Happy Thursday. Your usual host, D.C. Bureau Chief Michael Wilner, is off today. So you’re once again stuck with me, California Columnist Anita Chabria.
I’m reporting from Columbus, Ohio. Although it’s 2,300 miles from Sacramento, you wouldn’t know it from the national news, where Gov. Gavin Newsom’s push to gerrymander the Golden State’s election maps is dominating the conversation, even in the Midwest.
That’s a huge win for Newsom’s presidential aspirations. A week ago, I might have argued that Newsom’s chances at the Oval Office were irrevocably tied to the success of his “Election Rigging Response Act,” which seems likely (though not certain) to make it onto a November ballot.
But it’s increasingly seeming like win or lose on that initiative, the fight itself is a victory for Newsom.
Let’s dig into the details on where we are and why.
The recap
President Trump does not like uncertainty, especially when it comes to his power. The midterm elections in 2026 are nothing but uncertainty. Republicans hold a Ozempic-thin majority in the House at 219-212, with four seats vacant. If Democrats were to take control, it would make autocracy really hard.
So Trump’s team reportedly called up Texas and asked them to rig their election maps to gain five GOP seats and a comfortable margin for the election. Newsom responded, unexpectedly, by pushing an if/then proposition for the same map-rigging in California: If Texas does it, then so will we.
The Legislature is expected to approve that plan (and new maps that smash the state’s Republicans mostly along an inland stretch against the Sierra Nevada), allowing it to go before voters in November. Because unlike Texas, California voters will have to OK the gambit for it to move forward.
That seems as though it could happen. Axios reported this week that Newsom’s pollster, David Binder, found that 57% of California voters were likely to back the redistricting plan once they understood two points. First, that it was temporary and the state would go back to fair maps in a few years; and second, that California will go forward only if Texas or another state gerrymanders first.
And it seems as if Trump is pushing these just-in-case states to at least try. Vice President JD Vance visited Indiana recently, supposedly to encourage that state to drum up support for the idea, even though Republicans hold seven of nine of the state’s seats already. Florida is another place where map-rigging could happen. MAGA drummed up four additional seats after Gov. Ron DeSantis redrew maps in 2022 to give the GOP more seats. So there is little reason to believe he wouldn’t push it even further.
From Gavin to gavel
But like so many political policies these days, redistricting is likely to end up in courts.
California Republicans appealed to the state Supreme Court to at least delay redistricting. They are argued that state law requires any legislation to be in print for 30 days before a vote is taken on it.
The Legislature has a long-used but ethically dubious workaround to this — they take another bill, one that is already written but basically dead, and simply delete its contents and drop in whatever new measure they don’t have time to pass under a fresh bill number. Voila — in print for 30 days, technically.
Will the Supreme Court choose to censure that behavior now?
Texas might also find itself in courts with new maps it advanced on Wednesday.
The UCLA Voting Rights Project released a study this week that found the new Texas maps may violate federal law that protects minority voters from being pushed into districts where their favored candidate has no chance of winning.
“Federal law prohibits purposefully drawing large minority populations of Black and Hispanic voters into districts in which their preferred candidate loses,” the report notes. “While the map appears to add an extra Hispanic-majority district, VRP findings show it systematically places minority communities in districts where bloc-voting by white voters overrides their candidate of choice.”
Someone will probably sue. Which raises the interesting but as-yet unanswered question (I did ask, but no word back yet from the governor’s office) on whether California would still move forward if the Texas maps are passed by the Legislature but held up in courts. That scenario might melt Republican heads — the possibility of five new Democratic seats without Texas to even them out.
A win, regardless
Whether or not Newsom manages to get his “big beautiful maps,” as he’s cheekily calling them, through voters, this is already a win for him.
That aligns with a new Economist/YouGov poll showing that 56% of voters disapprove of Trump, a really high number.
Meanwhile, between his social media explosion and map-rigging, Newsom is seeing a huge bump. One California poll by Politico-Citrin Center-Possibility found him significantly leading over former Vice President Kamala Harris when it comes to who state voters would back in the next presidential race.
That poll found that Newsom leads Harris 25% to 19% among the state’s registered no-party-preference, Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters.
But it’s not just California. I am seriously shocked that even here in the Midwest, folks are talking about Newsom and many — even if they don’t agree with redistricting — see him in a favorable light for fighting back so aggressively on Texas and Trump.
Even if Newsom loses the redistricting initiative in California, he will be able to argue that he fought harder than anyone else to curtail Trump’s power, and have the receipts to back that up.
So whether he gamed this out in advance or luck and timing have collided in that magical fashion, Newsom has, for the moment, captured lightning in a bottle — and certainly will ride that energy as far as it will take him.
Hi, and welcome to another edition of Dodgers Dugout. My name is Houston Mitchell. On Friday, we’ll see how they did in the four games against the Rockies and look at the final Padres series of the season. But until then, here’s a bonus edition of the newsletter.
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.
Top 10 center fielders
Here are my picks for the top 10 center fielders in Dodgers history, followed by how all of you voted. Numbers listed are with the Dodgers only. Click on the player’s name to be taken to the baseball-reference.com page with all their stats.
1. Duke Snider (1947-62, .300/.384/.553, 142 OPS+, seven-time All Star)
Snider is known primarily as a power hitter, but he also led the NL in runs three times, in walks once and in OB% once. He also led the league in homers in 1956 with 43 and in RBIs in 1955 with 136. He hit 40 or more homers in five consecutive seasons and it can be argued that he is the greatest player in Dodgers history. He also hit four home runs in the 1955 World Series and 11 World Series homers overall. Snider grew up in Compton and went to Compton High, where the Dodgers discovered him and signed him for $750 after he graduated before the 1943 season. He was assigned to the minors and developed a reputation as a bit of a crybaby, once demanding he be sent to another team after a manager flashed him the take sign. He joined the Dodgers in 1947 and was a part-time player for a couple of seasons. Branch Rickey took him under his wing in 1948 and helped him improve his plate discipline and his footwork in center field. He became the starting center fielder in 1949 and quickly became one of the better players in the league. When the Dodgers moved to L.A. in 1958, injuries and the Coliseum, with its’ 430-foot distance to right-center, hurt his power somewhat. Snider hit only 15 homers in 1958 and 23 in 1959. He then became a part-time player again, but is the first Dodger to get a hit in Dodger Stadium. The Dodgers sold him to the New York Mets in 1963 and he retired after a season with the San Francisco Giants in 1964. It took him several tries to be elected to the Hall of Fame, finally breaking through with 86% of the votes in 1980. Snider died in Escondido on Feb. 27, 2011.
2. Willie Davis (1960-73, .279/.312/.413, 107 OPS+,two-time All Star, 3 Gold Gloves)
Davis was an outstanding defensive player who led the NL in triples twice (1962 with 10 and 1970 with 16) and whose offensive numbers don’t look as impressive as they should because he played during one of the biggest pitchers eras in baseball history. His best season was probably 1969, when he hit .311 with 23 doubles, eight triples and 11 homers, or it could have been 1962, when he hit .285 with 18 doubles, 10 triples and 21 homers, or 1971, when he hit .309 with 33 doubles, 10 triples and 10 homers. He didn’t walk much and had moderate power, but he caught everything hit to him (except for that one game in the 1966 World Series, but let’s not get into that). He is still the L.A. Dodgers’ career leader in runs (1,004), hits (2,091) and triples (110). He was traded to the Montreal Expos after the 1973 season for reliever Mike Marshall and retired after the 1979 season. Davis played in the majors for 18 seasons and had over 2,500 hits, but strangely never appeared on the Hall of Fame ballot. Not that he would have made it, but he certainly deserved to be up for consideration. He died in Burbank on March 9, 2010.
3. Pete Reiser (1940-42, 1946-48, .306/.384/.460, 132 OPS+, three-time All Star)
Pete Reiser never met an outfield fence he didn’t like crashing into and it may have cost him a Hall of Fame career. After playing in 58 games with the Dodgers in 1940, Reiser came into his own in 1941 when he hit a league-leading .343 to go with 117 runs, 39 doubles, 17 triples, 14 homers and 76 RBIs. He also played great defense in center. That got him second place in NL MVP voting behind teammate Dolph Camilli (Reiser should have won). Reiser led the league in nine categories. He followed that by hitting .310 with 33 doubles and 10 homers in 1942, leading the league with 20 steals and making his second straight All-Star team. However, on July 18 of that year, he crashed full speed into the center field fence while chasing a fly ball. He ended up with a separated shoulder and fractured skull. In those days though, you didn’t let little things like a fractured skull slow you down. He returned to the lineup a week later, but he wasn’t the same. He hit .244 the rest of the season. He then enlisted in the Army and spent three years there. Reiser returned to the majors in 1946 and broke his leg while stealing second. He crashed into the fence in St. Louis and missed some time. But he still led the league with 34 steals, though his batting average dropped to .277. In 1947, he was chasing another fly ball when he crashed into the wall face-first. This caused another fractured skull. He was given the Last Rites by a priest in the hospital before making a miraculous recovery. He ended up playing 110 games that season. He was a bench player the following season, as he had put on a little weight and had been slowed tremendously by his numerous injuries. The Dodgers traded him to the Boston Braves after the season for Nanny Fernandez and Mike McCormick. He retired after the 1952 season and came back to the Dodger organization as a roving minor-league hitting instructor. He joined Walter Alston’s coaching staff in L.A. in 1960 and helped tutor Maury Wills on how to steal bases. Reiser had a heart attack in 1965, went on as an assistant coach for other teams. Reiser, who smoked a pack of cigarettes a day throughout his adult life, died of emphysema in Palm Springs in 1981. He was only 62.
4. Matt Kemp (2006-14, 2018, .292/.348/.494, 127 OPS+, three-time All Star, two Gold Gloves)
I won’t write too much on Kemp since I assume everyone knows a lot about him. His arthritic hips robbed him of his speed, so if you only know him from his 2018 return, keep in mind that he stole 40 bases in 2011, 35 in 2008 and 34 in 2009. He never really had a bad season with the team, it’s just that his best seasons were so good that his other seasons looked bad in comparison. He was robbed of the MVP award in 2011, finishing second to Ryan Braun of Milwaukee, who was later suspended for 65 games for violating baseball’s drug policy. Kemp had a better season than Braun.
5. Mike Griffin (1891-98, .305/.399/.416, 125 OPS+)
It’s really hard to compare players from the 19th century to players much later, because it was such a different game. But Griffin was great and deserves a spot in the top 10.
Griffin score 100 or more runs in six of his eight season in Brooklyn, stole 264 bases and was considered the finest fielding center fielder of his day. In 1894, he hit a career-high .357. He was named team captain in 1895. But his career ended strangely.
Brooklyn fired manager Bill Barnie during the 1898 season and named Griffin as player-manager. He had that position for four games, decided he didn’t like it and asked to be just a player again. Team president Charles Ebbets became the manager.
After much cajoling, Ebbets convinced Griffin to try and become player-manager again for the 1899 season. He signed a contract for $3,500. What Griffin didn’t know was that Brooklyn was having financial problems, as was Baltimore, so Ebbets (who was wealthy) bought the Baltimore club and merged it with Brooklyn. Baltimore was managed by Ned Hanlon, considered a top manager. Ebbets no longer needed Griffin as a manager, and sent him a new contract for $2,800 as just a player. Griffin refused, saying he had a signed contract for $3,500. In March, 1899, Ebbets sent Griffin a telegram that stated: “You have been released to the Cleveland club. They wish you to report to Cleveland on Monday, to go with team to Hot Springs. Personally I wish you the best of luck in your new position.”
Griffin said he wouldn’t play for Cleveland. After two weeks of fighting over it, with various lawyers involved, Cleveland sold his contract to St. Louis. He never reported there, instead announcing his retirement and suing Ebbets for breach of contract. The New York State Supreme Court ruled in Griffin’s favor. But Griffin never played in the majors again. He died in 1908 of pneumonia. He was 47.
6. Cody Bellinger (2017-22, .248/.332/.487, 118 OPS+, two-time All Star, 2017 Rookie of the Year, 2019 NL MVP, one Gold Glove)
After his first four seasons, it seemed possible that Bellinger was going to be the best position player in Dodgers history and a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Then, while celebrating a home run in the 2020 World Series, he and Kiké Hernández high-fived so strongly that Bellinger separated his shoulder. He was never the same after that, hitting .165 in 2021 and .210 in 2022. The Dodgers had little interest in re-signing him as a free agent, and he has since played for the Cubs and Yankees, putting together solid seasons for both teams. But he has never again reached the heights he once reached.
There’s not a lot out there about Frederick. What is known was dug up by baseball historian Graham Womack: Frederick came into the league as a 27-year-old rookie in 1929 and led the league with 52 doubles (to go with 24 homers). He followed it up by hitting .334 with 44 doubles, 11 triples and 17 homers. Then Rawlings introduced a cork-cushioned baseball to the majors and Frederick’s power slowly began to slip. He was out of the majors for good when the Dodgers traded him to a minor-league team in 1934 for Frenchy Bordagaray. In 1935, he hit .363 for Sacramento. He then hit .322 over five years with the Portland Beavers, who made him player manager for his 19th and final professional season in 1940. Frederick finished his minor league career with 2,467 hits. Add that to his major league total, and Frederick had 3,421 hits in his pro career. He died in 1977 in Tigard, Ore., at the age of 75. You can read much more about Frederick here.
8. Jim Wynn (1974-75, .261/.394/.463, 144 OPS+, two-time All Star)
Wynn might be a little too high here, but he was my first favorite player on the Dodgers, so here he is.
The Dodgers acquired Wynn from the Astros before the 1974 season for Claude Osteen. Wynn got off to a fast start and became a fan favorite, with the bleachers in left center being dubbed “Cannon Country,” after Wynn’s nickname, “The Toy Cannon.”
Wynn hit .271 with 32 homers and 108 RBIs in 1974 while leading the Dodgers to the World Series. Honestly, he should have won the MVP award that season, but he finished fifth to Steve Garvey,
He got off to a good start in 1975, hitting .270 with 14 homers at the All-Star break, but slumped after that. The Dodgers, always ones at that time to trade a player a season too soon rather than a season too late, sent him to Atlanta for Dusty Baker.
Strangely, Wynn is probably best remembered by Dodgers fans for a play in the 1974 World Series.
Usually a standout defender, Wynn hurt his right shoulder making a diving catch near the end of the season, and his throwing arm after that had all the strength of a wet paper towel.
Knowing this, right fielder Joe Ferguson and Wynn had a deal. If a ball was hit between them and a runner was on third, Ferguson would make the catch with the hope his stronger arm would hold the runner, or that he could throw them out trying to score.
Game 1 of the World Series reached the eighth inning, with Oakland leading, 3-1. With Sal Bando on third for the A’s, Reggie Jackson hit a fly ball to right center. With a left-hander up, Wynn was playing toward right-center, and Ferguson was closer to the right-field line, so it looked like Wynn’s ball all the way.
Wynn set himself for the catch, when at the last second Ferguson, who started racing over as soon as the ball was hit, cut in front of him, made the catch, and threw a perfect strike to catcher Steve Yeager 300 feet away. Bando barreled over Yeager, who held on to the ball for the out.
Some Dodger fans, even now, think Ferguson was just trying to show up Wynn, which isn’t true.
“I called to him that I could take it and he said ‘Go ahead,’ ” Ferguson said.
Asked if that was true, Wynn responded “Yep. Wasn’t that one tremendous throw? It hurt my arm just to look at it.”
9. Brett Butler (.298/.392/.368, 112 OPS+, one-time All Star)
Butler was a pest. He seemed to be on base all the time, ran the bases with reckless abandon and scored 80-100 runs every season. Signed as a free agent, Butler made the All-Star team in his first season with the Dodgers and led the league with 112 runs and 108 walks. His on-base percentage topped .400 three times with L.A. and he played solid defense. He was caught stealing a little too often (28 times in 1991 compared to 38 stolen bases), but he’s the type of player you don’t see too often in the game today. In May of 1996, Butler was diagnosed with cancer of the tonsils. He underwent treatment and returned to the lineup in September. He played one more season with the team and retired.
I’ve written tons about Hernández. With the Dodgers, he has played at least 50 games at every position for the Dodgers, except pitcher (where he has appeared 10 times) and catcher (zero). One of the biggest fan favorites in Dodger history, he becomes an entirely different hitter in the postseason, where he has hit .278/.353/.522 in 75 postseason games with the Dodgers, including 10 homers and 26 RBIs.
The readers’ top 10
1,302 ballots were sent in. First place received 12 points, second place nine, all the way down to one point for 10th place. For those of you who were wondering, I make my choices before I tally your results. Here are your choices:
The next five: Johnny Frederick, Joc Pederson, Juan Pierre, Mike Griffin, Don Demeter.
Top 10 right fielders
Who are your top 10 Dodgers right fielders of all time (including Brooklyn)? Email your list to [email protected] and let me know. Remember, we are considering only what they did with the Dodgers.
Many of you have asked for a list of players to consider for each position. Here are the strongest right fielder candidates, in alphabetical order.
Mookie Betts, Buzz Boyle, Hubie Brooks, Thomas Burns, Dick Cox, Willie Crawford, Mike Davis, J.D. Drew, Andre Ethier, Ron Fairly, Al Ferrara, Carl Furillo, Shawn Green, Tommy Griffith, Babe Herman, Teoscar Hernández, Frank Howard, Jay Johnstone, Fielder Jones, Willie Keeler, Harry Lumley, Mike Marshall, Raúl Mondesi, Yasiel Puig, Frank Robinson, Reggie Smith, Casey Stengel, Darryl Strawberry, Ed Swartwood, Dixie Walker, Paul Waner and Hack Wilson.
A reminder that players are listed at the position in which they played the most games for the Dodgers, which is why Frank Howard and Ron Fairly are listed here, for example.
And finally
Willie Davis homers off of Nolan Ryan in the 1973 All-Star Game. Watch and listen here.
Until next time…
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.
The US President says a review of the national museums will be similar to those he has ordered for universities.
United States President Donald Trump has said the nation’s Smithsonian museums only discuss “horrible” topics, including “how bad Slavery was”, as his administration continues a review into the institution’s exhibits for their “Americanism”.
In a post on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday, Trump said the Smithsonian is “OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is”, including “how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been”.
Elaborating on a review of several of the Smithsonian’s 21 museums and galleries ordered by the White House last week, Trump said he has instructed his lawyers “to go through the Museums” and “start the exact same process that has been done with Colleges and Universities where tremendous progress has been made”.
“This Country cannot be WOKE, because WOKE IS BROKE,” Trump added.
The Organisation of American Historians (OAH) has expressed “deep concern and dismay” at the White House’s “unprecedented” request to review the Smithsonian’s exhibits, adding that “no president has the legitimate authority to impose such a review”.
The Smithsonian receives most of its budget from Congress but is independent of the government in decision-making.
The OAH also said that “it is particularly distressing to see this effort of historical censorship and sanitising tied to the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding”.
The Trump administration said it ordered the review of museums in advance of next year’s milestone, which will mark 250 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.
It was not until decades later, on December 18, 1865, that the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution officially abolished chattel slavery nationwide, although exceptions continued.
The National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, DC, opened in 2016 [File:Will Oliver/EPA]
The National Museum of African American History and Culture, which was opened in 2016 with a ceremony led by then-President Barack Obama, is one of the museums the White House has included in its review.
According to the museum’s website, visitors learn about the “richness and diversity of the African American experience” with exhibits ranging from a plantation cabin from South Carolina to Chuck Berry’s red Cadillac convertible.
The freedom of expression organisation PEN America has also expressed alarm at the Trump administration’s “sweeping review” of Smithsonian exhibits.
“The administration’s efforts to rewrite history are a betrayal of our democratic traditions and a deeply concerning effort to strip truth from the institutions that tell our national story,” Hadar Harris, the managing director of PEN America’s Washington, DC, office, said in a statement.
Trump has made threats to cut federal funding for top US educational institutions, citing pro-Palestinian protests against US ally Israel’s war on Gaza, transgender policies, climate initiatives and diversity, equity and inclusion programmes.
Last month, the government settled probes into Columbia University, which agreed to pay $221m, and Brown University, which said it would pay $50m to the government. Both institutions also accepted certain government demands, including how some topics are taught.
Californians — once upon a time — voted overwhelmingly to ban partisan gerrymandering and strip the task of drawing congressional seats from self-interested legislators. In a historic political reform, redistricting was turned over to an independent citizens’ commission. Now, Newsom is trying to subvert the voters’ edict.
“It is really a calculated power grab that dismantles the very safeguards voters put in place,” California Republican Party Chairwoman Corrin Rankin said in a statement last week, echoing other party members. “This is Gavin the Gaslighter overturning the will of the voters and telling you it’s for your own good.”
Again, baloney.
Power grab? Sure. Overturning the voters’ will? Hardly.
First of all, that anti-gerrymandering vote creating the citizens’ commission was 15 years ago. It was a wise decision and badly needed, and still a wonderful concept in the abstract. But that was then, this is now.
Just because a ballot measure was passed one or two decades ago doesn’t mean it has been cast in stone. Would Californians still vote to ban same-sex marriage or deny public schooling to undocumented children? Doubtful. Circumstances and views change.
Second, that 2010 electorate no longer exists. Today’s electorate is substantially different. And it shouldn’t necessarily be tied to the past.
Consider:
Of the 23.6 million adult California citizens in 2010 — the eligible voters — an estimated 3.6 million have died, or more than 15%, according to population experts at the state Finance Department.
In all, “at least half of the voter registration file is totally new compared to 2010. And that might even be an understatement,” says Eric McGhee, a demographer at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. “There’s been a lot of turnover. It’s a different electorate.” People have left the state and others have moved in. Millions of kids have become voting adults.
There are roughly 6 million more Californians registered to vote today than 15 years ago — 23 million compared to 17 million. “That’s a pretty huge change,” says Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data Inc., who has drawn the proposed new Democratic-friendly California congressional maps for Newsom.
And the partisan makeup of registered voters has become more favorable toward Democrats, who enjoy a nearly 2-to-1 advantage. In last year’s presidential election, Democrats accounted for 46% of registered voters and Republicans 25%. In 2010, it still seemed somewhat competitive. Democrats were at 44% and Republicans 31%.
PPIC researchers recently reported that “partisanship now shapes the state’s migration — with those moving out of the state more likely to be Republican and those moving in more likely to be Democrat. … This process makes California more Democratic than it would otherwise be.”
So, Newsom and Democratic legislators are not thumbing their noses at the voters’ will. They’re asking today’s voters to suspend the ban on gerrymandering and adopt a partisan redistricting plan at a Nov. 4 special election. The good government process of map drawing by the citizen’s commission would return after the 2030 decennial census.
The heavily Democratic Legislature will pass a state constitutional amendment containing Newsom’s plan and put it on the ballot, probably this week.
It would take effect only if Texas or other red states bow to Trump’s demand to gerrymander their congressional districts to rig them for Republicans. Trump is seeking five more GOP seats from Texas and Gov. Greg Abbott is trying to oblige. Republicans already hold 25 of the 38 seats.
Newsom’s plan, released Friday, counters Texas’ scheme with a blatant gerrymander of his own. It would gain five Democratic seats. Democrats already outnumber Republicans on the California House delegation 43 to 9.
Neither the governor nor any Democrats are defending gerrymandering. They agree it’s evil politics. They support redistricting by the citizens’ commission and believe this high-road process should be required in every state. But that’s not about to happen. And to stand by meekly without matching the red states’ election rigging would amount to unilateral disarmament, they contend correctly.
“It’s not good enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil and talk about the way the world should be,” Newsom declared at a campaign kickoff last week. “We have got to recognize the cards that have been dealt. And we have got to meet fire with fire.”
But polling indicates it could be a tough sell to voters. A large majority believe the bipartisan citizens commission should draw congressional districts, not the politicians who they don’t particularly trust.
“It’ll be complicated to explain to voters why two wrongs make a right,” says Republican strategist Rob Stutzman, a GOP never-Trumper.
Former GOP redistricting consultant Tony Quinn says: “There is no way to ‘educate’ voters on district line drawing. And Californians vote ‘no’ on ballot measures they do not understand. … It’s sort of like trying to explain the basketball playoffs to me.”
But veteran Democratic strategist Garry South doesn’t see a problem.
“The messaging here is clear: ‘Screw Trump’,” South says. “If the object is to stick it to Trump, [voter] turnout won’t be a problem.”
Gerrymandering may not be the voters’ will in California. But they may well jump at the chance to thwart Trump.
United States President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin are set to meet in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday to discuss how to end the war in Ukraine.
On Wednesday, following a virtual meeting with European leaders including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump warned of “severe consequences” if Putin refuses to accept a ceasefire after more than three years of war.
The venue for the high-profile meeting is Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, a US military installation on the northern edge of Alaska’s most populous city.
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson is Alaska’s largest military base. The 64,000-acre outfit is a key US site for Arctic military drills and readiness.
When Trump visited the base during his first term, in 2019, he said the troops there “serve in our country’s last frontier as America’s first line of defence”.
But that wasn’t always the case. Indeed, the US government actually bought Alaska from Russia – separated by just 90km (55 miles) at the narrowest point of the Bering Strait – in 1867.
At a news briefing on August 9, Russian presidential assistant Yuri Ushakov pointed out that the two countries are neighbours.
“It seems quite logical for our delegation simply to fly over the Bering Strait and for such an important … summit of the leaders of the two countries to be held in Alaska,” Ushakov said.
When did Russia assume control of Alaska?
When Russian Tsar Peter the Great dispatched the Danish navigator Vitus Bering in 1725 to explore the Alaskan coast, Russia already had a high interest in the region, which was rich in natural resources – including lucrative sea otter pelts – and sparsely populated.
Then, in 1799, Emperor Paul I granted the “Russian-American Company” a monopoly over governance in Alaska. This state-sponsored group established settlements like Sitka, which became the colonial capital after Russia ruthlessly overcame the native Tlingit tribe in 1804.
Russia’s Alaskan ambitions, however, quickly faced numerous challenges – the vast distance from then-capital St Petersburg, harsh climates, supply shortages, and growing competition from American explorers.
As the US expanded westward in the early 1800s, Americans soon found themselves toe to toe with Russian traders. What’s more, Russia lacked the resources to support major settlements and a military presence along the Pacific coast.
The history of the region then changed dramatically in the mid-19th century.
Why did Russia sell Alaska after the Crimean War?
The Crimean War (1853-1856) started when Russia invaded the Turkish Danubian principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, modern-day Romania. Wary of Russian expansion into their trade routes, Britain and France allied with the ailing Ottoman Empire.
The war’s main theatre of battle became the Crimean Peninsula, as British and French forces targeted Russian positions in the Black Sea, which connects to the Mediterranean through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits – previously controlled by the Ottoman Empire.
After three years, Russia humiliatingly lost the war, forcing it to reassess its colonial priorities. According to calculations by Advocate for Peace, a journal published by the American Peace Society in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Russia spent the equivalent of 160 million pounds sterling on the war.
Meanwhile, due to overhunting, Alaska yielded little profit by the mid-1800s. Its proximity to British-controlled Canada also made it a liability in any future Anglo-Russian conflict.
By the early 1860s, Tsar Alexander II concluded that selling Alaska would both raise funds Russia desperately needed and prevent Britain from seizing it in a future war. The US, which had continued to expand across the continent, emerged as a willing buyer, leading to the 1867 Alaska Purchase.
How was the sale received in the US?
After the American Civil War ended in 1865, Secretary of State William Seward took up Russia’s longstanding offer to buy Alaska. On March 30, 1867, Washington agreed to buy Alaska from Russia for $7.2m.
For less than 2 cents an acre (4 metres), the US acquired nearly 1.5 million sq km (600,000 square miles) of land and ensured access to the Pacific northern rim. But opponents of the Alaska Purchase, who saw little value in the vast ice sheet, persisted in calling it “Seward’s Folly” or “Seward’s Icebox”.
“We simply obtain by the treaty the nominal possession of impassable deserts of snow, vast tracts of dwarf timbers… we get… Sitka and the Prince of Wales Islands. All the rest is waste territory,” wrote the New York Daily Tribune in April 1867.
But in 1896, the Klondike Gold Strike convinced even the harshest critics that Alaska was a valuable addition to US territory. Over time, the strategic importance of Alaska was gradually recognised, and in January 1959 Alaska finally became a US state.
What’s its economy like now?
By the early 20th century, Alaska’s economy began to diversify away from gold. Commercial fishing, especially for salmon and halibut, became a major industry, while copper mining boomed in places like Kennecott.
Then, during World War II, the construction of military bases brought infrastructure improvements and population growth. The most transformative moment, however, came in 1968 with the discovery of vast oil reserves at Prudhoe Bay on the Arctic coast.
Oil revenues became the cornerstone of Alaska’s economy, funding public services as well as the Alaska Permanent Fund, which pays annual dividends – via returns on stocks, bonds, real estate, and other assets – to residents.
These payments, known as the Permanent Fund Dividend, will ensure that Alaska’s oil wealth continues to benefit residents even after reserves run out. This system has allowed Alaska to have no state income tax or state sales tax, a rarity in the US.
More recently, tourism has surged in Alaska, drawing visitors to the state’s national parks and glaciers. Today, Alaska has transformed from a ridiculed purchase into a resource-rich state, built on a mix of natural resource extraction, fishing and tourism.
Meanwhile, despite Alaska’s history of trading land like currency, President Zelenskyy will hope that Friday’s meeting between Trump and Putin does not come at the expense of Ukrainian territory.
ANCHORAGE — The first presidential summit in years between Russia and the United States is on, setting nerves in Europe and Ukraine on a knife’s edge. But President Trump may have a surprise in store for Vladimir Putin.
Efforts to scuttle the high-stakes meeting have not been subtle. European officials issued statements in recent days on the futility of Trump negotiating with Putin over Ukraine without Ukraine, urging the U.S. president on Wednesday to not cut a unilateral deal. Kyiv warned that Moscow’s proposals for peace — rewarding its war of conquest with territorial concessions — are a nonstarter. Many Russia experts are hoping one side simply decides to call it off.
Despite their efforts, the summit — haphazardly scheduled on American soil with days to spare — is moving ahead, with Trump scheduled to host the Russian leader at a U.S. military base in Anchorage on Friday, the first meeting of its kind since 2021.
Experts fear Putin may be laying a trap for the Americans, manipulating Trump in private to solidify Russia’s position on the battlefield. But Trump suggested Wednesday that he would demand Putin agree to a ceasefire in Alaska.
“There will be very severe consequences” if he doesn’t, Trump told reporters.
Newsletter
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox twice per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
‘Very grave risk’
Hosting the meeting is an about-face from Trump, who over much of the summer appeared in the throes of a remarkable transformation on Putin, criticizing the Russian leader in harsh terms for the first time. To the relief and delight of Europe, Trump appeared to be losing his patience — embarrassed, even — at Putin’s open refusal to heed his calls for a ceasefire in Ukraine.
But Trump’s threats of a response, increasing sanctions against Russia and its trading partners, lasted only a matter of days.
On Aug. 6, the president’s special envoy on the crisis, Steve Witkoff, a real estate investor with no experience in diplomacy and no background in the region, was dispatched to Moscow. Planning for a summit began within hours of his departure from the Kremlin.
On Tuesday, as White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that the summit would amount to a “listening session” for Trump on Putin’s interest in peace, battlefield reports emerged of a significant Russian breach in Ukrainian lines.
In a phone call, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told Trump that Putin was “bluffing” on his commitments to peace, pressing ahead with an offensive to gain more territory. “There should be joint pressure on Russia, there should be sanctions — and there should be a message that if Russia doesn’t agree to a ceasefire in Alaska, this principle should work,” Zelensky said Wednesday.
“It sure looks like it’s moving in the wrong direction,” John Bolton, Trump’s former national security advisor in his first term, told The Times, dismissing Witkoff as a chief culprit behind what he fears is a coming diplomatic crisis: “Better send the Bobbsey twins.”
The perils of this meeting, Bolton said, lie in Putin’s skills as a manipulator. The Russian president may well convince Trump that his designs on Ukraine are reasonable — and the only way forward.
“There’s a very grave risk it does become an almost take-it-or-leave-it proposition for Zelensky,” Bolton said. On Wednesday morning, Trump criticized the media for being “very unfair” to him for quoting “fired losers and really dumb people like John Bolton.”
Russia invaded the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea and its eastern regions in 2014, and launched a full-scale invasion of the country in 2022. Nearly a million Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded in pursuit of Vladimir Putin’s war of conquest, according to independent analysts, with hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers adding to the casualty count.
“Clearly, Trump wants to sit down with the guy that he thinks is his friend again,” Bolton said. “And from Putin’s point of view, he doesn’t want any pesky Europeans around — and particularly not Zelensky. He wants to see if he can correct the damage he did.”
Echoes of Helsinki
President Trump shakes hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin at 2018 Helsinki summit.
(Alexander Zemlianichenko/Associated Press)
Seven years ago, entering a meeting with his Russian counterpart, Trump set a similar bar for success as Leavitt has this week. “I don’t expect anything,” Trump said in an interview at the time from Scotland, before leaving for Helsinki. “I go in with very low expectations.”
On Air Force One en route to Helsinki, he cast himself as a dealmaker and tweeted that, “no matter how well I do at the Summit, if I was given the great city of Moscow as retribution for all of the sins and evils committed by Russia,” it would still not be enough to earn him praise. He repeated the turn of phrase Wednesday morning in his post criticizing Bolton.
“If I got Moscow and Leningrad free,” Trump wrote, “as part of the deal with Russia, the Fake News would say that I made a bad deal!”
What resulted was a meeting and subsequent news conference that produced one ofthe most notorious moments of Trump’s first term. On the heels of calling the European Union a “foe” of the United States, Trump stood beside Putin and took his side over the U.S. intelligence community, disputing its assessment that Russia had interfered in the 2016 presidential election.
Experts fear that a similar diplomatic rupture could unfold if Trump, deferential to Putin, emerges from their meeting Friday siding with the Russian leader over Ukraine in the war.
In recent days, Trump has said that a deal between the two sides would have to include land “swapping” — territorial concessions that are prohibited by the Ukrainian Constitution without a public vote of support — and that he would give Zelensky the “courtesy” of a call after his meeting with Putin, if all goes well.
“This will be the first U.S.-Russia summit brought about by sheer ignorance and incompetence: The U.S. president and his chosen envoy mistook a Russian demand for a concession,” said Brian Taylor, director of the Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs at Syracuse University.
“Ultimately, this is not a war about this or that piece of territory, but about whether Russia can establish political control over Ukraine, or whether Ukraine will remain free to choose its own domestic and international path,” Taylor said. “Trump’s false suggestion again that Zelensky is somehow at fault for Russia invading Ukraine indicates he still does not understand how we got here or what’s at stake.”
Konstantin Sonin, a professor at the University of Chicago who has been sentenced in absentia to 8½ years in prison in Russia for publishing information on a Russian massacre of Ukrainian civilians at Bucha, said that Trump’s attempts to negotiate away Ukrainian territory could be diplomatically disastrous — but will make little difference on the ground.
“This is not a very popular view, but I am not sure that the U.S. has that much leverage over President Zelensky to force him into major concessions,” Sonin said. “Many European countries would support Ukraine no matter what — even at the cost of their relationship with the U.S. With full withdrawal of the U.S. support, the catastrophic scenario, Ukraine will still be able to fight on.”
Pitfalls for both sides
Kremlinologists tend to believe Putin’s training as a KGB officer at the end of the Cold War gave him unique skills to navigate the world stage.
In Helsinki — as he had so often done with other world leaders, including the queen of England and the pope — Putin kept Trump waiting for half an hour, seen as a move to throw off the U.S. delegation leading up to the meeting.
Last week, in his meeting with Witkoff, the Russian president offered an Order of Lenin to a CIA official whose son died in Ukraine fighting for Russian forces.
Russia watchers fear that Friday will be no different. Already, Putin has secured a meeting with the U.S. president on his own terms.
“Whatever else you think about Putin, he’s an experienced and clever ruler who has successfully manipulated Trump in the past,” Taylor said. “Putin’s intransigence in rejecting Trump’s proposed ceasefire led not to the sanctions that Trump promised to apply last Friday, but an invitation to the United States for a summit at which the U.S. president has already signaled he will endorse territorial changes achieved through military conquest.”
But there may also be pitfalls in store for Putin, experts said.
Trump’s shift in tone on Putin since a NATO summit in The Hague in June suggests it is possible, if unlikely, that Trump is preparing to enter the meeting with a tougher stance. In recent months, the president has seen political benefit in catching world leaders off guard, berating Zelensky and South Africa’s leader in the Oval Office with cameras rolling.
At the North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit, showered in praise by European leaders, Trump said in unusually clear terms that he was with the alliance “all the way.” Days later, he accused Putin of throwing “meaningless … bull—” at him and his team over the Ukraine war.
“I think there is some risk for Putin,” Sonin said. “He is not comfortable in any kind of adversarial situation — he quickly gets angry and defensive. And President Trump has the ability to put people in uncomfortable situations publicly. He has never done this to Putin before, but who knows.”
To Bolton, the best outcome of the summit would be that Putin fails to persuade Trump that he’s seriously interested in peace.
“I don’t think that’s going to happen, but it’s possible,” Bolton said. “I think in the environment that they’ve got, one on one — only Russians and Americans present — that’s ideal for Putin to do his thing.”
“So he’s got what he wants,” Bolton added. “He’s on American soil, with no one else around.”
Peruvian President Dina Boluarte has signed into law a controversial piece of legislation that would shield the military, police and other government-sanctioned forces from prosecution for human rights abuses committed during the country’s decades-long internal conflict.
On Wednesday, Boluarte held a signing ceremony at the presidential palace in Lima, where she defended the amnesty law as a means of honouring the sacrifices made by government forces.
“This is a historic day for our country,” she said. “It brings justice and honour to those who stood up to terrorism.”
But human rights groups and international observers have condemned the bill as a violation of international law — not to mention a denial of justice for the thousands of survivors who lived through the conflict.
From 1980 to 2000, Peru experienced a bloody conflict that pitted government forces against left-wing rebel groups like the Shining Path.
Both sides, however, committed massacres, kidnappings and assaults on unarmed civilians, with the death toll from the conflict climbing as high as 70,000 people.
Up until present, survivors and family members of the deceased have continued to fight for accountability.
An estimated 600 investigations are currently under way, and 156 convictions have been achieved, according to the National Human Rights Coordinator, a coalition of Peruvian human rights organisations.
Critics fear those ongoing probes could be scuttled under the wide-ranging protections offered by the new amnesty law, which stands to benefit soldiers, police officers and members of self-defence committees who face legal proceedings for which no final verdict has been rendered.
The legislation also offers “humanitarian” amnesty for those convicted over the age of 70.
Peru, however, falls under the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which ordered the country’s government to “immediately suspend the processing” of the law on July 24.
The court ruled against past amnesty laws in Peru. In cases of severe human rights violations, it ruled that there can be no sweeping amnesty nor age limits for prosecution.
In 1995, for instance, Peru passed a separate amnesty law that would have prevented the prosecution of security forces for human rights abuses between 1980 and that year. But it was greeted with widespread condemnation, including from United Nations experts, and it was eventually repealed.
In the case of the current amnesty law, nine UN experts issued a joint letter in July condemning its passage as a “clear breach of [Peru’s] obligations under international law”.
But at Wednesday’s signing ceremony, President Boluarte reiterated her position that such international criticism was a violation of her country’s sovereignty and that she would not adhere to the Inter-American Court’s decision.
“Peru is honouring its defenders and firmly rejecting any internal or external interference,” Boluarte said.
“We cannot allow history to be distorted, for perpetrators to pretend to be victims, and for the true defenders of the homeland to be branded as enemies of the nation they swore to protect.”
Peru’s armed forces, however, have been implicated in a wide range of human rights abuses. Just last year, 10 soldiers were convicted of carrying out the systematic rape of Indigenous and rural women and girls.
Drawing from Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, the human rights group Amnesty International estimates that the country’s armed forces and police were responsible for 37 percent of the deaths and disappearances that happened during the conflict.
They were also credited with carrying out 75 percent of the reported instances of torture and 83 percent of sexual violence cases.
Francisco Ochoa, a victims’ advocate, spoke to Al Jazeera last month about his experiences surviving the 1985 Accomarca massacre as a 14-year-old teenager.
He had been in the corn fields preparing to sow seeds when soldiers arrived and rounded up the residents of his small Andean village.
Despite having no evidence linking the villagers to rebel groups, the soldiers locked many of them in their huts, fired into the structures and set them ablaze.
As many as 62 people were killed, including Ochoa’s mother, eight-year-old brother and six-year-old sister.
“The first thing I remember from that day is the smell when we arrived,” Ochoa, now 54, told journalist Claudia Rebaza. “It smelled like smouldering flesh, and there was no one around.”
When asked how he and other survivors felt about the amnesty law, Ochoa responded, “Outraged and betrayed”.
The White House has ordered an extensive review of the Smithsonian museums and exhibitions in advance of next year’s 250th anniversary of the United States, with the goal of aligning the institution’s content with President Donald Trump’s interpretation of US history.
In a letter sent on Tuesday to Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lonnie Bunch III, the White House laid out in detail the steps it expects the organisation to take so that museum content can be reviewed for a focus on “Americanism”.
The federal government will review public-facing museum content, such as social media, exhibition text and educational materials, to “assess tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals”, the letter said.
“This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President’s directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions,” the letter added.
In a statement responding to the letter, the Smithsonian said it remained committed to “scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and the accurate, factual presentation of history”.
“We are reviewing the letter with this commitment in mind and will continue to collaborate constructively with the White House, Congress, and our governing Board of Regents,” it said.
The White House said that the review is in line with the Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History Executive Order, which Trump signed in March.
At the time, the Congressional Black Caucus, made up of Black members of the US Congress, described the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict the Smithsonian Institution as “whitewashing our nation’s history”.
“Donald Trump’s idea that the National Museum of African American History and Culture is guilty of distorting our nation’s history or painting our ‘founding principles’ in a ‘negative light’ is patently ridiculous,” the caucus said in a statement.
Visitors browse exhibits at the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, DC, on April 29, 2025 [Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA]
“Let’s be clear, Black history is American history. Any rhetoric that opposes this notion is not only factually incorrect but blatantly racist,” the caucus said.
“It is the Trump Administration that bans books, words, and phrases that do not fit their narrative. It is the Trump Administration that wants to erase and retell our history,” the caucus added.
The White House said the review would initially focus on the National Museum of American History, the National Museum of Natural History, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Museum of the American Indian, the National Air and Space Museum, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, the National Portrait Gallery and the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden.
The museums under review are all located in Washington, DC, where the president this week ordered the deployment of the US National Guard to tackle a purported crime wave that city officials in the capital have refuted.
The museums all offer free admission and attract millions of visitors each year, with the National Museum of American History alone recording 2 million in-person visits in 2024.
The Smithsonian has repeatedly denied allegations that it has changed or removed exhibit details in response to pressure from the Trump administration. Recently, the institution removed references to Trump’s two impeachments from an exhibit on the US presidency. The Smithsonian Institution said that a placard was removed for reasons related to consistency and because it “blocked the view of the objects inside its case”.
“We were not asked by any Administration or other government officials to remove content from the exhibit,” the Institution said.
The Smithsonian Institution, which runs 21 museums and the National Zoo, said at the time that the impeachment section of the museum would be updated in the coming weeks to “reflect all impeachment proceedings in our nation’s history”.
Trump was impeached in January 2021, for “incitement of insurrection”, after a mob of his supporters stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
“Berta, Berta,” a two-character play by Angelica Chéri, was inspired by a prison work song from Parchman Farm, the notorious Mississippi State Penitentiary whose harsh conditions and history of forced labor extended the nightmare of antebellum slave plantations into the 20th century.
The play, which is receiving its West Coast premiere in an Echo Theater Company production at Atwater Village Theatre directed by Andi Chapman, is set in Mississippi in 1923. The action takes place in the home of Berta (Kacie Rogers), a young widow who’s awakened in the middle of the night by a visitor from her past.
Not just any visitor, mind you, but the love of her life. Leroy (DeJuan Christopher) arrives at the threshold of her small, well-cared for home in a clamorous uproar. He’s filthy, his white shirt is covered in blood, and Berta can’t tell if he’s possessed by the devil or out of his mind.
It turns out that he’s killed a man who claimed, falsely, to have slept with her. Berta is horrified that Leroy has done something so rash and violent. He holds it as proof of the depth of his love for her. But why, Berta wants to know, did he not get in touch with her after he was released from Parchman? The crime he’s committed will only send him back to where, in Leroy’s own pained words, “they take the colored man to kill him from the inside out.”
Berta and Leroy exchange grievances over the futility of their love. He can’t understand how she could have married; she’s bewildered that he could have expected her to wait indefinitely for a ghost. Their passion, however, won’t be denied, no matter how angry they make each other.
The play is pitched for maximum intensity, and Chapman’s direction encourages a mythic scope — a wholly appropriate approach for a drama that leaps over the safety of realism. Amanda Knehans’ beautifully designed set, as snug as it is appealing, grounds the action in a clean and cozy domesticity. But this is just an illusion, as the production makes clear through the expressionistic wildness of the lighting (Andrew Schmedake) and sound design (Jeff Gardner).
The couple has been granted a brief reprieve from their separation. Leroy, observing an old superstition, made an oath to the awakening cicadas that he will turn himself in if he’s given the chance to make peace with Berta. She has made her own pact with the insects, asking them to restore the life of her stillborn baby, whose corpse she has held onto in the hope that the cicadas will answer her prayer.
The pressurized, supernatural stakes in such tight quarters sometimes encourage Christopher to push a little too vociferously. Berta’s home is too small to contain Leroy — and Christopher’s performance never lets us forget it. But the turbulent charge of Leroy’s voice and body language serves another purpose: keeping the character’s history as an oppressed Black man cruelly cut off from his soulmate ever in sight.
Rogers’ Berta, comfortably situated in her domestic nest, scales her performance accordingly. She is our anchor into the world of the play, reacting to Leroy’s tumultuous intrusion with suspicion and alarm. But as the intimacy grows between the characters, the performers become more relaxed and playful with each other. The Wagnerian nature of Berta and Leroy’s love settles down without losing its miraculous mystery.
The Sunday matinee I attended was a Black Out performance — an opportunity for a Black audience to experience the play in community. Playwright Jeremy O. Harris championed this concept during the initial Broadway run of his groundbreaking drama “Slave Play.” There was backlash to the idea in London, where some critics found the practice racially exclusionary. But anything that promotes the communal embrace of art, particularly among historically underrepresented groups, ought to be celebrated.
I wasn’t the only white person in the audience at “Berta, Berta” on Sunday, but I was one of just a few. When I had initially learned from the show’s publicist that the performance was specially designated, I offered to come at another time, not wanting to take a seat from a community member. But I was assured that there was room and that I was most welcome.
Listening to the play in this special environment, I was more alert to the through line of history. Although set in the Deep South during the Jim Crow era, there appeared to be little distance between the characters and the audience. Berta and Leroy’s tempestuous love games were met with amused recognition. And the threats facing the couple, to judge by the audible response to the work, were received with knowing empathy.
At a different performance, I might have been more impatient with some of the strained dramatic turns. But the production’s living bond with the audience opened my eyes to the realism inherent in this folktale romance, laden with history and floating on a song.
‘Berta, Berta’
Where: Echo Theater Company, Atwater Village Theatre, 3269 Casitas Ave., Los Angeles
When: 8 p.m. Fridays, Saturdays and Mondays; 4 p.m. Sundays. Ends Aug. 25
Tickets: $38 Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays; pay-what-you-want Mondays
In a jab at Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Newsom ran ads contrasting Florida’s conservative policies with California’s liberal stances on abortion, education and LGBTQ+ rights.
The Western States Petroleum Assn., a trade group that represents the industry, responded with a warning for Floridians about the cost of gas and electricity in Newsom’s Golden State.
“Gavin Newsom is banning gas cars and shutting down California oil production,” the association’s ad stated. “California can’t afford Gavin Newsom’s ambition. Can Florida?”
It turns out, the price of California’s battle with oil — both politically and at the pump — may be too much for the governor and the state to bear.
Now with two oil refineries expected to shut down over the next year, the Democratic governor has halted his fight with the industry he accused of price gouging and targeted in two special legislative sessions.
Newsletter
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.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
A Phillips 66 refinery in Wilmington is slated to close by the end of the year and a Valero facility in Benicia announced plans to shut down in April. The closures could reduce California’s in-state oil refining capacity by 20%, setting off alarm bells for the Newsom administration.
Having fewer California refineries would increase reliance on foreign oil and drive up gasoline prices once again — a financial jolt for consumers that the governor wants to avoid.
Instead of lambasting the industry, Newsom is now directing his administration and asking lawmakers to try to help refineries remain open.
“My optimism now is that this is a pivot,” said Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president and chief executive of the association. “This is a turn.”
The turn
In April, Newsom sent a letter to Siva Gunda, the vice chair of the California Energy Commission, requesting that he “redouble the state’s efforts to work closely with refiners” to ensure access to reliable transportation fuels and “that refiners continue to see the value in serving the California market” even as the state transitions away from fossil fuels.
Newsom included a request for Gunda to recommend changes by July 1 to the state’s approach to maintain adequate oil supply. The letter was sent days after Valero notified the Energy Commission of its intent to close the Benicia refinery.
Gunda responded in late June with a warning that the state “faces the prospect of continued reduction in in-state petroleum refining capacity that outpaces demand decline for petroleum-based fuels” and offered industry-friendly suggestions to boost supply.
In short, California’s efforts to reduce consumption of gasoline have gotten ahead of consumer demand for zero-emission vehicles. Gunda said the state needs to increase investor confidence in refineries to enable them to maintain operations and meet demand.
Newsom has downplayed the change in approach.
“It’s completely consistent,” he said at a recent news conference. He’s also not naive, he said.
“We are all the beneficiaries of oil and gas,” he said.
“So it’s always been about finding a just transition of pragmatism in terms of that process.”
His comments this summer have marked a noticeable change in tone from a Democratic governor whose climate change advocacy became synonymous with attacking the oil industry.
Although now in limbo due to actions taken by the Trump administration, Newsom set a goal for 100% of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks to be zero-emission by 2035.
In a special session months later, Newsom urged lawmakers to place monetary penalties on excessive oil company profits. Newsom accused the oil industry of intentionally driving up the cost of gasoline as retribution for the state’s policies to phase out dependence on fossil fuels in an effort to curb climate change.
Lawmakers balked and Newsom backed off his initial request for them to pass an oil profits penalty. Instead, lawmakers gave state regulators more authority to investigate gasoline price surges and potentially place a cap on profits and penalize oil companies through a public hearing process.
The governor called a special session redux in 2024 after Democrats pushed back on his request to approve new requirements on oil refineries in the final days of the regular legislative session. Lawmakers ultimately approved a state law that could lower gasoline price spikes by giving regulators the authority to require that California oil refiners store more inventory.
Reheis-Boyd said the change reflects that the governor is realizing that reducing supply without reducing demand only increases costs.
The “truckloads of data” required from the industry through the special sessions also showed that refineries weren’t gouging customers, she said, and gave state officials insight into why refineries struggle to maintain their operations in California.
“When Valero announced they were leaving California, the next day, their stock price went up. And that just says everything you need to know, right?” Reheis-Boyd said. “You have to send a market signal that says, ‘We’re open for business here. We need you. We want to collaborate with you as we all plan for this lower-carbon economy in the future, but that pace and skill has got to match up.”’
What’s to come
When California lawmakers return to the state Capitol next week to begin the monthlong slog until they adjourn for the year, industry-friendly bills await them.
Among the considerations is Newsom’s proposal to make it easier to drill new wells in oil fields in Kern County. His plan also would streamline new wells in existing oil fields across the state if companies permanently plug two old wells.
Later this week, the Energy Commission is expected to consider pausing a possible cap on oil industry profits and suspending potential new state oversight of the timing of refinery maintenance. The state is also reportedly attempting to intervene to find a buyer for the Valero plant in Benicia.
While the oil industry is hopeful, environmentalists are dismayed.
California is at a crucial inflection point in its transition to clean energy, said Mary Creasman, chief executive of California Environmental Voters. With federal climate rollbacks, the world is watching the state.
“Now is not the time to retreat,” she said. “Now is the time to double down and innovate the way through this. That’s what this moment calls for. That’s the leadership we need nationally and the leadership we need globally.”
If you’re looking to go on holiday in the UK this summer, there’s one town that you absolutely can’t miss. The pretty little town has been named one of the best in the country
Lerwick is one of the most visited parts of the island(Image: Getty Images)
This destination simply cannot be overlooked if you’re seeking a getaway in the UK this summer. It’s the ideal spot to unwind and soak up breathtaking views.
This isle has earned recognition from Lonely Planet as amongst Scotland‘s finest, and it’s no wonder this legendary location has secured its place on the list. Lonely Planet describes the mainland Shetland isle as one that “oozes” heritage through its magnificent terrain.
The guide states: “You’ll sense it as you cruise past the historic harbor of Lerwick, or descend onto the ruler-sized runway at Sumburgh Airport, passing the low-lying hummocks of Jarlshof, where 4000 years of history spills onto the shoreline – in this one spot, you’ll find Neolithic remains, Bronze Age homes, Iron Age wheelhouses, Viking longhouses, even the ruined mansion of a medieval earl.”
The Shetland islands are located on the northern-most tip of Scotland(Image: Getty Images)
During your stay, a trip to Lerwick is absolutely essential. Visit Scotland notes: “Lerwick is the perfect starting point for exploring Shetland. Head north for a weekend break or holiday in Lerwick and explore this pretty harbour town.”
“Wander around the quirky lanes made famous by Jimmy Perez in the BBC Shetland TV series, step back in time at the Iron Age broch of Clickimin, spot seabirds and seals on a wildlife boat tour around Bressay or enjoy traditional Shetland music.”
For those curious about activities in the region, there’s an enormous range of attractions and experiences on offer. You can discover the charming Lerwick Harbour, which ranks among the area’s most sought-after attractions, reports the Express.
According to Tourist Checklist, the harbour stands as one of the most stunning locations across the Shetland Islands. The guide notes: “The harbor bustles with activity, making it a great place to take a leisurely stroll. You can watch fishing boats come and go, offering a vibrant view of daily life in Lerwick.”
Shetland island is home to history, culture and incredible scenery(Image: Getty Images)
Local residents on Reddit share insights into island living, with one remarking: “On a day of good of weather there is no better place to be and there are loads of great beaches.” The Shetland Museum and Archives represents another unmissable destination during your stay on the island.
A Tripadvisor reviewer gushed: “One of the best museums I have visited! A really varied display taking you through Shetland’s history from its geology to its archeology and into the modern day. Fabulously presented exhibits and well thought out. Really enjoyed!”.
Another visitor commented: “The museum was excellent at presenting the history of the area from a geological and cultural point of view. “There was so much information and so many historical artifacts. The staff was great and so friendly and welcoming. It was a great experience.”
For those seeking an escape from the chaos and crowds of mainstream tourist hotspots, this destination might just tick all the right boxes.
When an explosion killed three L.A. County sheriff’s deputies last month, Mike Fratantoni thought about 1857.
A horse thief named Juan Flores broke out of San Quentin State Prison, joined a posse that called itself Las Manillas — the handcuffs — and headed south toward Southern California. They robbed stores along the way and murdered a German shopkeeper in San Juan Capistrano. Los Angeles County Sheriff James R. Barton was warned about them but ignored the danger. He and his men were ambushed. Four were killed — Barton, Deputy Charles Daly and constables Charles Baker and William Little. The spot, near the interchange where State Route 133 and the 405 Freeway meet in Irvine, is now called Barton Mound.
Orange County was still a part of L.A. County then, the population was just over 11,000, California was a newly minted state, and the Mexican period was giving way to the Wild West.
“They all died alone with no help coming,” said Fratantoni, the Sheriff’s Department’s staff historian. “Today, you know your partner is coming to help you. People say the job’s dangerous now — it’s never not been dangerous.”
So as Sheriff Robert Luna prepared to hold a news conference hours after the accident at a department training facility in East L.A. took the lives of Dets. Joshua Kelley-Eklund, Victor Lemus and William Osborn, Fratantoni sent over notes about what happened to Barton and his men. That’s how Luna was able to tell the public that the latest line-of-duty deaths to befall the department happened on its deadliest day in more than 160 years, a line quickly repeated by media across the country.
Fratantoni describes himself as the “default button” whenever someone has a question about the Sheriff’s Department’s past, whether it’s a colleague or the public, whether it’s about the positive or the scandalous. He can tell you why female deputies stopped wearing caps (blame the popularity of beehive hairdos in the 1960s) and reveal why longtime Sheriff Eugene Biscailuz was a pioneer in trying to rehabilitate addicts (his father was an alcoholic).
It’s a job the Long Island native has officially held for a decade. He assumed the position with the blessing of then-Sheriff Jim McDonnell to tap into a passion Fratantoni had dabbled in on his own almost from the moment he joined the department in 1999.
“You can’t talk about L.A. County history without us,” Fratantoni said when we met at the Hall of Justice. Outside, the flags remained at half-staff in honor of the dead detectives. He was taking me on a tour of the building’s basement museum, which showcased the histories of the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, district attorney’s office and coroner. “We’ve been there from Day 1. We were here before the Board of Supervisors. We were here before LAPD. We’ve never closed. We’ve survived it all.”
“We check with Mike on everything,” Luna told me in a phone interview. Last year, the sheriff joined Fratantoni and other current and retired Sheriff’s Department members for the dedication of a plaque to commemorate the 1857 Barton Mound massacre. “You get 10 minutes with him, and wow.”
I was able to get two hours.
Fratantoni is burly but soft-spoken, a trace of a New York accent lingering in his by-the-books cadence. All around us were books, poster boards and newspaper headlines of criminals that Angelenos still remember and those long forgotten, people such as Winnie Ruth Judd, who murdered two friends in Phoenix in 1931 then traveled to Los Angeles by train with their bodies in trunks.
We passed through a row of original L.A. County jail cells that were brought down piece by piece from their original location on the 10th floor of the Hall of Justice. He pointed out a display case of makeshift weapons, tattoo needles and fake IDs created by inmates over the department’s 175 years. I stared too long at a black jacket and AC/DC hat worn by the Night Stalker — serial killer Richard Ramirez.
Fratantoni shows off vintage items used for illegal gambling.
(Luke Johnson / Los Angeles Times)
The museum receives free rent from L.A. County but is otherwise funded and maintained by the Sheriffs’ Relief Foundation and the dollar a month pulled from the paychecks of Sheriff’s Department employees who sign up to support — “We don’t want to be a burden,” Fratantoni explained. It’s not open to the general public, but he frequently hosts deputies, prosecutors, law students and even school field trips.
“The kids come and love this one for some reason,” he said with a chuckle as we passed a narcotics display. “Not my favorite one.”
Fratantoni never rushed me and turned every question I had into a short story that never felt like a lecture. He frequently apologized for random artifacts strewn around — plaques, movie posters, a biography of mobster Mickey Cohen — or displays not lit to his liking. “Am I putting you to sleep yet?” he joked at one point.
The 45-year-old is more than a curator or nerdy archivist. Luna, like his predecessors Alex Villanueva and McDonnell, has entrusted Fratantoni to not just help preserve the department’s history but also imprint its importance on the men and women who are its present and future.
“I have always been a fan of history,” said Luna, who has organized lunchtime lectures about the department and civil rights. For Black History Month in February, Fratantoni spoke about the troubles faced by deputies William Abbott and John Brady, who in 1954 became the department’s first integrated patrol unit.
The recriminations against Abbott, who was Black, and Brady didn’t come from within but rather the residents in West Hollywood they served. “I believe it’s important to teach our deputies where we’ve been and some of the challenges we’ve faced. You can’t help but to want to listen to his stories,” Luna said of Fratantoni.
“Mike is just phenomenal,” said Deputy Graciela Medrano, a 25-year-veteran who was also at the museum the day I visited. A black ribbon stretched across her badge — a sign of mourning, law enforcement style. “I’ll ask him about cases that happened when I was just starting, and he immediately knows what I’m talking about. He makes us all appreciate our department more.”
Every year, Fratantoni speaks to the latest class of recruits about the department’s history. “They know it’s been around but nothing else. So I share photos, I tell stories. And I tell them, ‘You’re getting a torch passed to you, and you’re going to run the next leg.’ You can see their reactions — our history gives them a sense of purpose.”
He’ll also attend community events with other deputies in vintage uniforms or old department cars. “Someone will see it and say, ‘That’s my granddad’s car’ and smile. We can have conversations with the public we otherwise wouldn’t be able to.”
Fratantoni was supposed to focus this year on the department’s 175th anniversary. Another goal was to seek out an interview with Shirley MacLaine, one of the last surviving queens of the Sheriff’s Championship Rodeo, an annual event that used to fill up the Memorial Coliseum and attract Hollywood A-listers.
But 2025 got in the way. We spoke a week before the burials of Osborn and Kelley-Eklund (the services for Lemus have yet to be announced). Fratantoni also sits on the committee charged with putting names on the Los Angeles County Peace Officers’ Memorial.
“I don’t like doing it, and I hope I don’t have to fill out paperwork for it ever again, but if that’s what I have to do, I’m honored to be a part of it,” he said. “I hold it close to my heart.”
Fratantoni in front of a section of the museum that highlights the history of the L.A. County district attorney’s office.
(Luke Johnson / Los Angeles Times)
Even the work commemorating what happened during the Barton Mound massacre remains unfinished. The victims were buried at the old City Cemetery downtown but were moved to Rosedale Cemetery in Mid-City in 1914. No one bothered to mark their new graves, which were lost until researchers discovered them a few years ago. Fratantoni and others are fundraising for new tombstones for their slain predecessors.
He mentioned Daly’s story: Born in Ireland. Came to California for the Gold Rush. Became a blacksmith — he put the shoes on the horses that Barton and his constables were going to use to pursue Las Manillas. A strong, able man whom Barton deputized so he could join them on the day they would all die.
“It’s sad to see people who lost their life be forgotten,” Fratantoni said. “That’s just…”
The historian tasked with talking shook his head in silence.
DEAR DEIDRE: THE inappropriately close relationship I had with my brother is now ruining my experience of motherhood.
I’m so scared that history will repeat itself that I can’t leave my young children alone together, and I panic when they touch each other.
When I was 17 and my brother was 18, we had a secret relationship — which I instigated.
What started as naive, teenage experimentation turned into an incestuously sexual relationship, which lasted until I left home.
I’ve never told a soul about it, and neither has he.
It wasn’t abusive but we are both aware it was socially unacceptable and against the law, and feel ashamed of what happened.
I can’t explain it, except to say that we were brought up in a strictly religious household where sex was considered to be a sin.
Neither of us was allowed to date or go out to parties and the like.
We were also exceptionally close, perhaps because we were so near to each other in age, without many friends.
I’m now 39 and married with two young children — a boy and a girl who are six and four.
He’s still single. We’re still in touch but we don’t talk about the past.
I didn’t dwell on it until my daughter became a toddler, and began to interact with her brother.
Spotting the signs your partner is cheating
Suddenly, I felt terrified of what might occur if I didn’t prevent it.
I started keeping my kids apart, making them play alone in their rooms.
If I see them play-fighting, I pull them apart.
My husband is starting to notice. I know this isn’t normal, and I worry it’s harming their development.
Please help. All I want is for my children to have a happy, ordinary childhood.
DEIDRE SAYS: You’re brave to admit what happened and to ask for help. You’re not a bad person.
Clearly you love your children and don’t want to damage them.
But, as you’re aware, it’s important they are allowed to interact normally.
What occurred between you and your brother was unusual – though not unheard of – and it’s very unlikely history will repeat itself, especially if your children aren’t brought up in the strictly religious way you were.
It sounds like you may be more traumatised by what happened – and more guilty about it – than you’d allowed yourself to believe.
Speaking about this to people who understand and won’t judge will help you. You can talk in confidence to nspcc.org.uk (0808 800 5000).
You would also benefit from counselling. Read my support pack, How Counselling Can Help.
Get in touch with Deidre
Every problem gets a personal reply, usually within 24 hours weekdays.
PAL HAS CROSSED THE LINE
DEAR DEIDRE: MY boyfriend never liked how close I was to my male mate, but I told him it was platonic.
Now I’m worried his fear was well-founded, after my friend crossed a line.
I’m 29, my partner is 30 and we’ve been together two years. My pal and I have known each other since uni. We’d meet for drinks or text about music and life – nothing flirty.
My boyfriend didn’t love it but I told him there he had nothing to fear.
Yet a few nights ago, when my friend walked me home after a gig, without warning he grabbed me and kissed me on the mouth.
I pushed him away and told him he was out of order. He just shrugged and said he “had to try”.
I told my boyfriend immediately – but instead of supporting me, he called me a cheat and stormed out.
I’m upset at how they’ve both behaved. How can I get life back on track?
DEIDRE SAYS: What your friend did was a serious violation of your trust and consent.
You can contact victimsupport.org.uk (0808 168 9111), who can offer free, confidential help.
You did the right thing by being honest with your boyfriend, but his reaction isn’t fair or helpful.
Jealousy can be painful, but it shouldn’t lead to unfair accusations.
Consider having a calm conversation when he’s ready, explaining how his response to this situation has made you feel.
PORN AND BISEXUAL CONFUSION
DEAR DEIDRE: MY addiction to inter-racial porn is stopping me from developing relationships. I think I need help but I don’t know what sort.
I am a 25-year-old man. I have dated women but I have never had a sex life. The first few times I attempted sex were a complete failure and an embarrassment so I stopped trying.
I then discovered porn and I find it suits me best to watch it.
I am a white guy but I especially like watching white women with black men.
It literally makes me stop in my tracks if I am out in the street and I see a white woman and a black man together.
I know full well that my addiction is preventing me from developing relationships.
I am worried that I might be bisexual too, as I can be turned on by both men and women. I am so confused.
DEIDRE SAYS: Online porn is designed to be addictive and it is brave of you to admit to having a problem.
My support packs Internet Pornography Worry? and Addicted To Sex have lots of information about this and on where you can turn for help.
The best way to try to understand more about your sexuality is to talk through your feelings with someone who understands.
Contact switchboard.lgbt (0300 330 0630) for confidential advice and my support pack, Bisexual Questions, will help you, too.
WIFE’S DOGS ARE RUINING MY LIFE
DEAR DEIDRE: MY wife has just bought another dog after we had to have two rehomed a year ago because the neighbours complained about the noise they made.
They wouldn’t stop barking if we left them on their own and were still pretty noisy even when one of us was there.
I am 44 and my wife is 39. We have been together for ten years.
We both work full time and are often out in the evening, so the dogs were left alone for quite long periods on our work days.
One of our neighbours became very aggressive when he complained about the noise.
He swore at me and my wife and threatened us.
It was a very stressful time and in the end it really got to me – the constant barking of the dogs, the rows I was having with my wife about it and then this neighbour having a go at me every time I went outside.
One day I ended up in a fight with this guy when he saw me in the nearby pub – all because of the dogs. The police were called to break it up.
After that, the only option I could see was that the dogs had to be rehomed.
My wife was very much against it and still resents me for making it happen. I thought that was the end of it, but she has now spent money which we can’t afford on a puppy.
She didn’t even ask my opinion. I arrived home one evening to find the dog in our kitchen.
Worse still, even though it cries all night she is talking about getting another one.
I wish she could see what it’s doing to me.
DEIDRE SAYS: She is disregarding your feelings. You need to talk to her and explain how hurtful her behaviour is.
Things can be different this time but your wife needs to understand the puppy needs proper training.
You can talk to the vet for advice on classes. Your puppy also needs plenty of exercise once it is old enough.
The result will be a happier, more settled dog and your neighbours will benefit, too.
HOT TOPIC
THINKING about opening up your relationship to another person can bring a mix of excitement, curiosity and nerves.
Taking time to discuss what you want – and don’t want – can help make the experience more enjoyable and reduce misunderstandings.
A Superdrug survey found 95 per cent of men and 87 per cent of women said they fantasised about sex with multiple partners.
My support pack Thinking Of A Threesome? can guide you through.
Hello, this is De Los reporter Carlos De Loera. I will be taking over the Latinx Files for the next couple of months while Fidel is on parental leave. I hope I do him justice!
“No me quiero ir de aquí.”
It’s more than just the name of Bad Bunny’s months-long Puerto Rico concert residency; it’s a radical declaration against colonialism and gentrification, as well as a defiant call for cultural preservation and celebration.
This week the U.S. federal government exercised another overreach of power over Puerto Rico, when the Trump administration dismissed five out of seven members of Puerto Rico’s federal control board that oversees the U.S. territory’s finances. All of the fired board members belonged to the Democratic Party; the remaining two members are Republicans.
As other parts of the Spanish-speaking world grapple with being priced out of their own communities, and a wateringdown of their long-standing cultures, artists in Puerto Rico are using their work to give visitors a not-so-gentle reminder: No one can kick them out of their own home.
Last week, the Latinx advocacy group Mijente — alongside the art collective AgitArte — collaborated with local Puerto Rican artists and organizations to present a free art exhibition that highlights the everyday societal struggles of Boricuas. Located in the Santurce barrio of San Juan, the “De Aquí Nadie Nos Saca” exhibit is marketing itself as a spiritual companion piece to Bad Bunny’s album, “Debí Tirar Más Fotos,” by delving into the musical joy and ongoing resistance movements of the island.
The name of the exhibition itself is a play on the lyrics from Bad Bunny’s track “La Mudanza,” in which he sings, “De aquí nadie me saca” — “nobody can get me out of here.” But the space has more than just a thematic connection to the Grammy-winning artist.
Members of AgitArte and one of its affiliated community theater collectives, Papel Machete, contributed to the “La Mudanza” music video by providing a giant papier-mâché puppet named La Maestra Combativa. It can be seen in the last minute of the video, holding up a colorful sign that reads “De aquí nadie me saca.”
The momentum of Bad Bunny’s latest album and subsequent tour met Mijente’s mission at a serendipitous time that led to the creation of the new showcase.
“The socio-cultural moment and the political moment needed different kinds of things, not just the normal playbook of social work,” said Mijente communications director Enrique Cárdenas Sifre. “We needed to experiment a little bit more.”
According to Cárdenas Sifre, part of the hope for the exhibition is to combat a pervasive narrative that Latinx people are more conservative-leaning than they realize.
Bad Bunny’s sentiment of “todo el mundo quiere ser latino” — and the universal praise and online utilization of “Debí Tirar Más Fotos” — allowed for Mijente to reopen the conversation about the true values of Latinx people in Puerto Rico.
“We can use the opportunity of a mainstream event to experiment with reoccupying and reutilizing all the cultural work for our causes,” he said. “For immigration causes, for liberation, decolonization, social, racial, gender equity and struggles … especially in Puerto Rico. So all of that came together at the same time.”
Newsletter
You’re reading Latinx Files
Fidel Martinez delves into the latest stories that capture the multitudes within the American Latinx community.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
With hundreds of thousands of tourists descending upon the island to watch the “Baile Inolvidable” singer perform, it seemed like the right time to challenge tourists to engage with some of the more difficult and harrowing experiences of Puerto Ricans.
“No seas un turista más,” or “don’t be just another tourist,” is one of the main phrases used to advertise the exhibition, which asks people to confront colonialism, gender dynamics, environmental ruin, state violence and displacement.
“If you only have a few moments to be in San Juan [for the tour], please come to the exposition and help us amplify, connect and support all the local organizations that are doing the work,” Cárdenas Sifre said. “No seas un turista más, conoce un poco de la historia real de Puerto Rico.”
Telling the “real history” of the island are over 39 artists and organizations — with special help from AgitArte curator Dey Hernández — that make up “a piece” of the whole movement that Mijente is pushing for.
“We always try to recognize that we need joy, we need perreo, we need our culture, we need our sazón, but at the same time, we keep fighting for the things that we want in our lives and in our future,” Cárdenas Sifre said. “We want to go a little bit deeper for tourists to understand that it’s generations of struggle. So you can come to the exposition and support by donating directly to an organization or artist that is presenting.”
Open from Wednesday through Sunday, the exhibition will continue showcasing its works through early October. After its opening weekend, organizers of the event are enthused by the intergenerational crowds and the litany of responses the art has elicited.
“They see their fights, they see themselves in the exhibition,” Cárdenas Sifre said. “Some people have to go outside to cry for a minute, because there hadn’t been a place that hit on all these social battles and they recognize the years of work that went behind collecting it all. There’s also joy and celebration, it’s really run the gamut of every emotion…. Everyone tells us that this space was needed.”
One thing that Cárdenas Sifre wanted to make clear is that the exhibit is not affiliated with any electoral political alliance, but rather a “real new alliance of the folks doing the work on the ground every day.”
“These organizations and artists don’t always have a space to come together to talk about the work that [they] are doing, talk about the struggles they are facing. [It’s about] generating a little space [to] conspire the next [steps for] the movement in Puerto Rico.”
Comic this Week: Drag, DACA, and Departure
Julio Salgado is a visual artist based in Long Beach. His work has been displayed at the Oakland Museum, SFMOMA, and Smithsonian American Art Museum. (@juliosalgado83)
Stories we read this week that we think you should read
Unless otherwise noted, all stories in this section are from the L.A. Times.
Immigration and the border
Politics
Arts and Entertainment
Climate
Gripping Narrative
(Jackie Rivera / For The Times; Martina Ibáñez-Baldor / Los Angeles Times)
California is in a standoff with Texas over redistricting that could decide the balance of power in Congress for the end of Donald Trump’s presidency — a high-stakes gambit with risks for both sides. But if the courts have their say, Texas, facing accusations of racial discrimination, may find itself at a distinct legal disadvantage.
Partisanship unleashed
Both efforts by Texas Republicans and California Democrats are blatantly partisan, proposing a mid-decade redrawing of district lines for the express purpose of benefiting their party in the 2026 midterm elections.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is working with a Democratic supermajority in the Legislature on “trigger” legislation that would schedule a ballot initiative this fall for the new maps. It was a direct response to a Texas plan, supported by Trump and currently in motion in the Austin statehouse, to potentially flip five seats in the upcoming election from blue to red.
The Supreme Court has ruled that judges are powerless to review partisan gerrymandering, even if, as it wrote in 2019, the practice is “incompatible with democratic principles.”
The court ruled in Rucho vs. Common Cause that partisan gerrymandering “is incompatible with the 1st Amendment, that the government shouldn’t do this, and that legislatures and people who undertake this aren’t complying with the letter of the Constitution,” said Chad Dunn, a professor and legal director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project who has argued multiple cases before the Supreme Court. “But it concluded that doesn’t mean the U.S. Supreme Court is the solution to it.”
What courts can still do, however, is enforce the core provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which bars states from redistricting that “packs” or “cracks” minority groups in ways that dilute their voting power.
“Texas doesn’t need to have a good reason or a legitimate reason to engage in mid-decade redistricting — even if it’s clear that Texas is doing this for pure partisan reasons, nothing in federal law at the moment, at least, would preclude that,” said Richard Pildes, a constitutional law professor at New York University. “But Texas cannot redistrict in a way that would violate the Voting Rights Act.”
Vestiges of a landmark law
In 2023, addressing a redistricting fight in Alabama over Black voter representation, the current makeup of the high court ruled in Allen vs. Milligan that discriminating against minority voters in gerrymandering is unconstitutional, ordering the Southern state to create a second minority-majority district.
Today, Texas’ proposed maps may face a similar challenge, amid accusations that they are “cracking” racially diverse communities while preserving white-majority districts, legal scholars said. Already, the state’s 2021 congressional maps are under legal scrutiny over discrimination concerns.
“The Supreme Court affirmed two years ago that the Voting Rights Act works the way we all thought it worked,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. “That’s part of the reason for current litigation in Texas, and will undoubtedly be a part of continuing litigation if Texas redraws their lines and goes ahead with it.”
The groundwork for the current Texas plan appears to have been laid with a letter from Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department, who threatened Texas with legal action over three “coalition districts” that she argued were unconstitutional. Coalition districts feature multiple minority communities, none of which comprises the majority.
The resulting maps proposed by Texas redraw all three.
J. Morgan Kousser, a Caltech professor who recently testified in the ongoing case over Texas’ 2021 redistricting effort, said the politics of race in Texas specifically, and the South generally, make its redistricting challenges plain to see but harder to solve.
How do you distinguish between partisanship, which is allowed, and racism, which is not, in states where partisanship falls so neatly down racial lines?
That dilemma may become Texas’ greatest legal problem, as well as its saving grace in court, Kousser said.
“In Texas, as in most Southern states, the connection between race and party is so close that it is exceedingly difficult to distinguish between them,” he said. “That seems to give a get-out-of-jail free card, essentially, to anybody who can claim this is partisan, rather than racial.”
Today, nine states face ongoing litigation concerning potential violations of the Voting Rights Act, a law that turned 60 years old this week. Seven are in the South — states that had for decades been subject to a pre-clearance requirement at the Justice Department before being allowed to change state voting laws.
Newsom has been vocal in his stance that California should position itself to be the national bulwark against the Texas plan.
Last week, the Democratic caucuses of the state Legislature heard a presentation by the UCLA Voting Rights Project on how California might legally gerrymander its own maps for the 2026 midterms.
Matt Barreto, the co-founder of the project and a professor of political science and Chicana/o and Central American studies, said his organization’s position is that gerrymandering “should not be allowed by any state,” he said.
But “if other states are playing the game, the governor is saying he wants to play the game too,” Barreto added.
He said that although five seats have been discussed to match what Texas is doing, he sees a pathway for California to create seven seats that would be safely Democratic.
That includes potential redraws in Orange County, San Diego, the Inland Empire and the northern part of the state. Barreto said there are many districts that currently skew as much as 80% Democratic, and by pulling some of those blue voters into nearby red districts, they could be flipped without risk to the current incumbents, though some new districts may have odd shapes.
For example, districts in the north could become elongated to reach into blue Sacramento or the Bay Area, “using the exact same standards that Texas does,” he said.
Legislators seemed receptive to the idea.
“We’ve taken basic American rights for granted for too long,and I think we’re ill equipped to protect them,” said Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), who attended the meeting.
“To me, this is much bigger than Texas,” she said.
State Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana), who has worked on redistricting in the past, echoed that support for Newsom, saying he was not “comfortable” with the idea of gerrymandering but felt “compelled” in the current circumstances.
“In order to respond to what’s going on in Texas in particular,” Umberg said, “we should behave in a like manner.”
Barreto, the UCLA professor, warned that if any redistricting happens in California, “no matter what, there’s going to be a lawsuit.”
Dunn said that it’s possible voters could sue under the Voting Rights Act in California, claiming the new districts violate their right to fair representation — even white voters, who have more traditionally been on the other side of such legal actions.
The 1965 law is “for everybody, of every race and ethnicity,” Dunn said. A lawsuit “could be on behalf of the places where the white community is in the minority.”
The prospect of that litigation and the chaos it could cause gives pause to some voting rights experts who see the current situation as a race to the bottom that could ultimately harm democracy by undermining voters’ trust in the system.
“It’s mutual destruction,” said Mindy Romero, a voting expert and professor at USC, of the Texas-California standoff.
The best outcome of the current situation, she said, would be for Congress to take action to prohibit partisan gerrymandering nationwide. This week, Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), who represents a district north of Sacramento that would be vulnerable in redistricting, introduced legislation that would bar mid-decade redistricting. So far, it has gained little support.
“Just like lots of other things, Congress is dropping the ball by not addressing this national problem,” said Richard Hasen, a UCLA professor of political science and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project.
“When it comes to congressional redistricting, fairness should be evaluated on a national basis, since the decisions made in California or Texas affect the whole country,” he said.
Hi, and welcome to another edition of Dodgers Dugout. My name is Houston Mitchell. On Friday, we’ll look at the struggling offense. Until then, here’s a bonus edition of the newsletter.
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.
Top 10 third basemen
Here are my picks for the top 10 third basemen in Dodgers history, followed by how all of you voted. Numbers listed are with the Dodgers only. Click on the player’s name to be taken to the baseball-reference.com page with all their stats.
1. Ron Cey (1971-82, .264/.359/.445, 121 OPS+, 6-time All-Star)
Cey is one of the most underrated players in the history of baseball, let alone the Dodgers. He was unfortunate in that he was a direct contemporary of possibly the two greatest third basemen in history (especially up to that time) in Mike Schmidt and George Brett, so Cey often went overlooked.
If you ask fans who was the best player on the Dodgers from 1977-81, most would name Steve Garvey or Reggie Smith. But let’s take a look at the numbers:
From 1977-81
Most homers: Cey, 122; Garvey, 118; Dusty Baker, 102.
OPS+: Smith, 154; Cey, 129; Garvey, 126.
WAR: Cey, 22.4; Smith, 16.7; Garvey, 16.3
Cey, of course, was nicknamed “The Penguin,” because his knees were about six inches off the ground, giving him a stiff-legged run. He never seemed slow though, just awkward looking.
He was co-MVP of the 1981 World Series, the Series during which he was famously hit in the head by a Goose Gossage fastball, still the only game (Game 5) I have watched where I was convinced someone had just been killed. Cey was taken to the hospital and had a concussion. You can watch it here. He played in Game 6.
‘’I heard it hit the helmet,’’ Gossage said after the game. ‘’If he doesn’t have a helmet on, he might be dead.’’
The Dodgers traded Cey to the Chicago Cubs after the 1982 season for Dan Cataline and Vance Lovelace. They traded him too soon, for players that didn’t pan out. Cey went on the have four productive seasons with the Cubs, leading them to the NL East title in 1984. He was released by the Oakland A’s during the 1987 season and never played in the majors again.
2. Pedro Guerrero (1978-88, .309/.381/.512, 149 OPS+, 4-time All-Star)
Let’s get the negative out of the way first: Guerrero was born to be a DH. He was a bad third baseman, a bad first baseman and a bad outfielder. But he may be the best hitter in Dodger history. He is second in OPS+ in Dodger history (minimum 3,000 plate appearances), trailing only Mike Piazza. and he had around 1,000 more plate appearances than Piazza. He hit .320 in 1985, then blew out his knee on an ill-advised slide in spring training of 1986. He came back in 1987 to hit .338. He had power, hitting 30+ homers three times (back when that really meant something) and had a good eye at the plate. He was not a good fielder at third, and hated playing there, but you have to give him credit for going out there whenever he was asked. On April 3, 2017, Guerrero had a stroke while in New York. According to his wife Roxanna Jimenez, doctors said Guerrero was in a coma, declared him brain dead and asked her to consider taking him off life support. She refused. Two days later, Guerrero woke up and has made a miraculous recovery. He still has memory problems and moves slower than he used to, but he makes appearances at autograph shows.
Turner remains a fan favorite, as every offseason I get emails from readers hoping the Dodgers will bring him back.
Turner had a middling career with the Orioles and Mets (.260 career average in 318 games) before signing with the Dodgers before the 2014 season in a transaction that few paid attention to. The Dodgers and Turner unlocked something in his swing though, because he was a revelation in 2014, hitting .340/.404/.493 in 109 games. He became the heart of the offense, and his hard-nosed style of play endeared him to fans. If there was a clutch situation, Turner was the one you wanted up at the plate. Remember this clutch moment against the Cubs in the 2017 NLCS? And even though he is on the downside of his career with the Cubs this season, he still has his clutch moments. He’s one of those guys you hope retires as a Dodgers.
4. Max Muncy (2018-current, .232/.358/.484, 127 OPS+, 2-time All-Star)
Muncy has never captured the hearts of Dodgers fans the way other players the last few years have. He hits for a low average, but draws a lot of walks and has a lot of power. The offense this season went into the tank about the same time he was injured. And while he will never win a Gold Glove, he usually battles the position to a draw. The streakiest of streak hitters, he set a record for most consecutive times reaching base in the NLCS last season, then followed it up by going 0 for 16 in the World Series. A big part of the Dodgers’ success since he joined the team.
5. Adrian Beltré (1998-2004, .274/.332/.463, 108 OPS+)
How is a Hall of Famer fifth? He wasn’t a Hall of Famer when he was with the Dodgers. In fact, he was considered a bit of a disappointment until an amazing 2004 season, when he hit .334 with 48 homers and 121 RBIs. He finished second in MVP voting that year. Sadly, that would be his last year as a Dodger, as management at the time (owner Frank McCourt and general manager Paul DePodesta) didn’t make a big effort to sign him. “I think it was more the GM than anything,” Beltré said later in his career. Beltré blamed himself for telegraphing that he didn’t want to leave. “It was a mistake on my part to show it too much, that I wanted to stay back then. They wanted to use that against me in the negotiation.” (Read more about Beltre and his time with the Dodgers here.) Beltré was the best fielding third baseman in team history, and the Dodgers spent many years seeking an adequate replacement for him, something they were never able to do until Justin Turner came along.
Lavagetto had an incredible batting eye, walking 370 times while striking out only 155 times from 1937-41. His career was derailed by World War II, as he served four years in the Navy during what would have been his prime. When Lavagetto was young, Oakland Oaks owner Cookie DeVincenzi took an interest in him and signed him to a contract, so Lavagetto’s new teammates started calling him “Cookie’s Boy,” which eventually was shortened to just “Cookie.” His real first name was Harry. When he returned from the Navy, his skills had eroded enough to where he played only two seasons. But he had one great moment in him still. In Game 4 of the 1947 World Series, Bill Bevens of the Yankees had a no-hitter against the Dodgers in the ninth inning. Bevens had walked eight Dodgers, and the Yankees led 2-1. With one out, Bevens walked Carl Furillo, then got Spider Jorgensen to foul out. Al Gionfriddo ran for Furillo and stole second. Bevens intentionally walked Pete Reiser, and Eddie Miksis ran for Reiser. Manager Burt Shotton then sent up Lavagetto to pinch-hit for Eddie Stanky. Lavagetto hit Bevens’ second pitch off the right-field fence, scoring Gionfriddo and Miksis with the winning runs and ending Bevens’ no-hitter. Lavagetto died in 1990 at the age of 77.
Vaughan is in the Hall of Fame, as a shortstop wearing a Pittsburgh Pirates cap. That’s where he spent the first 10 seasons of his career.
You might see that gap in his career and think “military service interrupted his career,” but no. Vaughan hit .277 and .305 in his first two seasons with the Dodgers.
On July 10, 1943, Dodgers manager Leo Durocher suspended pitcher Bobo Newsom for insubordination. The next day, Vaughan read a newspaper story in which Durocher belittled Newsom. He confronted Durocher when he arrived at the ballpark. Durocher stood behind what he said. According to teammate Billy Herman, “Arky didn’t say another word. He went back to his locker and took off his uniform — pants, jersey, socks, cap — made a big bundle out of it, and went back to Leo’s office, telling Leo, ‘Take this uniform and shove it right up your… If you would lie about Bobo, you would lie about me and everybody else. I’m not playing for you.’
And Vaughan left. Some of his teammates left with him. Durocher and general manager Branch Rickey convinced all of the players to return for that day’s game except Vaughan. He returned the next day and played the rest of the season, but quit baseball at the end of the season.
Rickey talked to him every year, trying to get him to return, but Vaughan refused. Until Rickey said he needed a veteran leader like Vaughan on the bench in 1947 because of the debut of Jackie Robinson. Vaughan returned. Vaughan hit .325 off the bench for the Dodgers and helped them reach the World Series, his first. He played in 1948, hit .244, and retired for good.
On August 30, 1952, he and a friend, Bill Wimer, went sailing on Lost Lake in northern California. The boat sank. Wimer couldn’t swim, so Vaughan tried to carry him along as he swam to shore. Witnesses at the time said they made it to 25 yards from shore when they both sank and drowned (why these witnesses didn’t help is lost to the annals of time). Their bodies were recovered the next day. Vaughan was 40.
At Vaughan’s funeral, Robinson said, “He was one of the fellows who went out of his way to be nice to me when I came in here as a rookie. Believe me, I needed it. He was a fine fellow.”
Cox was a member of the “Boys of Summer” Dodgers but had the misfortune of being traded to Baltimore just before the 1955 season, when Brooklyn finally won the World Series. Cox was a great fielder but below-average hitter. He served for four years in the military during World War II as a member of the 814th Signal Corps. The Signal Corps laid wire and set up communication centers for the advancing troops, which meant he was often in the middle of combat zones. One time, while playing for the Pirates, the sound of a fireworks display that was set off while he was on the field reminded him of his time in the military and he ran to the dugout for cover. And how good was Cox on defense? Perhaps teammate Carl Erskine put it best: “He had such quick hands that it seemed as though he had four gloves instead of one.” Cox started smoking when he was overseas during the war, and it eventually took its toll. He died of esophageal cancer in 1978. He was only 58 years old. The baseball field in his hometown of Newport, Pa., is named for him.
Stripp had a solid bat and was a Gold Glove-level defender, though they didn’t give that award out when he played. After Stripp retired, he opened up a baseball school in Orlando, Fla., which was considered one of the best baseball schools in the country in the 1940s and ’50s. Stripp died in Orlando in 1989 at the age of 86.
There isn’t a lot known about Stripp, who is one of those guys who just sort of faded away after he retired. He was born 122 years ago and played in the majors for 11 seasons. It’s nice to remember him here.
10. Mike Sharperson (1987-93, .287/.363/.373, 108 OPS+, 1-time All-Star)
Sharperson was more of a utility player than a third baseman, appearing at every infield position and in right field with the Dodgers. His best season was 1992, when he hit .300 and made his only All-Star team. He was a guy you could put in for a player who needed a day off and know you were going to get a solid performance. Those types of players are very valuable to a team over the course of 162 games. On May 26, 1996, Sharperson was killed in a one-car crash at the junction of the 15 and 215 freeways. He was driving from Las Vegas, where he was playing for the triple-A Las Vegas Stars, to San Diego, which had just recalled him from the minors. Witnesses said it appeared he was about to miss the turn onto the 215 connector and tried to get over at the last second. His car hit a dirt median and Sharperson was ejected through the sun roof. Sharperson was only 34.
Once you get down to around ninth or 10th place, there are a lot of guys who are interchangeable there. You could make a case for Billy Grabarkewitz or Casey Blake or Ken McMullen or George Pinkney or Tim Wallach or a host of others. The Dodgers have not had a lot of great third basemen.
The readers’ top 10
1,286 ballots were sent in. First place received 12 points, second place nine, all the way down to one point for 10th place. For those of you who were wondering, I make my choices before I tally your results. Here are your choices:
1. Ron Cey, 791 first-place votes, 13,429 points 2. Adrian Beltré, 321 first-place votes, 10,510 points 3. Justin Turner, 74 first-place votes, 10,189 points 4. Max Muncy, 25 first-place votes, 7,345 points 5. Pedro Guerrero, 23 first-place votes, 7,232 points 6. Billy Cox, 3,438 points 7. Cookie Lavagetto, 3,335 points 8. Tim Wallach, 1,731 points 9. Arky Vaughan, 42 first-place votes, 1,657 points 10. Bill Madlock, 1,483 points
The next five: Juan Uribe, Mickey Hatcher, Todd Zeile, George Pinkney, Joe Stripp.
Top 10 left fielders
Who are your top 10 Dodgers left fielders of all time (including Brooklyn)? Email your list to [email protected] and let me know.
Many of you have asked for a list of players to consider for each position. Here are the strongest left fielder candidates, in alphabetical order.
Sandy Amorós, John Anderson, Dusty Baker, Rube Bressler, Bill Buckner, Gino Cimoli, Kal Daniels, Vic Davalillo, Tommy Davis, Len Gabrielson, Augie Galan, Kirk Gibson, Gene Hermanski, Todd Hollandsworth, Lou Johnson, Brian Jordan, Joe Kelley, Joe Medwick, Wally Moon, Manny Mota, Darby O’Brien, Lefty O’Doul, Andy Pafko, AJ Pollock, Manny Ramirez, Jimmy Sheckard, Gary Sheffield, George Shuba, Chris Taylor, Danny Taylor, Andrew Toles, Jayson Werth, Zack Wheat.
A reminder that players are listed at the position in which they played the most games for the Dodgers, which is why Joc Pederson (center field) and Ron Fairly and Teoscar Hernández (right field), for example, will be listed at those positions.
And finally
Pedro Guerrero goes three for five with five RBIs in 1981 World Series Game 6. Watch and listen here.
Until next time…
Have a comment or something you’d like to see in a future Dodgers newsletter? Email me at [email protected], and follow me on Twitter at @latimeshouston. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.
Hiroshima’s mayor, Kazumi Matsui, warns of the dangers of rising global militarism.
Thousands of people have gathered in Hiroshima to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the world’s first wartime use of a nuclear bomb – as survivors, officials and representatives from 120 countries and territories marked the milestone with renewed calls for disarmament.
The western Japanese city was flattened on August 6, 1945, when the United States dropped a uranium bomb, codenamed Little Boy. Roughly 78,000 people were killed instantly. Tens of thousands more would die by the end of the year due to burns and radiation exposure.
The attack on Hiroshima, followed three days later by a plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki, led to Japan’s surrender on August 15 and the end of the second world war. Hiroshima had been chosen as a target partly because its surrounding mountains were believed by US planners to amplify the bomb’s force.
At Hiroshima’s Peace Memorial Park on Wednesday, where the bomb detonated almost directly overhead eight decades ago, delegates from a record number of international countries and regions attended the annual memorial.
Reporting from the park, Al Jazeera’s Fadi Salameh said the ceremony unfolded in a similar sequence to those of previous years.
“The ceremony procedure is almost the same throughout the years I’ve been covering it,” Salameh said. “It starts at eight o’clock with the children and people offering flowers and then water to represent helping the victims who survived the atomic bombing at that time.
“Then at exactly 8:15… a moment of silence. After that, the mayor of Hiroshima reads out the declaration of peace in which they call for the abolition of nuclear weapons around the world,” he added.
Schoolchildren from across Japan participated in the “Promise of Peace” – reading statements of hope and remembrance. This year’s ceremony also included a message from the representative of United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, urging global peace.
Hiroshima’s mayor, Kazumi Matsui, warned of the dangers of rising global militarism, criticising world leaders who argue that nuclear weapons are necessary for national security.
“Among the world’s political leaders, there is a growing belief that possessing nuclear weapons is unavoidable in order to protect their own countries,” he said, noting that the United States and Russia still hold 90 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads.
“This situation not only nullifies the lessons the international community has learned from the tragic history of the past, but also seriously undermines the frameworks that have been built for peace-building,” he said.
“To all the leaders around the world: please visit Hiroshima and witness for yourselves the reality of the atomic bombing.”
Many attendees echoed that call. “It feels more and more like history is repeating itself,” 71-year-old Yoshikazu Horie told the Reuters news agency. “Terrible things are happening in Europe … Even in Japan, in Asia, it’s going the same way – it’s very scary. I’ve got grandchildren and I want peace so they can live their lives happily.”
Survivors of the bombings – known as hibakusha – once faced discrimination over unfounded fears of disease and genetic effects. Their numbers have fallen below 100,000 for the first time this year.
Japan maintains a stated commitment to nuclear disarmament, but remains outside the UN treaty banning nuclear weapons.
The Sussex Beacon has made history with its latest LGBTQIA+ initiative.
On 16 July, the Brighton-based charity announced that it was “refreshing its approach to palliative and end of life care services,” by becoming Britain’s first hospice dedicated to the LGBTQIA+ community.
Under the “landmark development,” The Sussex Beacon will offer inclusive care with expertise in specialist HIV care.
While the organisation is setting up a new one-of-a-kind hospice service, it has decades of experience offering accessible health care for those living with HIV.
Since 1994, The Sussex Beacon has been a prominent and cherished resource for local residents in the Brighton and Hove, as well as the surrounding Greater Sussex communities.
In a statement, CEO Rachel Brett expressed her excitement over the charity’s incredible feat.
“The LGBTQ+ community built The Beacon, and now we will be giving it back, stronger and more inclusive than ever. It was originally founded to offer care in a safe, accepting space for people dying with AIDS-related illnesses,” she said.
“Thanks to advances in HIV treatment, our focus has moved to ensure that people across local communities are getting the help and support they need. Further to this, we are delighted that we can use the fantastic facility that we have to refresh our offer of hospice care for the LGBTQ+ community.”
Fortunately, the new inclusive palliative care will be delivered with the support of the NHS. However, to achieve long-term sustainability, The Sussex Beacon will be relying on charitable funding.
“It’s fair to say we need our community behind us now more than ever. The next few years will be challenging as we make this transition, but with collective support, we’ll create something truly transformative,” Brett concluded.
In a separate statement, Deputy Chief Medical Officer at NHS Sussex, Amy Dissanayake, showcased support for The Sussex Beacon, writing: “We are delighted to be working with The Sussex Beacon as they make this step to enhance the high-quality service they can provide to the local community.
“In addition to the hospice care, their experience in providing specialist community care for people living with HIV is invaluable and fully supports our ambition to bring care out of hospitals where possible, and into communities, either in people’s homes directly or in their local neighbourhood at community hubs.
“We look forward to continuing to work with the team at The Sussex Beacon to make this a reality for our population.”
In addition to offering inclusive palliative care, the longstanding charity will serve as a national resource to other hospices seeking to enhance their services for LGBTQIA+ patients.
For more information on The Sussex Beacon and their new LGBTQIA+ inclusive initiative, click here.
William Henry Harrison, the ninth president of the United States, was the last commander in chief born a British subject and the first member of the Whig Party to win the White House. He delivered the longest inaugural address in history, nearly two hours, and had the shortest presidency, being the first sitting president to die in office, just 31 days into his term.
Oh, there is one more bit of trivia about the man who gave us the slogan “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.” Harrison was the last politician to lose his first presidential election and then win the next one (Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson managed that before him). Richard Nixon lost only to win way down the road. (Grover Cleveland and Trump are the only two to win, lose and then win again.)
Everyone else since Harrison’s era who lost on the first try and ran again in the next election lost again. Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey ran twice and lost twice. Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan each ran three times in a row and lost (Clay ran on three different party tickets). Voters, it seems, don’t like losers.
These are not encouraging results for Kamala Harris, who announced last week she will not be running for governor in California, sparking speculation that she wants another go at the White House.
But history isn’t what she should worry about. It’s the here and now. The Democratic Party is wildly unpopular. It’s net favorability ( 30 points) is nearly triple the GOP’s (11 points). The Democratic Party is more unpopular than any time in the last 35 years. When Donald Trump’s unpopularity with Democrats should be having the opposite effect, 63% of Americans have an unfavorable view of the party.
Why? Because Democrats are mad at their own party — both for losing to Trump and for failing to provide much of an obstacle to him now that he’s in office. As my Dispatch colleague Nick Cattogio puts it, “Even Democrats have learned to hate Democrats.”
It’s not all Harris’ fault. Indeed, the lion’s share of the blame goes to Joe Biden and the coterie of enablers who encouraged him to run again.
Harris’ dilemma is that she symbolizes Democratic discontent with the party. That discontent isn’t monolithic. For progressives, the objection is that Democrats aren’t fighting hard enough. For the more centrist wing of the party, the problem is the Democrats are fighting for the wrong things, having lurched too far left on culture war and identity politics. Uniting both factions is visceral desire to win. That’s awkward for a politician best known for losing.
Almost the only reason Harris was positioned to be the nominee in 2024 was that she was a diversity pick. Biden was explicit that he would pick a woman and, later, an African American running mate. And the same dynamic made it impossible to sideline her when Biden withdrew.
Of course, most Democrats don’t see her race and gender as a problem, and in the abstract they shouldn’t. Indeed, every VP pick is a diversity pick, including the white guys. Running mates are chosen to appeal to some part of a coalition.
So Harris’ problem isn’t her race or sex; it’s her inability to appeal to voters in a way that expands the Democratic coalition. For Democrats to win, they need someone who can flip Trump voters. She didn’t lose because of low Democratic turnout, she lost because she’s uncompelling to a changing electorate.
Her gauzy, often gaseous, rhetoric made her sound like a dean of students at a small liberal arts college. With the exception of reproductive rights, her convictions sounded like they were crafted by focus groups, at a time when voters craved authenticity. Worse, Harris acquiesced to Biden’s insistence she not distance herself from him.
Such clubby deference to the establishment combined with boilerplate pandering to progressive constituencies — learned from years of San Francisco and California politics — makes her the perfect solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
Her choice to appear on Stephen Colbert’s “The Late Show” for her first interview since leaving office was telling. CBS recently announced it was terminating both Colbert and the show, insisting it was purely a business decision. But the reason for the broadcast network’s decision stemmed in part from the fact that Colbert narrow-casts his expensive show to a very small, very anti-Trump slice of the electorate.
“I don’t want to go back into the system. I think it’s broken,” Harrislamented to Colbert, decrying the “naïve” and “feckless” lack of “leadership” and the “capitulation” of those who “consider themselves to be guardians of our system and our democracy.”
That’s all catnip to Colbert’s ideologically committed audience. But that’s not the audience Democrats need to win. And that’s why, if Democrats nominate her again, she’ll probably go down in history as an answer to a trivia question. And it won’t be “Who was the 48th president of the United States?”
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The Democratic Party faces historic unpopularity, with a net favorability 30 points lower than Republicans, driven by widespread dissatisfaction among its own base over losses to Trump and perceived ineffectiveness in opposing his policies[1].
Kamala Harris’ political challenges stem from internal Democratic factions: progressives blame her for insufficient fight while centrists view her as emblematic of leftward shifts on cultural issues, both detractors united by a desire to win[1].
Harris’s VP selection was viewed as a diversity-driven symbolic gesture by Biden, limiting her ability to build broader appeal beyond traditional Democratic coalitions, as seen in her 2024 loss[1].
Her communication style is criticized as overly generic and focus-group-driven, lacking authenticity required to attract Trump voters, while her ties to Biden and reluctance to distance herself from his leadership are seen as electoral liabilities[1].
Historical precedents suggest candidates who lose once rarely regain viability in subsequent elections, with Harris’ potential 2028 bid viewed skeptically in light of this pattern[1].
Democratic messaging under Harris risks pandering to niche progressive audiences (e.g., her Colbert interview appeal) rather than expanding outreach to swing voters, exacerbating perceptions of elitism[1].
Different views on the topic
Harris remains a strong potential front-runner in the 2026 California governor’s race, with analysts noting her viability despite a crowded field and lingering questions about Biden’s health influencing her decision-making[1].
The Democratic Party is actively reassessing its strategy post-2024, focusing on reconnecting with working-class voters and addressing core issues like affordability and homelessness, suggesting a shift toward pragmatic problem-solving[1].
Harris’ announcement to forgo the governor’s race has been interpreted as positioning for a 2028 presidential bid, reflecting her ability to navigate political calculations with long-term ambition[2].
Internal criticisms, such as Antonio Villaraigosa’s demand for transparency on Biden’s health, reflect broader party debates about leadership accountability rather than a rejection of Harris’ Senate or VP legacy[1].
Other rising Democratic voices, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Gov. Tim Walz, embody alternatives to Harris’ messaging, indicating the party’s capacity to diversify leadership beyond established figures[2].
