ReportWire

Tag: favor

  • Rep. Nancy Pelosi, trailblazing Democratic leader from San Francisco, won’t seek reelection

    [ad_1]

    SAN FRANCISCO — Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a trailblazing San Francisco Democrat who leveraged decades of power in the U.S. House to become one of the most influential political leaders of her generation, will not run for reelection in 2026, she said Thursday.

    The former House speaker, 85, who has been in Congress since 1987 and oversaw both of President Trump’s first-term impeachments, had been pushing off her 2026 decision until after Tuesday’s vote on Proposition 50, a ballot measure she backed and helped bankroll to redraw California’s congressional maps in her party’s favor.

    With the measure’s resounding passage, Pelosi said it was time to start clearing the path for another Democrat to represent San Francisco — one of the nation’s most liberal bastions — in Congress, as some are already vying to do.

    “With a grateful heart, I look forward to my final year of service as your proud representative,” Pelosi said in a nearly six-minute video she posted online Thursday morning, in which she also recounted major achievements from her long career.

    Pelosi did not immediately endorse a would-be successor, but challenged her constituents to stay engaged.

    “As we go forward, my message to the city I love is this: San Francisco, know your power,” she said. “We have made history, we have made progress, we have always led the way — and now we must continue to do so by remaining full participants in our democracy, and fighting for the American ideals we hold dear.”

    Pelosi’s announcement drew immediate reaction across the political world, with Democrats lauding her dedication and accomplishments and President Trump, a frequent target and critic of hers, ridiculing her as a “highly overrated politician.”

    Pelosi has not faced a serious challenge for her seat since President Reagan was in office, and has won recent elections by wide margins. Just a year ago, she won reelection with 81% of the vote.

    However, Pelosi was facing two hard-to-ignore challengers from her own party in next year’s Democratic primary: state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), 55, a prolific and ambitious lawmaker with a strong base of support in the city, and Saikat Chakrabarti, 39, a Democratic political operative and tech millionaire who is infusing his campaign with personal cash.

    Their challenges come amid a shifting tide against gerontocracy in Democratic politics more broadly, as many in the party’s base have increasingly questioned the ability of its longtime leaders — especially those in their 70s and 80s — to sustain an energetic and effective resistance to President Trump and his MAGA agenda.

    In announcing his candidacy for Pelosi’s seat last month after years of deferring to her, Wiener said he simply couldn’t wait any longer. “The world is changing, the Democratic Party is changing, and it’s time,” he said.

    Chakrabarti — who helped Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) topple another older Democratic incumbent with a message of generational change in 2018 — said voters in San Francisco “need a whole different approach” to governing after years of longtime party leaders failing to deliver.

    In an interview Thursday, Wiener called Pelosi an “icon” who delivered for San Francisco in more ways than most people can comprehend, with whom he shared a “deep love” for the city. He also recounted, in particular, Pelosi’s early advocacy for AIDS treatment and care in the 1980s, and the impact it had on him personally.

    “I remember vividly what it felt like as a closeted gay teenager, having a sense that the country had abandoned people like me, and that the country didn’t care if people like me died. I was 17, and that was my perception of my place in the world,” Wiener said. “Nancy Pelosi showed that that wasn’t true, that there were people in positions of power who gave a damn about gay men and LGBTQ people and people living with HIV and those of us at risk for HIV — and that was really powerful.”

    While anticipated by many, Pelosi’s decision nonetheless reverberated through political circles, including as yet another major sign that a new political era is dawning for the political left — as also evidenced by the stunning rise of Zohran Mamdani, the 34-year-old democratic socialist elected Tuesday as New York City’s next mayor.

    Known as a relentless and savvy party tactician, Pelosi had fought off concerns about her age in the past, including when she chose to run again last year. The first woman ever elected speaker in 2007, Pelosi has long cultivated and maintained a spry image belying her age by walking the halls of Congress in signature four-inch stilettos, and by keeping up a rigorous schedule of flying between work in Washington and constituent events in her home district.

    However, that veneer has worn down in recent years, including when she broke her hip during a fall in Europe in December.

    That occurred just after fellow octogenarian President Biden sparked intense speculation about his age and cognitive abilities with his disastrous debate performance against Trump in June of last year. The performance led to Biden being pushed to drop out of the race — in part by Pelosi — and to Vice President Kamala Harris moving to the top of the ticket and losing badly to Trump in November.

    Democrats have also watched other older liberal leaders age and die in power in recent years, including the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, another San Francisco power player in Washington. When Ginsburg died in office at 87, it handed Trump a third Supreme Court appointment. When Feinstein died in office ill at 90, it was amid swirling questions about her competency to serve.

    By bowing out of the 2026 race, Pelosi — who stepped down from party leadership in 2022 — diminished her own potential for an ungraceful last chapter in office. But she did not concede that her current effectiveness has diminished one bit.

    Pelosi was one of the most vocal and early proponents of Proposition 50, which amends the state constitution to give state Democrats the power through 2030 to redraw California’s congressional districts in their favor.

    The measure was in response to Republicans in red states such as Texas redrawing maps in their favor, at Trump’s direction. Pelosi championed it as critical to preserving Democrats’ chances of winning back the House next year and checking Trump through the second half of his second term, something she and others suggested will be vital for the survival of American democracy.

    On Tuesday, California voters resoundingly approved Proposition 50.

    In her video, Pelosi noted a litany of accomplishments during her time in office, crediting them not to herself but to her constituents, to labor groups, to nonprofits and private entrepreneurs, to the city’s vibrant diversity and flair for innovation.

    She noted bringing federal resources to the city to recover after the Loma Prieta earthquake, and San Francisco’s leading role in tackling the devastating HIV/AIDS crisis through partnerships with University of California San Francisco and San Francisco General, which “pioneered comprehensive community based care, prevention and research” still used today.

    She mentioned passing the Ryan White CARE Act and the Affordable Care Act, building out various San Francisco and California public transportation systems, building affordable housing and protecting the environment — all using federal dollars her position helped her to secure.

    “It seems prophetic now that the slogan of my very first campaign in 1987 was, ‘A voice that will be heard,’ and it was you who made those words come true. It was the faith that you had placed in me, and the latitude that you have given me, that enabled me to shatter the marble ceiling and be the first woman Speaker of the House, whose voice would certainly be heard,” Pelosi said. “It was an historic moment for our country, and it was momentous for our community — empowering me to bring home billions of dollars for our city and our state.”

    After her announcement, Trump ridiculed her, telling Fox News that her decision not to seek reelection was “a great thing for America” and calling her “evil, corrupt, and only focused on bad things for our country.”

    “She was rapidly losing control of her party and it was never coming back,” Trump told the outlet, according to a segment shared by the White House. “I’m very honored she impeached me twice, and failed miserably twice.”

    The House succeeded in impeaching Trump twice, but the Senate acquitted him both times.

    Pelosi’s fellow Democrats, by contrast, heaped praise on her as a one-of-a-kind force in U.S. politics — a savvy tactician, a prolific legislator and a mentor to an entire generation of fellow Democrats.

    Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a longtime Pelosi ally who helped her impeach Trump, called Pelosi “the greatest Speaker in American history” as a result of “her tenacity, intellect, strategic acumen and fierce advocacy.”

    “She has been an indelible part of every major progressive accomplishment in the 21st Century — her work in Congress delivered affordable health care to millions, created countless jobs, raised families out of poverty, cleaned up pollution, brought LGBTQ+ rights into the mainstream, and pulled our economy back from the brink of destruction not once, but twice,” Schiff said.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom said Pelosi “has inspired generations,” that her “courage and conviction to San Francisco, California, and our nation has set the standard for what public service should be,” and that her impact on the country was “unmatched.”

    “Wishing you the best in this new chapter — you’ve more than earned it,” Newsom wrote above Pelosi’s online video.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Supreme Court debate Louisiana redistricting case centering on Voting Rights Act

    [ad_1]

    Supreme Court set to hear arguments on pivotal Louisiana redistricting case

    The Supreme Court is reviewing a case involving Louisiana’s congressional map and its implications for racial gerrymandering.

    Updated: 4:54 AM PDT Oct 15, 2025

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    The Supreme Court is deliberating a case today that could reshape congressional redistricting nationwide, focusing on racial gerrymandering in Louisiana.States are allowed to redistrict based on party lines, but this case in the Supreme Court deals with gerrymandering along racial lines and could change who you’re voting for. If the Supreme Court justices get rid of Section Two, the last remaining part of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in redistricting, it could upend electoral maps nationwide.At issue is Louisiana’s congressional map, which has two majority Black districts. The state drew a new map in 2022, but civil rights advocates argued in federal court that it violated part of the Voting Rights Act because it only included one majority Black district. They won, and the state redrew the map, but a group claimed it was racist against them. A court agreed, leading to the current Supreme Court case.A ruling in favor of Louisiana could open the door for states with large minority populations, mostly red states in the South, to redraw congressional districts, essentially eliminating majority Black and Latino seats that tend to favor Democrats.”If the court, as I think some people expect, says you can’t use race ever anymore, or if the Voting Rights Act allows you to use race, then that violates the Constitution under the 14th and 15th amendments, then we are basically done with the Voting Rights Act,” American University Washington College of Law Professor Stephen Wermiel said.Once the Supreme Court hears arguments today, a decision will most likely be released in the late spring or early summer.Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    WASHINGTON —

    The Supreme Court is deliberating a case today that could reshape congressional redistricting nationwide, focusing on racial gerrymandering in Louisiana.

    States are allowed to redistrict based on party lines, but this case in the Supreme Court deals with gerrymandering along racial lines and could change who you’re voting for.

    If the Supreme Court justices get rid of Section Two, the last remaining part of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in redistricting, it could upend electoral maps nationwide.

    At issue is Louisiana’s congressional map, which has two majority Black districts. The state drew a new map in 2022, but civil rights advocates argued in federal court that it violated part of the Voting Rights Act because it only included one majority Black district. They won, and the state redrew the map, but a group claimed it was racist against them. A court agreed, leading to the current Supreme Court case.

    A ruling in favor of Louisiana could open the door for states with large minority populations, mostly red states in the South, to redraw congressional districts, essentially eliminating majority Black and Latino seats that tend to favor Democrats.

    “If the court, as I think some people expect, says you can’t use race ever anymore, or if the Voting Rights Act allows you to use race, then that violates the Constitution under the 14th and 15th amendments, then we are basically done with the Voting Rights Act,” American University Washington College of Law Professor Stephen Wermiel said.

    Once the Supreme Court hears arguments today, a decision will most likely be released in the late spring or early summer.

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senate approves White House economist Stephen Miran to serve on Federal Reserve board

    [ad_1]

    The Senate has approved one of President Donald Trump’s top economic advisers for a seat on the Federal Reserve’s governing board, giving the White House greater influence over the central bank just two days before it is expected to vote in favor of reducing its key interest rate.The vote to confirm Stephen Miran was largely along party lines, 48-47. He was approved by the Senate Banking Committee last week with all Republicans voting in favor and all Democrats opposed.Miran’s nomination has sparked concerns about the Fed’s longtime independence from day-to-day politics after he said during a committee hearing earlier this month that he would keep his job as chair of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, though would take unpaid leave. Senate Democrats have said such an approach is incompatible with an independent Fed.Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said ahead of the vote that Miran “has no independence” and would be “nothing more than Donald Trump’s mouthpiece at the Fed.”The vote was along party lines, with Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski the only Republican to vote against Miran.Miran is completing an unexpired term that ends in January, after Adriana Kugler unexpectedly stepped down from the board Aug. 1. He said if he is appointed to a longer term he would resign from his White House job. Previous presidents have appointed advisers to the Fed, including former chair Ben Bernanke, who served in president George W. Bush’s administration. But Bernanke and others left their White House jobs when joining the board.Miran said during his Sept. 4 hearing that, if confirmed, “I will act independently, as the Federal Reserve always does, based on my own personal analysis of economic data.”Last year, Miran criticized what he called the “revolving door” of officials between the White House and the Fed, in a paper he co-wrote with Daniel Katz for the conservative Manhattan Institute. Katz is now chief of staff at the Treasury Department.Miran’s approval arrives as Trump’s efforts to shape the Fed have been dealt a setback elsewhere. He has sought to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden to a term that ends in 2038. Cook sued to block the firing and won a first round in federal court, after a judge ruled the Trump administration did not have proper cause to remove her.The administration appealed the ruling, but an appeals court rejected that request late Monday. Members of the Fed’s board vote on all its interest rate decisions, and also oversee the nation’s financial system.The jockeying around the Fed is occurring as the economy is entering an uncertain and difficult period. Inflation remains stubbornly above the central bank’s 2% target, though it hasn’t risen as much as many economists feared when Trump first imposed sweeping tariffs on nearly all imports. The Fed typically would raise borrowing costs, or at least keep them elevated, to combat worsening inflation.At the same time, hiring has weakened considerably and the unemployment rate rose last month to a still-low 4.3%. The central bank often takes the opposite approach when unemployment rises, cutting rates to spur more borrowing, spending and growth.Economists forecast the Fed will reduce its key rate after its two-day meeting ends Wednesday, to about 4.1% from 4.3%. Trump has demanded much deeper cuts.

    WASHINGTON —

    The Senate has approved one of President Donald Trump’s top economic advisers for a seat on the Federal Reserve’s governing board, giving the White House greater influence over the central bank just two days before it is expected to vote in favor of reducing its key interest rate.

    The vote to confirm Stephen Miran was largely along party lines, 48-47. He was approved by the Senate Banking Committee last week with all Republicans voting in favor and all Democrats opposed.

    Miran’s nomination has sparked concerns about the Fed’s longtime independence from day-to-day politics after he said during a committee hearing earlier this month that he would keep his job as chair of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, though would take unpaid leave. Senate Democrats have said such an approach is incompatible with an independent Fed.

    Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said ahead of the vote that Miran “has no independence” and would be “nothing more than Donald Trump’s mouthpiece at the Fed.”

    The vote was along party lines, with Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski the only Republican to vote against Miran.

    Miran is completing an unexpired term that ends in January, after Adriana Kugler unexpectedly stepped down from the board Aug. 1. He said if he is appointed to a longer term he would resign from his White House job. Previous presidents have appointed advisers to the Fed, including former chair Ben Bernanke, who served in president George W. Bush’s administration. But Bernanke and others left their White House jobs when joining the board.

    Miran said during his Sept. 4 hearing that, if confirmed, “I will act independently, as the Federal Reserve always does, based on my own personal analysis of economic data.”

    Last year, Miran criticized what he called the “revolving door” of officials between the White House and the Fed, in a paper he co-wrote with Daniel Katz for the conservative Manhattan Institute. Katz is now chief of staff at the Treasury Department.

    Miran’s approval arrives as Trump’s efforts to shape the Fed have been dealt a setback elsewhere. He has sought to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden to a term that ends in 2038. Cook sued to block the firing and won a first round in federal court, after a judge ruled the Trump administration did not have proper cause to remove her.

    The administration appealed the ruling, but an appeals court rejected that request late Monday.

    Members of the Fed’s board vote on all its interest rate decisions, and also oversee the nation’s financial system.

    The jockeying around the Fed is occurring as the economy is entering an uncertain and difficult period. Inflation remains stubbornly above the central bank’s 2% target, though it hasn’t risen as much as many economists feared when Trump first imposed sweeping tariffs on nearly all imports. The Fed typically would raise borrowing costs, or at least keep them elevated, to combat worsening inflation.

    At the same time, hiring has weakened considerably and the unemployment rate rose last month to a still-low 4.3%. The central bank often takes the opposite approach when unemployment rises, cutting rates to spur more borrowing, spending and growth.

    Economists forecast the Fed will reduce its key rate after its two-day meeting ends Wednesday, to about 4.1% from 4.3%. Trump has demanded much deeper cuts.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • On U.S. direction under Trump, Californians split sharply along partisan lines, poll finds

    [ad_1]

    California voters are heavily divided along partisan lines when it comes to President Trump, with large majorities of Democrats and unaffiliated voters disapproving of him and believing the country is headed in the wrong direction under his leadership, and many Republicans feeling the opposite, according to a new poll conducted for The Times.

    The findings are remarkably consistent with past polling on the Republican president in the nation’s most populous blue state, said Mark DiCamillo, director of the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies Poll.

    “If you look at all the job ratings we’ve done about President Trump — and this carries back all the way through his first term — voters have pretty much maintained the same posture,” DiCamillo said. “Voters know who he is.”

    The same partisan divide also showed up in the poll on a number of hot-button issues, such as Medicaid cuts and tariffs, DiCamillo said — with Democrats “almost uniformly” opposed to Trump’s agenda and Republicans “pretty much on board with what Trump is doing.”

    Asked whether the sweeping tariffs that Trump has imposed on international trading partners have had a “noticeable negative impact” on their family spending, 71% of Democrats said yes, while 76% of Republicans said no.

    “If you’re a Republican, you tend to discount the impacts — you downplay them or you just ignore them,” while Democrats “tend to blame everything on Trump,” DiCamillo said.

    Asked whether they were confident that the Trump administration would provide California with the nearly $40 billion in wildfire relief aid it has requested in response to the devastating L.A.-area fires in January, 93% of Democrats said they were not confident — compared with the 43% of Republicans who said they were confident.

    In a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1, the effect is that Trump fared terribly in the poll overall, just as he has in recent presidential votes in the state.

    The poll — conducted Aug. 11-17 with 4,950 registered voters interviewed — found 69% of likely California voters disapproved of Trump, with 62% strongly disapproving, while 29% approved of him. A similar majority, 68%, said they believed the country is headed in the wrong direction, while 26% said it’s headed in the right direction.

    Whereas 90% of Democrats and 75% of unaffiliated voters said the country is on the wrong track, just 20% of Republicans felt that way, the poll found.

    The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the poll.

    Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said the findings prove Trump’s agenda “is devastating communities across California who are dealing with the harmful, real life consequences” of the president’s policies.

    “The Trump Administration does not represent the views of the vast majority of Californians and it’s why Trump has chosen California to push the limits of his constitutional power,” Padilla said. “As more Americans across the nation continue to feel the impacts of his destructive policies, public support will continue to erode.”

    G. Cristina Mora, co-director of the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, or IGS, said the findings were interesting, especially in light of other recent polling for The Times that found slightly more nuanced Republican impressions — and more wariness — when it comes to Trump’s immigration agenda and tactics.

    On his overall approval and on other parts of his agenda, including the tariffs and Medicaid cuts, “the strength of the partisanship is very clear,” Mora said.

    Cuts to Medicaid

    Voters in the state are similarly divided when it comes to recent decisions on Medicaid health insurance for low-income residents, the poll found. The state’s version is known as Medi-Cal.

    For instance, Californians largely disapprove of new work requirements for Medicaid and Medi-Cal recipients under the Big Beautiful Bill that Trump championed and congressional Republicans recently passed into law, the poll found.

    The bill requires most Medicaid recipients ages 18 to 64 to work at least 80 hours per month in order to continue receiving benefits. Republicans trumpeted the change as holding people accountable and safeguarding against abuses of federal taxpayer dollars, while Democrats denounced it as a threat to public health that would strip millions of vulnerable Americans of their health insurance.

    The poll found 61% of Californians disapproved of the change, with 43% strongly disapproving of it, while 36% approved of it, with 21% strongly approving of it. Voters were sharply divided along party lines, however, with 80% of Republicans approving of the changes and 85% of Democrats disapproving of them.

    Californians also disapproved — though by a smaller margin — of a move by California Democrats and Gov. Gavin Newsom to help close a budget shortfall by barring undocumented immigrant adults from newly enrolling in Medi-Cal benefits.

    A slight majority of poll respondents, or 52%, said they disapproved of the new restriction, with 17% strongly disapproving of it. The poll found 43% of respondents approved of the change, including 30% who strongly approved of it.

    Among Democrats, 77% disapproved of the change. Among Republicans, 87% approved of it. Among voters with no party preference, 52% disapproved.

    More than half the poll respondents — 57% — said neither they nor their immediate family members receive Medi-Cal benefits, while 35% said they did. Of those who receive Medi-Cal, two-thirds — or 67% — said they were very or somewhat worried about losing, or about someone in their immediate family losing, their coverage due to changes by the Trump administration.

    Nadereh Pourat, associate director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, said there is historical evidence to show what is going to happen next under the changes — and it’s not good.

    The work requirement will undoubtedly result in people losing health coverage, just as thousands did when Arkansas implemented a similar requirement years ago, she said.

    When people lose coverage, the cost of preventative care goes up and they generally receive less of it, she said. “If the doctor’s visit competes with food on the table or rent, then people are going to skip those primary care visits,” she said — and often “end up in the emergency room” instead.

    And that’s more expensive not just for them, but also for local and state healthcare systems, she said.

    Cuts to high-speed rail

    Californians also are heavily divided over the state’s efforts to build a high-speed rail line through the Central Valley, after the Trump administration announced it was clawing back $4 billion in promised federal funding.

    The project was initially envisioned as connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco by 2026, but officials have since set new goals of connecting Bakersfield to Merced by 2030. The project is substantially over budget, and Trump administration officials have called in a “boondoggle.”

    The poll found that 49% of Californians support the project, with 28% of them strongly in favor of it. It found 42% oppose the project, including 28% who strongly oppose it.

    Among Democrats, 66% were in favor of the project. Among Republicans, 77% were opposed. Among voters with no party preference, 49% were in favor while 39% were opposed.

    In Los Angeles County, 54% of voters were in favor of the project continuing, while 58% of voters in the Bay Area were in favor. In the Central Valley, 51% of voters were opposed, compared with 41% in favor.

    State Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San José), who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee, said political rhetoric around the project has clearly had an effect on how voters feel about it, and that is partly because state leaders haven’t done enough to lay out why the project makes sense economically.

    “Healthy skepticism is a good thing, especially when you’re dealing with billions of dollars,” he said. “It’s on legislators and the governor right now in California to lay out a strategy that you can’t poke a lot of holes in, and that hasn’t been the case in the past.”

    Cortese said he started life as an orchard farmer in what is now Silicon Valley, knows what major public infrastructure investments can mean for rural communities such as those in the Central Valley, and will be hyperfocused on that message moving forward.

    “There is no part of California that I know of that’s been waiting for more economic development than Bakersfield. Probably second is Fresno,” he said.

    He said he also will be stressing to local skeptics of the project that supporting the Trump administration taking $4 billion away from California would be a silly thing to do no matter their politics. Conservative local officials who understand that will be “key to help us turn the tide,” he said.

    Last month, California’s high-speed rail authority sued the Trump administration over the withdrawal of funds. The state is also suing the Trump administration over various changes to Medicaid, over Trump’s tariffs and over immigration enforcement tactics.

    Mora said the sharp divide among Democrats and Republicans on Trump and his agenda called to mind other recent polling that showed many voters immediately changed their views of the economy after Trump took office — with Republicans suddenly feeling more optimistic, and Democrats more pessimistic.

    It’s all a reflection of our modern, hyperpartisan politics, she said, where people’s perceptions — including about their own economic well-being — are “tied now much more closely to ideas about who’s in power.”

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • ‘Joker: Folie à Deux’ Hates You. Will You Return the Favor?

    ‘Joker: Folie à Deux’ Hates You. Will You Return the Favor?

    [ad_1]

    Sean is joined by Van Lathan to discuss Joker: Folie à Deux, the off-putting sequel to Todd Phillips’s 2019 Joker, starring Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga (1:00). They discuss the jukebox musical format’s successes and failures, the filmmaking vs. the experience of watching it, and whether they ultimately liked the movie. Then, they zoom out to discuss the state of moviegoing and movie watching (43:00) and explore whether we’re in a uniquely strange place with the reception of movies and the conversation social media inspires about divisive films and filmmakers. Finally, Sean is joined by director Greg Jardin to discuss his debut feature, It’s What’s Inside, an all-in-one-night sci-fi thriller with some unexpected twists (spoilers!) and fresh filmmaking choices (1:05:00).

    Host: Sean Fennessey
    Guests: Van Lathan and Greg Jardin
    Senior Producer: Bobby Wagner
    Video Producer: Jack Sanders

    Subscribe: Spotify / Apple Podcasts

    [ad_2]

    Sean Fennessey

    Source link

  • 'We're still San Francisco:' Board of Supervisors votes in favor of cease-fire resolution in Gaza

    'We're still San Francisco:' Board of Supervisors votes in favor of cease-fire resolution in Gaza

    [ad_1]

    San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors on Tuesday joined a number of California cities and municipalities in voting in favor of a resolution calling for a cease-fire to the hostilities in the Gaza Strip.

    The resolution, approved on an 8-3 vote, calls for a “sustained ceasefire in Gaza, humanitarian aid, release of hostages, and condemning antisemitic, anti-Palestinian, and Islamophobic rhetoric and attacks.”

    Board President Aaron Peskin and Supervisors Connie Chan, Joel Engardio, Myrna Melgar, Dean Preston, Hillary Ronen, Ahsha Safai and Shamann Walton voted in favor. Supervisors Matt Dorsey, Rafael Mandelman and Catherine Stefani were opposed.

    “I know this resolution, some people think it’s not going to do anything,” Safai said. “It will allow some people in our communities to feel heard and seen for the very first time … in our city.”

    The resolution calls for an end to “the targeting of civilians” and estimates that about 1.7 million Palestinians have been displaced while hundreds of thousands more “are at imminent risk in Gaza” without a cease-fire. The resolution also acknowledges the danger for the roughly 137 Israelis kept hostage by the militant group Hamas.

    Hamas launched an attack Oct. 7 that killed roughly 1,200 people and led to the kidnapping of more than 200. Israel’s response, backed by U.S. funding and weapons, is believed to be responsible for at least 22,000 Palestinian deaths so far.

    San Francisco joins fellow Northern California cities Richmond and Oakland in passing resolutions calling for a cease-fire. Richmond is believed to have been the first U.S. city to call for a cessation of fighting, on Oct. 25, while Oakland took action on Nov. 27.

    Much smaller Cudahy was the first Southern California city to call for a cease-fire, on Nov. 7.

    Leaders in other cities listened to spirited debates but ultimately declined to pass similar resolutions, as was the case in Santa Ana on Dec. 5.

    Cudahy’s resolution said Palestinians had “lived under violent and dehumanizing conditions.” Richmond’s resolution accused the state of Israel of “ethnic cleansing” and the war crime of “collective punishment.”

    San Francisco’s resolution pointed to the United States government’s role in conflict as it “provides substantial military funding to Israel.”

    It also called on “the Biden Administration and Congress to call for a ceasefire, humanitarian aid, and the release of all hostages.”

    “We’re going to start something here today that’s going to take off across cities all over the United States,” supervisor Ronen said. “And if enough of us speak out, President Biden will have to listen.”

    No public comment period for the resolution was held Tuesday. Instead, nearly 200 people spoke at Monday’s Rules Committee meeting, and nearly 400 attended the meeting in person during a public comment period Dec. 5, with all but one speaker voicing support for a cease-fire.

    “We’ve never seen this level of engagement and passion and so many people coming forward to share their views on this,” said Preston, the resolution’s author. “And it’s not just about people coming in and speaking, it is about people sharing such intensely personal and emotional experiences.”

    On Tuesday, chanting, booing and yelling could be heard inside the supervisors’ chambers from a small audience there and a much larger one outside.

    Dorsey, who opposed the measure and unsuccessfully attempted to amend the resolution in committee on Monday, was booed the loudest. At one point, the supervisors’ chamber was nearly cleared due to the disruptions.

    Dorsey said he could not vote for the resolution because it failed to condemn Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack. Its adoption would “send a dangerous and unthinkable message that terrorism works,” Dorsey said.

    Similarly, Stefani said she “won’t stay silent about the threat” of Hamas, which she suggested employed sexual assault against women during its Oct. 7 raid.

    “I will stand up for women and girls every time, no matter what threats may come my way,” she said. “You cannot call for a cease-fire without calling for the surrender and removal of Hamas and the return of all the hostages.”

    After an hour of discussion, applause rang out from the crowd as the board voted in favor of the resolution.

    “We stood up even when it was hard, even when we were threatened with political repercussions, which we all have been,” Ronen said. “I just have to say that today is one of those days where it feels like San Francisco is still here. We’re still San Francisco.”

    [ad_2]

    Andrew J. Campa

    Source link