PR in the Philippines

While the world witnessed the inspiring achievements of athletes at the Olympics, another equally important event, the Paralympics, was on the horizon. Despite the remarkable achievements of Paralympic athletes, they often lack the same media coverage, sponsorship, and cultural fanfare as their Olympic counterparts. This is a missed opportunity—for brands, for media, and for society at large. We must elevate these athletes who represent the pinnacle of physical achievement, human determination, and talent. This year, the Games have taken significant steps to ensure that the excitement and energy of the Olympics flow seamlessly into the Paralympics. One of the most notable advancements is the reduced time gap between the Olympics and the Paralympics, now just three weeks. This condensed timeline keeps the global spotlight on athletic excellence, ensuring that the momentum of the Olympics carries forward into the Paralympics. It sends a powerful message: All athletes, regardless of ability, deserve the same celebration and recognition. But while these advancements are significant, much work remains to elevate the Paralympics to the same cultural prominence as the Olympics. After all, athletes are athletes, and true athleticism lies in the extraordinary abilities and determination of all competitors, regardless of physical ability. Consider the power of these athletes. Tatyana McFadden, a 17-time Paralympic medalist in wheelchair racing who has spina bifida, has become one of the most decorated Paralympians in history. Beatrice “Bebe” Vio, the Italian Paralympic fencer who lost her arms and legs to meningitis won gold in Rio in 2016 and Tokyo in 2020. Then there’s Sarah Storey, Britain’s most successful Paralympian, who is not content with excelling in one sport, but dominates in both swimming and cycling. Oksana Masters, born in Ukraine and now representing the USA, has competed in both the Summer and Winter Paralympics across multiple sports. In Paris 2024, we’re set to witness new legends in the making. Look out for Brazilian track star Verônica Hipólito, who, after a series of health battles, is poised to make a remarkable comeback. And then there’s India’s Sheetal Devi, who—at 17 years old—will make history as the first female para-archer to compete internationally without arms. These athletes’ stories aren’t just inspiring; they are a testament to what is possible when the focus is on ability, not disability. To further progress, we must recognize opportunities to integrate Paralympians more fully into the media spotlight. There is immense opportunity in how we approach the Games. Traditionally, the handoff from one host city to the next happens at the end of the Olympics, signaling a sense of closure. But in reality, we have more incredible competition left with our Paralympians. What if the torch handover to Los Angeles at the conclusion of the Paris Olympics was reserved for the end of the Paralympics, signaling that the Games are not truly complete until all athletes have had their moment to shine? Such a shift would emphasize that the Paralympics are an integral part of the global sports narrative. Peacock will stream a record-breaking 1,500+ hours of coverage across all 22 Paralympic sports and 549 medal events, and NBC will dedicate prime-time programming to the Paralympic opening ceremonies—but that still doesn’t compare to what we saw with the Olympics. As Paralympian Alana Nichols stated, “It’s kind of this self-reinforcing process that happens where women, I think, with disabilities have far less media coverage and access.” In future games, organizers should seek out more opportunities to integrate Paralympians into marquee Olympic media coverage, featuring them in on-air commentary, teasing what’s ahead after the Olympics and elevating the Paralympic athletes themselves. Their stories would reach a far broader audience, inspiring millions and shifting perceptions about what athletes with disabilities can achieve, and this cross-pollination would ensure that athletes of all abilities experience the halo effect of the Olympic Games. The Paralympics represent a tremendous opportunity to showcase the full spectrum of human potential and to redefine our perceptions of ability.  By giving Paralypians the visibility they deserve, we would not just be celebrating their achievements—we’d be helping to shape a more inclusive and representative world where everyone, regardless of ability, can see themselves as champions.  Let’s ensure that the excitement and global support that fueled the Paris Olympics continue to fuel the Paralympics—and beyond.  This is a call to all of us to recognize and celebrate that athleticism knows no bounds.

You don't have to be a opera fan to appreciate Maria Callas. She was a captivating figure—bold yet vulnerable—whose life was filled with drama. Her voice was a symphony of emotions, a reflection of paradise before the fall of Adam and Eve. Her beauty was a captivating mix of mythical allure and mischievous charm, as if sculpted by the gods' chief caricaturist. Her mismatched features, the commanding nose, and the almond-shaped eyes, harmonized into a captivating blend of classical perfection. If you could only choose one opera singer to admire, Callas is the one—she's more than enough. It's no wonder Pablo Larraín, known for his films about troubled women, including Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (2016's Jackie) and Princess Diana (2021's Spencer), was drawn to her story. In Maria—screening at the 81st Venice Film Festival—Angelina Jolie portrays La Diva Callas in the final days of her life, in 1977 Paris. Like a gothic ghost, she glides through her lavish apartment, adorned with gilded accents and brocade fabrics, enveloped in fairytale dressing gowns. Her sustenance consists solely of the sedative Mandrax, which she consumes in copious quantities. She has abandoned performing and almost ceased singing, though a comeback lingers in her mind: she stands at the entrance to her kitchen and commands her devoted housekeeper Bruna (the consistently brilliant Alba Rohrwacher) to listen and respond as she attempts an aria. Bruna, dutifully and kindly, offers the reassurance Maria desires, despite the shaky and pale quality of her voice, a mere shadow of its former glory. On a whim, Maria also instructs her other loyal servant, Ferruccio (played by the remarkable Italian actor Pierfrancesco Favino), to move her piano from one end of the apartment to the other; in the next breath, she inquires about his back pain. It's all part of the daily routine for Bruna and Ferruccio. Maria is their own lovable, troubled tyrant. Throughout the film, Jolie's Maria gazes into the distance, mourning the person, the presence, the artist she once was, reflecting on her one true love, the "ugly and dead"—as she describes him. (When he appears in the movie's flashback scenes, a cunning gnome in evening dress, he's played by Turkish actor Haluk Bilginer.) Every gesture Jolie makes is tragic and trembling; when she smiles, it's a wan, magnanimous smile, as if she couldn't be bothered. This performance belongs to the "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful" school of acting, a great artist's final days portrayed with a self-conscious polish that has nothing to do with the inherent grandeur, or sadness, of Callas's life. The blame doesn't lie solely with Jolie: Maria is a film made with great respect, bordering on adoration, but lacking in genuine feeling. This isn't to say Larraín lacks empathy for his subjects; oh, how he loves his suffering ladies! It's just that he fails to translate those feelings into anything beyond tasteful, mannered kitsch. In Jackie, Natalie Portman worked tirelessly to capture both her subject's aloofness and her guarded sorrow, despite the film's clever-arty filmmaking. And in Spencer, Kristen Stewart, one of the most original young actors of our time, portrayed Diana as a deeply tragic figure, which is not the same as portraying a person. The film's most memorable scene involves its lonely heroine's symbolic consumption of a pearl necklace. The point, if the message isn't clear enough, is that poor Diana was so hungry for food, for love, for everything. Larraín has his loyal fans, and admirers of Jackie and Spencer may adore Maria. But to me, Larraín's supposedly sympathetic psychological portraits are the cinematic equivalent of Madame Alexander dolls lined up on a dresser: extremely pretty, but not meant to be touched. I acknowledge that this is the point. These are intentionally stylized exercises, designed to appear inventive and extreme. However, their fussiness is exhausting. The plot of Maria revolves around an extended visit from a TV interviewer—is he real or imagined? Does it matter?—whose name, not coincidentally, is Mandrax. (He's played by Kodi Smit-McPhee.) Dear Ferruccio, desperately trying to get Maria off the pills, warns her that Mandrax—both the man and the drug—is not her friend, but to no avail. She confides her deepest secrets to Mandrax, including one involving her craggy, unfaithful lover Onassis, who abruptly left her for that other Larraín doll-subject, Jacqueline Kennedy. Callas read about their marriage in the newspapers, and as Jolie's Maria reveals this truth, something cracks within her—it's the only genuinely moving sequence in the film. However, for the most part, Maria focuses on telling, not showing. "I am quite rebellious by nature!" Maria informs the awestruck Mandrax, surveying him coolly through her Nefertiti-like eyes. It's just one of the film's many lines of dialogue drawn from the You Don't Say? catalog. (The screenplay is by Steven Knight, who also wrote Spencer.) There's much to admire in Maria, if admiration is what you seek. Jolie trained diligently to perform her own singing; at times, her voice and Callas's voice are blended together, in varying proportions, into a single track. It all sounds acceptable—though you might feel a shiver when Callas's voice dominates the mix. The film is visually stunning, thanks to the exceptional cinematography of Stéphane Fontaine, as well as production designer Guy Hendrix Dyas and costume designer Massimo Cantini Parrini. Jolie gets to wear some fabulous 1970s-luxe attire, including several sleek tunic-and-pants ensembles and a regal, fur-trimmed brocade dressing gown/evening coat combo. Callas had impeccable style and wore her clothes beautifully—Maria captures that aspect accurately. Larraín doesn't shy away from the darker aspects of Callas's life. Her mother reportedly forced her and her sister to "entertain" German and Italian soldiers during the Axis occupation of Greece; Larraín dramatizes one such incident with skill and discretion. Yet, despite this, Maria fails to capture the spirit of Callas. Jolie portrays her subject as haughtily cool and deeply insecure, but misses her commanding charisma. Callas could be demanding, but it was all part of her unwavering self-discipline: she believed in her talent above all else. And there was a radiant aura of joy around her, which made her vulnerability all the more poignant. Larraín does his film no favors by using footage of the real Maria Callas in the closing credits sequence: To see her laughing as she sang, with her whole being, or even just to catch her lost in troubled thought, is to experience a jolt of all the vitality that Jolie and Larraín have failed to capture. Callas, at only 53, was larger than life. Maria may embellish her legend. But it also extinguishes her spark.

Students are back on campus, and the problems that caused rampant antisemitism last spring still have not been addressed. Both Presidential candidates promise to address antisemitism, but Jewish students on campus cannot afford to wait until the next President takes office in 2025. Congress needs to act now, in the narrow window before Congress goes on campaign break, to update their rules and regulations to better address antisemitism. Unfortunately, the politics of this vote create short-term problems for Democrats, who will have to answer whether confronting antisemitism is worth the political cost, a tough calculation two months before the election. Perhaps the most important power from having the majority in Congress is the ability to choose issues that unify your party while dividing the other. Less than 50% of Americans support a complete ban on abortion (Roe v. Wade), one reason the issue makes political sense leading into the election. Legislation to counter antisemitism, meanwhile, splits Democrats while uniting Republicans. The Antisemitism Awareness Act would put into law the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism when enforcing discrimination on campus: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” To illustrate how antisemitism manifests, IHRA provides several examples, including “[d]enying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” This law would allow the Department of Education to cut off federal funding to schools that tolerate antisemitism. Some Democrats oppose this legislation because of concerns around free speech, academic freedom, and legitimate protests on campuses. Others disagree that these positions constitute antisemitism and argue this definition could be used to silence criticism of Israel amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. When the House voted on the bill (320-91), over 70% of Democrats voted against it while 90% of Republicans supported it. The Democratic-controlled Senate has failed to take up the legislation. The political logic is clear: Taking a vote on this legislation could be taken as a proxy for sides in the Israel-Hamas conflict that divides Democratic voters, a divide that is especially sharp among younger liberal voters who are more likely to sympathize with Palestinians and are harder to bring to the polls, particularly in states such as Ohio and Montana, where incumbent Democratic Senators are in tough re-elections. For the first time, more Democratic voters sympathize with Palestinians, while nearly 80% of Republicans stand with Israel. And looking at the broad question of support for the protests on college campuses, polls show that Republicans opposed protests 69-16, while Democrats supported them 46-31 (the rest were uncertain). Independents broke with Republicans on the issue opposing the protests 44-24. This explains why Republicans are planning to make this an issue with a massive ad campaign. I know what it’s like to pass a law that requires a tough vote before an election. I was the chief economist on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee as the American banking system teetered on the edge of collapse in September 2008. Democrats and Republican leadership in Congress came to a deal with the Bush Administration, but that deal was very unpopular when rank-and-file Republican members saw the unpopularity of the bailout bill coinciding with the upcoming election. But after the stock market fell almost 1,000 points, the Senate had one last chance to act before Congress went away to campaign. I was on the floor of the Senate when members stood at their desk to vote on the law that created the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) by a vote of 74-25. That strong, bipartisan vote sent the message and the House quickly passed the legislation. Voting for TARP did not guarantee those who voted for it would keep their seat. Some lost in 2008, others in the 2010 midterm, when anger over the Wall Street bailouts inspired Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party revolts. But Democrats and Republicans who supported the legislation took that vote because they knew they had to act against the threat of financial catastrophe at home and across the globe. While the issues are different, the history of financial crises shows that pretending a problem is contained and will go away on its own is a recipe for disaster. The history of antisemitism shows that it must be directly confronted. The good news is that tackling antisemitism, unlike TARP, is overall politically popular. The Countering Antisemitism Act, introduced in both chambers with bipartisan support, seeks the same objective as the Antisemitism Awareness Act but through establishing a national coordinator to combat antisemitism, requiring the Department of Education to coordinate strategy to counter antisemitism in higher education without using the IHRA definition of antisemitism. But even this legislation, while not as proscriptive and generally preferred among Democrats, could be used by some on the far left as a proxy vote on the conflict in the Middle East and could drive down enthusiasm among a small but important share of the Democratic Party base. Jewish students are returning to college campuses rightfully concerned after the events of last school year. While some are suing their university to protect them, a sad statement on the failure of leadership at those institutions, only Congress can change federal law in a way that brings Uncle Sam’s strength to bear against the growing antisemitism taking hold on campuses. That is what both the Antisemitism Awareness Act and The Countering Antisemitism Act do. While the former is less popular among Democrats, they seem reluctant to take up even the more widely supported option out of fear of weighing in on a contentious issue so close to the election. This despite the fact that if Majority Leader Chuck Schumer put either bill to a vote, it would probably pass. It is critical that Senate pass antisemitism legislation to move the legislative process forward and allow the House and Senate to work through a final compromise that could be another part of President Joe Biden’s legacy, which has included wise leadership during this war between Israel and Hamas. Will the Senate prioritize addressing antisemitism even if doing so harms some members’ election prospects? The recent rise in antisemitic attacks have caused a level of fear among Jews not seen in America in my lifetime. I hope that Senate leadership stands as strong now to combat antisemitism as it did then to combat financial panic.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared mpox a global health emergency for the second time in two years. While mpox didn’t disappear between the two outbreaks, the WHO’s latest announcement indicates it is once again a major health concern worldwide. The current mpox outbreak is primarily concentrated in Africa, where the virus has been endemic in certain regions for some time. The illness is particularly widespread in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), but cases are also reported in countries such as Burundi, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, and the Central African Republic. The U.S. and the UK have each reported a travel-associated case related to this outbreak. The WHO currently assesses the risk to individuals in other parts of the world as “moderate.” Here’s a summary of what to know about mpox in 2024. How is this outbreak different from 2022? Dr. Krutika Kuppalli, an infectious disease physician who participated in the WHO’s mpox response during the 2022 outbreak, explains that the current outbreak presents a more complex situation compared to what the world faced two years ago.  The 2022 outbreak was associated with a specific strain of the virus: clade 2b. While this clade didn’t entirely disappear, many countries successfully contained its spread. Now, cases linked to clade 2b continue to be identified in several locations, while countries in Central and Eastern Africa are also reporting cases related to another strain, known as clade 1. Some countries, including the DRC, have observed cases stemming from a newly identified subvariant of clade 1, labeled clade 1b. “We’re still learning about this new variant,” Kuppalli states. Health authorities including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that clade 1b is potentially more severe than clade 2b, and have estimated the case fatality rate of the new clade 1b as high as 6%. However, findings released in August suggest that clade 1 has a lower mortality rate than initially believed—around 1.7%—when patients receive appropriate medical care. A study published in Nature Medicine in June also found that about 1.4% of patients infected with the new variant died. Kuppalli says emerging reports from the region suggest the rate may be even lower, around 0.7%, which is an encouraging development. How is mpox spreading?  Individuals with mpox often experience flu-like symptoms before developing a blister-like rash. They are considered contagious until the rash has fully healed, according to the CDC. Mpox is commonly transmitted through direct skin-to-skin contact with an infected individual. However, it can also spread through exposure to infected animals, contact with a sick person’s bodily fluids, or from a pregnant person to their fetus, as stated by the CDC. During the 2022 outbreak, sexual contact among men who have sex with men was a significant contributing factor to transmission worldwide. Sexual contact still contributes to a high percentage of cases, . But during the current outbreak in Africa, the virus also appears to be spreading through non-sexual forms of person-to-person contact, the agency indicates. in the DRC—primarily with the original clade 1 strain, which is known to affect children, Kuppalli explains. Reasons for shifting transmission patterns are “probably multifactorial,” she says. Possible reasons include decreased population-wide immunity since people are no longer routinely vaccinated against smallpox (which is similar to mpox), changes to the virus itself, increasing spillover from animals, or the prevalence of compounding health problems—like other infections or malnutrition—that make people more vulnerable. There also seems to be some animal-related transmission occurring in the DRC, according to . Are mpox rates going up in the U.S.? As of Aug. 22, the U.S. linked to clade 1 mpox. However, cases related to the strain responsible for the 2022 outbreak continue to be diagnosed. “People forgot mpox was still here,” says Dr. Jason Zucker, an infectious disease physician at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. “Even though mpox left the news and we thought about it a lot less, that doesn’t mean it actually went away.” More than 1,700 mpox cases have been reported in the U.S. so far this year, according to preliminary CDC . That’s significantly lower than during the initial outbreak, when from 2022 into the first half of 2023. Even with clade 2b continuing to spread, Zucker expresses optimism that cases will not reach levels comparable to the previous surge. Mpox’s spread in 2022 was unexpected, leaving laboratories, physicians, and public-health systems . Currently, Zucker says, individuals with symptoms are more efficiently diagnosed, tested, and treated, and vaccines are available for those who require them. Should I get vaccinated? The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices only for people with certain risk factors, such as men who have or expect to have multiple male sexual partners. With risk of transmission currently low for the general U.S. public, “there’s no reason right now for anyone who’s not in vulnerable populations to be running out to get a vaccine,” Zucker says. Researchers are still investigating whether existing mpox vaccines are effective against the new clade. Real-world data is currently limited, but there is good reason to believe they will be effective, says Alessandro Sette, co-director of the Center for Vaccine Innovation at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology. The currently used shots are effective against both smallpox and mpox, suggesting they possess a fairly broad efficacy, Sette explains. Pox viruses also tend to mutate less dramatically compared to viruses like SARS-CoV-2 and influenza, he notes. To help contain the outbreak, the U.S. has to the DRC, along with financial support for vaccine rollout. Countries such as and are also donating shots. Kuppalli emphasizes the importance of scaling up surveillance, testing, and high-quality medical treatment in the affected region. “The focus really needs to be on where the outbreak is happening right now, which is in Africa,” she says. “In some cases, that [fact] has been lost a little bit.”

In response to pressure from conservative groups threatening “anti-woke” boycotts, Jack Daniel’s parent company, Brown-Forman, recently announced it would end workforce and supplier diversity goals and participation in the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, citing shifts in the “legal and external landscape.” My connection to Jack Daniel’s goes back to a very different era—one defined by the man himself, Jack Daniel, and the inclusive environment he created at his distillery in the 19th century. The legacy I want to highlight is about his commitment to inclusion and equity, which Jack Daniel, the man, fostered in an improbable time and place: Lynchburg, Tennessee, just minutes from the Alabama border. His values of inclusion became a cornerstone of the distillery’s early success and were carried forward by his descendants well into the 20th century. Jack Daniel’s approach to inclusion was groundbreaking for its time. In the heart of the rural South, where racial tensions were high, Jack Daniel built a distillery where half of his workforce was African American, even though African Americans made up less than 20% of the population in Lynchburg, Tenn. The jobs at Jack Daniel Distillery were some of the most coveted in the area, and it was known that Jack hired based on merit, not race, drawing African Americans from surrounding towns. His fair treatment of workers created an environment where diversity wasn’t just accepted but sought after. Jack Daniel may not have been able to address the systemic or structural issues of the time, but he led with his heart, creating a culture of inclusion that was not only morally right but good for business. What made Jack Daniel’s commitment to equality even more remarkable was his humanity beyond the distillery. Upon his death, thousands of unpaid loan notes were found in his possession—debts owed by people of all backgrounds, races, and walks of life. His will was clear: not a single debt was to be collected. Jack Daniel understood that everyone needs a helping hand at some point, and his generosity showed his belief in giving without expecting anything in return. The fact that Jack Daniel Distillery was able to recover and thrive after the Civil War when so many other Tennessee distilleries closed their doors permanently can be attributed, in part, to the diversity Jack Daniel built into the fabric of his company. By pulling from a wide pool of talent and perspectives, Jack Daniel Distillery had the agility and strength to rebuild when others could not. It is this legacy of inclusion—initiated by Jack Daniel, the man, and continued by his family—that I have built upon at Uncle Nearest Premium Whiskey. At the heart of that legacy is Nearest Green, the African American distilling genius who became Jack Daniel’s first master distiller. Nearest Green taught Jack Daniel the craft of distilling, and the two men formed a bond that was much more than business: Nearest Green was a mentor and a father figure to Jack. After Nearest Green retired, his son, George Green, continued working with Jack as his right-hand man, further embedding the Green family’s legacy into the foundation of the distillery. Jack Daniel, the man, offers a model for the type of DEI we need today. Jack Daniel didn’t need mandates or quotas to treat people equitably. His workforce at the distillery was diverse long before it was required by law. The fact that Jack Daniel was able to foster inclusion in the heart of the South, during an era when such practices were virtually unheard of, is a testament to the strength of his character and the values he lived by. This is the spirit of inclusion that guided Jack Daniel in his day, and it’s the spirit that guides Uncle Nearest now. In this current climate, it feels like we’re losing the plot. It shouldn’t be an either/or debate—it’s a matter of “and.” Women and people of color make up 70% of the population, and we are essential to the workforce. But we don’t want special treatment; we want equality—and equal opportunities. To understand the backlash against DEI programs, we must acknowledge that the American Dream has eluded many. Often those who don’t fit the typical narrative of disenfranchisement are left behind. As we talk about DEI, it’s time to expand the conversation to include socioeconomic status and geography. True diversity and equity must embrace a broader vision of inclusion—one that acknowledges those who struggle regardless of race. It is worth noting that around one in five African Americans live in poverty in the U.S., equaling about 8.5 million people—a disproportionate share of the American population. It is also vital to recognize the 15 million white Americans living in poverty. I don’t believe most opponents of DEI programs are against diversity, equity, or inclusion. Their issue is with how DEI is currently being positioned. So the question becomes: how do we address historic injustices without creating new ones? Consider this: women in the United States still earn, on average, just 82 cents for every dollar earned by men, while Black women earn only 64 cents. Similarly, Black workers earn just 76 cents for every dollar earned by white workers, regardless of education or occupation. These disparities are not just statistics; they represent real people, people who continue to be left behind in a country that prides itself on equality of opportunity. To those who question DEI in its current form, I implore and challenge you: will you help us move toward equality? Help us find a better path forward. Jack Daniel gave us the answer long ago: treat everyone with equality, uplift those who are struggling, and help those who need it most. If people want to scrap the term DEI, fine. But let’s not lose sight of the goal: equality. Maybe some current programs aren’t the answer, but what is? If we can’t answer that, dismantling what we have only takes us back to a time when inequality was the rule of the land. 

A court in Thailand on Thursday found Daniel Sancho Bronchalo, a member of a well-known Spanish acting family, guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced him to life in prison. The case involved the dismemberment of the victim. The Koh Samui Provincial Court initially sentenced Sancho to death but reduced it to life imprisonment due to his cooperation during the trial, said Police Col. Paisan Sangthep, deputy commander of the Surat Thani Provincial Police, who was present at the hearing. Sancho, a 30-year-old chef with a YouTube channel, was accused of killing Edwin Arrieta Arteaga, a 44-year-old plastic surgeon from Colombia, while both were vacationing on the Thai island of Koh Pha-ngan in August of last year. The island is known for its monthly “Full Moon” beach parties, drawing travelers from around the world for all-night events. The convicted man is the son of Rodolfo Sancho Aguirre, a prominent Spanish actor, and Silvia Bronchalo, also an actress. Both parents are 49 years old and attended Thursday’s court session. The court also ordered Sancho to pay over 4.2 million baht ($125,000) in compensation to the victim’s family. Lawyers representing the family at the trial had requested 30 million baht ($882,000), Spain’s EFE news agency reported. EFE also cited Sancho’s father Rodolfo as telling media after the verdict that he intended “to always keep fighting, to keep fighting.” During his trial on the island of Samui, Daniel Sancho claimed he had gotten into a fight with Arrieta, alleging that Arrieta tried to sexually assault him. He stated that Arrieta fell during the scuffle and hit his head on a bathtub, losing consciousness and subsequently dying. He had pleaded not guilty to charges of premeditated murder. Sancho acknowledged dismembering the victim’s body and disposing of the parts on land and at sea. For the charge of concealing or damaging a body, he received a four-month prison sentence, reduced to two months for acknowledging the act, said Paisan. He also pleaded not guilty to the charge of destroying another person’s documents — the victim’s passport — for which he received a two-year prison term. The elements of the case — violent death on a holiday island, the celebrity connections and the sensational details — garnered significant coverage in Spanish media. HBO produced a Spanish-language documentary on the events. The case came to light when trash collectors found what the Bangkok Post newspaper described as a sawed-off pelvis and intestines weighing about 5 kilograms (11 pounds) in a fertilizer sack at a garbage dump. Shortly after that, Sancho reported to police that Arrieta was missing, and police then gathered evidence linking the two men, leading them to detain and question him. Police presented a narrative, claiming to the press that Sancho had confessed to the murder and saying he had planned it because Arrieta threatened to disgrace him and his family by revealing their alleged sexual relationship. Sancho, through his father and his lawyers, said that was a distorted version of what he told police, and denied having a sexual relationship with Arrieta. Police obtained surveillance video showing Sancho allegedly purchasing a knife, rubber gloves, garbage bags and cleaning solutions at a convenience store before Arrieta’s death, which prosecutors claimed supported the charge of premeditated murder. In his closing statement earlier in his trial, Sancho told the court he regretted his actions, the Spanish newspaper El País reported. “I am sorry that a life has been lost and that parents have lost a son,” Sancho said. “I am sorry that his family was not able to bury him properly. I’m sorry for what I did after the death.” Under certain conditions, Sancho can apply to be repatriated to serve the remainder of his prison term back home after several years of incarceration in Thailand, according to a treaty between Thailand and Spain. The handful of Spanish nationals in Thai prisons includes another man convicted of premeditated murder and dismembering his victim. Artur Segarra Princep was convicted of the 2016 killing of fellow Spaniard David Bernat. Police suspected that Segarra robbed the victim, whom he was said to have known. The body was kept in a freezer in Segarra’s Bangkok apartment until parts were tossed into Thailand’s Chao Phraya River. His 2017 death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in 2020 by Thailand’s King Maha Vajiralongkorn.

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up to get stories like this sent to your inbox. There were times when the two spoke more to each other than to their families. Kamala Harris was the California Attorney General and Beau Biden held the same position in Delaware, where many of the banks she was fighting were headquartered. At the peak of the 2008 financial crisis, over a million California households caught in the foreclosure crisis were struggling to keep their homes. For Harris to assist any of them, she needed support from Biden, who oversaw Wilmington, Delaware, the banking industry's quiet capital. This partnership helped Harris emerge as one of the few political leaders in the country viewed as holding bankers accountable for predatory practices. Beau Biden stood by Harris until his untimely death in 2015 at the age of 46. Five years later, the man Beau called “Pop” selected Harris as his running mate, forming one of the most improbable partnerships in Democratic politics. When President Joe Biden decided to forgo the nomination this year and pave the way for Harris, it was a payoff for an accidental alliance formed in the early 2010s when two rising Democratic stars aligned and, to the point it has become a well-known fact, actually became genuine friends. Beau Biden was foremost in Harris' mind last month when she accepted the elder Biden’s endorsement to be the next President. “I first came to know President Biden through his son, Beau. We were friends from our days working together as attorneys general of our home states,” Harris said. “The qualities Beau revered in his father are the same qualities, the same values, I have seen every single day in Joe’s leadership as President.” Cliché? Certainly. But it happens to be true. Up until Beau Biden’s passing, Joe Biden long believed his son had the potential to outshine his own impressive political career. So when the elder Biden picked Harris four years ago this month, it was in no small part due to her true friendship with the younger Biden. As I reported at the time, one question hung over his deliberation more than any other: What Would Beau Do? That's how Biden arrived at yes for Harris, despite his primary rivalry with her and a skepticism that she truly believed in the vision for America she was pitching in her own White House run.  “I first met Kamala through my son Beau,” Biden said during his roll-out of Harris. “He had enormous respect for her and her work. I thought a lot about that as I made this decision. There is no one’s opinion I valued more than Beau’s, and I’m proud to have Kamala standing with me on this campaign.” Four years later, Joe Biden stepped aside to give Harris her best chance yet at winning the top job in global politics. In big and small ways, it was a moment set up by Beau Biden, who in the early 2000s connected with his colleague in California and decided they would be great partners—and, perhaps, the future of their shared Democratic Party. One succumbed to brain cancer and the other is currently leading Donald Trump in most national polls. What began as a check on banking excesses now stands to be the driving force behind Democratic politics. And, from the outside, it looks like a not entirely bad level of match-making. Make sense of what matters in Washington. .