Volunteers flocked to scrub protest graffiti off the Japanese American National Museum
So she stopped at Anawalt Lumber to buy $50 of rags, gloves, scraping brushes and canisters of graffiti remover, drove east to downtown and quite literally rolled up her sleeves.
Wiping sweat off her brow with the elbow of her white button-down shirt, Carpenter said she had no official affiliation with the museum but was half Japanese and had volunteered there years ago as a teenager.
Working to remove the spray paint scrawled across the windows felt like a tangible thing she could do in the few hours she had before she had to pick up her young children from school on the Westside.
JANM, as it's known, is an institution that knows a thing or two about immigrants in America, belonging and othering, and what it looks like when rights are suspended without due process.
The museum centers on the Japanese American experience in the United States and the excruciating lessons of the community's incarceration during World War II.
'This is the very last place anybody should be tagging,' said Susan Jekarl, a Glendale-based activist who'd separately shown up with several friends in tow to scrub windows at JANM.
Jekarl, a former docent at the museum, said her 'soul just like dropped' when she saw the first tags outside the building while marching on Sunday. There was far more defacement over the next 24 hours.
'We want peaceful resistance. We don't want people hurting Little Tokyo,' she said. She was confident the 'agitators' didn't know what this place stood for.
Monday's protests were largely calmer than the havoc on Sunday, but damage was wrought downtown, particularly around Little Tokyo and in the Jewelry District.
Mayor Karen Bass decried the violence and vandalism in downtown neighborhoods as 'unacceptable' but also reiterated that it was limited to a small geographic area.
'The visuals make it seem as though our entire city is in flames, and it is not the case at all,' Bass said.
She spoke to the terror and uncertainty rippling through immigrant communities after the raids and said she was unsure what the Marines arriving in Greater Los Angeles on Tuesday planned to do. On Tuesday evening, she implemented a local overnight curfew for most of downtown, which she said would probably remain in place for several days.
Defense Secretary and former Fox & Friends Weekend co-host Pete Hegseth told lawmakers Tuesday that the deployment of National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles would cost at least $134 million and last at least 60 days.
Today's great photo is from Times photographer Myung J. Chun at famed songwriter Allee Willis' home, dubbed Willis Wonderland, which has been reimagined as a pop-up book so anyone can see inside.
Julia Wick, staff writerKevinisha Walker, multiplatform editorAndrew Campa, Sunday writerKarim Doumar, head of newsletters
How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@latimes.com. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
6 hours ago
- NBC News
Columbia Sportswear sues Columbia University, alleging merchandise too similar and causes confusion
For decades, T-shirts, sweatshirts and other clothing under the Columbia Sportswear brand and clothing emblazoned with the Columbia University name coexisted more or less peacefully without confusion. But now, the Portland-based outdoor retailer has sued the New York-based university over alleged trademark infringement and a breach of contract, among other charges. It claims that the university's merchandise looks too similar to what's being sold at more than 800 retail locations including more than 150 of its branded stores as well as its website and third-party marketplaces. In a lawsuit filed July 23 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Columbia Sportswear, whose roots date back to 1938, alleges that the university intentionally violated an agreement the parties signed on June 13, 2023. That agreement dictated how the university could use the word 'Columbia' on its own apparel. As part of the pact, the university could feature 'Columbia' on its merchandise provided that the name included a recognizable school insignia or its mascot, the word 'university,' the name of the academic department or the founding year of the university — 1754 — or a combination. But Columbia Sportswear alleges the university breached the agreement a little more than a year later, with the company noticing several garments without any of the school logos being sold at the Columbia University online store. Many of the garments feature a bright blue color that is 'confusingly similar' to the blue color that has long been associated with Columbia Sportswear, the suit alleged. The lawsuit offered photos of some of the Columbia University items that say only Columbia. 'The likelihood of deception, confusion, and mistake engendered by the university's misappropriation and misuse of the Columbia name is causing irreparable harm to the brand and goodwill symbolized by Columbia Sportswear's registered mark Columbia and the reputation for quality it embodies,' the lawsuit alleged. The lawsuit comes at a time when Columbia University has been threatened with the potential loss of billions of dollars in government support. Last week, Columbia University reached a deal with the Trump administration to pay more than $220 million to the federal government to restore federal research money that was canceled in the name of combating antisemitism on campus. Under the agreement, the Ivy League school will pay a $200 million settlement over three years, the university said. Columbia Sportswear aims to stop all sales of clothing that violate the agreement, recall any products already sold and donate any remaining merchandise to charity. Columbia Sportswear is also seeking three times the amount of actual damages determined by a jury.
CNBC
13 hours ago
- CNBC
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a "mountain of evidence" that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution. "If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion," the judges wrote. A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for September. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guard and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many of whom have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend on June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, "I was born here in the states, East LA bro!" They want to "send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood," American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court Monday. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. "It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution," attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. "Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion," Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. "No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all," Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a "broad profile" and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors "cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status." She also asked: "What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?" Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a "victory for the rule of law" and said the city will protect residents from the "racial profiling and other illegal tactics" used by federal agents.
Boston Globe
16 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution. Advertisement 'If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion,' the judges wrote. A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for September. Advertisement The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court Monday. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. Advertisement 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a 'victory for the rule of law' and said the city will protect residents from the 'racial profiling and other illegal tactics' used by federal agents.
