around the middle of the pack, 30th-best in L.A. Dodger history.
Now let’s look at the 10 worst again, but compare them to the league ERA that season. After all, a team with 4.10 ERA in a league that averages a 3.90 ERA is better than a team that has a 4.10 ERA in a league that averages a 3.20 ERA.
1958 Bullpen ERA: 4.74 League ERA: 3.95 Difference: +0.79
2001 Bullpen ERA: 4.70 League ERA: 4.36 Difference: +0.34
1994 Bullpen ERA: 4.69 League ERA: 4.21 Difference: +0.48
2005 Bullpen ERA: 4.42 League ERA: 4.22 Difference: +0.20
1999 Bullpen ERA: 4.37 League ERA: 4.56 Difference, -0.19
2025 Bullpen ERA: 4.28 League ERA: 4.24 Difference: +0.04
1995 Bullpen ERA: 4.22 League ERA: 4.18 Difference: +0.04
1979 Bullpen ERA: 4.17 League ERA: 3.73 Difference: +0.44
1961 Bullpen ERA: 4.15 League ERA: 4.03 Difference: +0.12
2006 Bullpen ERA: 4.12 League ERA: 4.49 Difference: -0.37
That 1958 bullpen, featuring Clem Labine, Fred Kipp and Johnny Klippstein was pretty bad, while the 1999 bullpen (Jeff Shaw, Alan Mills, Onan Masaoka) and the 2006 bullpen (Takashi Saito, Jonathan Broxton, Joe Beimel) don’t belong in the discussion of worst Dodger bullpens.
But we’re looking at this year’s bullpen, and while they are about league average, the fact is the Dodgers spent a lot of money in the offseason to make it one of the league’s best. Tanner Scott got four years, $72 million, a signing that at this moment looks pretty terrible. Kirby Yates (one year, $13 million) is worse than Scott on the mound. Most of the usual stalwarts are either not pitching well (Blake Treinen) or injured (Evan Phillips, Brusdar Graterol). The best, most consistent relievers have been Jack Dreyer and Alex Vesia, both lefties. Edgardo Henriquez has been good, but is still very green and has pitched only 17 innings this season. Anthony Banda has been solid. Michael Kopech can’t find the strike zone (13 walks in 11 innings) and is back on the IL. And so on. In short, there is no one you really say “I’m glad he’s in the game.”
By the way, an interesting stat: In the last five Dodger losses, the pitcher of record (which means he got the loss) was Treinen. A Dodgers starting pitcher hasn’t recorded a loss since Sept. 4.
Are reinforcements on the way? Maybe, but what can we expect out of those reinforcements, namely Roki Sasaki and Brock Stewart? It would be hold your breath time if they came in too.
The good news is that, especially for the first round, which lasts only three games at most, a couple of starters can go into the bullpen. Having Emmet Sheehan coming in for relief could be a welcome sight.
But basically, if you have feelings of dread over the bullpen, they won’t be going away before October. Think of it as the perfect Halloween feeling. Frightened and anxious.
This week
This week is about winning the division and securing home-field advantage in the first round. The Dodgers have a 2 1/2-game lead over San Diego with six to play. In effect, it is a four-game lead (the Dodgers are three games up in the loss column), because if the two teams tie, the Dodgers have the tiebreaker. The Dodgers’ magic number to clinch the West is three.
The Dodgers close with three games at Arizona and three games at Seattle. The Diamondbacks are fighting for the final wild-card spot, while the Mariners are fighting for the AL West division title.
The Padres close with six games at home. Three with Milwaukee, which has clinched the NL Central division title and is 2-1/2 games up on Philadelphia for the best record in baseball, and three with Arizona. The Padres beat the Brewers in extra innings Monday. They have a day off Thursday, while the Dodgers have no days off remaining.
The first round starts a week from today, with the Dodgers (hopefully) playing host against either New York, Cincinnati or Arizona.
Poll time
If all goes as expected this week and the Dodgers win the West, which team would you prefer the Dodgers play in the first round, New York, Cincinnati or Arizona?
The Dodgers have received a lot of criticism recently for being money hungry in “putting Clayton Kershaw‘s final home game on Apple TV+.” And while there are times the Dodgers seek the almighty dollar, this wasn’t one of them.
“The exclusive broadcast rights for the game belong to Apple TV+, as part of a package of Friday night games bought from Major League Baseball. Apple is guaranteed a minimum of four exclusive broadcasts for whatever teams it chooses to air, according to a league official. Friday’s game will be the Dodgers’ fourth on Apple TV+ this season, so it remains exclusive to Apple.”
People close to the situation not authorized to speak publicly have said that the Dodgers asked for permission to put the game on a local channel so everyone could watch, but Apple was not keen on that idea.
Will Smith
The worst thing for the Dodgers in the postseason might not be the bullpen, it might be the fact that Will Smith has a hairline fracture of his right hand. He won’t play this week, and the Dodgers are hoping he will be back for the postseason. The Dodgers have played well in his absence, but it would still be nice to have one of your best hitters in the lineup.
He will be replaced as a starter by Ben Rortvedt, who has usurped Dalton Rushing in the catcher hierarchy for the moment. Why, well, as Jack Harris recounts in this story, the pitchers love the guy. The Dodgers have a 2.92 ERA in 14 games with Rortvedt behind the plate, compared to 4.00 for Rushing and 4.04 with Smith. Granted, it’s a small sample size and the rotation was beginning to surge before Rortvedt took over for Smith, but it’s still impressive for someone to come from outside the organization and fit in as seamlessly as he has.
Rortvedt is also hitting .270.341/.324 with the Dodgers, far ahead of his career numbers of .192/.280/.269.
Have a comment or something you’d like to see in a future Dodgers newsletter? Email me at [email protected]. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.
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.
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.
It’s a number that’s both tantalizing and fraught, depending on your political perspective.
For Democrats, that eyelash-thin margin means they’re thisclose to regaining power and a political toehold in next year’s midterm election. All they need is a gain of three House seats. For Trump and fellow Republicans, it means their hegemony over Washington and life as we know it dangles by a perilously thin thread.
That tension explains the redistricting wars now blazing throughout our great land.
“History is on Democrats’ side, but it’s too early to know what the national political environment is going to be like,” said Nathan Gonzales, one of the country’s top political handicappers and publisher of the nonpartisan campaign guide Inside Elections. “We don’t know the overall mood of the electorate, how satisfied voters [will be] with Republicans in power in Washington or how open to change they’ll be a year from now.”
A look back offers some clues, though it should be said no two election cycles are alike and the past is only illuminating insofar as it casts light on certain patterns.
(Take that as a caveat, weasel words or whatever you care to call it.)
In the last half century, there have been 13 midterm elections. The out party — that is, the one that doesn’t hold the presidency — has won 13 or more House seats in eight of those elections. Going back even further, since World War II the out party has gained an average of more than two dozen House seats.
In Trump’s last midterm election, in 2018, Democrats won 40 House seats — including seven in California — to seize control. (That was 17 more than they needed.) A Democratic gain of that magnitude seems unlikely next year, barring a complete and utter GOP collapse. That’s because there are fewer Republicans sitting in districts that Democrats carried in the most recent presidential election, which left them highly vulnerable.
In 2018, 25 Republicans represented districts won by Hillary Clinton. In 2026, there are just three Republicans in districts Kamala Harris carried. (Thirteen Democrats represent districts that Trump won.)
Let’s pause before diving into more numbers.
OK. Ready?
There are 435 House seats on the ballot next year. Most are a lock for one party or the other.
Based on the current congressional map, Inside Elections rates 64 House seats nationwide as being at least somewhat competitive, with a dozen considered toss-ups. The Cook Political Report, another gold-plated handicapper, rates 72 seats competitive or having the potential to be so, with 18 toss-ups.
Both agree that two of those coin-flip races are in California, where Democrats Adam Gray and Derek Tran are fighting to hang onto seats they narrowly won in, respectively, the Central Valley and Orange County. (The Democratic gerrymander seeks to shore up those incumbents.)
You really can’t assess the 2026 odds without knowing how the redistricting fight comes out.
Republicans could pick up as many as 16 seats through partisan map-making, Inside Elections forecasts, a number that would be reduced if California voters approve Proposition 50. Erin Covey, who analyzes House races for the Cook Report, puts GOP gains as high as 13, again depending on the November outcome in California.
One huge element is Trump’s approval rating. Simply put, the less popular a president, the more his party tends to suffer at the polls.
Right now Trump’s approval rating is a dismal 43%, according to the Cook Report’s PollTracker. That could change, but it’s a danger sign for Republicans. Over the past three decades, every time the president’s net job approval was negative a year from the midterm election, his party lost House seats.
Another thing Democats have going for them is the passion of their voters, who’ve been flocking to the polls in off-year and special elections. The Downballot, which tracks races nationwide, finds Democratic candidates have far surpassed Kamala Harris’ 2024 performance, a potential harbinger of strong turnout in 2026.
Those advantages are somewhat offset by a GOP edge in two other measures. Republicans have significantly outraised Democrats and have limited the number of House members retiring. Generally speaking, it’s tougher for a party to defend a seat when it comes open.
In short, for all the partisan passions, the redistricting wars aren’t likely to decide control of the House.
“Opinions of the economy and Trump’s handling of it, the popularity (or lack thereof) of Republicans’ signature legislation” — the tax-cutting, Medicaid-slashing bill passed in July — as well as “partisan enthusiasm to vote are going to be more determinative to the 2026 outcome than redistricting alone,” Amy Walter, the Cook Report’s editor-in-chief, wrote in a recent analysis.
In other words, control of the House will most likely rest in the hands of voters, not scheming politicians.
