Latest news with #LosAngelesDailyNews
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Sport
- Yahoo
UFC 316 predictions, odds, full card preview: Will Sean O'Malley get redemption?
UFC 316 is all about the bantamweights for a return to New Jersey's Prudential Center. It's been nearly a decade since both UFC 135-pound titles were contested on the same night, back when all-time greats Dominick Cruz and Ronda Rousey were in action in late 2016, and each came up short against Cody Garbrandt and Amanda Nunes, respectively. Advertisement The scenarios on Saturday aren't too different, as UFC 316's main event features another potential all-time great champion in the making with Merab Dvalishvili, who attempts to fend off former titleholder Sean O'Malley in a quick rematch of the pair's first meeting this past September. In the night's co-main event, women's champion Julianna Peña hopes to hold onto her title with what would be her first successful title defense if she beats Olympic champion and former PFL star Kayla Harrison. Overall, the first of June's two UFC pay-per-views is massively lopsided on the odds, including for the two title fights, which means we could be in for some dominant performances. Let's dive in. 👑 UFC 316's lineup Crown grade: C. 👑 Betting odds courtesy of BetMGM. (Joseph Raines/Yahoo Sports illustration) Merab Dvalishvili is staying active as the UFC bantamweight champion. (Photo by Hans Gutknecht, Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG) (MediaNews Group/Los Angeles Daily News via Getty Images via Getty Images) 135 pounds: (C) Merab Dvalishvili (-275) vs. Sean O'Malley (+225) There was plenty of buzz ahead of Dvalishvili vs. O'Malley 1, and for good reason. It was the first (and presumably only) UFC event ever held inside the Las Vegas Sphere. O'Malley was defending against the rightful No. 1 contender, who was also his stylistic kryptonite, and they had some minor verbal back-and-forths to amp up the tension. It was a relatively perfect storm. Advertisement The same can't quite be said about the sequel. Dvalishvili has only looked more impressive since UFC 306, handing Umar Nurmagomedov his first career loss this past January. Meanwhile, O'Malley has occupied the sidelines and stayed absent from social media to heal from the injuries he went into the first fight with. If fights with a massive LED dome in the background weren't bizarre enough, UFC 306's main event was weirder than people might remember. Dvalishvili kissed O'Malley mid-fight and had a shouting match with O'Malley's coach and cornerman Tim Welch. All of these moments resulted in warnings from referee Herb Dean, who also felt Dvalishvili needed more activity from the moment his takedown attempts were initiated. O'Malley was never able to get comfortable with his striking against Dvalishvili, and didn't find real success until desperation kicked in late. Whether or not that can be attributed to O'Malley's injuries is a fair question, but Dvalishvili is a relentless cardio "Machine" no matter what. The champion scored six of his 15 takedown attempts on O'Malley in their first fight, and there's no reason to stray from the same game plan. If anything, Dvalishvili should and likely will be more relentless with his grappling attack this time. Ahead of the first fight, I was confident enough that O'Malley would land first and put Dvalishvili out before he was grabbed. Well, we saw how it went, and I don't expect much to change. Advertisement Pick: Dvalishvili 135 pounds: (C) Julianna Pena (+525) vs. Kayla Harrison (-750) It's been a pretty roundabout way to get to this matchup between Pena and Harrison. As has been the story of her entire MMA career, the two-time Olympic gold medalist Harrison is once again a huge favorite, and rightfully so. Plain and simple, Harrison has been one of the most dominant forces in the sport since she arrived in 2018. On the other hand, the champion Pena scraped by in a controversial split-decision against Raquel Pennington last October, after previously getting dominated for five rounds in her 2022 Amanda Nunes rematch. Advertisement Pena has understandably made the entire basis of her arguments for beating Harrison a matter of competition level. However, that would be more applicable if she were welcoming Harrison to the Octagon before she beat perennial top-ranked contenders Ketlen Vieira and Holly Holm. Harrison hasn't been as dominant as she was against her early competition, but that's to be expected. Regardless, her last two performances weren't close. Most importantly, Harrison looked sharper and more complete as a fighter than ever before. That's on top of already being a historically legendary judoka. Against Pena, who heavily relies on her wrestling and aggression, Harrison is getting fed the belt on a silver platter. Pena's style is tailor-made to provide Harrison with dominant positions almost effortlessly. And striking-wise, Pena has managed to find the highest level of MMA success while simultaneously looking like a street fighter out of a 2007 WorldStarHipHop video. Harrison isn't a knockout artist. Her striking finishes come from ground and pound. But against Pena, she shouldn't have any trouble landing on a chin that almost seemingly moves itself towards fists when punching into exchanges. Similar to Pena's historic upset of Nunes in their first fight, a Harrison loss would be genuinely stunning, and probably nothing more than a result of her being completely zapped from the brutal weight cut. Advertisement Pick: Harrison 185 pounds: Kelvin Gastelum (+310) vs. Joe Pyfer (-400) This fight was originally supposed to take place three months ago at UFC Mexico until Joe Pyfer fell ill at the last minute. Not much has changed since then, so I'll largely point to those previous sentiments. The matchup will ultimately boil down to strength, as we've seen countless times over the years that when Kelvin Gastelum is on, he's one of the most skilled tactical boxers at middleweight or welterweight. However, his chin has been dealt heaps upon heaps of damage throughout his lengthy 16-year career. He's also a great wrestler, but the physicality of Pyfer with his strikes and grappling should be too much for the youngest winner in "The Ultimate Fighter" history. Advertisement Every great chin cracks eventually, and this looks to be Gastelum's time. Pick: Pyfer Patchy Mix has been one of the best bantamweights on the planet since he emerged as Bellator champion in 2023. (Photo by Matt Davies/PxImages/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images) (Icon Sportswire via Getty Images) 135 pounds: Patchy Mix (-190) vs. Mario Bautista (+155) Patchy Mix vs. Mario Bautista is the hardcore fan's main event, folks. It's always incredibly exciting for MMA fans to witness a major championship acquisition, and that's the case with Mix, who is a consensus top 10 bantamweight globally. The former Bellator champion has performed as dominantly and impressively as one could hope before getting injected into this talent-rich UFC pool. A win over Bautista should instantly insert him into title talks with one more win at most needed. Advertisement Regarding his style, Mix is similar to a more threatening Aljamain Sterling, and has rolled with the former bantamweight champion as well as the current champion Dvalishvili on multiple occasions. Rumblings through the grapevine also indicate that Mix has had his way with both high-caliber fighters, which is an incredible thought. Of course, the gym and the Octagon can often deliver two different outcomes, but it's an exciting prospect when considering the landscape. With Mix, expect him to get in close with Bautista and make things ugly as he pursues one of his patented chokes. Although this fight is all about the arrival of Mix, Bautista is a very live dog, riding into the matchup on a seven-fight winning streak with Jose Aldo as his latest pelt (albeit controversially). He's an incredibly well-rounded and strong grappler in his own right, submitting more foes than he knocks out. Not to compare with Sterling again, but because of the similarities, we could see the bantamweight version of Sterling's Movsar Evloev fight here. That's not at all a bad thing, because that fight was phenomenal, but expect a hard-fought grappling match. In the end, Mix is the real deal. Advertisement Pick: Mix 170 pounds: Vicente Luque (+220) vs. Kevin Holland (-275) Vicente Luque vs. Kevin Holland is the fight I struggled the most to pick a winner for. These are two of the more inconsistent guys on the roster when it comes to their performance temperature on the hot vs. cold scale. Never a fan of engaging in a grappling match, Holland surprised me with his defense against the always tough Gunnar Nelson this past March. Meanwhile, Luque has been much stronger of a submission artist, taking necks home when engaging in grappling rather than looking to hold and smash people. This should be a striking match for the most part, and Holland has proven more durable, especially in recent appearances. Luque has been through some wars, and a guy like Holland is a dangerous one to engage with. Advertisement Pick: Holland Preliminary notes Outside of the heavyweight bout, the moneyline differences for UFC 316 are outrageous. The amount of wide spread differentials has to be some kind of UFC record, because the matchmaking of this card looks historically atrocious based on the odds. If I had to highlight one fight that's most surprising to see someone favored so heavily, it's got to be Wang Cong against Ariane da Silva. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Wang believer, but da Silva showed fantastic improvements during her three-fight winning streak before she ran into — let me check my notes — top-ranked flyweight contenders Karine Silva and Jasmine Jasudavicius. Wang still has very much to prove as one of China's finest prospects, and this fight has all the makings to be a violent fire-fight for as long as it lasts on the feet. Advertisement Regardless of all the oddsmakers' shenanigans, the flyweight closer before the main card between Joshua Van and Bruno Gustavo de Silva will deliver some beautiful mixing of the martial arts. Quick picks: Joshua Van (-700) def. Bruno Gustavo de Silva (+500) Azamat Murzakanov (-600) def. Brendson Ribeiro (+425) Serghei Spivac (-150) def. Waldo Cortes-Acosta (+125) Khaos Williams (-190) def. Andreas Gustafsson (+155) Wang Cong (-550) def. Ariane da Silva (+400) Joo Sang Yoo (-600) def. Jeka Saragih (+425) Quillan Salkilld (-550) def. Yanal Ashmouz (+400) MarQuel Mederos (-200) def. Mark Choinski (+165)
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Yahoo
Salman Rushdie pulls out as commencement speaker at California college over protest threats
Novelist Salman Rushdie backed out of delivering a commencement speech at a California college just days before the graduation, following protests by some students on campus. The celebrated British-Indian author, whose novel The Satanic Verses has long triggered controversy and even death threats, backed out of delivering a May 17 commencement speech at Claremont McKenna College earlier this week, the Los Angeles Daily News reported. News that Rushdie, 77, would no longer deliver the address was shared across the campus in an email from Claremont McKenna President Hiram Chodosh. 'I write with news that Sir Salman Rushdie notified us yesterday of his decision to withdraw as our keynote commencement speaker,' he wrote. 'This decision was his alone and completely beyond our control,' Chodosh added. 'We remain steadfast in our commitment to Sir Salman's visit to CMC and have extended an open invitation to him to speak on our campus in the future.' Claremont McKenna's Muslim Student Association had criticized the college's choice of Rushdie in a May 2 statement, calling it 'disrespectful' and out of line with the college's commitment to inclusion. Rushdie's famous 1988 novel has triggered controversy since it was published for its depiction of the Prophet Muhammad. One year after the novel's publication, Iran's spiritual leader at the time, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa on the author — prompting him to spend years in hiding. The author has also made headlines in recent years after he was stabbed 15 times on stage while preparing to deliver a lecture in western New York. The horrifying incident caused him to lose sight in one eye, his agent said. His attacker, Hadi Matar, was convicted in February of trying to kill the Booker Prize-winning novelist. Matar is set to be sentenced on May 16, according to The Guardian. Students upset with Rushdie's upcoming address said they protested, sending emails to administrators and speaking to news outlets to make their stance known, co-president of the group, Kumail Afshar, told the Los Angeles Daily News. The Greater Los Angeles Area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations also called on the college to address students' concerns, noting in a statement that the author 'previously made troubling statements about Muslims and Palestine.' Rushdie did not appear to address the criticism when withdrawing as the commencement speaker. Dr. Richard Heinzl, founder of Doctors Without Borders Canada, will now deliver Saturday's keynote address, according to Chodosh's letter.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Yahoo
Salman Rushdie pulls out as commencement speaker at California college over protest threats
Novelist Salman Rushdie backed out of delivering a commencement speech at a California college just days before the graduation, following protests by some students on campus. The celebrated British-Indian author, whose novel The Satanic Verses has long triggered controversy and even death threats, backed out of delivering a May 17 commencement speech at Claremont McKenna College earlier this week, the Los Angeles Daily News reported. News that Rushdie, 77, would no longer deliver the address was shared across the campus in an email from Claremont McKenna President Hiram Chodosh. 'I write with news that Sir Salman Rushdie notified us yesterday of his decision to withdraw as our keynote commencement speaker,' he wrote. 'This decision was his alone and completely beyond our control,' Chodosh added. 'We remain steadfast in our commitment to Sir Salman's visit to CMC and have extended an open invitation to him to speak on our campus in the future.' Claremont McKenna's Muslim Student Association had criticized the college's choice of Rushdie in a May 2 statement, calling it 'disrespectful' and out of line with the college's commitment to inclusion. Rushdie's famous 1988 novel has triggered controversy since it was published for its depiction of the Prophet Muhammad. One year after the novel's publication, Iran's spiritual leader at the time, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa on the author — prompting him to spend years in hiding. The author has also made headlines in recent years after he was stabbed 15 times on stage while preparing to deliver a lecture in western New York. The horrifying incident caused him to lose sight in one eye, his agent said. His attacker, Hadi Matar, was convicted in February of trying to kill the Booker Prize-winning novelist. Matar is set to be sentenced on May 16, according to The Guardian. Students upset with Rushdie's upcoming address said they protested, sending emails to administrators and speaking to news outlets to make their stance known, co-president of the group, Kumail Afshar, told the Los Angeles Daily News. The Greater Los Angeles Area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations also called on the college to address students' concerns, noting in a statement that the author 'previously made troubling statements about Muslims and Palestine.' Rushdie did not appear to address the criticism when withdrawing as the commencement speaker. Dr. Richard Heinzl, founder of Doctors Without Borders Canada, will now deliver Saturday's keynote address, according to Chodosh's letter.
Miami Herald
06-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Miami Herald
There's no need for Donald Trump's Hollywood protectionism
Opinion There's no need for Donald Trump's Hollywood protectionism | Opinion The Hollywood sign is a symbol of the role Los Angeles plays in the film and television industry. (Photo by David Crane/Los Angeles Daily News) TNS On a typical day, Donald Trump's word is about as good as Golum's claim he wouldn't try to steal back his 'precious' in Lord of the Rings. Monday was not even as good as a typical day since the trial balloon of 100% tariffs on foreign films had about the same lifespan as a goblin assaulting the walls of Helm's Deep. Before Press Secretary Saruman reversed course, I was going to point out that it was not Frodo's fault that Mount Doom happens to be a volcano in New Zealand. Sauron's, I mean, Trump's planned tariffs would have hit that series of movies like Smaug after Bilbo pilfered his Lonely Mountain lair (also in New Zealand). What's worse is there is no need for them. America sits atop the global culture like a colossus. Indeed, mighty Hollywood's movie studios are not weak competitors in need of protection, they're the aggressors that the rest of the world fears. America, a cultural superpower as much as a military and economic one, has a mutant ability no other nation can match. America can launch a product like Lord of the Rings with British intellectual property, a studio as iconic as Warner Bros. and a partner as far flung as kiwi-owned WingNut Films to deliver butts into movie theaters on six continents. We are the modern-day deadly sin of cultural appropriation brought to life. To make Cinderella, America's Disney brought together fairytale elements from France, China and Greece to produce a classic beloved across the globe. Now, there's a princess for every shade of Homo Sapiens launched with movies stolen from the lore of what seems like every country on earth. Hollywood can turn domestic American Schlock like Fast and Furious into a multi-film seven billion dollar global bonanza. That's not to say Trump's tariff idea might not be justified by the bad behavior of our trading partners. America's creative industries have an economic impact of $504 billion, equivalent to the GDP of Sweden or Austria. The rest of the world is so overwhelmed with a diet of American entertainment that country after country has imposed domestic content requirements for movie theaters, radio stations and streamers alike. But even then they can't force their citizens to watch or listen to their native content. Trump's movie tariff idea isn't the first foray of the glamour industries into socialism for the rich and powerful. Somehow, Hollywood has conned state after state into subsidizing movie-making within their borders. Republicans sell it as a source of parochial pride while Democrats deem it innovative pro-growth policy. If you can believe it, California subsidizes Hollywood to make movies in Hollywood. If there need to be tariffs, Trump should slap them on Georgia, which has made big inroads onto California turf. Back in the lands of Middle Earth, Trump's tariff idea wouldn't have many backers. As much as they fuss and quarrel the lands of men, elves, dwarves and hobbits need each other. Rohan should ride to the rescue of Gondor. Rather than impose tariffs on global upstarts that occasionally get heard over the American loudspeaker, we should celebrate the popularity of Bollywood (India), K-Pop (Korea), Harry Potter (United Kingdom) and Godzilla (Japan) because it won't be long before we are selling their culture back to them. Even now Brits have to come to America to ride a Harry Potter roller coaster just like they had to wait for Hollywood to make their hairy-footed hobbits into global heroes. For the latest riff on the national security threat of Mordor, fans have to pay American Amazon. David Mastio Opinion Contributor, The Kansas City Star Go to X Go to Facebook Email this person David Mastio has worked for newspaper opinion sections since starting as letters editor of USA Today in 1995. Since then he has been the most conservative member of the liberal editorial board at both USA Today and The Virginian-Pilot, the most liberal member of the conservative editorial board at the Washington Times and founding editorial page editor at the conservative Washington Examiner. As an editorial writer, he has covered the environment, tech, science, local business and national economic policy and politics. Outside of the opinion pages, he has been a Washington correspondent for The Detroit News where he covered the intersection of the environment, regulatory policy and the car industry, California editor of the Center Square and a speech writer on trade and economics for the George W. Bush administration. He also founded his own web company called BlogNetNews, which aggregated and reported on the blog conversations across the political aisle focused on local news and politics in all 50 states.
Forbes
02-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Labor Power Weakens: April Jobs Numbers Explain May Day Rallies
Los Angeles, CA - May 01:A coalition of labor groups and activists hold a May Day rally in Los ... More Angeles for International Workers' Day and to protest Trump's policies on Thursday, May 1, 2025. (Photo by Sarah Reingewirtz/MediaNews Group/Los Angeles Daily News via Getty Images) We economists think labor bargaining power tells most of the story. Alan Greenspan was obsessed with labor power. His enduring question at the Federal Reserve was whether the economy could lower interest rates, risk a little inflation, and still not see workers winning the kind of wage gains that would push prices even higher. Capitalists care deeply about worker power, too. If workers have it, they know they'll have to share more of their profits. So right now, all eyes are on labor power — the ability of workers to negotiate better wages, better benefits, and better working conditions. I practice good "data hygiene" by keeping close tabs on several key indicators of worker power: The Q1 2025 GDP number was strikingly sad: consistent with a coming recession. Friday's jobs numbers are also downbeat. The Employment Situation report, released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for April 2025, reveals that despite relatively strong nominal wage growth, real worker confidence and power are eroding during the first 100 days of President Donald Trump's second term. The share of unemployed individuals who voluntarily quit their jobs is a direct measure of worker confidence — signaling whether workers believe they can find a better opportunity. In January 2025, 13.2% of the unemployed were job leavers; by April 2025, that number had fallen to 11.8%. The steep drop shows that fewer workers are willing to take the risk of quitting without another job lined up — an unmistakable sign that confidence is falling fast. I back up my interpretation of the job leaver data with numbers from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, which is released separately from the more famous first Friday "jobs report" each month. As discussed in my previous Forbes blog, I use both the Employment Situation and JOLTS data to better understand shifts in bargaining power. The JOLTS quits rate — the percentage of workers voluntarily leaving their jobs each month — peaked in 2021 at 3.0%. As of February 2025, the quits rate has dropped to 2.2%. The continued drop in the quits rate confirms the sharp decline in worker confidence already showing up in the main jobs data. Wage growth is one primary sign of labor market strength. In April 2025, average weekly earnings for all employees on private non-farm payrolls rose by 0.3% to $1,080. The increase in earnings can reflect an increase in pay and an increase in hours. So, these numbers aren't anemic. Over the past 12 months, nominal earnings have increased by 3.8% and seasonally adjusted. Wages are still up. Inflation has moderated: The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (also known as CPI-U) rose by 2.4% over the same 12 months. Thus, real wages increased by about 1.4% year-over-year — a modest but positive gain in purchasing power. Wages rose modestly across the major employment sectors between January and April 2025. In one of our big sectors — health care and social assistance — where about 20 million workers are employed, the average hourly wage (without adjusting for inflation) increased from $35.90 to $36.20, a gain of 30 cents. In retail trade, which employs around 15 million workers, average hourly wages rose from $22.17 to $22.50, an increase of 33 cents. The professional and business services sector, with approximately 22 million workers, saw hourly wages move from $41.60 to $42.00, a rise of 40 cents. Meanwhile, in leisure and hospitality, a sector that includes 14 million workers, average hourly earnings grew from $20.05 to $20.30, a 25-cent gain. Overall, across the private sector, covering about 130 million workers, average hourly earnings climbed from $34.55 in January to $35.00 in April, an increase of 45 cents. Long term unemployment is rising. The so-called U-1 rate (people unemployed 15 weeks or longer) is our number to capture the sadness and frustration — not to mention lost output — of people pounding the pavement and the keyboard looking for work for a long time (actually the labor department stops counting after 52 weeks, but people still look after a year). Expressed as a percent of the civilian labor force the numbers show how deeply entrenched unemployment is becoming. In January 2025, the U-1 rate stood at 1.5%. By April 2025, it had climbed to 1.9% — a 0.4 percentage point increase. An uptick like this suggests that it's getting harder for unemployed workers to get back to work, eroding their bargaining position even further. Underemployment also climbed. The broader underemployment measure (economists call it U-6) captures the 'officially unemployed' and also the people we know could work more but they are discouraged from seeking work and others don't have enough hours, they are working part-time for economic reasons. In January 2025, the U-6 rate was 7.5%. In April 2025, it rose to 7.8% — a 0.3 percentage point increase. And over the past year the U-6 rate is up by about 0.5 percentage points, showing a creeping rise in involuntary part-time work and broader underemployment. That's not good for labor power. In summary, although the stock market may be up today — generally bad news for workers is a good sign for capital — the signs for working Americans are not good. May Day rallies across the United States saw large crowds — estimates suggest over 100,000 people nationwide across dozens of cities called for stronger worker rights and better wages, Reuters reported. These signals point to weakening labor bargaining power during the first 100 days of Trump's presidency. And the jobs numbers punctuate the verve of the May Day rallies. The people there are many, and the people running the Trump presidency are few. So, if all signs point to weakening labor bargaining power during the first 100 days of Trump's presidency how will the economy — and the ballot box —judge its effects?. I don't want a recession. I'm keeping close watch for signs. For the sake of the standard of living of American households, I hope this weakening trend doesn't harden into a lasting pattern of lost worker gains.
