When it comes to water usage, not all car washes are created equal. Most car washes don’t recycle water, but more and more newly built car washes are starting to. Santa Ana Express Car Wash opened three years ago and its million-dollar equipment recycles 70 percent of its water.; Credit: Maya Sugarman/KPCC

Washing your car with a garden hose can use up to 120 gallons of water. Most corner conveyor belt operations use less, but all that water can add up, as we told you in August.

That’s why the group LA Waterkeeper is challenging motorists to drive dirty and pledge to skip car washes for 60 days. 

"Water conservation is the easiest and most affordable way to quickly reduce water demand and also extend supplies into next year," says Liz Crosson, the group's executive director. 

This summer Ventura County’s water agency asked people to skip washing their rides for a month; some people got detailing and car washes as a reward. Crosson’s group is hoping bragging rights will be enough of an incentive. (Though there are some as-yet-undisclosed prizes.)

People who live in LA are really excited and interested by the cars that they drive," Crosson says. "And frankly, you can have a dirty car and you can have a sticker and have an excuse for having a dirty car so it saves your image too."

The campaign’s just kicking off this weekend (at the Abbott-Kinney festival), but Crosson’s already optimistic for success. Early adopters of the pledge are hundreds of people from the online site Reddit and the general manager for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

GO DIRTY FOR THE DROUGHT. Take the #DirtyCarPledge to not wash your car for 60 days. Ready, Set, Go Dirty! http://t.co/TsxdvsgpCv

— LAWaterkeeper (@LAWaterkeeper) September 25, 2014

From the ED, I’m Molly Peterson, 89-point-3. KPCC.

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

NMI and

Wirecard’s Boon enhances customer experience by...

India-based merchant payment and lending service provider BharatPe has announced disbursing funds...

UATP has partnered the payment technology company

When using Windows 10, you may find that the Windows desktop has frozen and you can no longer use the Start Menu, click on programs, drag files, or switch between windows. When this happens, it may be caused by the Windows Explorer, or Explorer.exe, process having issues and can typically be fixed by restarting it. [...]

Windows Defender allows you to perform a Custom scan that lets you specify the specific folder or drive you would like to scan for malware. As you only need to scan that one folder, the scan time will be much quicker than scanning an entire machine. [...]

One of the features of the Windows 10 Start Menu is a built-in Bing search when a local search fails to find anything. Whether it be due to privacy reasons, bugs, or just personal dislike, this article will explain how to disable Bing search in the Start Menu. [...]

Bob Moriarty of 321gold provides an update on how Getchell Gold is likely to handle its warrants.

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

The junior gold explorer with a nascent exploration breakthrough could soar on the back of a gold bull market, writes Peter Krauth.

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

Sen. Mitt Romney is proposing a temporary pay bonus — up to $12 an hour — for front-line employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. The increase would be paid, in part, by employers and offset via a payroll tax credit.; Credit: Carolyn Kaster/AP

Sen. Mitt Romney is proposing a way for workers in front-line and essential jobs to get a temporary pay bump during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Released on Friday, Patriot Pay is a proposal from the Utah senator and 2012 Republican presidential candidate aimed at providing bonus pay — up to $12 an hour on top of normal wages — for employees in eligible jobs. The increase would extend through May, June and July and would be paid out by employers and the federal government via a payroll tax credit.

Workers in industries designated by Congress and the Department of Labor as essential, including hospitals, grocery stores and health manufacturing, could qualify for the hazard pay, according to a one-page summary of Patriot Pay.

"Health care professionals, grocery store workers, food processors, and many others — the unsung patriots on the frontline of this pandemic — every day risk their safety for the health and well-being of our country, and they deserve our unwavering support," Romney said in press release announcing the plan. "Patriot Pay is a way for us to reward our essential workers as they continue to keep Americans safe, healthy, and fed."

Romney is not the only lawmaker to propose a form of hazard pay for essential employees.

Last month, Senate Democrats revealed their own proposal — a federal fund offering payments of up to $25,ooo, or $13 an hour and retroactive compensation for qualifying workers dating back to late January, when the public health emergency was first declared.

Their plan also proposes a one-time payment of $15,000 to draw new workers into essential fields.

Sen. Bernie Sanders has also called for some form of hazard pay.

Unlike the Democratic proposal however, Romney's plan opts to offer employers a refundable payroll tax credit for paying out the bonuses to eligible employees. The plan states that employers would be refunded for up to three-quarters of hazard pay bonuses to employees making less than $90,000 a year.

"This form of hazard pay would complement, not replace, an employer's responsibility to pay their workers — it is designed to quadruple any bonuses an employer gives to essential workers," Romney's office said.

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

President Trump walks outside the White House in January. The president received intelligence briefings on the coronavirus twice that month, according to a White House official.; Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

President Trump twice received intelligence briefings on the coronavirus in January, according to a White House official. The official tells NPR the briefings occurred on Jan. 23 and Jan. 28.

"The president was told that the coronavirus was potentially going to 'spread globally,' " the official said of the first briefing, which came two days after the first case of the virus was reported in the United States. "But the 'good news' was that it was not deadly for most people," the official said the president was told.

Five days after that initial briefing, the president was briefed again, according to the official. This time, "he was told that virus was spreading outside of China, but that deaths from the disease were happening only in China," the official said. "He was also told that China was withholding data."

The question of what Trump knew about the coronavirus, when he was aware of it and the tenor of those conversations have come under heavy scrutiny, as the administration faces criticism that it was slow to respond to early warnings about the virus. In the time since the president's January briefings, the U.S. has reported more than 1.1 million cases of the coronavirus — more than any other nation. In all, more than 66,000 Americans have died.

The president has defended his handling of the crisis — pointing to steps like his decision at the end of January to restrict travel into the U.S. from China. But for much of the following month, the president and some of his top surrogates downplayed the threat of the virus.

"We pretty much shut it down coming in from China," the president said in an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News early in February. By the end of the month, with the virus reported in several dozen countries at that point, he continued to tell reporters that the risk "remains very low ."

During his State of the Union address, roughly a week after being told that China was withholding data, Trump said his administration was "coordinating with the Chinese government and working closely together on the coronavirus outbreak."

To this point, the White House has offered little clarity publicly about the exact dates when Trump was briefed about the virus. Asked about this on Thursday, Trump told reporters that he spoke with intelligence officials about the coronavirus "in January, later January," adding that intelligence officials had confirmed that this was the case.

On Monday, when The Washington Post reported that Trump received more than a dozen classified briefings in January and February, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence responded, "The detail of this is not true," and declined to elaborate.

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

President Trump walks to the White House on Sunday, after returning from Camp David in Maryland.; Credit: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

As President Trump attempts to project an image of America rising out of quarantine and beginning to reopen, he's set to travel to an Arizona factory that's expanded into production of N95 face masks to respond to the coronavirus pandemic.

And while the trip is in part meant to tell a positive story about the Trump administration's response, it also highlights the challenges of the current moment.

Arizona remains under a modified stay-at-home order until May 15, though Republican Gov. Doug Ducey allowed some retail establishments to begin to open voluntarily Monday. The state hasn't yet notched the two consecutive weeks of reduced COVID-19 cases called for as a first step in the White House guidelines for reopening. In fact, the number of confirmed cases in the state is on the rise.

And Trump's trip itself will be anything but normal. Those traveling with the president or coming in close proximity to him in Arizona are being tested for the coronavirus. Social distancing measures are expected.

"The President takes the health and safety of everyone traveling in support of himself and all White House operations very seriously," White House spokesman Judd Deere said in a statement provided to NPR. "When preparing for and carrying out any travel, the White House's operational teams work together to ensure plans to incorporate current CDC guidance and best practices for limiting COVID-19 exposure are followed to the greatest extent possible."

Asked last week if he would wear a mask on the trip, Trump was noncommittal.

"I'm going to have to look at the climate. I'd have no problem wearing a mask. I don't know," Trump said at the White House. "I'm supposed to make a speech. I just don't know: Should I speak in a mask? You're going to have to tell me if that's politically correct. I don't know. If it is, I'll speak in a mask."

Vice President Mike Pence faced criticism for not wearing a mask while visiting the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota last week, in apparent violation of the center's policy. Sitting next to Trump at a televised town hall Sunday night, Pence said he "should have worn a mask at the Mayo Clinic."

Pence has left Washington, D.C., a few times recently — a series of trips the White House used in part as test runs for Trump to get back on the road.

Different than the big rallies

Tuesday's travel is a far cry from Trump's last trip to Arizona, for a campaign rally on Feb. 19. He didn't mention the coronavirus in his speech that night, and when asked about it in an interview with a local TV reporter, he downplayed the risk.

"I think it's going to work out fine," Trump told Fox 10 Phoenix. "I think when we get into April, in the warmer weather, that has a very negative effect on that and that type of a virus. So let's see what happens, but I think it's going to work out fine."

As of Monday morning, more than 350 deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 in Arizona, according to researchers at Johns Hopkins University, with about 68,000 deaths nationwide.

Trump still yearns for those big rallies of the not-so-distant past, musing about the day when he can pack arenas again and not have to have people spaced 6 feet apart. But for now, he's relishing the idea of escaping the confines of the White House. Aside from a trip to the presidential retreat at Camp David last weekend, this will be Trump's first trip away from the White House since March 28, when he sent off the Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort in Norfolk, Va. While it's been a little more than a month, Trump has described himself as stuck at the White House "for many months."

In Phoenix, Trump will tour a Honeywell aerospace manufacturing facility that freed up space to start making N95 respirator masks. According to a company spokesman, the first masks rolled off the line on April 30, ahead of schedule. Once up to full capacity, it will make 10 million of the masks per month. The company said it would be adding 500 employees to make the masks. Another Honeywell factory in Rhode Island also started making masks last month. Most of them are headed to the federal government, which is distributing the protective equipment. Mask shortages have been a major concern for health care workers treating patients with the highly contagious coronavirus.

Battleground state

Although there isn't officially a political component to the trip, Arizona is a state Trump won in 2016, but that Democrats expect to be competitive in 2020.

Trump's visit clearly underscores how he isn't taking anything for granted in the state in 2020. His goal is to remind voters how the Arizona economy was booming before the pandemic.

"Arizona is a state where President Trump's campaign will be aggressive, where we have had a presence since 2015," said Erin Perrine, principal deputy communications director for the reelection campaign. "We will reach voters where ever they are — sharing the message that only President Trump can bring back the booming Trump economy and highlighting his strong leadership during the coronavirus."

For several election cycles, Democrats have been eyeing Arizona as a state they might put in the presidential win column. Analysts say Democrats challenge will will be to win in the suburbs and get a solid turnout from Hispanics, even as the pandemic's effect on campaigning and on the actual process of voting is yet to be known. No Democratic nominee had carried the state since Bill Clinton in 1996. In 2016, there was talk of a late play for the state by Hillary Clinton's campaign, but that was seen more as overconfidence than her actually have a real shot at winning there. Then, when the votes were counted, Trump won the presidency, including a victory in Arizona, but his margin in the state was only 3.5%.

Four years earlier, GOP nominee Mitt Romney carried the state over President Obama by more than 9 percentage points. Democrats took Trump winning so narrowly in the state as a sign that maybe the future was closer than people realized. Longtime GOP strategist Chuck Coughlin says Democrats kept the story line going two years later by winning four statewide offices, including an open U.S. Senate seat and secretary of state. Now strategist Coughlin says, "There is a trend line going on, Republicans have had to acknowledge that, and the swing voters have become more important — independents and Republican suburban women." He says those are the keys to a Democratic victory in the state.

An average of recent polls shows former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, leading in head-to-head matchups. Although horse race polling this far out, and especially in the middle of an unprecedented crisis, isn't necessarily predictive, it's one of a few causes for alarm for Republicans.

In 2018, Democrat Kyrsten Sinema won an open U.S. Senate seat in Arizona. Another Senate seat is up in 2020, and the latest campaign finance reports show Democratic challenger Mark Kelly with nearly twice as much cash on hand as incumbent Republican Sen. Martha McSally. Kelly has also led in recent polls.

McSally portrays herself as a strong ally of Trump's, even echoing his style of negative campaigning. Here's how she began her remarks when Trump called her up to speak at that big rally in February, "I just want to say I have a message for the liberal hack media in the back," she told the noisy crowd, "Arizona is going to vote in November to keep America great and send President Trump back to the White House.

In April McSally tweeted that she was able to secure ventilators for her state after talking to Trump.

"Huge news for Arizona!" McSally tweeted. "I spoke with @realDonaldTrump on Wednesday afternoon to request additional ventilators from the Strategic National Stockpile. Today, POTUS delivers with 100 ventilators headed to AZ. Thank you to President Trump and @VP for hearing our call."

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.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, seen in February, has been released from the hospital after treatment for a gallbladder condition.; Credit: Patrick Semansky/AP

After being treated on Tuesday for a gallbladder infection at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was discharged on Wednesday.

"She is doing well and glad to be home," according to a Supreme Court press release.

The court said over the next few weeks Ginsburg will return to Johns Hopkins Hospital for follow-up outpatient visits, and for a nonsurgical procedure to remove the gallstone.

Ginsburg, 87, participated in a virtual Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday from her hospital room. The justices and lawyers held unique oral argument sessions by phone all week because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Last year Ginsburg underwent three weeks of radiation for a cancerous tumor on her pancreas, and in December she was operated on for lung cancer.

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.

David Biello; Credit: /Elizabeth Zeeuw / TED

About The Episode

There's so much we've yet to explore—from outer space to the deep ocean to our own brains. This hour, Manoush goes on a journey through those uncharted places, led by TED Science Curator David Biello.

About David Biello

As TED's Science Curator, David Biello finds scientists with spectacular stories of discovery and helps them bring those stories to life on the TED stage.

A science journalist by trade, he is also a contributing editor at Scientific American, where he's been since 2005. He has also written for Yale E360, Aeon, Foreign Policy, The New York Times and New Republic. David has been a guest on numerous television and radio shows, and he hosts the ongoing duPont-Columbia award-wining documentary "Beyond the Light Switch" as well as "The Ethanol Effect" for PBS.

Biello is the author of The Unnatural World: The Race to Remake Civilization in Earth's Newest Age. He received a BA in English from Wesleyan University and a MS in Journalism from Columbia University.

Featured Speakers

Juna Kollmeier: The Most Detailed Map Of Galaxies, Black Holes And Stars Ever Made

Humans have charted stars for thousands of years, but Juna Kollmeier wants to make the most complete map of the universe ever concieved — by 3D imaging millions of stars, black holes, and galaxies.

Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz: Your Body Was Forged In The Spectacular Death Of Stars

Astrophysicist and self-proclaimed "stellar mortician" Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz takes us through the spectacular life and death of supernovas that make all living things the stuff of stars.

Karen Lloyd: The Mysterious Microbes Living Deep Inside The Earth — And How They Could Help Humanity

Deep beneath our feet and beyond the ocean floor, there is a world teeming with microbes that get their energy not from the sun but from rocks. Karen Lloyd leads us into the alien world below.

Victor Vescovo: What's At The Bottom Of The Ocean — And How We're Getting There

Victor Vescovo has a submarine that takes him further down into the ocean than the height of Mt. Everest. He's been to the deepest parts of our five oceans, revealing lifeforms that defy imagination.

Kay M. Tye: What Investigating Neural Pathways Can Reveal About Mental Health

Behavior, emotion ... it's all in our heads. Kay M. Tye has found neural pathways that create specific emotional or behavioral states — and she's made a switch to turn them on and off.

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

Marc Maron's new Netflix special is titled "End Times Fun."; Credit: Adam Rose / Netflix

Read the full article at KPCC

Pinwheel; Credit: /iStock

About The Reflections:

Over the past weeks, most us have had to adapt to a new normal. We reached out to a few TED speakers to ask how their lives have changed and what they're thinking about these days.

Who We Hear From:

Dawn Wacek is the Youth Services Manager of the La Crosse Public Library in Wisconsin. She will appear on an upcoming episode. Her talk is A Librarian's Case Against Overdue Book Fines.

Dixon Chibanda is the director of the African Mental Health Research Initiative. He's based in Zimbabwe, and he has appeared on the episode, Erasing The Stigma.

Susan Pinker is a developmental psychologist and writer, who has most recently researched the importance of social interactions. She is based in Montreal, she will appear on an upcoming episode, and her talk is The Secret To Living Longer May Be Your Social Life.

Leticia Gasca is co-founder of the movement F***up Nights and Executive Director for the Failure Institute, the first think tank devoted to studying business failure and the reasons behind it. She's based in New York and has appeared on the episode, Setbacks.

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

Brian Dennehy, known for his interpretations of characters created by Eugene O'Neill and Arthur Miller, has died at the age of 81.; Credit: Mike Piscitelli /Dennehy Family

Brian Dennehy could go from viciously intimidating on film to weak and weary on stage. The actor died yesterday of cardiac arrest. His family says his death was not related to COVID-19. He was 81 years old.

Dennehy had a vast and varied body of work. On screen he was known for his roles in First Blood, Cocoon, and Tommy Boy. In theater, he earned wide acclaim for his depiction of the beleagured Willy Loman in the 1999 Broadway revival of Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman. That performance earned him one of his two Best Actor Tony Awards. He earned the other in 2003 for his portrayal of family patriarch James Tyrone in Eugene O'Neill's Long Days Journey into Night.

Brian Manion Dennehy was born in Bridgeport, Connecticut, on July 9, 1938, and grew up on Long Island, New York. He was tall and broad-chested and played football in high school, but was also in love with theater. As an Irish Catholic, he didn't see much of a future for himself in acting until he saw Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront. "For the first time when I saw that picture, I realized there were people in the business who looked like me, and who sounded like me. And who came from places I came from" he said in an interview with WHYY's Fresh Air in 1999. "Before that time, acting was like ballet — something I could appreciate but never consider myself a part of."

On stage, Dennehy was a revered actor, particularly in the Chicago theater scene. His two Tony-award winning performances began at the famed Goodman Theatre, where he also performed in Samuel Beckett's Krapp's Last Tape. On Broadway, his credits include Translations, Love Letters, and Inherit the Wind.

Earlier in his career, Dennehy wasn't picky about his roles — and he wasn't shy about it either. "I had kids," he said in the Fresh Air interview. "I had kids who were ready to go to college, and I knew I had the responsibility — which I did not resent — to make sure they had good educations." Dennhey said his wide range of roles on television, where he acted in everything from Dynasty to M*A*S*H to Just Shoot Me, helped him become a more efficient actor. Dennehy worked all throughout his life, most recently appearing in the television series The Blacklist, as well the upcoming independent film Driveways.

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

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.

We started our new schedule for "AirTalk" this week. With the expansion of "Brand & Martinez" to two hours, we're now on from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Friday's Film Week on AirTalk moves into the noon hour.

I’ve been asked many times in the past couple of days how I feel about the shift. My answer is that it’s working out great for our “AirTalk” team.  We still get in at 8 each morning, but now have three hours to prepare our timeliest topics. It also puts us into the noon hour, where we have the chance to connect with folks heading to lunch. 

I know it’s not all good for some listeners, who might have a harder time listening an hour later. There are also, undoubtedly, fans of “The World” who would’ve rather had it stay at noon instead of moving to 2 p.m. I hope you’ll give us a chance in the new slot and that you find the new lineup still fits your schedule. 

If it doesn’t, remember that you can hear all of our local programs online, at the time of your choosing, at www.kpcc.org.

As for the irreplaceable Patt Morrison, she’ll continue to provide her talents to KPCC listeners with regular features and interviews throughout our day. Though I know many fans of Patt are very sad to see her daily program end, I think Patt’s high-profile segments will be a terrific boost to all the other shows where they’ll be heard.

This will make Patt a presence everywhere on our schedule, including “AirTalk,” which is pretty exciting.

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

I know these Presidential debates aren’t debates in the historical sense.  Regardless, I’m looking forward to seeing how both men do on a topic of immense complexity.  Is Mitt Romney going to be more forthcoming about what tax deductions he’d want cut to keep his tax reform plan from ballooning the deficit?  Will President Obama  give more detail about how he would improve the economy, short of a government stimulus that could never get through a GOP Congress?

I’ll be live tweeting during the debate.  Join me @AirTalk #debates.

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

US President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney debate on October 16, 2012 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. Undecided voters asked questions during a town hall format.; Credit: STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images

There continue to be questions about how moderators approach Presidential debates and about whether the extra time President Obama has received in the first two debates indicates moderator bias in his favor. 

I had chalked up the concerns to Republican hyper-partisanship, such as we saw with many Democrats criticizing Jim Lehrer for his moderating — as though Obama would’ve won the first debate if only Lehrer had asserted himself more.   However, even CNN has been doing significant follow-up on its own Candy Crowley’s performance in debate number two. 

Maybe it’s not just hardcore GOP loyalists who are questioning Crowley’s decision-making on when to cut in and when to allow the candidates to take more time. I thought she did pretty well, but there are plenty of critics.

As someone who has moderated hundreds of debates, I thought I’d share my thoughts on what we’ve seen so far in this election. Though I’ve never moderated a Presidential debate, with its incredible level of attention, concern about rules, and demands by campaigns, there are certain fundamentals regardless of the office or issue at stake.

Time Doesn't Matter...Too Much
First, as strange as this may sound, the time taken by each candidate has little to do with who has an advantage.   Yes, it’s always possible for a candidate to use another minute to fire off the defining line of the night. However, the well-practiced zingers or essential policy explainers are not left to the end of a candidate’s statement, as the clock is running out. 

I’m sure Mitt Romney wasn’t thinking after the last debate, “If only I would’ve had that extra 90-seconds, and Obama hadn’t gotten 90 more than he deserved.”  Both men front-loaded their major talking points and were going to get them in. Neither man could legitimately say he didn’t have a chance to make his strongest points. At some point, a time advantage could make a difference in who wins or loses, but an extra 90-seconds in a debate longer than 90-minutes isn’t going to do it.

Serving The Audience
As a moderator, you also have to think about what best serves your audience. I never guarantee candidates equal time, as it’s my job to serve the listeners, not their campaigns. I strive to get close to equal time, but can’t make any guarantee. Some speakers get to the point succinctly and have their points well put together. Others are messier in their arguments and eat up time just building up any head of steam. 

If the moderator holds to a strict time limit, you run the risk of frustrating listeners by cutting off the rambler just as the candidate is getting to the point. There are methods a moderator can use to help guide the speaker toward being more succinct, but there’s no guarantee the person will be able to comply.

Isn’t this inherently unfair to the succinct speaker? No. The purpose of the debate is to allow the ideas to compete.  It’s not a boxing match that’s about landing punches in a given time. The succinct debater has a big advantage, regardless of how much time the candidate has. That’s why Mitt Romney’s victory in the first debate was so lopsided — he won on the conciseness and clarity of his answers, coupled with Obama’s inability to get to his central points.  Obviously, there are those who thought Obama’s arguments were still more compelling than Romney’s, and that Romney lacked essential details.  However, for most viewers of the first debate, it was stylistically no contest.

Equal Time Is Not A Guarantee
When candidates are allowed to talk to each other directly, it’s very difficult to assure equal time. Even CNN’s clock that registers elapsed time for each candidate is subject to squishiness. Unless a debate is extremely formal, with carefully controlled time limits and a ban on candidates following-up with each other, you’re only going to have an approximation of time balance. I thought Crowley did pretty well to land the second debate with the balance she did. I’m not sure I could get it that close for a debate of that length. She had the added challenge of trying to determine when to cut in on President Obama’s lengthier answers. Also, Romney’s speaking rhythm allows more space for interruption. It’s tougher to break in on Obama.

Moderating Is A Balancing Act
Moderators are always trying to balance a need to move on to the next topic with allowing a candidate to answer an opponent’s charge. Sometimes, you open that door for a candidate, only to regret it later when the politician starts into a monologue, instead of confining the response to the previous challenge. Sometimes moderators, having gotten burned, will become less tolerant of such expansive rebuttals, as the debate goes on. Moderators are always juggling competing goals, and it’s a difficult job (at least for me).

Unfortunately, there are those who think debate moderators attempt to influence the outcome of the debate and the performances of the candidates. Maybe I’m naïve, but I can’t imagine any journalist who’s worked hard enough to get to the position of Presidential debate moderator subordinating his or her career in an effort to getting someone elected. Mainstream political journalism is like national sports reporting. You really don’t care who wins the Super Bowl, you want great story lines to explore with your audience. Yes, sports reporters have affinities for the hometown teams of their youth, but that can’t compete with the professional goal of covering great stories. 

Yes, most journalists in mainstream media probably have a stronger cultural and political affinity for Obama, as he’s more like them. However, it doesn’t mean a journalist is going to sacrifice the better story to intentionally provide a benefit to the President.

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

Yes, we've finally reached the culminating day that we've been pointing to for the past 18 months -- Election Day!  However, it's quite different from those of the past.  An estimated 40% of voters have already cast ballots, so it makes the actual day a bit less climactic.  We might also lack a clear winner by Wednesday morning. 

It's possible that the swing state votes are so close that it's impossible to accurately determine the electoral vote.  Then we'll have to exercise extreme patience through the official counts and inevitable legal challenges.  It could be a mess.

It could also, of course, be over by the time polls close in California.  We only have a few hours to wait until we'll know.

I'll be anchoring KPCC's election night coverage, starting at 8 p.m.  NPR's coverage starts us off at 5 p.m., and we'll intersperse national and California returns into our comprehensive KPCC coverage until late Tuesday night.  I hope you'll join me, Patt Morrison, and the full KPCC news team.

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

His expression said it all.  KPCC Director of On-Air Fundraising Rob Risko walked into my studio about 10:45 a.m. to update me on where we stood with our Fall member drive.  I knew we had a $10,000 challenge that had started first thing in the morning, but didn't have any idea how far behind we had fallen in reaching the required 1,000 member threshold.

 Rob gave it to me straight -- we had to attract well over 500 members during "AirTalk" to meet the challenge.  I knew that was nearly impossible during a full two-hour show, let alone one that would be significantly pre-empted by the President's news conference.  Regardless, I knew we had to do our best and hope our listeners would contribute in a record-setting way.  Boy, did they.

We didn't start our show until 11:25 a.m., following the news conference.  Right off the bat the phones started ringing and the KPCC website starting humming.  The volume of member contributions stayed high with only a few exceptions.  There were times we could barely keep track of how many members were coming in.  It was one of the most exciting and rewarding experiences I've had in all my years hosting "AirTalk."

I've been on a high all afternoon thinking about how commited our listeners are to the mission of KPCC.  You've made me very happy, and very proud of our audience.  Thank you for a wonderful show of support.  I will long remember this day.

By the way, we set a fundraising record for "AirTalk" with today's show.  We're still tallying it all up.  I'll have the totals for you tomorrow morning at 11.

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

Director Michael Apted (L) with Larry Mantle in the AirTalk studio.

This past Wednesday on "AirTalk," film director Michael Apted came in to talk with us about his eighth documentary in the series that's followed the lives of 13 people, beginning in 1964 when the kids were seven.  They've shared their stories with Apted every seven years, and he's clearly invested a lot of emotion into this project.

"56 Up" is wonderful for how it shows the mid-life evolution of the participants.  Apted includes scenes from earlier interviews, so that we see what aspects of today's 56-year-olds were present in childhood and what turns their lives have made over these years. 

"56 Up" is showing at the Nuart in West Los Angeles, and Apted will be doing Q-and-A at some of the screenings.

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