Pictured: Larry broadcasting AirTalk from the Mantle household for the first time last Friday.; Credit: Larry Mantle/KPCC

Dear KPCC Listener,

I hope you and your family are staying safe and healthy during this pandemic. We’re doing well at the Mantle house, but with Kristen and our son Desmond working and studying at home, we’re experiencing some of the same daily logistical challenges you likely are. With that in mind, I’d like to update you on the dramatic changes that have occurred with AirTalk during this time of COVID-19.

Every day a noted medical expert is joining us to answer listener questions. It’s allowed us to stay on the cutting edge of COVID-19 and public health developments.

We’re also continuing to convene the largest conversation anywhere in Southern California, but with a new focus. Each day listeners are describing how they’re dealing with the coronavirus, whether staying at home or providing essential services to our community. We’ve heard from students studying online, truck drivers looking for open restrooms on the highway, restaurant owners and employees wondering when, or if, they’ll be able to reopen, and listeners living in their cars seeking a hotel room or shower. In 35 years of hosting AirTalk, I’ve never experienced a time of greater importance for bringing Angelenos together. It’s vital that we talk with - and hear from - each other as we meet this experience together.

This wasn’t how I’d anticipated the 35th anniversary month of AirTalk, but I’m deeply appreciative of the work our dedicated producers are doing while they work from home. A prime example came last week when a hospital emergency forced our physician guest to cancel shortly before airtime. Our producers leapt to action, quickly finding noted infectious disease specialist Dr. Peter Chin-Hong to step right in.

When we finished the live segment, I thanked Dr. Chin-Hong for dropping his important work at UCSF Medical Center to join us. He replied that it’s always a pleasure to speak to one of his favorite audiences.

I couldn’t agree more. KPCC listeners are deeply devoted, not just to their favorite programs, but to the irreplaceable mission of KPCC. We’ll do everything we can during this difficult time to serve that mission – by serving you. Thank you for giving us that opportunity.

Sincerely,
Larry Mantle
Host, AirTalk

P.S. KPCC has always been funded by listeners, and member support is truly critical at this time. With recent substantial losses of sponsor support related to the pandemic, every donation makes a tremendous impact for this vital public service. If you can, please make a gift today to sustain the journalism you and your community needs.

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

2006-2011

In case you missed the March for Science, last month?  I have the report!  Not that I went, no. Science enthusiasts all, my household was planning on going—  But then my younger teen daughter got felled by "bacteria"—  Possibly brought on by a dubious "pizza day" at her science magnet.

So I spent that Saturday at home, taking care of her— But we streamed the Washington DC and other marches, live on CNN!  So here is my report!

Let's quickly review the main points.  Worldwide, there were 600-plus cities participating, with high levels of enthusiasm.  The March for Science's stated mission was to be a positive, non-partisan march for scientists and scientific principles.  That alone is such a wonderful, counterintuitive idea.  Much humor and wit was seen.

As I did not get to go, and make my own hilarious sign—?  To honor the spirit of the occasion I would like to share two favorite jokes.

First: How do you tell the difference between an introverted and an extroverted mathematician? 
For the whole time the introverted mathematician is talking to you, he looks down at his shoes.  When the extroverted mathematician talks to you, the whole time he looks down at your shoes.  Ba-dum-bum.

I know I used the pronoun "he" in that joke—  As if to imply all left-brained people are male.  But no!  So here's the saying from when I attended Caltech—  Way back in the '80s—  And the male to female ratio was 7 to 1.  "Caltech: where the odds are good, but the good are odd."

Now to some of the funny—and sometimes punny—March for Science signs:

"If you're not the solution, you're the precipitate!"

That was next to: "Protest Cosine, Protest Sine."  Get it?  Protest. . . Sine?  Puns are hard on the radio.  So let's finish with the more "meta": "What do we want?  Evidence based research!  When do we want it?  After peer review!"  

Of course, there were less than non-partisan messages, too.  Just reporting here?  There were signs with the phrases "Black Hole" and "Absolute Zero" ghosted over our president's recognizeable silhouette.  The live feed from San Francisco brought: "Trump believes there's no global warming, as nothing is hotter than Ivanka."

That one made me snort, but I had to quickly tell my daughter, "that is totally inappropriate."
We decided a good sign was: "Mitosis, Not Division."

And a cute one on a dog that everyone can agree on.  "Support Labs."  Labs. 

Next week: Science is Love!

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

 
So, my 15 year old science magnet daughter and I experienced last month's exciting March for Science—!  From home, as she was temporarily felled by some bacteria.  Consuming an unscientific "cure" of chocolate pudding—?  We watched the march on CNN.

Now, the news changes so quickly you may not remember that just one month ago—?  There were shock waves due to proposed massive federal budget cuts—  Not just to climate change research, but to—surely the more non-controversial —National Institutes of Health.  I mean, health?  Who's anti-health?  Even MacDonald's is serving apple slices now, and kale!

The march was a mix of passion and fun. There were lots of great signs, including one with the classic line: If you're not the solution, you're the precipitate! Marchers came dressed as Einstein, dinosaurs, polar bears.

Then again—  And admittedly, at home, we were wearing bathrobes rather than labcoats—? A couple of humble notes.

 Some of the speakers in DC were less scientists than YouTube science explainers.  And pure research scientists—not to mention philosophers—might question some of the applause lines.  And I quote: "Science is inherently political!"  "Science is objective, but it is not neutral!"  What?  Then some of the marchers chanted back, with a decided New Age lilt: "Science is hope!"  "Science is our planet!"  "Peace, love, science!"  

I heard myself grousing to my daughter: "Sure.  It's like 'Nature.'  To some, 'Nature' is a beautiful flower.  But 'Nature' is also Stage 5 hurricanes and poison frogs who eat their own offspring.  And—and pitcher plants!  Have you seen pitcher plants?" 

The chants continued:  "Health is science!  Safety is science!  Clean water is science!  I yell at the TV: "PS: Nuclear missiles from North Korea?  SCIENCE!"

There were also heartfelt pleas from the stage for more "K-12 hands-on STEM-based learning."  I sympathize. I marched for that when my daughters were in elementary school.  Of course we want our children to be turned on to science—  To the classroom volcanos comically exploding with baking soda. To the wonders of milk carton pea plants, sunny farms of ladybugs.

But eventually, inexorably, comes The Ugly.  The multiplication tables, long division, algebra, trig, then calculus, if a career in science is really being pursued.  I just heard about a senior I know, an exceptional—and well-rounded—student.  He has a 4.5 GPA and almost-perfect SAT's, nosebleed-high!  But he has been shut out by all the UC's he applied to, including his third choice, UC San Diego.  Mwah!  SCIENCE!

Still, quibbles aside, science is the future.  We applaud all, and must forge on. Chocolate pudding recommended.

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

 I would like to apologize to our neighbors, block, zip code—  Really, to everyone, in Los Angeles?  For our front lawn.  True, the word "lawn" is stretching it.  It is more an ugly brown snarl.  I want to throw a sheet over it, like a corpse!  Or at least put up a sign that says, "We know, we know.  And we're sorry!"

When I bought the house many years ago, the grass was green.  Our gardener Vic was a genius at setting sprinkler timers—  I have a physics degree, and couldn't figure it out—  The lawns looked great and then we got our first—?  Well, it was less a water "bill" than a water citation.  A water tirade.  A water hazing.  Our utility company began mailing us hurtful bar graphs, showing what hogs we were compared to our water-conservant neighbors.

So in deference to Jerry Brown's drought emergency, we decided to let the lawn turn the color of the governor's name.  It was a badge of eco-honor.  But then, another problem. Every Saturday morning at 8 gardener Vic showed up with a high-pitched, shrieking machine that he would use to blow dead leaves around our dead yard for an hour.  The ear-splitting sound was no doubt meant to show us that he was busy quote unquote "gardening."

It took another two years for me to let him go—  The irony was that I would have kept paying him to stop leaf-blowing—  But he refused—  Then we go out of town for two months and it rains.  A lot.  We return to "grass" that is almost waist high.  I use the word "grass" but in fact this greenery looks sub-tropical.  There are giant tear-drop-shaped leaves and thick leathery stems and twisting vines.I struggle with the weed-whacker to take off the top foot of it— I'm startled by a swarm of exotic butterflies and insects. I hear a shuh-duh-duh-duh-duh.  I'm actually a little spooked.  What will I find in there next?  A pterodactyl?  A cow?  A baby?

The rains go away—  And the area turns Jerry Brown again—  But now, since I gave the jungle a very messy, tortured haircut, instead of just a sedate dead lawn it looks like crazy people live here.  We consider installing a drought resistant garden, but we get quotes of $10,000!  Maybe we should scatter dozens of pots of little cacti around the yard. Or maybe we should just park our cars there.  

Yes, that's the ticket.  My car is a Prius.  It's eco-fashionable.

Next week: The window treatments of your dreams.

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

My 16 year old was complaining about too much light in her bedroom—   Her curtains are too gauzy—  It makes it hard for her to sleep in 'til noon, which she considers her right in summer— 

Because I know nothing, I foolishly said, "Let's get you some blinds!"

Swirling a fresh cup of coffee, a divorced mom taking care of business, I contact my virtual "husband"—  Angie—  Who has a list.

I type in "blinds"—  Do I mean "custom blinds"?  Sure!  Here's a 10% off coupon—  I'm printing money!  For a highly-rated custom blinds guy named Roger—  Within two hours he's at my house for a free estimate!  Hashtag Winning!

Roger is charming, friendly, conversational.  He oohs and aahs over our old Craftsman house, with its large, beautiful, slightly "unusually-sized" windows.  Thatshould have been the tipoff that another custom-zero was being custom-added to the price, but I thought nothing of it.  Oh no!  I offered Roger a cup of coffee—  He asked what I did for a living—I said I was a writer—  He asked what kind—

Now I know that this is called "bonding" and you should not do it when getting a quote unquote free estimate—  I realize I should have said, "I am unemployed," and burst into tears rather than trying to make my career sound so lucrative.  Roger then spends what seems like half an hour—he's thorough!—measuring two windows—  Then he goes to his truck and returns with a thick, beautifully bound binder.  Full of blinds.

Not just blinds.  And I quote: "Window treatments of your dreams"—  And I thought, "Who dreams of window treatments?"  Someone, because there were honeycomb ones, blackout ones, vertical ones—  With different kinds of pulleys, cords, and stylish valences—  In complicated colors like Banana Ice Milk and Taos Midnight Persimmon—  I start fearing that aromas will be next!
           

Bottom line?  For two bedroom windows, it will take three weeks for the custom shades to arrive.  Cost?  $1500.  "They will look amazing!" Roger enthuses.  Inwardly, I agree.  They will be the most amazing thing in my teen's messy bedroom piled with laundry, makeup, art supplies and crumpled tissues.  We just want something to block the light.  After Roger leaves—  And the air is thick with mutual disappointment—  I eye a poster board from my younger daughter's science fair project.  I contemplate simply nailing blankets over the windows.

In the end, I give my teen a nice new sleep mask.  Great solution!  Although that night I do indeed dream. . . of window treatments!

Next week: House Painting Hell!

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

 If only home reno was as simple as on "Fixer Upper"—  The popular TV show featuring Chip and Joanna Gaines.  These toothsome Texans show an anxious couple three falling down houses—

 The couple picks one—  Chip and Joanna sledgehammer it, tear off the "ship lap"— Repaint it cobalt, festoon it with design elements from Joanna's handy online store— Stainless steel fixtures, antique farm lamps, throw pillows thatsay "Gather"—  Two months later, the Gainses pull apart life-sized photo panels of the old house to reveal the new, and the couple weeps with joy!

"You have to live in Texas to be on the show," says my friend Jan. "If it were LA, you'd spend a year just waiting for permits."

"I like how easy they make it," I say.  "The couple just says what they're like—She says: 'I'm a homebody.  He's outdoorsy.'  They go away.  Two months later they magically return to a landscaped backyard terrace that 'brings the outdoors in'—"

"With a throw pillow that says 'Nature,'" adds friend Mary. 

"Exactly!" exclaims Jan.  "In Eagle Rock we just wanted a drought-resistant yard!  This master gardener—  That's right, master gardener—  Her estimate included 10 hours of design at $150 an hour and we had to participate!  There was a lengthy questionnaire about our 'aesthetic goals' and 'plant preferences'—  And I'm going, 'I already went to college!  Just plant something—'"

"With a throw pillow that says 'Water,''" says Mary.

"Contractors!" I say.  "I was trying to get just the outside of our house repainted.  The same color.

From Angie's List, I got three estimates.  The first—$20,000!  Done in two weeks.  Seemed like a lot.  Second—$11,000!  One guy.  An artisan.  He estimated it would take him two months."

"Until he falls off the ladder and breaks his hip—then years could go by," says Jan.

"Third estimate?  $3500.  Done in three days."

"How is that possible?" Mary asks.  "Is the paint radioactive?"

"Oh no," I say.  "The crew shows up on time, 9 a.m. on Tuesday, they're professional, they're neat, they're focused.  They measure, cover, tape—"

"And the second day they don't show up," says Jan.

"Oh no, the second day more painters show up.  There are 12 of them, working 10 hours a day.

And then, in slow motion horror, I'm taking out a calculator, trying to figure out how much they're getting paid.  The house looks great but I feel terrible. So I brought them cookies."

"Add a throw pillow from Joanna's store that says 'Guilt,'" says Mary.

"Oh no," I say. Too expensive."

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

The Getty spent $65m (and change) for this late Manet masterpiece, "Spring."

A  132-year-old vision of springtime has landed permanently at the Getty Museum, smack in the middle of this California autumn: "Spring (Jeanne Demarsy)," one of Impressionist painter Edouard Manet’s  last completed pictures.

Here's what Getty Director Timothy Potts had to say about the artist:

Manet was the ultimate painter’s painter: totally committed to his craft, solidly grounded in the history of painting and yet determined to carve out a new path for himself and for modern art. ... Alone of his contemporaries (the only one who comes near is Degas), Manet achieved this almost impossible balancing act, absorbing and channeling the achievements of the past into a radically new vision of what painting could be.

"Spring" somehow manages to be the evocation of youth itself and all its hopes. The subject is 16-year-old actress Jeanne Demarsy, just then seeing her stage career ascend at the same time Manet neared the end of his own career. (He died at age 51 in 1883,  soon after the painting went on display.) 

For most of the years since its creation, the picture has been in private hands. It was recently on loan to the National Gallery.

Getty Assistant Curator Scott Allan said that the Getty worked hard to acquire "Spring" and was lucky to get her. According to news reports, the Christie's auction price paid was an eyebrow-lifting $65 million — about double the top previous sale price for a Manet. "We don’t discuss the price," Potts said.

At the Getty, "Spring (Jeanne Demarsy)" hangs next to an early Manet in the museum's Impressionist-Post Impressionist gallery. It was intended to be one of the "Four Seasons" by the late-19th century French master. The series was never completed (although "Autumn" hangs in a museum in France).

(More seasoning: Manet's "Autumn." Museum of Fine Arts of Nancy, France)

Allan said that, unlike many of Manet's early works, "Spring" was intended to hang in the Salon, the French art establishment’s showplace of traditional painting, which had rejected innovators like the Impressionists for decades. That led most of the Impressionists to disdain the Salon. But Allan said Manet was extremely pleased that his late work was accepted there. 

Here's Potts again:

So popular was it that "Spring" became the subject of one of the first color photographs of a work of art. Its acquisition by the Getty brings to Los Angeles the most important — and beautiful! — painting by this artist left in private hands and one of the great masterpieces of late-19th-century art. 

The painting depicts a lovely teenager, dressed in the peak of 1880s fashion in a blue-on-white printed dress; a flowered, fringed hat; and a parasol balanced on her left shoulder. The background features white rhododendrons, barely in blossom.

Mlle. Demarsy stares off to the left, the demure image of a confident young woman at the earliest spring of her adulthood, with an entire creative life before her, already immortalized before the world by one of the century’s greatest artists.

But Manet was himself at the peak of his accomplishments,  just before his sudden demise.
 
"Spring" became one of Manet’s most popular works, deeply appreciated by art lovers young and old and by critics of both the old guard and the avant garde. It was his last picture to hang in the Salon. Manet’s powers would soon decline, and he devoted much of his last few months to watercolors, said Allan.

(Getty director Timothy Potts looks at the Getty's new painting, Manet's "Spring." Getty Museum)

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.

"Sailor Moon" cosplayers at Anime Revloution 2014 in Vancouver, Canada.; Credit: GoToVan/Flickr Creative Commons

Japanese animation — anime — offers very different visions from its American counterparts, and it's extremely popular with college and high school students. They can be extremely difficult for well-meaning parents, uncles and aunts to shop for, so here, in no particular order, are some titles that can transform an adult’s image from clueless doofus to knowing friend. Plus, we have a few suggestions for younger children (who can also be a pain to shop for).

Cardcaptor Sakura: Complete Collection
NIS America: $249.99; 9 discs, Blu-ray, plus book
When cheerful fourth-grader Sakura Kinamoto opens an odd book in her father's study, strange lights fly out. Kerberos, who looks like a plushie of the lion on the book's cover, explains that she's inadvertently released a deck of magical cards. Despite her protests that’s she just an ordinary little girl, Kero insists Sakura must become a Cardcaptor and retrieve them before they work mischief on the world. Many American series talk about empowering girls — in this one, the viewer sees Sakura grow stronger and more confident as she learns to master the magical cards.

Cowboy Bebop: The Complete Series
Funimation: $59.98; Blu-ray, 4 discs
The sci-fi action series "Cowboy Bebop" redefined cool in animation when it debuted in 1998. Twenty-first-century bounty hunter Spike Spiegel is an anti-hero in the tradition of '40s film noir detectives. Spike is a tough guy; a crack shot, an ace pilot and a skilled martial artist. But his cynical exterior conceals a never-healed wound left by the woman he loved and lost. Seventeen years later, "Cowboy Bebop" is so popular that two special editions of the series for holiday gifting have already sold out (!). But it’s available on DVD and Blu-ray.

Dragon Ball Z: Battle of the Gods
Funimation: $34.98; DVD/Blu-ray combo pack; 3 discs
The first new "Dragon Ball Z" animation in 17 years, "Battle of the Gods" (2013) proved how popular the franchise still is, selling over 1 million tickets in just six days in Japan. The filmmakers keep the animation flat, limited and hand-drawn, so "Battle of the Gods" looks like the classic TV series and delivers the mixture of slapstick, friendship and over-the-top battles Dragon Ball fans remember and want to see again — especially guys in their 20s who grew up watching it.

Naruto Shippuden: Road to Ninja: The Movie 6
VIZ: $29.99 DVD/Blu-ray combo; 2 discs
The title hero of the long-running "Naruto" and "Naruto Shippuden" series is a come-from-behind hero whose world centers on magical ninja techniques, outrageous fights, slapstick, friendship and ramen. "The Road to Ninja" incorporates these well-loved elements, but stresses the lonely, compelling side of the title character. Audiences would quickly weary of Naruto if he were just a knuckleheaded prankster. His dedication to overcoming his weaknesses and achieving his goals makes him heroic, as well as comic — and one of the most popular animated characters of the new millennium.

(A scene from "Ranma 1/2," an anime series about a 16-year-old boy who's transformed into a girl whenever he's splashed with water.)

Ranma 1/2: Sets 1, 2, 3 & 4
VIZ: $54.97 each, Blu-ray; $44.82, DVD: 3 discs
Because he once fell into a cursed spring, black-haired high school martial artist Ranma Saotome turns into a buxom, red-haired girl when he’s hit with cold water. (Hot water restores his proper gender.) Ranma and his father Genma are freeloaders in the home of Suon Tendo. To ensure the continuation of the family dojo, the fathers have decided that the loutish Ranma and Suon’s hot-tempered daughter Akane are engaged. "Ranma 1/2"  supplies the slapstick insanity animation can provide in abundance. The filmmakers carefully sneak in just enough grudging affection between Ranma and Akane to keep the series from feeling mean-spirited.

Pokémon: Indigo League (Season 1): Complete Collection
VIZ: $54.98  9 discs          
"Pokémon" is no longer the trend du jour it was 20 years ago, when it swept America. But the games and the animated series remain popular. Although it's product-based and sometimes cloying, "Pokémon" is an agreeable show for elementary school children that stresses friendship, perseverance, fair play and good sportsmanship. These early adventures take the main characters through the first part of the game in its original Red/Blue versions. With his friends Misty and Brock, aspiring master Pokémon trainer Ash Ketchum defeats other trainers, captures wild Pokémon and outwits the inept comic villains of Team Rocket.

Princess Nine Complete Series
Bayview Entertainment: $39.99 DVD
Ryo Hayakawa inherited her late father’s talent as a pitcher, but she works as a waitress in her mother’s tiny cafe. Determined to overcome sexist opposition and create a girls’ baseball team that can compete in the national championships, Ms. Himuro, the head of prestigious Kisaragi High, gives Ryo a scholarship. She must recruit players and build an effective team. Ryo is a very likable character — she’s proud of her abilities, but surprised at where they take her. "Princess Nine" ranks among the better girls’ series of recent years, with characters who are strong, capable individuals but who exhibit human weaknesses.

Short Peace
Sentai Filmworks: $29.98 Blu-ray
For "Short Peace," Katsuhiro Otomo ("Akira") and three other directors made short films in personal styles they felt suited the stories they’d chosen, two of them evoking the look of 19th century woodblock prints. In Shuhei Morita’s Oscar-nominated "Possessions," a wandering tinkerer seeks refuge from a storm in a remote forest shrine. Inside, he  must pacify umbrellas, bowls and other household objects that resent being thrown away after years of devoted service. Otomo’s "Combustible" focuses on childhood sweethearts Owaka and Matsukichi, the son and daughter of wealthy merchants in 18th century Edo (Tokyo). The climactic blaze that brings the star-crossed lovers together — only to separate them forever — is stunningly beautiful.

(Oscar-winning Japanese animator and film director Hayao Miyazaki walks past an advertisement following the release of his film "Ponyo.")

No figure in contemporary animation is more admired than Hayao Miyazaki. Walt Disney Home Entertainment has just released to DVD/Blu-ray 2-disc sets of three of his major films at $26.95 each:

Kiki's Delivery Service
A charming coming-of-age story, "Kiki's Delivery Service" (1989) follows the very human ups and downs of an adolescent witch who must leave her family for a new city where she’ll discover her special talent. Kiki copes believably with tight budgets, self-doubt and the awkward attentions of a flight-obsessed boy. The late comedian Phil Hartman gave his final performance as Gigi, the sardonic black cat who provides a running commentary on Kiki's misadventures.

Princess Mononoke
The ecologically-themed "Princess Mononoke" (1999) was the first of Miyazaki’s features to receive a major theatrical release in the U.S. The problems posed by rampant development and consumerism figure prominently in the film. “If you want to discuss any aspect of the problems we face as humans, you cannot ignore ecology,'' he said. Miyazaki juxtaposes visually and emotionally intense scenes of the characters, with quiet images of clouds, streams and forests. When rain begins to fall, he lingers on a stone that darkens as it absorbs moisture.

(A screenshot from Japanese director and animator Hayao Miyazaki's "Princess Mononoke.")

The Wind Rises
In "The Wind Rises" (2013), Miyazaki carries the viewer through rapturously beautiful fantasies, hard-won pleasures and poignant sorrows in this biopic of Jiro Horikoshi, who designed the A6M Zero Fighter for Mitsubishi during World War II. "The Wind Rises" isn’t focused on speed — Miyazaki concentrates on the magic of flight. Instead of launching the viewers on a CG rollercoaster ride, he enables them to savor the magic of escaping gravity in a way that approaches visual poetry. "The Wind Rises" may be Miyazaki’s last feature, but the director is still clearly at the height of his powers; although premature, it’s a glorious exit.

Death Note: The Complete Series

Light Yagami, the hero of the dark fantasy-adventure "Death Note" (2006) is brilliant, alienated— and murderous. He found the Death Note: the notebook of a Shinigami (god of death). If anyone writes the name of a human in the book, that person dies within minutes. Light launches a vigilante campaign to rid the world of criminals and create his vision of a perfect society. But the unexplained string of deaths attracts the attention of the police, who turn the case over to the secretive master crime solver known only as L. Although it begins slowly, "Death Note" gets better with each installment, as the stakes grow higher in the macabre duel of wits between Light and L.

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

Rob Marshall is either the bravest director in Hollywood or the most foolhardy. Three of his five theatrical films — the musicals "Chicago," "Nine" and now "Into the Woods" — don't just invite comparison to the eccentric genius of other artists, they insist on it.

Originally a Bob Fosse stage project, "Chicago" was so imbued with Fosse's vitriolic spirit that even in Marshall's more straightforward hands the movie version felt like the missing piece in a triptych with Fosse's "Cabaret" and "All That Jazz."

"Nine" is the musical created from Fellini's masterpiece "8 1/2."

(Marcello Mastroianni in Fellini's "8 1/2")

Odd enough that someone thought Fellini's intimate but epic fugue on his own creative doubts and sexual fantasies should be adapted by others for Broadway; stranger still to re-import the hybrid back to the screen, in the workmanlike form Marshall gave to it.

And now we have "Into the Woods," a film placing Marshall in the long line of moviemakers defeated by Sondheim's difficult musical brilliance and penchant for challenging material. It's distinguished company, reaching back all the way to "A Hard Day's Night" director Richard Lester's re-invention of "A Funny Thing Happened (On the Way to the Forum)" as a kind of psychedelic Keystone Cops movie, and forward to Tim Burton's more adept but still wrong-headed Murnau-meets-Hammer-Horror approach to "Sweeney Todd."

Even director Hal Prince, the principal theatrical collaborator during Sondheim's most fertile and formative period, made an absolute hash of their shared stage success "A Little Night Music" in a film version later disavowed by both men, and mostly remembered for Elizabeth Taylor's chirpy and discernibly flat rendition of "Send in the Clowns."

Liz singing "Send in the Flat Clowns"

It's just possible that the real problem is that Sondheim's self-reflexive and deconstructive impulse (his musicals are almost always and to varying degrees commentaries on the Musical itself) makes his projects unfit for screen adaptation. In movies, we miss the artifice of the proscenium, the sweat on the actor's brow. But if any of Sondheim's late-period projects held out the hope of a successful movie version it was surely "Into the Woods," a droll recombination of the fairytale form's literary DNA into something like Sondheim's masterpiece "Company," set in a realm of magic beanstalks and slippers made of glass.

The characters are straight out of the Disney pantheon (or "Shrek"): Cinderella meets Rapunzel meets Red Riding Hood meets Jack and his Beanstalk, with a generic Wicked Witch, a couple of not so charming Prince Charmings, plus a peasant couple thrown in. But the issues at stake — marital fidelity, raising children, the fear of aging and death — are complicated, and filled with gray tones which Sondheim and librettist James Lapine masterfully etched across the fairytale's Manichean black and white.

What seemed audacious when Sondheim and Lapine conceived it in 1987 ought to fit comfortably into the era of "Sleepy Hollow" and "Maleficent," but in Marshall's hands, it does not. The good news is that though populated by what old school TV shows used to call a Galaxy of Today's Brightest Stars (Anna Kendrick as an appealingly unglamorous Cinderella; Chris Pine as the nymphomaniac Prince who stalks her; Meryl Streep quite moving in the Wicked Witch role made famous on Broadway by Bernadette Peters) this is mostly a very well-sung movie. There have been controversial excisions and revisions (enabled by Lapine, who is Marshall's screenwriter), but as an introduction to one of Sondheim's more beloved scores, "Into the Woods" makes for a solid musical primer.

WATCH: The "Into the Woods" trailer

But though Marshall has taken a lot of flack for daring to cut out characters (most notably the stage production's Narrator, who served as a kind of Greek Chorus in the original) and for softening plot points (Rapunzel died onstage), the big problem is that Marshall isn't nearly ruthless enough in rethinking "Into the Woods" as an honest-to-God movie. There are many moments (Johnny Depp ending a scene with a stagy howl at the Moon that virtually screams "and... fade out!;" the unseen death of a major character) where Marshall embraces the limitations of stagecraft when something bigger and more cinematic is needed, as if afraid to mar the pedigree of Broadway with Hollywood's debased visual stamp.

"Giants in the Sky," Jack's coming-of-age number, where he describes finding manhood in the sexual and physical dangers available above the clouds in the Giant's Castle, is a showstopper onstage, where we're willing to accept rhetoric in place of physical immediacy. Onscreen, it's simply frustrating for a character to suddenly appear and tell us he's just had the adventure of a lifetime, and that it's too bad we missed it.

The Woods themselves — both character and symbol onstage, a kind of living maze representing moral confusion — are lush here and geographically nondescript, like a particularly plush unit set, done up in a generic Lloyd Webber-meets-Disney house style.

Perhaps most unfortunately of all, Marshall seems constitutionally incapable of conveying the pervasive satiric impulse at the heart of the Sondheim/Lapine original, which could have been called "What Happens After Happily Ever After." Without ironic distancing, the film's second half, where the characters betray each other in decidedly contemporary sexual and self-interested terms, plays as non-sequitur.

It's possible to imagine a more idiosyncratic movie director who both understands and embraces the arsenal of cinematic effects available through editing, camera movement and design transforming "Into the Woods" into a rousing cinematic triumph — the young Terry Gilliam comes to mind. But Hollywood doesn't really embrace its daring cranks and visionaries very often, as Gilliam's difficult career demonstrates. Whenever possible, today's studios like to import genius at a safe remove, and then hand it off to a reliable journeyman who won't make waves or piss off the suits. The limitations of that approach are visible in every scene of "Into the Woods," and perhaps they explain its failure best of all. It's one thing not to be up to the task of adapting a work of odd brilliance. It's something else again to not even take it on.

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

Actors Benedict Cumberbatch and Sophie Hunter arrive at the 26th Annual Palm Springs International Film Festival Film Festival Awards Gala at Palm Springs Convention Center on January 3, 2015 in Palm Springs, California.; Credit: Frazer Harrison/Getty Images

The 26th Annual Palm Springs International Film Festival opened this weekend, distinguished by robust audience turnouts, megawatt celebrity visitations and constant reminders of the unique space PSIFF occupies and the specialized services it provides to Hollywood.

Falling as it does just before Sundance and just after the Golden Globes nominations, Palm Springs is as much a part of the awards season calendar as it is the festival circuit. Big ticket screenings are presented with all the photo op pomp that would greet a major world premiere at, say, the Los Angeles Film Festival, but in many cases this is to build buzz for (or to re-energize) films that are already in theaters.

At Sundance or Tribeca, the suspense is usually about whether the films in competition will get good reviews and/or find distribution. At Palm Springs, especially on opening weekend, it's more about whether you'll run into Brad Pitt in the guest and industry suite at the Renaissance Hotel.

At the PSIFF awards gala, Golden Globe nominee Reese Witherspoon took home the oddly gender specific Chairman's Award for her performance in "Wild."

J.K. Simmons received something called a Spotlight Award for his superb turn as the menacing music instructor in "Whiplash."

David Oyelowo grabbed the "Breakthrough Performance Award (Male)" for depicting Martin Luther King Jr. in "Selma." Brad Pitt's sing-along presentation of Oyelowo's award became the meme for much of the post-event press coverage.

Sing-a-long with Brad Pitt

Rosamund Pike got the "Breakthrough Performance Award (Female)" for "Gone Girl."

Michael Keaton presented the Director of the Year award to his "Birdman" collaborator Alejandro G. Iñárritu.

And the Palm Spring Convention Center stage was home to two young British heartthrobs who are in Oscar contention this year for period biopics about scientific genius: Eddie Redmayne, who grabbed the Desert Palm Achievement Award (Male) for portraying ALS sufferer Stephen Hawking in "The Theory of Everything," and Benedict Cumberbatch, who split glory with the cast of the Alan Turing biography "The Imitation Game" as co-winner of the Ensemble Performance Award.

The Desert Palm Achievement Award (Female) went to Julianne Moore in the Alzheimer's drama "Still Alice."

Every single one of the movies honored is in theaters now, almost all of them in the midst of slowly expanding release patterns as they mount their long slow march toward the Academy Awards.

The generous "one award per movie" policy and the care with which PSIFF avoids alienating celebrity affections by giving out trophies with such blunt and unequivocal titles as "Best Actress" or "Best Actor" mark the PSIFF awards gala as a psuedo-event: a kind of open-armed Hollywood team huddle before things get grim and serious with the Oscar announcements at the end of the month.

Even an Oscar-worthy oddity like Richard Linklater's "Boyhood" managed to find a place in the parade, with Linklater, who directed Shirley MacLaine in the 2010 black comedy "Bernie," presenting the 80-year-old actress with the Sonny Bono Visionary Award, essentially for career achievement.

Meanwhile, the festival's generous supply of indie, studio and foreign movies churned away in various local movie theaters, a really quite remarkable cluster of buzzworthy pictures, almost all of which have played elsewhere, including at Sundance and Toronto and Tribeca, and in many cases at your local multiplex.

This programming approach can be a double-edged sword. Director Ava DuVernay, whose civil rights-era epic "Selma" opened the festival, was unable to stay for her full run of Palm Springs personal appearances because her movie has been out long enough to spark a rather bitter controversy over its depiction of President Lyndon Johnson. DuVernay abandoned a Palm Springs Q and A in order to defend her film on Charlie Rose. 

While some audience members were bitterly disappointed at missing the chance to hear one of this year's golden ones, I'm sure the PSIFF Board of Governors understood completely. This time of year, you have to play the long game, and, in the words of the civil rights anthem, "keep your eyes on the prize."

Off-Ramp contributor R.H. Greene, former editor of Boxoffice Magazine, is in Palm Spring this week to cover the 26th Annual Palm Springs International Film Festival. Look for his missives here, and listen Saturday to Off-Ramp for his report on the festival.

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

Actors Carla Gugino, Matthew Lillard and Sir Patrick Stewart pose at the "Match" screening during the Palm Springs International Film Festival on January 3, 2015 in Palm Springs, California. ; Credit: Chelsea Lauren/Getty Images for PSIFF

Is there a happier star in Hollywood than Patrick Stewart?

Certainly no one seems to be having more fun than the onetime Star Trek captain and current (and seemingly permanent) X-Man. And why shouldn't Sir Patrick be pleased with himself? He really has got it all: a thriving stage profile in both New York and London, the unconditional love of a vast and loyal fan base, and a film career that oscillates freely between franchise blockbusters and the small, character-driven chamber pieces Stewart so clearly relishes.

"Match" is about as small a movie as Stewart has ever appeared in: a well-intentioned three-character film studded with very funny dialogue courtesy of writer/director Stephen Belber, upon whose play "Match" is based.

Stewart plays an aging gay dance instructor named Tobi Powell, who may or may not have sired a child back in the swinging 60s – an era movies now take to have been 10 years of uninterrupted orgy punctuated by Beatles records and gunshots aimed at the Kennedy brothers.

As the saying goes, "If you can remember the '60s, you weren't there." Stewart's Tobi Powell was vibrantly there at the time, so it's perhaps natural that he can't seem to recall whether or not one of his rare couplings with a female partner might have had some unintended consequences.

Mincing slightly and speaking in an accent that sounds Midwestern by way of Wales, Stewart is an absolute blast to watch. His genuine (and usually underutilized) flair for comedy is roguishly on display, allowing "Match" to shift between pathos and farce with an assurance born more of the performer's bravado than the emotional contours of Belber's somewhat overeager text.

Though allegedly a bit of a shut-in, Tobi is a minor masterpiece of a lost and exuberant art form: the exaggerated star turn. It's unsurprising Frank Langella got a Tony nomination for playing him on Broadway a decade ago, and at least a bit unexpected that Stewart has gone completely unnoticed this awards season, even by the nomination-happy Golden Globes.

Belber's best writing is mostly his comedic stuff. One aria comparing cunnilingus to knitting may just be the best scene of its type since Meg Ryan faked an orgasm in "When Harry Met Sally" a quarter century ago.

Solid and believable supporting turns from Carla Gugino and Matthew Lillard add to the fun until Belber's script bogs down in the third act into the kind of paint-by-numbers epiphany shtick even TV has given up on at this point.

WATCH: The official trailer for "Match," starring Patrick Stewart

Everybody cries. Everybody changes. Everybody yawns.  Or I did anyway.

Still, go see this movie — or better yet, watch it on your phone, since it's shot almost entirely in close up — to see a grand and gracefully aging actor strut his stuff with contagious delight. You will definitely laugh, and, God, does this movie hope you'll also cry.

But if you do weep, don't be surprised if, like Tobi himself, you hate yourself in the morning.

Off-Ramp contributor R. H. Greene is covering the 26th Annual Palm Springs International Film Festival, where he recently saw the new comedy "Match" starring Patrick Stewart. "Match" comes to theaters and video-on-demand on Jan. 14.

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

At the corner of Glendale and Glenfeliz, Jeff Harmes created an art garden completely from scratch. ; Credit: Alana Rinicella

On the median on the Atwater Village side of the Hyperion bridge, Jeff Harmes built a garden. It's an act he calls "taking nothing and making it into something that everyone can get something out of, that can inspire everyone."

Having lived on the streets for 30 years, Jeff says grew to hate litter. He used to sweep street gutters with a piece of cardboard and remove trash packed into the forks of trees. He thought of them as small acts that would go mostly unnoticed.

On a whim last spring, he started tilling the median — or "the island," as he likes to call it ... although "oasis" is more like it, now. He made rock sculptures from stones he scrounged out of the L.A. River. In celebration of spring, he made a peace sign out of flowers. 

He says he doesn't know much about gardening or landscaping. He learns as he goes and looks to commuters for suggestions. In the absence of running water, he relies on rainfall.

Vibrant succulents sit next to kitschy items like gnomes and plastic flamingos. Intricate formations of seashells and stones contrast starkly against the neatly patted dirt. A young girl even donated her seashell collection for the peace sign. 

Recently, though, a vandal smashed the peace sign and wrecked Jeff's plants, including his squash crop. With help from the neighborhood, Jeff has been able to rebuild the garden. New plants have sprouted and the stonework has been repaired.

Jeff says his new goal with the garden is for people to draw something positive from it. "I want hate to be transferred into something beautiful," he said. Moving forward, he hopes to expand it down the island. 

(Note: This post has been edited. The original called it a "meridian," which is an invisible geographic line. "Median" is correct.)

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.

An aerial photograph of the San Gabriel Mountains in Southern California.; Credit: Bruce Perry, Department of Geological Sciences, CSU Long Beach; Courtesy National Park Service

A friend who has one of those cabins in the San Gabriels that you have to ride a mule into sent Off-Ramp a note about an event for fans of L.A.'s mountains ... which is pretty much everyone:

"The Sierra Madre Historical Preservation Society and First Water Design present the finest assembly of experts of our magnificent mountains and their impact on our history, culture, and way of life." It's a long list of historians, authors, and others who've spent their lives studying and writing about the mountains.

• John Robinson: "The San Gabriels," "Trails of the Angeles: 100 Hikes in the San Gabriels," "Sierra Madre’s Old Mount Wilson Trail"
• Michele Zack: "Southern California Story: Seeking the Better Life in Sierra Madre," "Altadena: Between Wilderness and City"
• Elizabeth Pomeroy: "John Muir: A Naturalist in Southern California," "San Marino: A Centennial History"
• Nat Read: "Don Benito Wilson: From Mountain Man to Mayor," "Los Angeles 1841 to 1878"
• Michael Patris:  "Mount Lowe Railway"
• Glen Owens: "The Heritage of the Big Santa Anita"
• Paul Rippens: " The Saint Francis Dam"
• Willis Osborne: "A Guide to Mt. Baldy & San Antonio Canyon"
• Christopher Nyerges: "Enter the Forest"
• Norma Rowley: "The Angeles Was Our Home"
• Chris Kasten: cartographer and former manager of Sturtevant Camp

The event takes place on Saturday, Jan. 24, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m, at Pritchard Hall at the Sierra Madre Congregational Church, 170 West Sierra Madre Blvd., Sierra Madre, CA 91024.

And it's free! Email Jeff Lapides for more info, or call him at 626-695-8177.

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

Two security guards talk on the campus of the closed McKinley School, part of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) system, in Compton, California.; Credit: ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images

Los Angeles Unified School District officials are making plans for summer — and for now, none of those plans involve reopening school campuses shuttered by the coronavirus pandemic.

In a video address Monday, Superintendent Austin Beutner said LAUSD leaders have "made no decisions" about whether the fall semester — still scheduled to begin on August 18 — will involve students in classrooms, online or both. He said it's not clear what the public health conditions will allow.

Last week, Governor Gavin Newsom surprised many educators when he suggested California schools could resume in-person instruction early — perhaps even as soon as mid-July. Newsom fears the longer students remain at home, the farther they'll fall behind academically. Read more about this on LAist. 

We get the latest on LAUSD’s plans (or lack of them) for the upcoming school year. Plus, if you’re an LAUSD parent or student, weigh in by calling 866-893-5722. 

With files from LAist.

Guest:

Kyle Stokes, education reporter for KPCC; he tweets @kystokes

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.

Uber and Lyft drivers with Rideshare Drivers United and the
 Transport Workers Union of America conduct a ‘caravan protest’ outside the California Labor Commissioner’s office amidst the coronavirus pandemic on April 16, 2020 in Los Angeles, California. ; Credit: Mario Tama/Getty Images

California sued ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft on Tuesday, alleging they misclassified their drivers as independent contractors under the state’s new labor law.

Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the city attorneys of Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco announced the lawsuit Tuesday. The labor law, known as AB5 and considered the nation’s strictest test, took effect Jan. 1 and makes it harder for companies to classify workers as independent contractors instead of employees who are entitled to minimum wage and benefits such as workers compensation.

California represents Uber and Lyft’s largest source of revenue. The companies, as well as Doordash, are funding a ballot initiative campaign to exclude their drivers from the law while giving new benefits such as health care coverage. The initiative is likely to qualify for the November ballot.

We dive into the suit and California’s saga with ride hailing companies. Plus, if you’re a driver, what do you think of Becerra’s claim? Would you prefer to be treated as an employee? And if you’ve been driving for a while, has the pandemic changed your outlook on Uber and Lyft’s treatment of its drivers? Call us at 866-893-5722. 

With files from the Associated Press.

Guests:

Josh Eidelson, labor reporter for Bloomberg News; based in the Bay Area; tweets @josheidelson

Mike Feuer, City Attorney of Los Angeles

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

Home State restaurant sells groceries to stay afloat in reaction to the coronavirus on April 16, 2020 in Los Angeles, California. ; Credit: Amy Sussman/Getty Images

This Friday, California will take the first steps toward easing its statewide stay-at-home order.

In Stage 2 of Newsom’s reopening plan, lower risk workplaces like schools, childcare facilities, retail businesses (curbside pickup) and offices where working remotely is not possible will be allowed to reopen. For counties and cities, the reopening will be slightly adjusted according to regional demands. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has announced that some low risk businesses will be allowed to reopen this Friday, as will city-owned hiking trails and golf courses (excluding Runyon Canyon). In Orange County, many beaches have already been reopened. The county has also seen some businesses open up in defiance of Governor Newsom’s stay-at-home order.

Today, California restaurants are submitting a plan to Governor Newsom to reopen sit-down service with safeguards.Under these guidelines, only family members or people who live together would sit at the same table. Buffets, salad bars and shared bread baskets would be out. Salt and pepper shakers could be replaced by bottles of hand sanitizer. And meals could arrive from food servers sheathed in face masks.

What will the partial reopening look like in Southern California? And how will reopening progress in the weeks ahead? We speak with an epidemiologist, restaurant industry advocate, barber and hair salon advocate and economics commentator to learn more.

With files from the Associated Press

Guests:

Richard Jackson, M.D., pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor emeritus at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, he’s served in many leadership positions with the California Health Department, including as the State Health Officer, for nine years he served as director of the CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health

Jot Condie, president & CEO of the California Restaurant Association, an advocacy organization for the restaurant industry that has submitted an reopening plan for the restaurant industry today to Governor Gavin Newsom

Ted D. Nelson, president and CEO of the Professional Beauty Federation of California, which represents barbers and salon professionals; the organization says it will sue California Governor Gavin Newsom this week over the statewide stay-at-home order

Greg Ip, chief economics commentator for the The Wall Street Journal; he tweets @greg_ip

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.

LAKE MEAD NRA, NV - AUGUST 12: Perseid meteors streak across the sky early August 12, 2008 near Rogers Spring in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Nevada. The meteor display, known as the Perseid shower because it appears to radiate from the constellation Perseus in the northeastern sky, is a result of Earth's orbit passing through debris from the comet Swift-Tuttle. Tuesday morning was considered the peak of the shower, which is visible every August. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images); Credit: Ethan Miller/Getty Images

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

An inmate firefighter from Oak Glen Conservation Camp near Yucaipa, California sets a backfire during the Easy Fire on October 30, 2019 near Simi Valley, California. ; Credit: David McNew/Getty Images

Red flag warning: They're some of the most dreaded words in fire-prone California. By now, many locals understand the term to basically mean, "Watch out for fires. It's about to get real."

KPCC has been demystifying some of the jargon around fires, so when Betsy Lawlor from Diamond Bar asked us to break down exactly what a red flag warning is, we were more than happy to explain.

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.

Several countries around the world are emitting less carbon due to the pandemic slowdown, but the climate will continue to warm.; Credit: Andy Buchanan/AFP via Getty Images

With the dramatic reduction in car traffic and commercial flights, carbon emissions have been falling around the globe. If the slowdown continues, some are estimating the world could see the largest drop in emissions in the last century.

Still, overall greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere are still going up and the decline will likely be smaller than what scientists say is necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

So far, the effects are just starting to appear. In China, the first country to lock down, greenhouse gas emissions dropped an estimated 25% in February as factories and industrial producers slowed output. That decreased coal burning, which has come back slowly since then.

"A month or two of shelter in place will drop carbon dioxide emissions a few percent here or there, but it won't change the year substantially unless we stay like this for some time," says Rob Jackson, environmental scientist at Stanford University.

The declines are still too small to be read by greenhouse gas observatories around the world, like the one on top of the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii, given the natural changes in atmosphere this time of year. Because much of the Earth's land mass is in the northern hemisphere, plants and forests there cause carbon levels to fluctuate as they bloom in the spring, drawing carbon dioxide from the air.

If countries continue shelter-at-home orders, emissions declines could be greater. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates U.S. emissions from gas and energy use could drop more than 7% this year, similar to a 2009 decline during the financial crisis.

Worldwide, early estimates put global emissions dropping around 4%. Still, that's less than the 7.6% the U.N. says is needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change by limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

To achieve those cuts, scientists say more fundamental changes are needed, like switching to renewable energy.

"This isn't the way we want to reduce our fossil fuel emissions," says Jackson. "We don't want tens of millions of people being out of work as a path to decarbonizing our economy. We need systemic change in our energy infrastructure and new green technologies."

Still, Jackson says the recent changes are providing useful insights.

"It's as if a third of the cars on the road were suddenly electric, running on clean electricity and the air pollution is plummeting," says Jackson. "It's really a remarkable experiment and it shows the benefits of clean energy."

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

Updated at 10 p.m. ET

Australia's High Court has found reasonable doubt that Cardinal George Pell sexually assaulted two boys in the 1990s and has overturned his conviction.

The court acquitted the former Vatican treasurer of the charges, and no retrial will be possible.

Pell, 78, had been serving a six-year prison sentence in the case. The High Court ordered that he be released.

He was convicted of sexually abusing two 13-year-old choirboys at St. Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne.

As an adult, one of them went to the police in 2015 and accused the cardinal of abusing him and the other boy in 1996. The other individual died of a heroin overdose the previous year without reporting abuse.

In a statement after the acquittal, as reported by Reuters, Pell said, "I hold no ill will toward my accuser, I do not want my acquittal to add to the hurt and bitterness so many feel; there is certainly hurt and bitterness enough."

Pell was convicted in 2018 and an appellate court upheld those convictions last year.

The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference's comments on the acquittal recognize that the outcome will be good news for some people and "devastating for others."

"The result today does not change the Church's unwavering commitment to child safety and to a just and compassionate response to survivors and victims of child sexual abuse. The safety of children remains supremely important not only for the bishops, but for the entire Catholic community. Any person with allegations of sexual abuse by Church personnel should go to the police."

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.

; Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

What does the right to a unanimous jury verdict have to do with abortion, or school prayer, or federal environmental regulations? Stay tuned.

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday struck down state laws in Louisiana and Oregon that allowed people accused of serious crimes to be convicted by a non-unanimous jury vote. The 6-to-3 decision overturned a longstanding prior ruling from 1972, which had upheld such non-unanimous verdicts in state courts.

And these days, any decision to overturn a longstanding precedent rings the alarm bells in the Supreme Court.

In the short run, Monday's decision was a victory for Evangelisto Ramos, who in 2016 was convicted of second-degree murder by a jury vote of 10-to-2 in Louisiana.

Only two states--Louisiana and Oregon--had provisions allowing non-unanimous verdicts, and Louisiana just recently changed its law to be like those in 48 other states and the federal government.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, laid out the history behind the laws in both states. Gorsuch noted that the measure was first added to the Louisiana state constitution in 1898, after the Supreme Court ruled that racial minorities could not be barred from juries; that same year, Louisiana added the non-unanimous jury provision to its state constitution as part of a package of amendments that deliberately made it difficult for black citizens to vote or otherwise participate meaningfully in the state's governance. Specifically, Gorsuch said, the non-unanimous jury provision was a way to ensure that even if one or two African Americans made it on to a jury, their participation would be "meaningless."

The adoption of the non-unanimous jury rule in Oregon, Gorsuch wrote, "can similarly be traced to the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and efforts to dilute the influence of racial and ethnic and religious minorities on Oregon juries."

Despite these state provisions, there has never been any dispute that the unanimous jury requirement applies to the federal government. The question in this case was whether that aspect of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applied to the states as well.

Over the last 75 years or so, the court has applied just about every other provision of the Bill of Rights to the states, but in 1972 it deviated from that practice, declining to apply the unanimous jury requirement in a similar fashion.

On Monday, however, the 1972 decision came tumbling down. The six-justice court majority — composed of conservatives and liberals — said the earlier ruling was a mistake.

The decision, written by the conservative Gorsuch, was joined in whole or in part by liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Clarence Thomas, another conservative, agreed with the result, but on entirely different grounds.

Writing for the dissenters, Justice Samuel Alito — joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and for the most part, Justice Elena Kagan — maintained that the principle of adhering to precedent should be followed in this case because to do otherwise would require "a potentially crushing" number of new trials for people currently imprisoned under the old rule.

"Where is the justice in that?" replied Justice Gorsuch. "Not a single member of this court" is prepared to say that the 1972 decision was correct, he noted. "Every judge must learn to live with the fact that he or she will make mistakes ... But it is something else entirely to perpetuate" a wrong "only because we fear the consequences of being right."

The consequences of Monday's decision will likely be felt more in Louisiana, which allowed non-unanimous verdicts for more serious crimes than Oregon. The court's decision will require retrials for any prisoner who still has appeals pending.

There are about 100 of those cases in Louisiana, says Jamila Johnson, the managing attorney at the Promise of Justice Initiative, which represented Ramos. But there are also at least 1,700 prisoners in the state who might qualify for a new trial if the court eventually holds that Monday's decision is retroactive.

The high court left that question open for another day.

Altogether the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions totaled a whopping 86 pages and reflected an important subtext--divergent views about when the court should follow its usual rule of adhering to precedent and when it should not.

It's important because, the new ultra-conservative court majority has very different views than the courts of the last 75 years on topics as diverse as abortion, voting rights, federal regulation, and the clash between religious views and generally applicable laws.

"The court's views about when it's OK to overrule prior precedent have always been more about the eye of the beholder than they have been about a rule that is easy or straightforward to apply," says Deborah Pearlstein, professor and co-director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy at Cardozo School of Law. Ultimately, she said, "all of these major questions that are coming before the court are going to be fought along these lines."

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.

; Credit: Patrick Semansky/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court has once again punted on the question of gun rights, throwing out as moot a challenge to New York City's strict gun regulations on transporting licensed guns outside the home.

New York City, in the name of public safety, has very strict gun regulations. It allows people to have a permit for guns in their homes, but those regulations originally barred people from transporting their guns anywhere except shooting ranges within the city. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association challenged the regulation as a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms and lost in the lower courts.

But, after the Supreme Court agreed to review the case, New York state and New York City changed their laws to allow gun owners to transport their guns outside the city to shooting ranges, to competitions, and to second homes. That gave the challengers exactly what they asked for in their lawsuit, and so on Monday, the court, by a 6-to-3 vote, dismissed the case as moot--in short, it no longer presented a live controversy.

The unsigned opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court's four liberals, and Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh.

But Kavanaugh wrote separately to stress that while he agreed with the majority on procedural grounds, he agreed with the dissenters--Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch--on one key issue.

Those three said that the lower courts were using the wrong test to evaluate gun laws, a test that is far too deferential to gun regulators. The dissenters mainly argued however, that the court essentially had been gamed on the mootness question, and that the justices should have decided the case, and decided it for the gun owners.

Gun-safety advocates breathed a sigh of relief that there was no decision adverse to gun regulations. But they worry that gains they are making in some state legislatures may be taken away by a conservative court majority.

"The reality is that the gun-safety movement is winning in state houses and at the ballot box, so the NRA is turning to the court to try to change the tide," says Eric Tirschwell, managing mirector of Everytown for Gun Safety.

Monday's decision was the first in a major gun case in 10 years, the first since a landmark set of decisions in 2008 and 2010. In those cases, a sharply divided court ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right, not a right associated with the militia, as the court had previously implied. Those decisions marked a huge victory for the NRA and other gun-rights organizations.

In the decade following that decision, however, the court did not agree to hear any of the dozens of challenges to gun restrictions in cases appealed to the court. In part because the composition of the court made outcomes uncertain.

The previous big gun cases were decided by 5-to-4 votes, with Justice Anthony Kennedy casting the fifth and decisive vote. Kennedy, according to court sources, insisted, as the price of his vote, on adding limiting language that likely would have resulted in some, maybe even most, gun restrictions being upheld. With neither side of the court sure how Kennedy would vote on most regulations, neither the pro-gun, nor the pro-gun-control side wanted to risk an adverse ruling.

That changed when Kennedy retired in 2018 to be replaced by Justice Kavanaugh, who has a much more gun-friendly record than Kennedy did.

Nothing Kavanaugh said in his concurring opinion Monday would dissuade anyone from thinking he has changed his mind.

Bottom line here is that when it comes to gun control, there look to be four pretty solid votes against a lot of the measures enacted in recent years after mass shootings. Specifically, laws that bar carrying weapons in public places, and bans on assault weapons and large ammo magazines. All these, plus so called red-flag laws and other measures could be in jeopardy.

The question is where Chief Justice Roberts will be on these and other gun-control questions. To date, he has never been much of a supporter of gun-control laws, but he hasn't been an outspoken opponent, either. All we really know is that he was part of the 2008 and 2010 majority that for the first time declared that the Second Amendment is an individual right, not, as the court had previously implied, a collective right that was attached to the colonial militia.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling, said the federal government must pay health insurers $12 billion under a provision of the Affordable Care Act.; Credit: Patrick Semansky/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court has told the federal government that it has to pay $12 billion to insurance companies, money that was promised in the Affordable Care Act as part of the start-up costs of Obamacare in the first three years of its existence.

The law, as enacted, promised to limit profits and losses for insurance companies in the first three years of the Obamacare program. Some companies made more money than allowed by the formula, and had to pay some back to the government, and other companies lost money and were owed money by the government under the formula.

But in 2014, the first year that the ACA's plan was in place, the Republican-controlled Congress reneged on the promise to appropriate money for the companies that had lost money. It did the same for the next two years as well, adding to appropriation bills a rider that barred the government from fulfilling the promise in the statute. After President Trump was elected, his administration supported the GOP-led refusal to pay.

The insurance companies sued, and on Monday the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has to pay up.

The vote was 8-to-1, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing for the majority that the decision reflects a principle "as old as the nation itself. The government should honor its obligations."

She noted that the language of the ACA was "rare" in that it permitted lawsuits to enforce the provisions at issue here, provisions that declare the government"shall pay" the losses suffered by insurance companies that participated over the first three years.

The lone dissenter was Justice Samuel Alito, who called the decision "a massive bailout" for the insurance industry, which "took a calculated risk and lost."

Monday's decision was the third involving Obamacare at the Supreme Court. Conservative groups, and now the Trump administration, have consistently sought to invalidate or undermine the law — so far, with limited or no success. But next year, the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider once again whether the law is unconstitutional.

Despite repeated efforts by Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration to either undermine or entirely do away with the program, Obamacare has remained popular, likely because it has enabled millions of Americans, including those with pre-existing conditions, to obtain medical insurance and medical coverage for the first time.

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

The Supreme Court; Credit: Mark Sherman/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court begins an extraordinary two weeks of oral arguments Monday. It will be the first time in history that the court has allowed live streaming of its audio, and the first time that the court is hearing arguments via telephone hookup, instead of in the flesh.

The justices are trying to simulate their normal arguments as much as possible, beginning with Chief Marshal Pamela Talkin calling the court to order with a slightly modified version of her usual "Oyez, oyez, oyez...."

After that, very little will be as usual.

Because the arguments are conducted over the phone, the justices and the lawyers cannot see one another, and listeners will all try to imagine where the justices and lawyers are sitting or standing in their homes to hear or present arguments.

While most of the lawyers will be in their homes, the government's lawyers will be making their arguments from the office of the Solicitor General, and in a bow to formality, they plan to wear their usual formal morning coat attire.

The lawyers we sampled, to a person, said they are more comfortable standing, or even standing at a lectern, as they usually do during oral arguments, even though nobody can see them. The arguments are limited to a half hour on each side. And, as usual, each side will get to make an opening argument for two minutes uninterrupted.

After that, under normal circumstances, the justices engage in rapid-fire questioning of the lawyers, interrupting counsel frequently, and even, on occasion, each other.

But starting Monday, the justices will ask questions in order of seniority, for two or three minutes each, with Chief Justice John Roberts starting off, followed by Justice Clarence Thomas — if he has any questions, which he rarely does. (If Thomas asks a question, it will be the first time he has spoken from the bench in over a year, when he broke a three-year silence, which was preceded by a whopping 10-year silence from the bench.)

Next Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who often asks the first question in oral arguments, will be at bat, and so on, ending with the court's newest appointee, Brett Kavanauagh. More questions will be permitted if there is time left at the end of the first round of questioning.

Lawyers say there will be big challenges with the new format.

"You lose the ability to read body language. That's No. 1," says Jay Sekulow, who will be representing President Trump in cases testing whether the president can be subpoenaed for his pre-presidential financial records either by Congress or by a state grand jury subpoena in a criminal case.

As Sekulow observes, oral argument is typically a "pretty intimate event when you're actually arguing in the courtroom. You see them. You can see their reactions. You see if they nod to each other. Here you're doing this literally over a telephone line. So you lose the intimacy."

Stanford Law professor Jeff Fisher, who will be arguing a religion case a week from Monday, agrees. "I just feel that not being able to see their faces and body language is going to be a real challenge. It's just a cost for how effective and useful the arguments are going to be."

The audio argument format presents another interesting twist for the court: For the first time ever, oral arguments will be available via livestream. Typically, Supreme Court arguments are followed by a narrow group of lawyers, law students and court watchers. But with millions of Americans stuck at home, and arguments carried live online and on C-Span, the justices will likely have a larger audience than usual.

Monday's case presents a trademark question — not exactly the kind of thing to rivet public attention. And it is the only case of the day. Clearly, the court is using this relatively unimportant case to see how the system is working, and whether it needs to be adjusted in any way — in short, to work out the bugs.

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

It was a new day at the Supreme Court, which for the first time ever live-streamed oral arguments.; Credit: Andrew Harnik/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court made history Monday. The coronavirus lockdown forced the typically cautious court to hear arguments for the first time via telephone, and to stream the arguments live for the public to hear.

Chief Justice John Roberts was at the court as the telephone session began, one or two other justices were in their offices at the court, and the rest of the justices dialed in from home.

The first and only case heard Monday involved an arcane trademark question only a lawyer could love. Online travel search engine Booking.com is appealing a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refusal to grant a trademark to the company.

With the justices asking questions in order of seniority, the first big surprise was that Justice Clarence Thomas, who in the past has gone years without asking a question, did ask one, several in fact, when it came his turn.

"Could Booking acquire an 800 number ... that's a vanity number, 1-800-BOOKING, for example?" Thomas asked Assistant Solicitor General Erica Ross.

Yes, replied Ross, but domain names pose a different problem than phone numbers. Ultimately, she argued "the core problem with Booking.com is that it allows [Booking.com] to monopolize booking on the internet" to the exclusion of other sites like hotelbooking.com.

Justice Stephen Breyer followed up when his turn came: "Same question as Justice Thomas ... good morning, anyway ... You can have a trademark that's an address. You can have a trademark that's a telephone number. So why can't you have a trademark that's a dot-com?"

Justice Samuel Alito noted that the court's prior decision in this area of the law was more than 100 years old, and the statute dealing with trademarks was similarly enacted decades ago.

"How can a rule that makes sense in the internet age be reconciled with the language" in these "pre-Internet era" laws? asked Alito.

Next up to her lectern from her home was lawyer Lisa Blatt. This was her 40th Supreme Court argument and despite being a veteran, she said later that she was, as usual, sick to her stomach beforehand.

But once at the lectern "it's always a rush of excitement," she said, and this time it was a special rush.

"I loved getting a question from Justice Thomas ... I would go to the phone for the foreseeable future if I could get Justice Thomas to ask questions. That was wonderful," she said.

Indeed, despite the new format Blatt and Ross seemed to have had a good time.

"Your client would not object to the registration of any trademark that simply made a slight variation in Booking.com?" asked Alito.

"There's a million booking registrations already," parried Blatt.

Alito: "Would you just answer the question."

Blatt: "They don't and have not and would not."

Not, she added, unless another company ripped off the trademark with no variation. That would be theft, she said.

So, when when the argument was over, what was her reaction?

"After I hung up, I screamed, 'That was hard!' Because you're saying enough to answer, but not too much. And you don't have any like visual feedback, so it was hard."

In the end, she said, the argument felt more like an oral exam than an oral argument.

Tom Goldstein, publisher of Scotusblog, had a similar reaction. Goldstein, who has argued 43 cases before the court, said he thought the argument was probably more useful to the public than usual.

"But I bet it was less useful for the justices," he said. "Because there was less opportunity to follow up on lines of questions and less opportunity to influence someone ... so there's much less engagement in the oral argument."

Still there were no major hitches on this first day. Justice Sonia Sotomayor briefly forget to unmute her phone at one point, prompting a "Sorry, chief." Justice Breyer's voice broke up in static for a second or two. But as Goldstein observes, this was a big change for the court.

"Culturally a change, technologically a change. And it could have been a big embarrassment if it didn't go well, but it went fine," he said. "I think they're happy."

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.

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.

A moment in Larry Mantle’s recent conversation with Steve Inskeep has stuck with me.

The NPR Morning Edition co-host was in our Pasadena studios to talk about his latest book, Imperfect Union. Asked how he approaches his day job, Inskeep told a story about the time he dispassionately called a heartbreaking loss for his high school football team. That “straight call” earned praise from a veteran broadcaster he admired. It’s a lesson, he said, that stayed with him.

“I may have a personal opinion; it doesn’t matter,” Inskeep told Mantle. “My job as a journalist is to get the facts right, that are in front of me, and you can do that even if you have a personal opinion.”

Mantle, who has hosted KPCC’s AirTalk for decades, responded: 

“You can’t do this work if you’re wired like an activist. I sort of see my wiring as more how a teacher would be, wired where you’re amassing information. You’re leading people through a story, and the joy is in people coming to their own conclusions.”

“If you’re an activist at all, you’re an activist for the truth,” Inskeep replied. 

Activists for truth. Finding joy in people reaching their own conclusions.

What a compelling description of what our newsroom strives to deliver every day to Southern Californians.

These were my thoughts even before my colleague at NPR came under attack for doing her job.

If you haven't been following the story, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo angrily objected to being questioned about Ukraine during an interview with All Things Considered co-host Mary Louise Kelly. Pompeo didn't care for Kelly's questions on air and the conversation grew even more contentious behind closed doors.

The next day he accused Kelly of lying about the topic of the interview and then reporting a conversation he claimed was off the record. [Including his odd demand she locate Ukraine on unmarked world map.]  Kelly has denied both claims and media outlets have reported on emails between her and Pompeo's staff that back up her assertion she told them the interview would go beyond questions about Iran.

Then, this week, the State Department denied credentials to NPR's Michele Kelemen, who'd been scheduled to cover Pompeo's trip to Europe.

NPR President and CEO John Lansing and Nancy Barnes, who heads news, are rightfully demanding answers.

Why does it matter? Because as Lansing notes having access to people in power is fundamental to "the role of journalism in America.

Get KPCC in your inbox

Breaking news alerts sent to your inbox

I want to take a few minutes to tell you more about how our newsroom works and why you’ll be hearing more from us about our mission and ambition.

Listeners may have noticed a new phrase on our air: “Democracy needs to be heard.” It’s a statement you’ll also start seeing on billboards and bus benches around Los Angeles.

It’s part of the first marketing campaign for our station in many years. The goal is to make more people aware of what we do and why we do it. We also want to grow our audience and our supporters, so we can do even more original journalism.

Southern California Public Radio — home to 89.3 KPCC, LAist Studios, and LAist.com — turns 20 this year. SCPR was born out of a belief that the region would embrace and support a news-focused NPR station serving Southern California with original programming and reporting.

In the two decades since, our members stepped up and helped us build what is now one of the biggest newsrooms in the region. We’ve gone from cramped quarters in the library of Pasadena City College, to a new headquarters in 2010, to today, when we have to scramble for desks for our growing operation.

If you’ve ever heard me on-air during a pledge drive, you’ve heard me talk about how remarkable it is that your support has fueled our ambition and growth. We’re the most listened to NPR station in Southern California. The public media model depends on people donating their hard-earned money because they believe in what we are doing. You don’t have to pay a dime to listen to us on your radio, or stream us on your smart speaker or our app. You’ll never hit a paywall when you visit our website.

Our relationship with you isn’t transactional — that’s one of the ways nonprofit member-supported newsrooms are different. Instead, we make a case that what we do matters, that it’s valuable to you — so valuable that you voluntarily support us (even though you can still listen and read if you don’t). 

That’s a powerful relationship.

It’s why we take community engagement so seriously. That means listening closely to your concerns, answering your questions, meeting you in person, thinking about how our coverage can be both for and about Southern Californians.

In September, we were awarded the first-ever Gather Award for engaged journalism from the Online News Association. In December, we won our second-in-a-row Champion of Curiosity Award for our breaking news coverage of the wildfires.

Our approach to engaged journalism has been transformational for coverage, and we’ve emerged as a clear leader in the industry — sharing what we’ve learned with other newsrooms.

***

We talk a lot about our public-service mission in this newsroom. It permeates how we approach stories. It’s why our reporters, producers, hosts and editors choose to work here. 

And we’ve made this promise to you:

“You deserve great local news — and we need your help to find those stories. We listen to what you’re curious about, what keeps you up at night, and who you want held accountable. We’re inviting you to be part of the conversation.”

We do this work because of you. We do it for you and with you. 

We’ve spent quite a bit of time thinking about how we’re finding and telling stories, and how we can do an even better job of delivering reporting that you won’t find anywhere else. We want our reporters to spend their energy on original stories (and not get stuck echoing information that everyone else is reporting). 

To that end, each reporter has their own individual mission statement to reflect their goals in covering communities and crucial issues. 

The free press is a cornerstone of democracy. That’s why in 1786 Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." 

More than 200 years later, Nelson Mandela said: “A critical, independent and investigative press is the lifeblood of any democracy.”

Activists for truth. That means scrutinizing the information we receive from our sources or uncover through our reporting. It means giving you the context you need to consider what is fact and what is spin.

It’s truly an exciting time to work in our newsroom.

We have ambitious plans for coverage of the upcoming California primary and presidential election.

We have so much great work in progress — including three in-depth investigations scheduled to publish in the coming weeks.

Those stories took months to report, involving thousands of public documents, hundreds of miles of travel, and data analysis that no one else has done.

And it was only possible because of your support.  

Thank you.

Megan Garvey, Executive Editor

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

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.

; Credit: Courtesy Randy Newman

Read the full article at LAist

Oscar the Grouch. (Photo: Neilson Barnard/Getty Images); Credit: Neilson Barnard/Getty Images

Read the full article at LAist

Physical and occupational therapists carry bags of personal protective equipment on their way to the room of a COVID-19 patient in a Stamford Hospital intensive care unit in Stamford, Conn., on April 24. This "prone team" turns over COVID-19 to help them breathe.; Credit: John Moore/Getty Images

Intensive care teams inside hospitals are rapidly altering the way they care for patients with COVID-19.

The changes range from new protective gear to new treatment protocols aimed at preventing deadly blood clots.

"Things are moving so fast within this pandemic, it's hard to keep up" says Dr. Angela Hewlett, an infectious diseases physician at University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha and medical director of the Nebraska Biocontainment Unit. To stay current, she says, ICUs are updating their practices "on an hourly basis."

"We are learning at light speed about the disease," says Dr. Craig Coopersmith , interim director of the critical care center at Emory University. "Things that previously might have taken us years to learn, we're learning in a week or two. Things that might have taken us a month to learn beforehand, we're learning in a day or two."

The most obvious changes involve measures to protect ICU doctors, nurses and staff from the virus.

"There is a true and real probability of infection," says Dr. Tiffany Osborn a critical care specialist at Washington University School of Medicine and Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis. "You have to think about everything you touch as if it burned."

So ICUs are adapting measures used at special biocontainment units like the one at the University of Nebraska. These units were designed to care for patients affected by bioterrorism or infected with particularly hazardous communicable diseases like SARS and Ebola.

The Nebraska biocontainment unit "received several patients early on in the pandemic who were medically evacuated from the Diamond Princess cruise ship," Hewlett says. But it didn't have enough beds for the large numbers of local patients who began arriving at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

So the nurses, respiratory therapists and physicians from the biocontainment team have "fanned out and are now working within those COVID units to make sure that all of our principles and protocols are followed there as well," Hewlett says.

Those protocols involve measures like monitoring ICU staff when they remove their protective gear to make sure the virus isn't transmitted, and placing infected patients in negative pressure rooms, which draw air inward, when possible to prevent the virus from escaping.

One of the riskiest ICU procedures is inserting a breathing tube in a COVID-19 patient's airway, which creates a direct path for virus to escape from a patient's lungs. "If you're intubating a patient, that's a much higher risk than, say, going in and doing routine patient care," Hewlett says.

So ICU teams are being advised to add several layers of protection beyond a surgical mask.

Extra personal protective equipment may include an N95 respirator, goggles, a full face shield, a head hood, an impermeable isolation gown and double gloves.

In many ICUs, teams are also placing a clear plastic box or sheet over the patient's head and upper body before inserting the tube. And as a final safety measure, the doctor may guide the tube using a video camera rather than looking directly down a patient's airway.

"It usually takes 30 minutes or so in order to get all of that equipment together, to get all of the right people there," says Dr. Kira Newman, a senior resident physician at UW Medical Center in Seattle. "and that would be a particularly fast intubation."

But most changes in the ICU are in response to an ongoing flood of new information about how COVID-19 affects the body.

There's a growing understanding, for example, that the infection can cause dangerous blood clots to form in many severely ill patients. These clots can kill if they block arteries supplying the lungs or brain. But they also can prevent blood from reaching the kidneys or even a patient's arms and legs.

Clots are a known risk for all ICU patients, Cooperman says, but the frequency and severity appears much greater with COVID-19. "So we're starting them on a higher level of medicine to prevent blood clots and if somebody actually develops blood clots, we have a plan B and a plan C and a plan D," he says.

ICU teams are also recalibrating their approach to ensuring that patients are getting enough oxygen. Early in the pandemic, the idea was to put patients on mechanical ventilator quickly to make sure their oxygen levels didn't fall too far.

But with experience, doctors have found that mechanical ventilators don't seem to work as well for COVID patients as they do for patients with other lung problems. They've also learned that that many COVID-19 patients remain lucid and relatively comfortable even when the oxygen levels in their blood are extremely low.

So many specialists are now recommending alternatives to mechanical ventilation, even for some of the sickest patients. "We're really trying now to not intubate," Osborn says.

Instead, ICU teams are relying on devices that deliver oxygen through the nasal passages, or through a mask that fits tightly over the face. And there's renewed interest in an old technique to help patients breathe. It's called proning.

"Instead of them being on their back, we're turning them on their front," Osborn says. The reason, she says is to open up a part of the lung that is collapsed when a patient is on their back.

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