The contrasts between bands at a crowded Pacific Amphitheatre on Saturday were like night and day.

On one side was Violent Femmes’ eccentric take on folk/jazz/blues/rock, with Gordon Gano’s demented-yet-humorous vocals. Then there was Echo & the Bunnymen’s mysterious post-punk and neo-psychedelia alongside singer Ian McCulloch’s serious, brooding delivery. One act played in full view (Femmes); the other preferred being obscured in shadows and didn’t allow their images onscreen (Bunnymen).

Both enjoyed their biggest success during the 1980s, were KROQ/106.7 FM regulars, split for a brief period, then reformed again.

Earlier this month, Violent Femmes put out “2 Mics and the Truth,” an excellent live album recorded as the Milwaukee-bred group visited various places to promote the 2016 studio album “We Can Do Anything.” Echo & the Bunnymen released “Meteorites” in 2014, and the Liverpool musicians continue to lure new, younger fans, thanks to their classic catalog being used in various films and TV shows, including “Stranger Things” and “13 Reasons Why” on Netflix.

In Costa Mesa, Echo & the Bunnymen opened its erratic 65-minute, 15-song set with “Going Up,” the lead-off track from its debut LP (1980’s “Crocodiles”). Oddly, that tune was truncated and the band switched to “Rescue,” with co-founder Will Sergeant’s clarion call guitar sounding as glorious as ever.

McCulloch struggled vocally and was merely adequate throughout the performance. Still, the exceptional backing musicians (particularly the rhythm section) more than compensated. The fast maelstrom of “Do It Clean” was thrilling and McCulloch added his usual song snippets (Nat King Cole, James Brown). A majestic “Seven Seas” gave way to the slinky “Bedbugs & Ballyhoo” while the frontman puffed on a cigarette. Sergeant’s amazing guitar effects elevated the ominous “Over the Wall.”

Stripping things down, “Nothing Lasts Forever” (Top 10 UK single in 1997 featuring Liam Gallagher) was unfortunately ignored by the crowd until McCulloch transitioned into Lou Reed’s “Walk on the Wild Side.” Later, the dramatic orchestral grandeur of “The Killing Moon” went down a storm.

For the encores, a fierce “Villier’s Terrace” segued into the Doors’ “Roadhouse Blues” and some David Bowie. Finally, the band concluded with the peaceful sway of “Ocean Rain.” Overall, a mixed bag.

Violent Femmes was making its first appearance here since the venue reopened for concerts in ’03. Gano, fellow founding member/bassist Brian Ritchie and percussionist John Sparrow delivered a thoroughly enjoyable 75-minute, 20-song set.

During “Waiting for a Bus,” Gano questioned whether they were actually playing the blues as Blaise Garza blasted a huge contrabass saxophone (Ritchie said it was stolen from a film soundtrack studio). Then the guys delved into polka for the manic new “I Could Be Anything.”

Ritchie introduced signature song “Blister in the Sun” by saying it was “classic alternative, a term I only recently became aware of.” The energy level went up several notches, and what followed was even stronger: “Kiss Off,” the rollicking call-and-response sing-along “American Music,” a jaunty “I Held Her in My Arms” (featuring more impressive sax work by Garza), the xylophone-accented “Gone Daddy Gone,” “Jesus Walking on the Water” (with Gano on violin),” the sprightly hoedown vibe of “Prove My Love” and finally, “Add it Up,” during which you could feel the excitement.

Echo & the Bunnymen, Violent Femmes

Where: Pacific Amphitheatre, Costa Mesa

When: July 29

Terminal Neige Refuge du Montenvers brings high style to Chamonix.

Despite more people living and working in California, mass transit ridership continues to decline. The problem is particularly severe in Orange County, where transit ridership is down 30 percent since 2008.

The Eno Center for Transportation found that between 2014 and 2016, transit ridership dropped in all but seven of the country’s largest urban areas. Cutbacks in transit service are the top reason for the decline nationally. Rail cutbacks, such as running fewer trains per hour or closing the system earlier in the day, play a role. But most of the decline is due to decreasing bus services. Between 2009 and 2014, transit agencies decreased bus miles of travel by 5.2 percent.

The Mineta Transportation Institute found that when you control for variables such as gas prices and other transportation options, bus frequency is the best predictor of ridership. Put simply, decreasing bus service substantially decreases ridership, even for buses that were largely empty.

Some politicians propose new rail services as alternatives. But replacing these bus lines with rail lines provides worse service to low-income users, who may depend on transit to get to their jobs. Dallas and Houston both built light rail systems to replace their existing bus lines. For several years, despite spending millions of dollars on new equipment, the new systems carried fewer passengers than the original bus-only systems.

Fortunately, there are several steps that can be taken to cost-effectively improve transit service, including four immediate steps that agencies should take. First, transit agencies should use intelligent transportation systems technology to reduce bus travel times and make them more appealing. Installing transit traffic signal priority technology, for example, gives green light traffic signals to buses and increases bus speeds by 20 percent.

Second, Orange County Transportation Authority leaders could update the bus network to reflect today’s work and travel patterns. While some routes were changed in 2015, the entire network should be updated. Yes, this puts the transit agency in a tough political spot because existing customers will complain to local elected officials about any route changes. But at very little cost, Houston redesigned its bus network’s routes, eliminating some lines and substantially increasing service on weekends. As a result, weekend ridership increased by almost 50 percent.

Third, OCTA and other agencies can partner more aggressively with private transit and technology companies. OCTA has already partnered with Lyft to provide rail hiding services on two routes the agency eliminated in San Clemente. Uber provides paratransit service for many regions across the country. And many transit agencies are moving to a model in which they provide service on high ridership lines while private bus services and technology companies provide fixed-route service on other lines.

Finally, over the long-term, OCTA will need to evolve. The biggest opportunity is to transition from a service provider to a mobility manager. We don’t know what the future holds for self-driving cars and buses, or even Elon Musk’s proposed hyperloop, but in the coming decades, transit services may become driverless and completely different from today’s transit. OCTA’s long-term vision should be to match transit customers’ needs with service providers, not operating buses.

Paratransit services for those with disabilities and bus service public-private partnerships are springing up in cities and are a start, but big picture mobility management is about much more. In the future, transportation agencies will oversee multiple transit providers, each of which will operate different routes and likely use different technology — perhaps self-driving vehicles, automated shuttles, or regular routes using Uber and Lyft vehicles.

Many transit systems are suffering lower ridership numbers, high operating costs and lack the revenue streams to self-fund upgrades, but OCTA and other agencies have the opportunity to start reinventing themselves by utilizing technologies that can give riders real-time information and synchronize their traditional transit services with ride-sharing and tech companies to make it easier and faster for riders to get where they want to go, when they want to go there.

Baruch Feigenbaum is assistant director of transportation policy at Reason Foundation.

Is the Senate filibuster a useful emergency brake on the actions of legislative majorities, or is it a heckler’s veto that distorts the legislative process and prevents the effective functioning of government?

The 60-vote requirement to cut off debate isn’t in the Constitution. In fact, the opposite is true. The Constitution’s forerunner in 1781, the Articles of Confederation, required the approval of nine of the thirteen states to pass a law, but that supermajority provision was conspicuously absent from the document hammered out at the convention in Philadelphia in 1787 after the Articles were replaced.

We often hear that “it takes 60 votes in the Senate” to pass anything, and that’s because the Senate’s rules allow for limitless debate that can only be cut off when 60 senators vote for “cloture.” In the House of Representatives, debate can be ended by a simple majority vote.

Originally, both the House and Senate had the same rule, allowing debate to be ended by a majority vote, but the Senate dropped its rule after 1805 at the urging of Vice President Aaron Burr, who had recently shot Alexander Hamilton, and thus may have been unusually persuasive.

Burr’s intention was only to simplify the Senate’s rules, and it was 30 years before the first filibuster took place. But as the Senate grew and became more polarized, the use of the filibuster became more frequent — and more frustrating — to lawmakers and presidents.

It was President Woodrow Wilson, in 1917, who successfully pushed through the first reform of the filibuster, after a small group of Republican senators blocked the administration’s proposal to arm merchant ships during World War I.

Wilson called it an issue of national security, and he criticized the obstructionist senators to the point that the public was burning them in effigy. After extended negotiations, the Senate adopted a cloture rule that allowed a supermajority of senators to cut off debate.

In 2013, the Senate’s Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid, did away with the 60-vote requirement for the confirmation of most judicial and other nominees, and, earlier this year, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell extended that rule to Supreme Court justices as well.

Now the filibuster remains an option only for legislation, and President Donald Trump has called for the Senate to get rid of that, too.

He may have a point. The need to find 60 votes in the Senate haunted the drafting of the House health care bill and led Senate GOP leaders to use the budget reconciliation process to try to pass something with a simple majority. Budget reconciliation bills can’t be filibustered, but they need a sign-off from the Senate parliamentarian and the Congressional Budget Office that they meet specific requirements.

All of this meant that the health care legislation considered by the Senate last week was like a slice of Swiss cheese that was mostly holes.

If not for the threat of a filibuster, the House and Senate might have been able to consider cohesive, complete legislation that wouldn’t have set off a national panic by leaving Americans with more questions than answers about the future of their own health insurance.

The Founding Fathers wanted the legislative process to be slow and deliberative, but they did not want it held hostage to a requirement for supermajority support.

They tried that for six years, then rejected it. They always were ahead of their time.

SACRAMENTO — Assembly GOP Leader Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley is facing renewed pressure from party activists to resign his leadership post after he and six other Republican Assembly members helped Democrats pass a 10-year extension to the state’s cap-and-trade system.

I don’t begrudge Mayes for trying to do something about climate change, but he should be booted as his party’s Assembly leader for political foolishness alone. The key role of the party leader is to get more Republicans elected to the Assembly, which is important these days, given that Democrats hold supermajorities in both houses.

A couple of legislative wins would give the party something it now lacks: the power to stop tax increases, which require a two-thirds vote. Those victories now are more elusive — a point made by Orange County Republican Party Chairman Fred Whitaker in a letter this week to Mayes. Whitaker pointed to the predicament the party now finds itself in with regard to the seat held by Democratic Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva of Fullerton.

Republican support for the legislation let Quirk-Silva vote no “and issue a press release standing up for the economic interests of the voters in her district,” Whitaker wrote in a letter calling for Mayes to step aside. “You gave an incumbent Democrat in a swing seat you are supposed to be targeting a free pass to act more Republican than our leadership.” San Diego County GOP Chairman Tony Krvaric echoed those thoughts in a separate letter.

If the cap-and-trade legislation had really been in peril, do you think Quirk-Silva would have bucked the Democratic majority? This was a freebie “no” vote that allows her to portray herself as a champion of the taxpayer, thus protecting herself against those hit mailers that are sure to come election time.

Quirk-Silva’s statement was a jumble of contradictions. “This is not the time to raise taxes on the working people, nor is it the time to force more regulations on our economy,” she said, in an appeal to the district’s many conservative voters.

But she also complained that the cap-and-trade bill “doesn’t go far enough to protect citizens of Orange County from pollution,” which seems to echo liberal activists who wanted a tougher bill. Which is it? Does the legislation go too far in imposing taxes and regulations, or is it too modest in its effort to deal with pollution?

Then the assemblywoman rightly said that reducing carbon emissions is “a worthwhile and important endeavor,” but added a non sequitur. “Nonetheless, Orange County has been a donor county for too long. … We write the checks, but don’t receive the dividends.” Apparently, she believes that California needs to do more to reduce its carbon footprint, but only if Orange County residents get a larger slice of any pork-barrel spending.

I can’t blame Quirk-Silva for peddling inconsistent gibberish. She’s a politician, so why not have it both ways if you can get away with it? The real blame lies with Mayes and his six Republican colleagues who voted with the Democrats here.

Bad political maneuvering was a godsend not just for Quirk-Silva, but also for embattled state Sen. Josh Newman, the Fullerton Democrat who is the target of a recall for his vote in favor of a recent increase in the gas tax and vehicle license fee. It’s hard for Republicans to muster voter outrage at something that will cost Californians 12 cents a gallon when so many of their legislators voted for a program estimated to cost 63 cents a gallon within four years.

That’s not Mayes’ only area of political numbskullery. Gov. Jerry Brown told Republicans they could vote for cap and trade or face something worse — i.e., giving state officials additional powers to impose their edicts on businesses. Mayes bought into this false choice. In a column for the Sacramento Bee, he wrote that “this plan will reduce regulation, lower costs, cut taxes, protect jobs and provide a model for other states.”

When asked to choose between death by firing squad or by lethal injection, smart people shift the discussion to none of the above. Mayes seems unaware that there are other ways to tackle climate change without strangling the state’s economy. And this plan isn’t a victory for less regulation. The law gives the California Air Resources Board increased authority to issue edicts.

Cap and trade imposes an artificial cap on carbon emissions, and then reduces that cap every year, thus forcing businesses to buy costly “allowances” as they invest in cleaner technologies. It’s not really a market system, but a means to raise revenue to help the governor fund his myriad spending priorities.

Why didn’t Mayes, say, secure serious limits on CARB, or tough spending limits on the bullet train? Why didn’t he propose a revenue-neutral carbon tax, which discourages emissions without harming the economy? It’s because of his political foolishness. As a result, Whitaker and Krvaric are right that he needs to go.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. He was a Register editorial writer from 1998-2009. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

ANAHEIM — If styles make fights, the fans at UFC 214 saw the co-main event between welterweight champion Tyron Woodley and Demian Maia like a pair of jorts.

In a matchup between a counter-striking champion and an elite grappler, the action wasn’t up to the crowd’s muster, with boos raining down often during Woodley’s unanimous-decision victory over Maia on Saturday night at Honda Center.

The judges scored it 50-45, 49-46, 49-46 for Woodley (17-3-1), who successfully defended his title for the third time since winning it a year ago Sunday.

His last fight — a majority-decision victory in a rematch with Stephen Thompson at UFC 209 in March, was also criticized for lack of action by the fans in Las Vegas.

With Maia regarded as the best grappler in the UFC, Woodley was content to wait to stuff Maia’s takedown attempts and trade punches if Maia came in throwing.

Woodley, with a 91-percent takedown defense rate, denied Maia some 23 times. By the second round, with Woodley sweating, he was able to simply slip his foot or leg away from Maia’s grasp.

After the first minute of the fight, Maia had a sizable welt under his left eye, which might have affected him the remaining 24 minutes.

In the second round, Woodley was more aggressive and threw a right that put Maia’s butt on the canvas. The fans turned on them shortly after that.

By the end of the fight, the boos had turned to “Boring!” chants, fans doing the wave and waving the flashlights on their phones.

Jones reclaims his spot on top

Jon Jones is back to claim what he never lost.

Jones, in his first appearance since April 23, 2016, won back his UFC light heavyweight title with a third-round TKO stoppage of Daniel Cormier.

After a back and forth opening two round, Jones started his path to victory with a head kick that sent Cormier (19-2) staggering around the octagon, eventually falling to the canvas.

Jones (23-1) then pounced on top, landed several unanswered punches, forcing referee John McCarthy to stop the fight.

“It feels unbelievable,” Jones told the crowd. “All the love and support, I know it isn’t easy to root me, but I love you all so much. You guys motivated me to keep fighting.

“I didn’t throw many high kicks and I surprised him with that.”

The end came at 3:01 of the round.

The anticipation filling the arena at the start of the fight and the first round didn’t disappoint. Jones, utilizing his reach advantage was able to keep Cormier at distance for most of the round.

However, Cormier, worked his way in and found success with body kicks and combination punches.

Despite all of their animosity toward each other, Jones and Cormier had only met once in the octagon and that was back at UFC 182, Jan. 3, 2015.

They were scheduled to meet at uFC 200, but that fight was cancelled after Jones tested positive for banned substances.

Jones was stripped of the light heavyweight title in 2015. With the title vacant, Cormier defeated Anthony Rumble Johnson at UFC 187 to become the new champion.

‘Cyborg’ Justino dominant on her way to title

Cris “Cyborg” Justino turned in another dominant performance in her fight against Tonya Evinger for the vacant UFC female featherweight title.

Justino (18-1) had very little resistance from challenger Tonya Evinger, wearing her down leading to a third-round TKO victory to win the title.

The title was vacated after Germaine de Randamie was stripped of her title after she refused to defend her title against Justino.

Justino was initially scheduled to face Megan Anderson, but Anderson was forced out due to an injury.

De Randamie defeated Holly Holm at UFC 208 to become the first UFC female featherweight champion.

Evinger, the Invicta FC 135-pound champion, stepped up to take the fight.

Evinger was able to survive the first round. She was even able to work in a couple of takedowns, but Justino didn’t stay down long.

Once on her feet, Justino kept the pressure on, landing kicks and following with her sharp punches.

The second round, which many didn’t think would happen, had the look of a sparring session as Justino landed her shots at will, constantly backing Evinger up.

In the third round, Justino continued on the attack, sending Evinger back up against the cage. Justino then connected with several knees, sending Evinger down and referee Mike Beltran stepped in to stop the fight at 1:56.

Lawler edges Cerrone

The fans booed the decision. If anything, perhaps it should have been a five-round fight.

Former welterweight champion Robbie Lawler earned the unanimous decision over Donald Cerrone in a highly anticipated battle that had fans cheering and chanting.

All three judges scored it 29-28.

Ranked No. 3, Lawler (28-11, 1 NC), fighting first the first time in 364 days since getting knocked out for the title by Woodley, stormed out early, smothering and pummeling Cerrone.

The second round, which Lawler appeared to take off, was all Cerrone (32-9, 1 NC), who mixed it up with punches, kicks and elbows.

It came down to the final round. In the eyes of all three judges, Lawler appeared to do more damage. Ranked No. 6, Cerrone was smiling as the crowd railed on the decision for Lawler.

Lawler looks to be in the mix for the welterweight title, though the next shot figures to go to former champion Georges St-Pierre.

Oezdemir makes quick work of Manuwa

Volkan Oezdemir has NO TIME for you! #UFC214 pic.twitter.com/Cqt8nxSeQ7

— Jonathan Khamis (@JonathanKhamis) July 30, 2017

Fifth-ranked light heavyweight Volkan Oezedmir just called next.

With all of the attention placed on the light heavyweight title fight between Jon Jones and Daniel Cormier, Oezdemir showed in his 22 second demolition of third-ranked Jimi Manuwa that he’s not a fighter to overlook.

The fight was the opener of the main card.

Oezdemir initially hurt Manuwa in the clinch with a left hand and continue applying pressure, eventually sending the third-ranked Manuwa crashing to the canvas.

Oezdemir (15-1) has now won five consecutive fights.

This was just the third fight in the UFC for Oezdemir. He made his debut against Ovince St. Preux winning by split decision. In May he scored a first-round knockout of Misha Cirkunov.

Oezdemir said he has his sights set on the winner of the main event.

Manuwa’s two-fight winning streak is halted.

Re: “What does the Democratic Party stand for?” [Opinion, July 25]: That’s way too simple to answer. Democrats stand for nothing.

A country song once said, “You’ve got stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.” But in fairness, they are very proficient in obstructing and chaos.

— Mike Chamberlin, San Clemente

Work for working people

Growing up, my parents were Republican, so in my early adult years I called myself a Republican, mainly because of my parents’ influence. As I got older and started paying attention to policies and practices of both parties, I switched to voting for Democrats but call myself independent.

I think the Democratic Party stands for the working people and families helping with fair wages and benefits we all need. They also protect our environment by not letting big companies pollute without regulation.

All I see from the Republican Party is tax breaks for the rich (that don’t need it) including big companies. They represent big banks, taking donations from big oil people like the Koch brothers then voting in a man with no government experience but a catchy slogan (Make America Great Again) mired in unethical scandals and firing anyone who stands up to him or disagrees with him. It makes no sense to me.

The Democrats have to show the people that they stand for working families and the little guy — not big business and special interests that pollute our air, water and soil. The choice is clear to me but not everyone looks through the same pair of glasses.

— D.L. Marshall, Orange

The anti-party

Today’s Democrats stand for socialism, deception, corruption, fake news, open borders, lawlessness, government rights over individual rights, individual non-responsibility, the political class, garnering votes by any means, abortions, the breakdown of the family unit, rewriting American history, the indoctrination of our youth, anything anti-white, anti-religious, anti-First and Second Amendment; and of course anti-Trump!

— Jim Porterfield, Brea

Trump hate

It is hard to say what the Democrats stand for. It is much easier to say what they stand against, which is President Donald Trump, his family and anyone who ever has supported his election and policies. Their negative and seditious attacks through character assassination and slander have created an atmosphere of hatred toward the elected president.

Despicable hate speech, threats and the depiction of the severed bloody head of Trump in the style of terrorist. There was even a public play in Central Park where the actor dressed to look like the president was assassinated by knife. The list of the Left’s hate speech, which in other circumstances they would call a crime, continues.

This has gone way over the line of debate in a democracy and turned into violence as was witnessed recently when Republicans were targeted on a baseball field by a supporter of Bernie Sanders. As President Obama reminded us when he was in office and controlled the House and the Senate, the election gave him the power.

The Democrats have refused to accept the election and there has never been such drama and hate.

— Frank Householder, Huntington Beach

Obstructionists

The Democratic Party stands for doing everything possible to obstruct the Trump presidency while showing no concern for the welfare of the American people in the process. Talk about sore losers, the Democrats had one of the worst candidates for the presidency this country has seen in 200 years.

Now it’s time to put that behind them, act like adults and find a way to work with the Republicans.

— Rodger Clarke, Santa Ana

Stop the Trump bashing

“A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages.” That message seems very much like a component of the Republican agenda, but restricting it to jobs. We also know that goal is not attainable at any level that would impact society.

They need to message: Safety for our citizens. Reducing the size of the federal government. Working in alignment with the Constitution and retracting from those areas of government where the expansion is not authorized by the Constitution.

The Democratic Party brings no value to the table at this time because messaging is all about dumping Trump and it is a negative. In my opinion, they need to stop the Trump bashing and begin working with the rest of Congress to get things through and they need to show where they are cooperating.

— Sharon D. Brimer, Lake Forest

Not the party I remember

As a life-long Democrat, I have found myself unable to vote for any candidate the Democrats have put up for election in many years. I see their agenda is to promote big government, taking freedoms away from the public, and increasing taxes to an unbearable level.

Their single-payer health plan scares the heck out of me. It would be nothing more than an uncompetitive HMO run by untrustworthy politicians.

— Larry Bremer, Laguna Hills

Party of ‘we’re not Trump’

I can tell you what Democrats used to stand for: The working guy, the middle class, entrepreneurs, civil rights, women’s rights, voting rights, unions, ending poverty, providing a safety net for those who didn’t have one.

Today they stand for “We’re not Trump.” Just as the Republican Party continues as “We’re not Obama.”

Regarding California, Democrats represent an oligarchy whose mission is to spend, tax, regulate and make it impossible for anybody who’s not rich to live here.

— Alan Graner, Anaheim

Looking out for people

The Democrats I know stand for a world where we are all treated equal regardless of our gender, sexual orientation, age and the color of our skin. Equal pay for woman.

We believe in providing opportunities to those who have fewer resources and need the help through funding for early childhood education and ample funding overall for the public school systems. Assistance for childcare for those parents who want to work, single mothers, housing for the homeless.

I support Obamacare! I believe improvements can be made to the system. Don’t throw it away — improve it. I work full-time and my husband does as well and we have insurance but not everyone is so lucky. Our daughter who is a graduate student just lost her insurance when she turned 26 and now is covered under Medi-Cal. We are thankful for that.

I and many of our Democrat friends believe that universal health care is a right for all regardless of ability to pay. The corporations that rarely pay their fair share of taxes can pay more to support universal health care.

— Linda Scotton, Huntington Beach

Care about people

Politicians from both sides of the aisle are all promises and no action. Now the Democrats want us to believe they have a new agenda. Is it a coincidence that it sounds a lot like President Trump’s agenda? The only difference is that he is living up to his slogan even as the obstructionist, “resist” movement continues.

The Democrats need to start relating to all of their constituents. The politicians still haven’t figured out why President Trump won. It’s because he listens to the people and acts like a “real” person. He speaks to all the American people — not just Republicans.

In 1988, Oprah Winfrey asked Trump if he would ever run for president. He said he would only consider it if he really thought the country was in trouble. Well, we were in trouble. Partly because politicians don’t care what the people think anymore. They believe they know better than us.

President Trump is listening to us and responding to our wishes. The swamp has lost sight of what their function is. They are so afraid that President Trump is going to reveal their greed and take away the power they have enjoyed for so long, so they resist.

This is a new American revolution and the Trump administration is fighting it for us. I don’t need to yell at the television anymore during the evening news because President Trump is there speaking for me … finally someone is there. God Bless our president.

— Ronald A Fante, Seal Beach

A completely refreshed Four Seasons Costa Rica will be the crown jewel of the stunning Peninsula Papagayo

In a first of its kind, all Bangladesh apparel factories are to be digitally mapped as part of a new initiative aimed at offering more transparency in the country’s garment industry, signalling a transformative shift within the ready-made garment sector.

At age 34, Misty Copeland is finally performing many of ballet’s iconic roles. In May, she tackled “Don Quixote’s” Kitri for the first time and made her New York debut in the title role of “Giselle” with American Ballet Theatre, where she has spent her entire career. She has been a principal dancer with the company for two years.

Nobody would deny that’s rather a late start for some of classical ballet’s most demanding parts, but nothing has come easily for this beloved star. Copeland’s early life was fraught with family conflict, and her career has been marked by injuries. Her much anticipated performance in the world premiere of ABT’s “Whipped Cream” at the Segerstrom Center for the Arts in March was canceled out of concern for her fragile left leg; a 2014 fracture left her with a plate in her tibia.

So when Copeland does appear in a canonical part, as she did  Friday at the Segerstrom Center in Teatro alla Scala’s production of “Giselle,” her many fans – and Southern California is full of them because she was raised in San Pedro – understandably approach the date with a mixture of excitement and apprehension.

Orange County is no stranger to memorable “Giselles.” In the last decade we’ve seen the Kirov’s Old World version, with Diana Vishneva as a fiery yet elegant Giselle, and a 2009 ABT production starred veteran Julie Kent in a thoughtful and restrained interpretation of the role.

In Copeland’s performance on Friday (her only appearance during the company’s Orange County run), she opted for the latter approach. Her Giselle may have lacked girlish virtuosity, and in the second act her solos were delivered with a sense of caution – understandable, but not a desirable quality for the part.

Still, Copeland has worked hard on her acting chops over the last decade, and that investment has paid off. Her Giselle is no empty-headed teen without a clue about the inherent dangers of a suitor such as Albrecht, the princeling who slums with peasants for fun. From their first encounter, Copeland projects a more knowing and even worldly young woman that the role’s 19th-century originator, Carlotta Grisi, probably wouldn’t have recognized.

Copeland is careful with the details during that initial encounter: a down-turned gaze, a hint of hesitancy at the beginning of some phrases. It’s the body language of someone who suspects this handsome young man can’t be trusted. The end of the first act is tricky: Giselle is driven mad when she discovers Albrecht is betrothed to another. Copeland doesn’t overplay the moment – her Giselle internalizes the pain rather than breaking into fluttering histrionics – and the effect is devastating.

Roberto Bolle, a veteran of the Milan company who is also an ABT principal dancer, is 42 but still boyish looking, and his physicality is as sharp-edged as ever, so it isn’t difficult to see him as an impetuous young prince on the verge of adulthood. His acting, though, resides in a different world than Copeland’s. Bolle is deeply schooled in classical ballet’s mime-heavy approach to role playing, and the contrast between his interpretive style and Copeland’s can be jarring at times.

Fortunately, Friday’s performance contained many other strengths and inspired performances. Nicoletta Manni made a captivating entrance at the top of the second act as Myrtha, Queen of the Willis. Vittoria Valerio and Antonino Sutera were fresh, charming and full of verve in the Peasant Pas de Deux. Members of the corps de ballet were precise and ethereal when the Willis descend to wreak havoc with the mournful prince.

This production is also lovely to look at. The late Yvette Chauviré, France’s greatest prima ballerina of the postwar years and a memorable Giselle herself at Teatro alla Scala, restaged the original choreography by Jean Coralli and Jules Perrot, and her work seems crisp and concise yet faithful to 19th-century traditions. Aleksandr Benois’ sets and costumes for the 1910 Ballets Russes production have been artfully elaborated by Angelo Sala and Cinzia Rosselli. The second-act graveyard scene is wonderfully eerie, and the villagers’ costumes in the first act are a riot of rustic color.

Giselle

When: July 28. Next: 2 and 7:30 p.m. Saturday, July 29, 1 p.m. Sunday, July 30

Where: Segerstrom Center for the Arts, 600 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa

Tickets: $29-$159

Call: 714-556-2787

Info: scfta.org