The Critical Investor discusses recent developments at the company that is exploring the Goliath Gold Project in Ontario.

Visit the aureport.com for more information and for a free newsletter

A woman passes a closed Social Security Administration office in Los Angeles in 2013. Some 53,000 of the agency's workers are now working from home.; Credit: Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

The coronavirus pandemic has forced many people to work from home, and that includes employees of the federal government. The numbers vary by agency, but at the Social Security Administration, some 53,000 workers are doing so.

Social Security field offices are closed. But the shutdown hasn't stopped the agency from processing claims for new benefits and appeals of benefit denials. And according to statistics that the SSA sent its workers, the agency has been doing so at a faster pace than before.

"Telework is proving a great boon to the service Social Security provides to the American people," says Ralph deJuliis, who works at the SSA's office in Tulsa, Okla. "We are getting the checks to people faster and quicker."

DeJuliis is president of the American Federation of Government Employees Council 220, which represents many Social Security workers. And he says he hopes the SSA will continue allowing employees to work from home.

Telework, he says, is "good for the employees, good for the public. We've got the work done. We kept the public out of harm's way because, let's face it, we deal with mostly people who are old or disabled. They are at the highest risk."

According to deJuliis, the SSA has found that its backlog of pending cases has fallen by 11% since March 23, when the agency instituted wide-scale telework, and that calls from recipients are answered more quickly.

Isabel Sawhill, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says it's not surprising that productivity is up.

"Actually, there are studies that have been done, including studies in government agencies — small-scale studies, to be sure — but they have shown that productivity does rise when people get to work from home," she says.

Jeff Neal, a former head of human resources at the Department of Homeland Security, says it's not surprising that people become more productive when they work from home.

"The really good workers might be sitting there at their home desk, wherever that is," he says. "And they're supposed to stop at 5 o'clock, and they look at their watch or their computer and they realize it's 7 o'clock and they've still been working, because they get into things and they start getting stuff done and they just keep on going."

It's unclear how many federal workers across the government are teleworking. According to the most recent statistics, from two years ago, 42% of the some 2.1 million government employees were eligible to telework, although only about half of those were in fact working from home.

The Trump administration had been hostile to teleworking, Neal says, because in its view it sees it as a benefit to federal workers. But Neal says it's also a benefit to taxpayers.

"If people view it as what it really is, which is something that is in the interest of the federal government to have, then they would continue it because it helps them hire. It helps them retain people," he says. "And most importantly, it helps them remain operational during a national emergency. So it's a very good thing."

And Sawhill at Brookings says she expects teleworking will continue to increase both in government and the private sector after the coronavirus crisis ends.

"This experience has showed us that we can get work done at home and that we can meet people's needs, the public's needs, by doing so," she says. "That doesn't mean there aren't lots of downsides. But overall, I think this is a trend that is going to accelerate sharply as a result of this recent experience."

The federal government has not given any guidance as to when it expects all federal workers to return to their offices.

The SSA issued a statement saying it continues to monitor the COVID-19 situation across the nation, promising that when it does reopen offices, it will provide a safe environment for the people it serves and its employees.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and CDC Director Robert Redfield will appear before a Senate committee on May 12.; Credit: Patrick Semansky/AP

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, will join Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield and other administration representatives in testifying before a Senate committee on May 12.

The announcement comes as members of President Trump's coronavirus task force are being asked to limit their appearances on Capitol Hill despite ongoing calls from lawmakers for more oversight into the administration's coronavirus response. Last week, the Trump administration blocked Fauci from appearing before a House committee on the subject of spending on coronavirus testing.

President Trump told reporters Tuesday that he doesn't want the officials appearing before House Democrats.

"The House is a setup," Trump said. "The House is a bunch of Trump haters."

White House officials gave a less adversarial explanation when justifying the decision to limit task force testimony in a memo to top congressional aides.

"For primary response departments, including HHS, DHS, and State, in order to preserve department-wide resources, no more than one COVID-related hearing should be agreed to with the department's primary House and Senate authorizing committee and appropriations subcommittee in the month of May, for a total of no more than four COVID-related hearings department-wide," the memo stated.

Congressional Democrats are demanding greater oversight over the roughly $3 trillion that has already been approved for the coronavirus response. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has launched a new select committee to conduct the oversight, but Republicans have so far refused to name members to the panel despite the plan to make the panel bipartisan.

The Senate hearing was announced shortly after the administration sent the memo to Capitol Hill banning committee appearances from task force members during May unless approved by the White House chief of staff.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Judd Deere said the decision to block Fauci from the House committee appearance was intended to allow him to focus on his primary task of overseeing the coronavirus response.

"While the Trump Administration continues its whole-of-government response to COVID-19, including safely opening up America again and expediting vaccine development, it is counter-productive to have the very individuals involved in those efforts appearing at Congressional hearings," Deere said. "We are committed to working with Congress to offer testimony at the appropriate time."

Fauci, Redfield, HHS Assistant Secretary Brett Giroir and FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn are scheduled to discuss "safely getting back to work and back to school" when they appear before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions — or HELP — Committee next Tuesday.

Senate Democrats, including Patty Murray, D-Wash., the top Democrat on the HELP committee, have called for the administration to provide greater transparency and a nationwide plan for testing. So far their demands have not received a response.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

"Deepfakes" are digitally altered images that make incidents appear real when they are not. Such altered files could have broad implications for politics.; Credit: /Marcus Marritt for NPR

Sophisticated fake media hasn't emerged as a factor in the disinformation wars in the ways once feared — and two specialists say it may have missed its moment.

Deceptive video and audio recordings, often nicknamed "deepfakes," have been the subject of sustained attention by legislators and technologists, but so far have not been employed to decisive effect, said two panelists at a video conference convened on Wednesday by NATO.

One speaker borrowed Sherlock Holmes' reasoning about the significance of something that didn't happen.

"We've already passed the stage at which they would have been most effective," said Keir Giles, a Russia specialist with the Conflict Studies Research Centre in the United Kingdom. "They're the dog that never barked."

The perils of deepfakes in political interference have been discussed too often and many people have become too familiar with them, Giles said during the online discussion, hosted by NATO's Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence.

Following all the reports and revelations about election interference in the West since 2016, citizens know too much to be hoodwinked in the way a fake video might once have fooled large numbers of people, he argued: "They no longer have the power to shock."

Tim Hwang, director of the Harvard-MIT Ethics and Governance of AI Initiative, agreed that deepfakes haven't proven as dangerous as once feared, although for different reasons.

Hwang argued that users of "active measures" (efforts to sow misinformation and influence public opinion) can be much more effective with cheaper, simpler and just as devious types of fakes — mis-captioning a photo or turning it into a meme, for example.

Influence specialists working for Russia and other governments also imitate Americans on Facebook, for another example, worming their way into real Americans' political activities to amplify disagreements or, in some cases, try to persuade people not to vote.

Other researchers have suggested this work continues on social networks and has become more difficult to detect.

Defense is stronger than attack

Hwang also observed that the more deepfakes are made, the better machine learning becomes at detecting them.

A very sophisticated, real-looking fake video might still be effective in a political context, he acknowledged — and at a cost to create of around $10,000, it would be easily within the means of a government's active measures specialists.

But the risks of attempting a major disruption with such a video may outweigh an adversary's desire to use one. People may be too media literate, as Giles argued, and the technology to detect a fake may mean it can be deflated too swiftly to have an effect, as Hwang said.

"I tend to be skeptical these will have a large-scale impact over time," he said.

One technology boss told NPR in an interview last year that years' worth of work on corporate fraud protection systems has given an edge to detecting fake media.

"This is not a static field. Obviously, on our end we've performed all sorts of great advances over this year in advancing our technology, but these synthetic voices are advancing at a rapid pace," said Brett Beranek, head of security business for the technology firm Nuance. "So we need to keep up."

Beranek described how systems developed to detect telephone fraudsters could be applied to verify the speech in a fake clip of video or audio.

Corporate clients that rely on telephone voice systems must be wary about people attempting to pose as others with artificial or disguised voices. Beranek's company sells a product that helps to detect them and that countermeasure also works well in detecting fake audio or video.

Machines using neural networks can detect known types of synthetic voices. Nuance also says it can analyze a recording of a real known voice — say, that of a politician — and then contrast its characteristics against a suspicious recording.

Although the world of cybersecurity is often described as one in which attackers generally have an edge over defenders, Beranek said he thought the inverse was true in terms of this kind of fraud detection.

"For the technology today, the defense side is significantly ahead of the attack side," he said.

Shaping the battlefield

Hwang and Giles acknowledged in the NATO video conference that deepfakes likely will proliferate and become lower in cost to create, perhaps becoming simple enough to make with a smartphone app.

One prospective response is the creation of more of what Hwang called "radioactive data" — material earmarked in advance so that it might make a fake easier to detect.

If images of a political figure were so tagged beforehand, they could be spotted quickly if they were incorporated by computers into a deceptive video.

Also, the sheer popularity of new fakes, if that is what happens, might make them less valuable as a disinformation weapon. More people could become more familiar with them, as well as being detectable by automated systems — plus they may also have no popular medium on which to spread.

Big social media platforms already have declared affirmatively that they'll take down deceptive fakes, Hwang observed. That might make it more difficult for a scenario in which a politically charged fake video went viral just before Election Day.

"Although it might get easier and easier to create deepfakes, a lot of the places where they might spread most effectively, your Facebooks and Twitters of the world, are getting a lot more aggressive about taking them down," Hwang said.

That won't stop them, but it might mean they'll be relegated to sites with too few users to have a major effect, he said.

"They'll percolate in these more shady areas."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block Congress from seeking the materials, saying, "The government will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay."; Credit: Andrew Harnik/AP

The Supreme Court has temporarily put on hold the release of redacted grand jury material from the Russia investigation to a House panel.

The Trump administration is trying to block the release.

Last October, a district court judge ruled the Justice Department had to turn over the materials, which were blacked out, from former special counsel Robert Mueller's report into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

An appeals court upheld the decision, but the Trump administration, hoping to keep the evidence secret, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts' order temporarily stops the process. Lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee have until May 18 to file their response to the Justice Department's attempts to keep the materials from the House panel.

The Justice Department had until Monday to turn over the material following the appeals court order. But on Thursday, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block Congress from seeking it, saying, "The government will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Two years after it released the first season of the show 13 Reasons Why with a graphic suicide scene, Netflix has announced that it has edited it out.

The show is centered on the suicide of fictional teen Hannah Baker, and the first season's finale shows her taking her own life. Several organizations, including the National Association of School Psychologists, raised concerns that it could romanticize suicide for vulnerable teens.

"Our creative intent in portraying the ugly, painful reality of suicide in such graphic detail in Season 1 was to tell the truth about the horror of such an act, and make sure no one would ever wish to emulate it," show creator Brian Yorkey said in a statement. "But as we ready to launch Season 3, we have heard concerns about the scene from Dr. Christine Moutier at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and others, and have agreed with Netflix to re-edit it."

"No one scene is more important than the life of the show, and its message that we must take better care of each other," he added. "We believe this edit will help the show do the most good for the most people while mitigating any risk for especially vulnerable young viewers."

After some initial criticism, Netflix added a warning card to the beginning of the episode, alerting viewers that the episode contained "graphic depictions of suicide and violence."

The show also has a website, 13reasonswhy.info, containing resources about suicide prevention. It contains videos of cast members discussing topics such as bullying, consent, depression and how to talk with a teen about the series. The site also warns: "If you are struggling, this series may not be right for you or you may want to watch it with a trusted adult."

The edited version, now on Netflix, shows Hannah looking at herself in the mirror, full of emotion. It then cuts to her parents finding her body in the bathroom and reacting to her death. The previous version was nearly three minutes long, according to The Hollywood Reporter, and showed her cutting her wrists with a razor blade.

Netflix's decision has drawn praise from a number of suicide prevention advocates, such as American Association of Suicidology, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, American School Counselor Association, Dr. Helen Hsu from Stanford, advocacy group Mental Health America, the Trevor Project and Dr. Rebecca Hedrick from Cedars-Sinai, according to THR.

"We support the decision to edit the scene in which Hannah takes her own life from 13 Reasons Why. There has been much debate about the series in the medical community," they said in a joint statement, as THR reported. "But this positive change will ensure that 13 Reasons Why continues to encourage open conversation about mental health and suicide prevention — while also mitigating the risk for the most vulnerable teenage viewers."

Ron Avi Astor at the University of Southern California, who studies adolescent bullying and mental health, discussed with NPR's Anya Kamenetz how the images of self-harm on the show could affect teens.

Avi Astor told Kamenetz that the depiction could be contagious — but just for certain teens. "It's not just that any random kid would see it and do it," he said, but for a kid who was already thinking about suicide, it had the potential to influence their behavior.

If you or someone you know may be considering suicide, contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 (En Español: 1-888-628-9454; Deaf and Hard of Hearing: 1-800-799-4889) or the Crisis Text Line by texting HOME to 741741.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The entrance to the planned 17,000 sq.-foot Korean American National Museum to be built in Koreatown. ; Credit: Morphosis Architects

The Korean American National Museum is on pace to break ground next year on the corner of Vermont and Sixth.

New designs unveiled this week show an airy, modern-looking building that will include elements of Korean design and house photographs and other artifacts.  

Read more on LAist.com.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

This year's SXSW festival was cancelled due to the coronavirus pandemic. Now the films that were scheduled to be shown there have the option to be screened on Amazon.; Credit: Suzanne Cordeiro/AFP via Getty Images

Amazon Prime Video will be hosting some of the movies that never got screen time at this year's cancelled SXSW Film Festival. Amazon and SXSW announced today that the online film festival will be free to all audiences for 10 days — but you will need an Amazon account.

According to the statement, the slate of films offered will depend on which filmmakers choose to opt into the festival. "Filmmakers who choose to participate will receive a screening fee for streaming their film over the 10-day period... SXSW has shared details on the opportunity with 2020 filmmakers, who can opt in starting today."

SXSW joins a number of cancelled and delayed film festivals going the online route: the Tribeca Film Festival has been posting a short film every day, the Greenwich International Film Festival will be bringing its May festival online, and the Washington D.C. Environmental Film Festival has also posted a number of this year's movies, along with an archive going back to 1990. The film distributor Kino Lorber has also began working with independent and art-house theaters across the country to "screen" current independent releases, starting with the acclaimed Brazilian movie Bacurau.

No date has been announced for the Amazon Prime SXSW Film Festival, though the companies are shooting for an April launch.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

First demonstration of payoff bias learning in a wild animal

A new study has investigated the effects of set-aside management —when fields are taken out of agricultural production — on common invertebrate decomposers in soil. The diversity of woodlice species was higher in set-aside fields compared to neighbouring wheat fields and this effect increased in older set-asides. This study highlights the importance of set-aside areas as habitats for soil invertebrates, which are important for soil health.

I thoroughly enjoyed the VP debate and its fast paced back-and-forth.  Democrats had to love Joe Biden's energy and willingness to challenge Paul Ryan on almost every point.  Republicans had to love Ryan's poise and discipline in how he handled himself, even as Biden was dismissing him throughout the 90-minutes.

Both of our "AirTalk" political strategists, Democrat Darry Sragow and Republican Jonathan Wilcox, agreed that Biden's performance fired up the Democratic base and provided tremendous relief after the President's flat performance the week before.  However, they also agreed that it wasn't likely to have much effect on the small number of undecided voters still out there.

The passionate performances of the VP candidates certainly sets a higher bar for the next Presidential candidates debate.  Will Obama and Romney up their games on Tuesday?  I suspect most of us will be tuning in to see.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Life is already hard enough, but with teen daughters—  of which I have two, ages 15 and 16 -- well, let's just say that, what with everything going on these days, my mind is a bit addled. And my latest TV obsession isn't exactly helping.

"I have such a sense of dystopia," I complained to my friend Carol. 

She replied: "Maybe you should stop binge-watching The Handmaid's Tale!

It's true.  I've watched so many hours of The Handmaid's Tale, I've started to involuntarily greet people with, "Blessed be the day," "Blessed be!"  If that's not  familiar to you, you're probably not aware that in the oppressive futuristic society depicted here—?   Fertile young women are farmed out to "commanders" and forced to have sex with them between their wives' legs, in order to birth mutant babies. . .

I'm old enough to remember "Happy Days."  Do you remember the sitcom "Happy Days"?  What was it about?  Days. . . that were Happy!  Teens hanging around the jukebox!  With poodle skirts!  The Fonz!  Having shenanigans! 

So I resolve to turn off the news—  Except for the headlines that actually leap out of the radio—  And maul you, like a wolverine—   Ever seen that?  Anyway—

I also take a break from The Handmaid's Tale—  I turn instead to the comedy Grace and Frankie, with Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin!  I embrace their comforting presences like the stylish pashmina throw either might wear—  If The Cheese Nun was still on?  I would binge-watch that!  Very reassuring.  The Cheese and the Nun.

But then I start getting emails -- the Concerned Parent E-Blasts I don't recall ever signing up for, a la—?  "Does your teen get enough sleep?"  No.  "Is your teen ready for the SAT?"  No. "Does your teen eat too much sugar and waste a lot of time?"  Yes.   Apparently that's abnormal behavior and there's medication for that.  Good to know!

 Well—  The truly alarming news is that—  Often unbeknownst to their parents— All of our teens are secretly watching this new TV series called "13 Reasons Why."  As in, 13 reasons why this teenage girl commits suicide.  She leaves behind the reasons in a box of tapes.  One reason is rape.  Shown on screen. 

It's a long way from Happy Days.

As a responsible parent, I need to talk to my daughters. . . about this show.

 Next week: A Visit with Dr. Mom.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Life is stressful enough.  And now—?  I've been getting all these alarming missives from parenting organizations about the Netflix series "13 Reasons Why."  As in, 13 reasons why this teenaged girl commits suicide—  Which is depicted on screen, as is a rape!  Yikes!  Apparently all teens are secretly streaming it, so we parents need to open up the conversation.

But then I'm thinking: What if my two teen daughters are the only teens not watching it?  And then my raising the topic would be—what do you call it?  A trigger?  It's so confusing these days!  College campuses are full of "safe spaces"—  But middle schoolers can stream suicide shows!

And my younger daughter?  She's already fluttery, like a leaf.  Sample text—and I can't convey how terrifying these words look on one's phone: "Mom.  Mom.  Mom.  Please!  I'm so scared.  I don't know what to do!  Help me!"  Situation?  She was in the bathroom at Starbucks and the toilet wouldn't flush.  Fortunately Dr. Mom was right outside the door.

So with this one, driving home from school, I just ask, with an odd vague heartiness: "So. . . What movies or TV shows are all the kids watching these days?"

"All the kids?" she says.  "What are you talking about?  What kids?"

"You kids!" I say.  "You!  You and your peeps!"

"What?" she says.  "Nothing."  She goes on instead to describe her traumatic field trip.  Instead of studying tide pools at a nice quiet museum, her class went to the actual beach!  She slipped on a rock and all these kids from the Medical Magnet too-eagerly stormed her with gauze and bandages! 

Okay.  I'll let that fragile kid be.  Now it's on to my older, more sophisticated daughter.  The one with the nose ring—at least it's fake.  I ask her bluntly: "So, what's the deal with this '13 Reasons Why' show?"

 She groans.  "I already read the book back in sixth grade."
 

"In sixth grade?" I exclaim.

Apparently at her old middle school, everyone was reading books about teen suicide—  Which appears to have been an actual cottage industry, possibly it's own Young Adult genre.  Sheesh!  What happened to Nancy Drew?

She says she did watch the show but stopped during the rape scene, which was a bit much.  In fact, now, on social media, the show's premise had surfaced as a joke meme.  As in, "I asked to borrow a pencil.  You said you didn't have one."  Ominous pause.  "It's one of the 13 Reasons Why." Ba-dum-bum.

In the end, Dr. Mom felt a bit out of her league.  I guess I'll just have to trust that the teens are going to be fine.  And to be on hand to flush the toilet.}
 

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

One of 4,000 "The Far Side" panels Gary Larson drew over 14 years. The full collection is now out in paperback.; Credit: Gary Larson

Off-Ramp animation expert Charles Solomon reviews "The Complete Far Side: 1980-1994" by Gary Larson.

It’s hard to believe the last panel of Gary Larson’s wildly popular comic strip “The Far Side” ran 20 years ago: January 1, 1995. The comics page of the LA Times (and many other papers) still feels empty without it.

RELATED: Charles Solomon interviews artists responsible for look of "Big Hero 6"

During its 14-year run, "The Far Side" brought a new style of humor to newspaper comics that was weird, outré and hilarious. The strip became an international phenomenon, appearing in over 1,900 newspapers worldwide. Larson won both the National Cartoonists' Society Reuben Award for Outstanding Cartoonist of the Year and the Best Syndicated Panel Award. An exhibit of original artwork from the strip broke attendance records at natural history museums in San Francisco, Denver and here in L.A. Fans bought tens of millions of "Far Side" books and calendars.

Much of the humor in “The Far Side” derived from Larson's seemingly effortless juxtaposition of the mundane and bizarre. When a bug-housewife declares "I'm leaving you, Charles...and I'm taking the grubs with me," it's the utter normalcy of the scene that makes it so funny. Mrs. Bug wears cats eye glasses, while Mr. Bug reads his newspaper in an easy chair with a doily on the back.

Or, a mummy sits an office waiting room reading a magazine while a secretary says into the intercom, “Mr. Bailey? There’s a gentlemen here who claims an ancestor of your once defiled his crypt, and now you’re the last remaining Bailey and … oh, something about a curse. Should I send him in?”

"The Complete Far Side" contains every strip ever syndicated: more than 4,000 panels. It should probably come with a warning label, "Caution: reading this book may result in hyperventilation from uncontrollable laughter." Except for a few references to Leona Helmsley or other now-forgotten figures, Larson’s humor remains as offbeat and funny as it was when the strips were first printed.

Andrews and McMeel initially released this collection in 2003 in two hardbound volumes that weighed close to 10 pounds apiece. You needed a sturdy table to read them. The three volumes in the paperback re-issue weigh in around three pounds and can be held comfortably in the lap for a while.

Because “The Far Side” ended two decades ago, many people under 30 don’t know it. The reprinted collection offers geezers (35 or older) a chance to give a present that should delight to that impossible-to-shop-for son, daughter, niece or nephew. How often does an older adult get a chance to appear cool at Christmas or Hanuka? 

And if that ingrate kid doesn’t appreciate it, "The Complete Far Side" also makes an excellent self-indulgence.

Charles Solomon lends his animatio expertise to Off-Ramp and Filmweek on Airtalk, and has just been awarded the Annie's (The International Animated Film Society) June Foray Award, "for his significant and benevolent or charitable impact on the art and industry of animation." Congratulations, Charles!

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

There are still a couple dozen tickets left for one of the most interestingly-cast performances of H.G. Wells, Orson Welles and Howard Koch's "War of the Worlds." On Saturday, Jan. 17,  generations of Star Trek actors will take on the world's most famous radio show.

The cast — directed by Jim Fall — features: René Auberjonois (“Star Trek: Deep Space Nine”), Michael Dorn (“Star Trek: TNG”), Dean Haglund (“The X-Files”), Walter Koenig ("Star Trek"), Linda Park ("Star Trek: Enterprise"), Jason Ritter (“The Event”), Tim Russ (“Star Trek: Voyager”), Armin Shimerman (“Star Trek: Deep Space Nine”) and Wil Wheaton, playing... Orson Welles.

The performance is a fundraiser for Sci-Fest LA, the new annual science fiction play festival, so tickets aren't cheap — but they're scarce, and this looks like a memorable night.

KPCC and "Off-Ramp" celebrated the 75th anniversary of the broadcast last year by distributing the original 1938 performance, and a new documentary, internationally... introduced by George Takei, another original Trek actor you might have heard of.

War of the Worlds: Sat., Jan. 17,  8 PM; The Acme Theatre, 135 North La Brea Ave. LA CA 90036

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A cleaning crew disinfects a New York City subway train on May 4, 2020 in New York City. ; Credit: Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

As of Monday afternoon, L.A. County has at least 1,260 deaths and 26,238 confirmed cases of coronavirus. The United States has more than a million cases of the virus with more than 67,000 deaths. Meanwhile, new models put together by FEMA project that we could see up to 200,000 new cases a day by the end of the month, according to the New York Times. 

The L.A. Times reports that scientists have discovered a new strain of the deadly coronavirus that is even more contagious. The study finds that the new strain first appeared in February in Europe and has been the dominant strain across the world since mid-March. Plus, some COVID-19 patients are experiencing issues with blood clotting even after respiratory issues have died down. Today on AirTalk, we get the latest with an infectious disease specialist who will take your questions. Call 866-893-5722 to join the conversation. 

With files from LAist. Read the full story here.

Guest:

Dean Blumberg, M.D., professor of medicine and chief of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at UC Davis Children’s Hospital

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Police and lifeguards patrol as people walk on the beach south of Newport Pier on May 3, 2020 in Newport Beach, California. ; Credit: Michael Heiman/Getty Images

After the cities of San Clemente and Laguna Beach were given the OK by state officials on Monday to reopen beaches with limited conditions, the California Natural Resources Agency gave Dana Point, Seal Beach and Huntington Beach the green light on Tuesday after approving the plans they submitted for safe reopening.

The plans vary as far as when the beach can be used, but the common thread through each is that leisure activities like sunbathing or large gatherings of people would not be allowed, and that beachgoers will be required to remain active while on the sand. 

The news comes as Orange County Supervisors voted 3-2 on Tuesday to submit a plan to submit to Sacramento that would create a set of uniform rules for reopening beaches countywide. Supervisor Lisa Bartlett spearheaded the proposal, which received pushback from Supervisors Don Wagner and Michelle Steel who argue that after being singled out by Governor Gavin Newsom last week when he ordered a “hard close” on all state and local beaches in Orange County, taking issue with the idea of the county bowing to pressure from the state.

Today on AirTalk, we’ll check back in with Supervisor Bartlett, who joined us Monday on AirTalk, to find out more about the specifics of the county’s plan to reopen its beaches.

Guest:

Lisa Bartlett, Orange County Supervisor representing the Fifth County District, which encompasses South County cities like Aliso Viejo, San Clemente, Laguna Beach, Dana Point and more; she tweets @OCSupBartlett

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Phlebotomists process specimens of people getting tested for coronavirus antibodies in Spring Valley. ; Credit: Yana Paskova/Getty Images

As of Tuesday afternoon, L.A. County has at least 1,314 deaths and 27,836 confirmed cases of coronavirus.

New confirmed infections per day in the U.S. exceed 20,000, and deaths per day are well over 1,000,000 according to figures from Johns Hopkins University. And public health officials warn that the failure to flatten the curve and drive down the infection rate in places could lead to many more deaths — perhaps tens of thousands — as people are allowed to venture out and businesses reopen. From the marbled halls of Italy to the wheat fields of Kansas, health authorities are increasingly warning that the question isn’t whether a second wave of coronavirus infections and deaths will hit, but when — and how badly. President Donald Trump said his COVID-19 task force would keep working but focus more on rebooting the economy. According to the Orange County Register, more OC beaches received approval to open with limited hours.

Today on AirTalk, we get the latest on COVID-19. Do you have questions for our infectious disease specialist? Join the conversation by calling 866-893-5722. 

With files from LAist and the Associated Press 

Guest: 

Peter Chin-Hong, M.D., infectious disease specialist and professor of medicine at the UCSF Medical Center; he tweets @PCH_SF

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A little girl licking a spoon after stirring the cake mixture in 1935. ; Credit: Fox Photos/Getty Images

“How in the world am I going to come up with something to make dinner tonight?”

If you’ve found yourself asking this question repeatedly during the pandemic, you’re not alone. Grocery shopping complicated by COVID-19 and shortages of certain staples has meant that many who might not usually consider themselves home chefs have had no choice but to throw an apron on and do some culinary experimentation with whatever they already have in their kitchen and pantry. 

Last month on AirTalk, we tackled this issue by calling up pro chef Noelle Carter and food writer Russ Parson, both of whom are former members of the L.A. Times’ Food team, to answer your questions about how to cook with what you already have, recycle  certain foods, and even make staples that you might not be able to find in abundance right now. If you tuned in last time, you learned how to make your own pasta, how to regrow vegetables like green onions and romaine lettuce, and even what you can use as a substitute for all-purpose flour if you can’t find any at the store.

Today on AirTalk, we’re bringing Noelle and Russ back to help you out in the kitchen! If you’ve got questions about things like making or substituting ingredients, or need some ideas for what to make out of random ingredients in your fridge, join our live conversation by calling 866-893-5722.

Guests:

Noelle Carter, chef, food writer and culinary consultant for Noelle Carter Food, a website sharing recipes, cooking techniques and helpful kitchen tips for the home cook; she is the former director of the Los Angeles Times Test Kitchen; she tweets @noellecarter

Russ Parsons, former food editor and columnist for The Los Angeles Times for more than 20 years; he is the author of two cookbooks: “How To Pick A Peach” and “How To Read A French Fry”; he tweets @Russ_Parsons1

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

People sit on a hill overlooking Dodger Stadium on what was supposed to be Major League Baseball's opening day, now postponed due to the coronavirus, on March 26, 2020 in Los Angeles, California. ; Credit: Mario Tama/Getty Images

Had the 2020 MLB season started at the end of March like it was scheduled to, at this point we’d be starting to see divisions shape up, star pitchers and position players separating themselves from the rest of the league and a first look at who this year’s contenders and pretenders really would be. Sadly, the COVID-19 outbreak forced the league to postpone the start of the season, and now the question has become if there will be a season, not when. 

Not to be dragged down by the idea of no baseball, Wall Street Journal sports writer Jared Diamond took a recent proposal the league floated for an abbreviated 2020 campaign and gamed out how that might look in real life. The league’s idea would do away with the National and American Leagues and divide all 30 MLB teams into three divisions of 10 teams separated by region, and those teams would play in empty stadiums and only against other teams in their geographic division in the interests of reducing travel. But how viable is this, really? And what other considerations would the league and players union have to take with regards to testing and protocol for what happens if someone were to contract COVID-19? Is there a world where baseball still happens this year?

Today on AirTalk, Jared Diamond joins the Triple Play of Larry Mantle, Nick Roman and A Martinez to talk about what a shortened 2020 MLB season might look like, which teams stand to win and lose the most from the realignment and what other precautions the league would have to take against the spread of COVID-19.

Guests:

Jared Diamond, national baseball writer for the Wall Street Journal; his new book is "Swing Kings: The Inside Story of Baseball's Home Run Revolution” (William Morrow, March 2020); he tweets @jareddiamond

Nick Roman, host of KPCC’s “All Things Considered”; he tweets @RomanOnTheRadio

A. Martinez, host of KPCC’s “Take Two”; he tweets @amartinezLA

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Amoeba Music store, a Hollywood landmark is closed amid the COVID- 19 pandemic, on May 7, 2020, in Hollywood, California. ; Credit: VALERIE MACON/AFP via Getty Images

The City and County of Los Angeles began the process today of reopening some parts of the economy that had been shuttered due to COVID-19. 

Starting today, businesses including book stores, toy stores, sporting goods stores, florists and other “low-risk” retailers will be allowed to reopen for curbside service only. All other shopping will still need to be done over the phone or online. Businesses will also have to have strategies in place for stemming the spread of COVID-19 on site, which will need to include employee training, sanitation protocols and even screening measures. Offices, dine-in restaurants and shopping malls remain closed, as do beauty salons, barbershops, live event venues and other places where people might be in close proximity. Meanwhile, in Orange County, the final stretches of coastline were approved to reopen on Thursday, though they are under the same “active use” rules that the other beaches in OC have implemented in order to prevent people from congregating on beaches and in parking lots.

Today on AirTalk, we’ll talk about the specifics of what is and is not reopening today in L.A. City and County, get an update from the Los Angeles Flower Market in downtown, and find out about the latest on Orange County Beaches.

Guests:

Emily Guerin, reporter for KPCC covering small businesses; she tweets @guerinemily

Lisa Brenner, associate editor at LAist; she tweets @lisa_brenner

Laylan Connelly, beaches reporter for The Orange County Register; she tweets @ocbeaches

Candice Kim, whose parents owns a flower shop in Downtown LA that reopened today.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Deirdre Bolona displayed a photo of her and her late father Matt Koenig at a state legislative oversight hearing about the Aliso Canyon natural gas disaster. ; Credit: Sharon McNary/KPCC

It’s been nearly four years since the smell and chemicals from a ruptured gas well at an underground storage field forced thousands of Porter Ranch residents to leave their neighborhood for months. The recriminations and protests have not stopped.

State legislators held a hearing in Porter Ranch Tuesday to review how gas field owner Southern California Gas and public officials responded to the blowout. 

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The engineered Dominguez Gap Wetlands in Long Beach filters stormwater and runoff from the Los Angeles River, then the water is siphoned under the river to a spreading ground to the west.; Credit: Sharon McNary/KPCC

Angelenos are used to looking up Heal the Bay's annual beach water quality report card each May as we search out the cleanest places to swim and surf.

Now, the environmental advocacy group is focusing on a new target — the often polluted water that flows into the ocean from the mountains and across the L.A. Basin.

In a first-ever report, it concludes the managers of 12 watersheds from Malibu to Long Beach are making too little progress toward cleaning up this major source of pollution in the Pacific.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Levi Draheim, 11, wears a dust mask as he participates in a demonstration in Miami in July 2019. A lawsuit file by him and other young people urging action against climate change was thrown out by a federal appeals court Friday.; Credit: Wilfredo Lee/AP

A federal appeals court has dismissed a lawsuit brought by nearly two dozen young people aimed at forcing the federal government to take bolder action on climate change, saying the courts were not the appropriate place to address the issue.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Friday the young plaintiffs had "made a compelling case that action is needed," but they did not have legal standing to bring the case.

The lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, was filed in 2015 on behalf of a group of children and teenagers who said the U.S. government continued to use and promote the use of fossil fuels, knowing that such consumption would destabilize the climate, putting future generations at risk.

By doing so, the plaintiffs argued, the U.S. government had violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property.

Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz agreed with some of that assertion, writing in a 32-page opinion that "the federal government has long promoted fossil fuel use despite knowing that it can cause catastrophic climate change."

But, he continued, it was unclear if the court could compel the federal government to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess greenhouse gas emissions as the plaintiffs requested.

"Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power," Hurwitz wrote, "Rather, the plaintiffs' impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government."

The decision reversed an earlier ruling by a district court judge that would have allowed the case to move forward.

Philip Gregory, who served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs, strongly disagreed with the 2-1 ruling, saying in an interview with NPR that they would seek an "en banc petition," which would put the issue before the full 9th Circuit for review.

Gregory, who spoke to some of the young plaintiffs following the decisions, says they were hopeful that their pending petition will be considered, "because as we all know, this Congress and this President will do nothing to ameliorate the climate crisis."

Both the Trump and Obama administrations opposed the lawsuit. All three of the judges involved in Friday's ruling were appointed under Obama.

Hurwitz and Judge Mary Murguia made up the majority but the third, Judge Josephine L. Staton, wrote a blistering dissent.

"In these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response — yet presses ahead toward calamity," she wrote. "It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

February satellite readings in the troposphere (the lower atmosphere) of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a pollutant primarily from burning fossil fuels, show a dramatic decline compared to early January when power plants were operating at normal levels.; Credit: /NASA Earth Observatory

As China seeks to control the spread of COVID-19, fewer cars are driving, fewer factories are running and — in some places — skies are clearer.

Air pollution levels have dropped by roughly a quarter over the last month as coal-fired power plants and industrial facilities have ramped down so employees in high-risk areas can stay home. Levels of nitrogen dioxide, a pollutant primarily from burning fossil fuels, were down as much as 30%, according to NASA.

"It is an unprecedentedly dramatic drop in emissions," says Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, who tallied the reductions. "I've definitely spoken to people in Shanghai who said that it's been some of the most pristine blue skies that they remember over the winter."

Myllyvirta estimates that China's carbon emissions have dropped by a quarter over the same period. While that's a tiny fraction of its overall annual emissions, it's substantial in a worldwide context, since China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

There's potentially a health benefit — although any gains due to a drop in pollution are set against the toll taken by the coronavirus outbreak.

Air pollution is estimated to contribute to more than 1 million premature deaths in China each year. Fine particle pollution, also known as PM 2.5, can enter the bloodstream through the lungs and has been linked to asthma attacks, heart attacks and respiratory problems.

Even a short-term reduction in air pollution can make a difference.

"There is no question about it: When air quality improves, that will be associated with a reduction in health-related problems," says Jim Zhang, professor of global and environmental health at Duke University.

Zhang says that was evident during the 2008 summer Olympics in Beijing. To help improve the air, government officials shut factories and dramatically limited car travel before and during the games. Levels of some air pollutants dropped by half.

He and colleagues studied a group of young men and women in Beijing and found that during that time period, their lung and cardiovascular health improved. He also followed pregnant women.

"What we found is that the kids whose mothers had a third trimester pregnancy during the Olympics when the air quality was better, their birth weight was substantially higher than the kids who were born a year before and a year later," he says.

But health specialists sound a cautionary note.

"It would be a mischaracterization to say that the coronavirus was beneficial to health because of these air pollution reductions," says Jill Baumgartner, associate professor and epidemiologist at McGill University.

"The health impacts from the virus itself, the stress on the health-care system, the stress on people's lives — those health impacts are likely to be much greater than the short-term benefits of air pollution on health," she says.

Baumgartner says people with health issues other than COVID-19 may have avoided seeing doctors during the outbreak or potentially couldn't receive treatment they needed in areas with overtaxed health systems.

Those isolated at home and avoiding crowds may also have been exposed to more indoor air pollution.

"People spent a lot more time indoors and it's possible that they were exposed to higher levels of indoor tobacco smoke," Baumgartner says. "Or in the suburban areas, it's possible that they were using their traditional wood or coal stoves for heating."

Not all cities have experienced the recent improvements. In mid-February, Beijing saw a spike in pollution due to local weather patterns trapping air in the region.

The drop in air pollution and carbon emissions is also likely to disappear as Chinese industry ramps up again in an attempt to offset its economic losses.

"If you think back to the global financial crisis, the immediate impact was for China's emissions to fall," says Myllyvirta. "But then the government response was to roll out the biggest stimulus package in the history of mankind that then drove China's emissions and global emissions up for years."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Traffic on the Hollywood Freeway in Los Angeles in 2018. The Trump administration is weakening auto pollution standards, rolling back a key Obama-era policy that sought to curb climate change.; Credit: Damian Dovarganes/AP

The Trump administration has finalized its rollback of a major Obama-era climate policy, weakening auto emissions standards in a move it says will mean cheaper cars for consumers.

"By making newer, safer, and cleaner vehicles more accessible for American families, more lives will be saved and more jobs will be created," U.S. Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao said in a statement.

But consumer watchdog organizations, environmental groups and even the Environmental Protection Agency's own scientific advisory board have raised concerns about that rationale, saying the weakened standards will lead to dirtier air and cost consumers at the gas pump long-term.

Environmental Protection Agency administrator Andrew Wheeler called the new rule a move to "correct" greenhouse gas emissions standards that were costly for automakers to comply with.

"Our final rule...strikes the right regulatory balance that protects our environment, and sets reasonable targets for the auto industry," Wheeler said in a statement.

The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule will toughen carbon dioxide emissions standards by 1.5% a year through model year 2026, compared to about 5% a year under the Obama policy.

The Trump administration originally proposed freezing the standards altogether without any increase. It modified the rule after push back from not only environmental groups but also some automakers, who worried they will be out of step in a global marketplace increasingly geared toward lower emission cars and trucks.

Still, critics say the new rule will lead to nearly a billion additional metric tons of climate warming CO2 in the atmosphere, and that consumers will end up losing money by buying about 80 billion more gallons of gas.

"This rule will lead to dirtier air at a time when our country is working around the clock to respond to a respiratory pandemic whose effects may be exacerbated by air pollution," said U.S. Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.) in a statement. He's the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The Trump administration asserts the new rule will save lives because Americans will buy newer, safer vehicles. But Carper points out that its own analysis finds there would be even more premature deaths from increased air pollution.

For that reason and others, the new standards are sure to face legal challenges. In fact, even the Trump administration's own science advisers have said "there are significant weaknesses in the scientific analysis of the proposed rule."

"The rollback of the vehicle emissions standards is based on analysis that is shoddy even by the shockingly unprofessional standards of Trump-era deregulation," said Richard Revesz of the Institute for Policy Integrity and Dean Emeritus at New York University School of Law.

California and other states are also likely to file suit against the rule. They've asserted their long-standing right to set their own, stricter emissions standards, something the Trump administration has also challenged.

A worst case scenario for automakers would be different standards in different states. The new policy may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, but the uncertainty waiting for that would exact its own toll on an industry that must plan years ahead.

Thomas Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, welcomed the new standards. In a statement, he said the Obama-era mandate was "impossible to achieve without dramatically altering the automobile market or making the cost of vehicles out of reach for most American families. This new... rule will make cars more affordable for consumers at a time when they need it most."

The Trump administration has been pushing ahead with a number of environmental rollbacks, aiming to finalize them well ahead of November's election. That would make it harder for a Democratic president, if one were elected, to reverse them again.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Two judges appointed by President Trump to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals prevailed Tuesday in a ruling that clears the way for the executions of four inmates.

The only dissenter in the 3-2 ruling was Judge David Tatel, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton. The judges were reviewing a lower court's injunction that had blocked the scheduled executions.

The decision was seen as a win for Trump's Justice Department, which issued new guidelines last July that would have allowed the federal government to carry out its first executions in 16 years.

The fates of the four men remain unresolved because their death sentences were sent back to the lower court for further proceedings.

In December, the U.S. Supreme Court declined the Justice Department's request to vacate the lower court's injunction that scuttled the planned executions.

At issue is the question of whether the condemned men should be put to death by the injection of only one barbiturate — pentobarbital — as called for in the Justice Department's July 2019 memo.

Many of the 28 states where the death penalty is still legal require a lethal injection cocktail containing not one but three barbiturates. Those states include Indiana, where the scheduled executions were to take place.

Pharmaceutical companies have stopped producing at least one of the three drugs used in that lethal mixture, and several botched executions have resulted from some states using untested formulas.

The 1994 Federal Death Penalty Act calls for executions to be carried out "in the manner prescribed by the law of the State in which the sentence is imposed."

Judge Gregory Katsas argues in his majority opinion that the "manner prescribed" simply refers to the method of execution rather than the protocols each state follows in carrying out each kind of execution.

"The government says that 'manner' here means 'method'," Katsas writes, "such that the FDPA regulates only the top-line choice among execution methods such as hanging, electrocution, or lethal injection. In my view, the government is correct."

Judge Neomi Rao, in a concurring opinion, argues that while the word "manner" refers not only to the method of execution, it cannot be interpreted in isolation. "It is a broad, flexible term," she says, "whose specificity depends on context."

In his dissent, Tatel says the best understanding of the 1994 statute is that it "requires federal executions to be carried out using the same procedures that states use to execute their own prisoners.

"Had Congress intended to authorize the Attorney General to adopt a uniform execution protocol," Tatel argues, "it knew exactly how to do so."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed an executive order banning all elective medical procedures, including abortions, during the coronavirus outbreak. The ban extends to medication abortions.; Credit: Eric Gay/AP

Governors across the country are banning elective surgery as a means of halting the spread of the coronavirus. But in a handful of states that ban is being extended to include a ban on all abortions.

So far the courts have intervened to keep most clinics open. The outlier is Texas, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit this week upheld the governor's abortion ban.

Four years ago, Texas was also the focus of a fierce legal fight that ultimately led to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in which the justices struck down a Texas law purportedly aimed at protecting women's health. The court ruled the law was medically unnecessary and unconstitutional.

Now Texas is once again the epicenter of the legal fight around abortion. In other states--Ohio, Iowa, Alabama, and Oklahoma--the courts so far have sided with abortion providers and their patients.

Not so in Texas where Gov. Greg Abbott signed an executive order barring all "non-essential" medical procedures in the state, including abortion. The executive order was temporarily blocked in the district court, but the Fifth Circuit subsequently upheld the governor's order by a 2-to-1 vote, declaring that "all public constitutional rights may be reasonably restricted to combat a public health emergency."

"No more elective medical procedures can be done in the state because of the potential of needing both people ... beds and supplies, and obviously doctors and nurses," said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in an interview with NPR.

'Exploiting This Crisis'

Nancy Northrup, CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, sees things very differently. "It is very clear that anti-abortion rights politicians are shamelessly exploiting this crisis to achieve what has been their longstanding ideological goal to ban abortion in the U.S.," she said.

Paxton denies that, saying Texas "is not targeting any particular group."
The state's the "only goal is to protect people from dying," he said.

Yet the American Medical Association just last week filed a brief in this case in support of abortion providers, as did 18 states, led by New York, which is the state that has been the hardest hit by the coronavirus.

They maintain that banning abortion is far more dangerous,because it will force women to travel long distances to get one. A study from the Guttmacher Institute found that people seeking abortions during the COVID-19 outbreak would have to travel up to 20 times farther than normal if states successfully ban abortion care during the pandemic. The AMA also notes that pregnant women do not stop needing medical care if they don't get an abortion.

Northrup, of the Center for Reproductive Rights, sees this as more evidence that the ban is a calculated move by the state: what "puts the lie to this is the fact that they're trying to ban medication, abortion as well; that's the use of pills for abortion.

"Those do not need to take place in a clinic and they can be done, taken effectively by tele-medicine. So it shows that the real goal here, tragically, is shutting down one's right to make the decision to end the pregnancy, not a legitimate public health response."

'I Was Desperate'

Affidavits filed in the Texas case tell of harrowing experiences already happening as the result of the Texas ban. One declaration was filed by a 24-year-old college student. The week she lost her part-time job as a waitress, she found out she was pregnant. She and her partner agreed they wanted to terminate the pregnancy, and on March 20 she went to a clinic in Forth Worth alone; because of social distancing rules, her partner was not allowed to go with her.

Since she was 10 weeks pregnant, still in her first trimester, she was eligible for a medication abortion. Under state law, she had to wait 24 hours before getting the pills at the clinic, but the night before her scheduled appointment, the clinic called to cancel because of Abbott's executive order.

He partner was with her and we "cried together," she wrote in her declaration. "I couldn't risk the possibility that I would run out of time to have an abortion while the outbreak continued," and it "seemed to be getting more and more difficult to travel."

She made many calls to clinics in New Mexico and Oklahoma. The quickest option was Denver--a 12-hour drive, 780-mile drive from where she lives. Her partner was still working, so her best friend agreed to go with her. They packed sanitizing supplies and food in the car for the long drive and arrived at the Denver Clinic on March 26, where she noticed other cars with Texas plates in the parking lot, according to the affidavit.

At the clinic, she was examined, given a sonogram again, and because Colorado does not have a 24-hour waiting requirement, she was given her first abortion pill without delay and told she should try to get home within 30 hours to take the second pill.

She and her friend then turned around to go home. They were terrified she would have the abortion in the car, and tried to drive through without taking breaks. But after six hours, when it turned dark they were so exhausted they had to stop at a motel to catch some sleep. The woman finally got home and took the second pill just within the 30-hour window.

She said that despite the ordeal she was grateful she had the money, the car, the friend, and the supportive partner with a job, to make the abortion possible. Others will not be so lucky, she wrote. But "I was desperate and desperate people take desperate steps to protect themselves."

A 'Narrative' Of Choice

Paxton, the Texas attorney general, does not seem moved by the time limitations that pregnancy imposes, or the hardships of traveling out of state to get an abortion. He told NPR "the narrative has always been 'It's a choice' ... that's the whole narrative. I'm a little surprised by the question, given that's always been the thing."

On Thursday abortion providers and their patients returned to the district court in Texas instead of appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Fifth Circuit's ruling from earlier this week. The district court judge, who originally blocked the governor's ban, instead narrowed the governor's order so that medical abortions--with pills--would be exempt from the ban, as well as abortions for women who are up against the state-imposed deadline. Abortions in Texas are banned after 22 weeks.

In the end, though, this case may well be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. And because of the addition of two Trump appointees since 2016--the composition of the court is a lot more hostile to abortion rights.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Attorney General William Barris pictured at a coronavirus task force meeting at the White House on March 23. The Justice Department is looking to crack down on coronavirus-related fraud.; Credit: Alex Brandon/AP

The coronavirus pandemic has brought out the good side of many Americans, but certainly not all Americans. Officials say that fraud related to COVID-19 — like hoarding equipment, price gouging and hawking fake treatments — are spreading as the country wrestles with the outbreak.

"It's a perfect ecosystem for somebody like a fraudster to operate in," said Craig Carpenito, the U.S. attorney for New Jersey and the head of the Justice Department's COVID-19 price gouging and hoarding task force.

"People want to believe that there's a magic pill that they can take or that if they buy a certain kind of mask or a certain kind of protective gear that it's going to protect them and their families," he said. "That creates opportunities for the types of people that prey upon scared people. They prey upon their fear."

A month ago, Attorney General William Barr instructed federal prosecutors around the country to aggressively investigate and prosecute scams and other crimes related to the COVID-19 pandemic. He also created the price gouging and hoarding task force and put Carpenito in charge of it.

From that perch, Carpenito has one of the best views of virus-related crime nationwide.

"Instead of seeing that tremendous support from all aspects of society, we're still seeing that sliver, that that dark underbelly, that small percentage of folks who instead of putting the interests of the country and support for those medical professionals that are putting themselves at risk in the forefront, they're finding ways to try and take advantage of this situation and illegally profiteer from it," he said. "And it's despicable."

The most prevalent kind of fraud that federal authorities are seeing at this point, he and others say, is tied to personal protective equipment like N95 masks, gloves or face shields.

In one notable case, prosecutors brought charges against a Georgia man, Christopher Parris, for allegedly trying to sell $750 million worth of masks and other protective equipment to the Department of Veterans Affairs but with a sizable advance payment.

The problem, prosecutors say, is the masks and other items didn't exist, at least not in the quantities Parris was offering.

Steven Merrill, the head of the FBI's financial crimes section, says the bureau refers to these sorts of operations as advance-fee schemes.

"We're getting many complaints that different entities are entering into these agreements, paying money upfront, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars, and may or may not get any masks or other PPE ordered at all," Merrill said. "So our guidance to the public is to please be wary of these frauds and solicitations."

Other problems, such as hoarding and price gouging, can arise even when the medical gear does exist.

The FBI is trying to identify individuals who are stockpiling protective equipment and trying to sell it at exorbitant markups, sometimes 40 to 70 times the value, Merrill said.

A few weeks ago, the FBI seized nearly 1 million respirator masks, gloves and other medical gear from a Brooklyn man who was allegedly stockpiling them and selling them to nurses and doctors at what officials say was around a 700% markup.

The man, Baruch Feldheim, has been charged with lying to the FBI about price gouging. He's also been charged with allegedly assaulting a federal officer after he coughed on agents and claimed he had COVID-19.

The confiscated items, meanwhile, have been distributed to medical workers in the New York area.

Carpenito said the Justice Department has more than 100 investigations open into price gouging. It has hundreds more, he said, into other crimes tied to the pandemic, including fake treatments and cures.

In one case out of California, prosecutors charged a man who was allegedly soliciting large investments for what he claimed was a cure for COVID-19.

"He was doing so by broadcasting this scheme via, notably, YouTube, where had thousands of hits and views," Merrill said.

In a separate case out of Florida last week, the Justice Department got a court order to stop a Florida church from selling on its website an industrial bleach that was being marketed as a miracle treatment for the virus.

To be clear, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there is no cure at this point for the virus.

More than a month into this crisis, there's no sense COVID-related crime is going to slow down.

In fact, Carpenito and Merrill say that with the massive $2 trillion economic relief package beginning to be doled out, they expect to see even more fraud in the weeks and months ahead.

"What we're worried about is that not only do we have these existing conditions, but we are awaiting — like everybody in the country — the arrival of $2 trillion to hit the streets," Merrill said. "And anytime there's that much money out there, you can just multiply the amount of frauds that are going to take place. So we're preparing for many more complaints to come in and new schemes to arrive on a daily basis."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely this week, and for the first time the arguments were streamed live to the public.; Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

For the first time in its 231-year history, the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely by phone and made the audio available live.

The new setup went off largely without difficulties, but produced some memorable moments, including one justice forgetting to unmute and an ill-timed bathroom break.

Here are the top five can't-miss moments from this week's history-making oral arguments.

A second week of arguments begin on Monday at 10 a.m. ET. Here's a rundown of the cases and how to listen.

1. Justice Clarence Thomas speaks ... a lot

Supreme Court oral arguments are verbal jousting matches. The justices pepper the lawyers with questions, interrupting counsel repeatedly and sometimes even interrupting each other.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who has sat on the bench for nearly 30 years, has made his dislike of the chaotic process well known, at one point not asking a question for a full decade.

But with no line of sight, the telephone arguments have to be rigidly organized, and each justice, in order of seniority, has an allotted 2 minutes for questioning.

It turn out that Thomas, second in seniority, may just have been waiting his turn. Rather than passing, as had been expected, he has been Mr. Chatty Cathy, using every one of his turns at bat so far.

Thomas broke a year-long silence on Monday in a trademark case testing whether a company can trademark by adding .com to a generic term. In this case, Booking.com.

"Could Booking acquire an 800 number, for example, that's a vanity number — 1-800-BOOKING, for example?" Thomas asked.

2. The unstoppable RBG

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg participated in Wednesday's argument from the hospital. In pain during Tuesday's arguments, the 87-year-old underwent non-surgical treatment for a gall bladder infection at Johns Hopkins Hospital later that day, according to a Supreme Court press release.

But she was ferocious on Wednesday morning, calling in from her hospital room in a case testing the Trump administration's new rule expanding exemptions from Obamacare's birth control mandate for nonprofits and some for-profit companies that have religious or moral objections to birth control.

"The glaring feature" of the Trump administration's new rules, is that they "toss to the winds entirely Congress' instruction that women need and shall have seamless, no-cost, comprehensive coverage," she said.

3. Who flushed?

During Wednesday's second oral argument, Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, a case in which the justices weighed a First Amendment challenge to a federal rule than bans most robocalls, something very unexpected happened.

Partway through lawyer Roman Martinez's argument time, a toilet flush could be distinctly heard.

Martinez seemed unperturbed and continued speaking in spite of the awkward moment.

The flush quickly picked up steam online, becoming the first truly viral moment from the court's new livestream oral arguments.

4. Hello, where are you?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, considered one of the most tech-savvy of the justices, experienced a couple of technical difficulties with her mute button.

In both Monday and Tuesday arguments, the first time she was at bat, there were prolonged pauses, prompting Chief Justice John Roberts to call, "Justice Sotomayor?" a few times before she hopped on with a brief, "Sorry, Chief," before launching into her questions.

By Wednesday she seemed to have gotten used to the new format, but the trouble then jumped to Thomas, who was entirely missing in action when his turn came. He ultimately went out of order Wednesday morning.

5. Running over time

Oral arguments usually run one hour almost exactly, with lawyers for each side having 30 minutes to make their case. In an attempt to stick as closely as possible to that format, the telephone rules allocate 2 minutes of questioning to each justice for each round of questioning.

Chief Justice John Roberts spent the week jumping into exchanges, cutting off both lawyers and justices in the process, to keep the proceedings on track. Even so the arguments ran longer than usual.

But in Wednesday's birth control case, oral arguments went a whopping 40 minutes longer than expected.

Justice Alito, for his part, hammered the lawyer challenging the Trump administration's new birth control rules for more than seven minutes, without interruption from the chief justice.

Referencing a decision he wrote in 2014, Alito said that "Hobby Lobby held that if a person sincerely believes that it is immoral to perform an act that has the effect of enabling another person to commit an immoral act, the federal court does not have the right to say that this person is wrong on the question of moral complicity. That is precisely the question here."

Christina Peck is NPR's legal affairs intern.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Julio Osorio stands in the Valhalla Memorial Park Cemetery near his mother's grave. (Emily Elena Dugdale/KPCC); Credit: Emily Elena Dugdale

The devastating Woolsey fire broke out one year ago. In Malibu, it wreaked havoc not only on hundreds of homeowners but also on the day laborers, housekeepers and gardeners who traveled to the city to work in its affluent neighborhoods.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The L.A. Philharmonic will be the new operator of the John Anson Ford Theatre, the smaller outdoor venue near  the 101 Freeway across from the Hollywood Bowl, under a plan approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.  

L.A.  funding sustains the Ford, and the county recently spent $80 million renovating the 1,200  seat amphitheater.  But attendance has been lackluster — and Supervisor Sheila Kuehl hopes the L.A. Philharmonic can change that. 

“The Ford will be able to take advantage of the natural synergies in marketing, capacity-building and program resources that simply haven’t been available to the Ford as an independent institution," she  said.

The move by the L.A. County  blindsided many local artists.  They say the Ford is an important incubator for diverse talent.  They also worry ticket prices will increase.  Prompted by their criticism, the Supervisors will require the Phil to meet with artists and annually review the diversity of the Ford’s shows with county officials.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Embattled Korean Resource Center board president DJ Yoon takes interviews in a photo dated February 2014. ( ; Credit: Korean Resource Center via Flickr

In Los Angeles, another Asian American civil rights organization is in upheaval. A month after major layoffs at Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, the Korean Resource Center has lost more than half of its staff.  

The Korean Resource Center  is a leading advocate for low-income and undocumented Koreans. Its organizers worked on flipping Orange County from red to blue. Its legal staff provides free aid to immigrants. But 18 people have left in recent weeks, many upset with board president DJ Yoon and his management style. 

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Two tents in Hollywood erected beneath the 101 Freeway during a January rainstorm. (Matt Tinoco/KPCC)

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

In L.A., community leaders are working to prevent an undercount of Asian Angelenos. ; Credit: via NPR

The 2020 Census kicks off in a matter of weeks. Census officials say Asian immigrants are “hard-to-count” because many have limited English and distrust government. 

Leo Moon is learning about the census with friends at a city-led workshop in Koreatown. He didn’t fill out the form in 2010, mostly because he didn’t want the government knowing he’s undocumented. But Moon says he’ll take part next year because the census determines how much funding and representation people get.  

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Donations fill up the entryway to a Goodwill Southern California Donation Center in Pasadena during the first week of 2020.; Credit: Carla Javier/KPCC

Now that the holiday season is winding down, thrift shops run by Goodwill, the Salvation Army, and other organizations are tallying up the annual flood of December donations. 

"It's always been a tradition that our donors donate between Christmas and New Year's ... and the last couple days of the year, they donate even more," Goodwill Southern California director of logistics Tinna Bauer explained. "Some do it for tax purposes, and some ... when they if they receive new items for Christmas, they clean out the old."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: Illustration: Dan Carino

Read the full article at LAist

Homeless advocates erected a line of tents outside the Echo Park office of City Councilman Mitchell O'Farrell Feb. 12, 2020 to pressure him into meeting with them.; Credit:

Members of several groups of homeless advocates from across Los Angeles converged on a homeless encampment at the north end of   Echo Park Lake on Feb. 12 to protest the routine weekly litter collection.

A cleanup crew assisted by park rangers and city police officers did a once-through the campsite for miscellaneous trash, followed closely by a chanting and critical crowd of protesters.

The homeless advocates had erected extra tents that morning in protest of what they consider invasive cleanups. They also were trying to get City Councilman Mitchell O'Farrell to agree to meet with them as a group, same as he has met with other local organizations of homeowners and residents.

O'Farrell's spokesman Tony Aranga had insisted staffers were willing to meet with individuals to address their housing and other support needs.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

As millions of Americans have lost their jobs, Congress is trying to figure out what to do to help those who have also lost their health insurance.; Credit: South_agency/Getty Images

Mayra Jimenez had just lost the job she loved — and the health insurance that went along with it.

The 35-year-old San Francisco server needed coverage. Jimenez has ulcerative colitis, a chronic condition. Just one of her medications costs $18,000 per year.

"I was just in panic mode, scrambling to get coverage," Jimenez said.

A recent estimate suggests the pandemic has cost more than 9 million Americans both their jobs and their health insurance.

"Those numbers are just going to go up," MIT economist Jon Gruber said. "We've never seen such a dramatic increase in such a short period of time."

House Democrats introduced a bill in mid-April to help the millions of people, like Jimenez, who find themselves unsure of where to turn.

The Worker Health Coverage Protection Act would fully fund the cost of COBRA, a program that allows workers who leave or lose a job to stay on their former employer's insurance plan. COBRA currently requires workers to pay for their entire premium, including their employer's share.

The Worker Health Coverage Protection Act is one bill being considered as Congress tries to figure out what to do about the very real health care gap for those millions who have lost their jobs. Sponsors of the COBRA legislation say they hope their plan gets rolled into the next relief bill. But it's unclear when, how and whether the problem will get addressed in upcoming coronavirus relief measures.

Jimenez learned COBRA would run her $426 a month.

"I was kind of shocked to hear the number," she said. "That's almost half my rent."

The idea of allowing laid-off workers to stick with their coverage at no cost in a pandemic has clear appeal, says Gruber.

But he warns, "COBRA is expensive, and for many employees, it won't be there."

Only workers who get insurance through their employer are eligible for COBRA, leaving out more than half of the 26 million who have lost jobs in the last few weeks. Many of the industries hit hardest by COVID-19, including retail and hospitality, are among those least likely to offer employees insurance.

And even if someone had insurance through work, the person loses COBRA coverage if the former employer goes out of business.

Funding COBRA costs, federal dollars also wouldn't go as far as they could. Unpublished Urban Institute estimates show that an employer plan costs, on average, about 25% more than a Gold plan on the Affordable Care Act exchanges.

"We need to be all hands on deck, spending whatever we can to help people," Gruber said. "But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be thinking about efficient ways to do it."

Congress has tried this move before. In response to the Great Recession, lawmakers tucked a similar COBRA subsidy into the massive stimulus bill a decade ago. That legislation paid for 65% of COBRA premiums, leaving laid-off workers to cover the rest.

A federally commissioned study found that COBRA enrollment increased by just 15%. Mathematica senior researcher and study co-author Jill Berk said workers skipped the subsidy for two main reasons.

First, only about 30% of eligible workers even knew the subsidy existed.

"For those that were aware," Berk said, "their overwhelming response was that COBRA was still too expensive."

At that time, the average premium for a single worker — even with the subsidy — ran about $400 per month for a worker with family coverage.

"When you're actually facing those choices, choosing between rent and food and other bills," Berk said, "that COBRA bill looks quite high."

Berk's team also discovered that people who reported using the subsidy were four times more likely to have a college degree and a higher income than those who passed on it. In other words, Berk found that the COBRA subsidy was least helpful to those with the greatest need.

Several economists, including Gruber, and some Democrats in Washington are kicking around alternatives to COBRA. Among their ideas is a plan to have the federal government pick up more of a person's premium and other expenses on the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Another proposal would extend ACA subsidies to people who earn too much to qualify for any aid and to lower-income people who live in states yet to expand Medicaid.

Compared with funding COBRA, beefing up ACA subsidies could potentially help millions more people, including the pool of laid-off workers who did not get health insurance from their employer.

The ACA ties subsidies to people's income, giving more help to those at the bottom end of the wage scale and spending less on those who are better off. In contrast, the current COBRA plan would cover 100% of COBRA for everyone, regardless of the person's income.

There are some downsides to this approach. Making ACA subsidies more generous could end up costing the federal government more overall, because it gives more help to a lot more people.

Chris Holt from the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, points out that the ACA already increases federal support when people's earnings fall and questions how much more of the tab Washington should pick up.

"If that subsidy would have been good enough for someone six months ago, why is it not good enough now?" he asked.

Maybe the biggest challenge to building on the ACA: The 10-year-old law remains a political football.

"There's just so much both emotion and, frankly, bitterness tied up in debates," Holt said, adding that this makes it hard to move anything forward.

Holt notes that COBRA is not free of political hang-ups either. He expects a fight over whether subsidy money can be spent on employer plans that cover abortion services, for example.

Holt and Gruber agree that perhaps the easiest idea is to leave the ACA alone with one minor tweak: allow people to take the ACA subsidy they're already eligible for and use it on COBRA if they choose.

As for Jimenez, she did not have time to wait for Congress. She brought in too much from unemployment to qualify for Medicaid. And she couldn't afford COBRA, so she picked out a plan on the ACA exchange, where she's eligible for generous existing subsidies. It will cost her $79.17 per month, and she gets to keep her doctors. Not everyone does.

This is the first time she has ever purchased insurance on her own, rather than gotten it through work — and that has delivered one other unexpected benefit.

"Freedom," Jimenez said. "It feels so freeing to take charge of my health care and to know that no one can take this away from me. I don't have to rely on a job to give me what they want to give me. I can make my own choices."

Policymakers, providers, employers and health-industry executives have been fighting over whether the United States should tie insurance to work since the end of World War II.

Subsidizing COBRA preserves the status quo, while doubling down on the ACA might just start to drive a real wedge between work and health insurance.

As states begin reopening businesses, some laid-off workers will get back their jobs, as well as their insurance. But many will remain unemployed and uninsured. A decade ago, faced with the same challenge, Congress chose to subsidize COBRA. It proved to be a narrow solution with limited impact.

Lawmakers now have the ACA at their disposal, a tool that may be a better fit for this moment. Whether they choose to use it may be a choice grounded more in political realism than policy idealism.

Dan Gorenstein is the creator and co-host of the Tradeoffs podcast, and Leslie Walker is a producer on the show, which ran a version of this story on April 23.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.