The list of politicians refusing to attend Friday's inauguration continues to grow, the end of American Apparel's era, Roxane Gay's new book about "Difficult Women."
Trump tweet to civil rights icon sparks ire from local leader
Across the country yesterday, people gathered to honor Martin Luther King Jr.
But to some, observances this year were marred by a rift between President-elect Donald Trump and civil rights icon, Georgia Congressman John Lewis.
Lewis has said Trump is not a "legitimate" president. On Saturday, the President-elect fired back, Tweeting that Lewis is "all talk and no action."
Civil rights leaders and lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle were quick to condemn the remarks.
So what might this weekend's exchange signal about the future relationship between the White House and the African American community?
For answers, Take Two spoke to Tyrone Howard, director of UCLA's Black Male Institute.
Press the blue play button above to hear the full interview.
What's in a logo? A lot, apparently. Just ask the Chargers
The Chargers haven't even been in L.A. a week, yet no one can stop talking about them.
Well, maybe not the team so much as their logo.
The interlocking L.A. they put on Twitter when they announced they were coming has not been embraced by fans.
— Nick Hardwick (@NickHardwick) January 12, 2017
And as if that wasn't bad enough, they've continued to change their logos since the backlash.
So, what will the Chargers do?
Paul Lukas from ESPN's Uni Watch has a suggestion: redesign and/or rename. Uni Watch is hosting a competition to do just that for the team. We also asked KPCC listeners to submit their best ideas:
For more on the competition and the new L.A. team's logo woes, A Martinez spoke to Paul Lukas.
To hear the full segment, click the blue play button above.
What LAX's in-house intelligence unit can mean for the future of airport security
Since 9/11, if you've taken a plane anywhere you know how ramped up security is at our airports.
At LAX the sheer volume of flights and people make security a challenge for everyone who has to deal with with it all. Now, the airport is trying something new: An anti-terrorism and security unit designed to bring classified intelligence analysis in-house.
No other airport in the country has tried something like this, and as a result it's made LAX the one to watch when it comes to the future of airport security.
For more on the move and what it could mean, A Martinez spoke with Geoff Manaugh. He wrote a story about the unit for The Atlantic.
Interview Highlights
An overview of the unit
"They hired two people, a gentleman, Anthony McGinty who's a retired D.C. homicide detective with top secret access and Michelle Sosa who was a D.C. based intelligence analyst who also had classified access. They moved out to Los Angeles and are effectively kind of eliminating the middleman. They no longer need to rely on the intelligence reports of other agencies. So, they no longer have to go to CIA or FBI or the DHS to figure out what may be happening around the world, what threats might be targeting airlines, maybe specific airports or what might be coming to L.A. in the future. They've really tried to punch above their weight by bringing that in-house and showing that LAX is a piece of infrastructure. It really can stand toe to toe with...even the city of L.A. and have access to the same reports and actually produce their own intelligence documents as well."
Who do they answer to?
"They have a lot of responsibility and thus a lot of freedom. But they do answer to Los Angeles World Airport's police, to Ethel Maguire and then of course to the existing political structure of the city of LA as well. But there is a lot of leeway there for them to flag certain types of threats that they might see coming in, to request certain kinds of intelligence that maybe would've otherwise been passed up and to essentially, kind of broaden the context for what it means to secure an airport so that they could do the analytic work that might've been overlooked in the past when you were simply thinking of an operational day-to-day basis, when it's about putting officers in certain terminals or watching certain parking lots. They can sort of step back and look at a much much larger context where LAX is at the center of this whole nervous system around the world where they're speaking to people in Tokyo, or in London, or looking at threats that may be emerging over the border in Mexico, even. So, it really just expands the context for what it means to protect this piece of critical infrastructure."
Does this all mean safer and quicker lines at the airport?
"To be optimistic, it is a possible side effect. It was interesting to speak to an airport security expert based in London for the article who pointed out...that this is something that obviously the airport design field is very very aware of, just sort of how, stagnant things have become. She pointed out that a lot of times you're dealing with very old airports, like LAX for example, where passenger screening, passport control, those kinds of things are just shoehorned into these existing spaces that were never designed for this kind of crowd control. So of course, we're experiencing the raw end of that stick, but they're very aware of what this might do, and yes I'd say that one of the benefits of this is that we will see airport security become more manageable and less friction intense."
Answers have been edited for clarity.
To hear the full segment, click the blue play button above.
The Brood: When kids and smart home tech products mix
If you're a parent, maybe you've had that moment where you see your kid interacting with technology and think: how cute!
My two year old knows how to swipe on a screen! My five year old FaceTimed with grandma all by herself!
But some times, it's not all that cute.
Like when a six-year-old in Arkansas unlocked her sleeping mother's cell phone with her thumb, and went on to rack up a $250 bill. Or when another six-year-old in Texas ordered a $170 dollhouse and four pounds of cookies through Amazon's voice-activated device known as Alexa.
And now there's even voice-activated assistant technology that's specifically designed for kids.
The presence of all this technology is raising a lot of thorny questions about parental supervision— questions that Take Two's Alex Cohen put to technology writer and researcher Alexandra Samuel.
Stories about kids being able to use these types of devices to make unauthorized purchases, Samuel says, do make her worry about the future.
"If we're talking about six-year-olds in 2016/17, you know, I had a six-year-old in 2012," Samuel says. "And let me tell you, back in 2012, kids who wanted to really drain their parents' bank accounts couldn't just rely on voice dictation, you had to go to the trouble of getting online."
That raises questions about the responsibility of tech companies to make sure that it isn't so easy for a child to access these devices on their own.
"Alexa could easily come with voice purchasing disabled," Samuel says. "That could be the default state."
"We can see all the business reasons that that is not going to be what companies want to do, but I do think that it's an expectation that should be demanded by consumers and possibly by regulators."
But it's not all bad when kids and devices like Amazon Echo mix. In her family, Samuel says, Alexa helped solve a problem she was having with her 10-year-old son.
After trying various solutions to limit the amount of time her son spent playing video games, the solution? Setting timer alerts on their Amazon Echo.
To listen to the full interview, click on the blue media player above.
Supreme Court case involves Asian slur, artistic freedom
This week the Supreme Court hears a case that involves music, free speech and a racial slur considered offensive to Asian Americans. But there's an interesting twist: the band that's seeking to use the name, called The Slants, are Asian themselves.
Experts say the outcome of Lee vs. Tam could have wide implications for other trademark cases that involve controversial names, such as the Washington Redskins.
"It's a tough question and this is a tough case," said Cecilia Chang, director of litigation at Asian Americans Advancing Justice. The group filed an amicus brief in the case, along with 11 other Asian American groups. "But where we came out is that you should uphold the federal ban on disparaging trademarks."
Chang called it "an important level of protection" for vulnerable communities who have historically been subject to derogatory terms and labels. At the same time, she said she supported the bands "progressive" stance on many contemporary issues.
The band said in a statement in November that the case was "an opportunity to change a law that has been disproportionately affecting minorities for almost 70 years."
In explaining its reason for going to court, the band stated: "We decided to fight this case because it’s the right thing to do – our community should have the right to define itself."
The audio of this story incorrectly identifies the city where the band is from. The Slants are from Portland, Oregon. KPCC regrets the error.
New music from Syd, Camp Lo and a Run the Jewels remix
If you love music, but don't have the time to keep up with what's new, you should listen to Tuesday Reviewsday. Every week our critics join our hosts in the studio to talk about what you should be listening to in one short segment. This week A Martinez is joined by music journalist Oliver Wang with his new favorites.
Oliver Wang
Artist: Syd
Album: Fin
Song: All About Me
Artist: Camp Lo
Album: On the Way Uptown
Song: Sugar Streets and Bubblin'
Artist: DJ Skarface
Album: Shadow the Jewels
Song: What Do Your Jewels Look Like Part 3: Christmas Donor and Napalm the Jewels 4
American Apparel's former CEO talks about the end of the iconic brand
It was a great LA success story: A company making clothes here that could compete with cheap imports.
But now, it looks like curtains for American Apparel.
The brand has been sold in a bankruptcy auction, laying off roughly 2,400 workers. It will close facilities in Downtown LA, South Gate and Garden Grove.
What happened?
For one view, Take Two reached Dov Charney, the founder of American Apparel who separated from the company in 2014.
During the interview with Take Two's Libby Denkmann, Charney talked about the conditions surrounding his ouster and some of the factors that went into the company's downfall.
Interview highlights
What ended up being American Apparel's undoing and led to your departure?
American Apparel failed because of corruption and incompetence. The company was hijacked by financial forces and it was destroyed. This was a company that was the pride of the worldwide apparel industry. It was the first company that was able to generate serious cash flow ... This company was a huge success, and at the same time, we were able to pay living wages to our workers.
Then, someone had the great idea that the company should be sold. I was offered $100 million dollars for my stake in American Apparel. I called my mother and I called my father and I said, "Mom, Dad, I don't want to sell the company, I love this company, but I'm passing up some serious money and I want to build it for the rest of my career."
A few week later, there was an annual meeting ... and I voted for three board members, who collaborated with two others, total of give, and they said "Either give us the voting rights to your stock, or we're going to fire you with cause and create a media firestorm."
And they ended up forcing you out. Part of what the board pointed to was a flurry of sexual harassment allegations against you ...
There was no flurry. That's fake news.
None of these have been proven in court, but a number have been settled.
I'd like to say something. There was no flurry of sexual harassment lawsuits. There haven't been any sexual harassment allegations since January of 2011. 2012 went by, I was rehired. The company disclosed ... that the sexual harassment lawsuits were frivolous and were baseless. This was all signed by the board members that were purported to oust me.
Some might say there were other issues, sexual harassment allegations aside, and that the board was trying to save the company. Do you believe you could have turned American Apparel around, if given the chance?
The company was performing, it was turned around. There was no indication that we couldn't afford the debt that we had. In fact, we were able to raise $30 million dollars 40 days prior to my ousting by way of a security sale. We were performing, we had the cash to perform, we were generating cash flow, this was a huge success ... there was no issue relating to the debt. That's a fiction. The flurry of sexual harassment lawsuits, that's a fiction.
Do you feel like when you left, the 'cool factor' was gone?
It's not about the cool factor. They completely disemboweled the company ... They ended up changing how the company was doing business. They put in all these consultants. They fired creatives that I had cultivated for a decade. They removed the entire ethos of the company.
The second part of this conversation with Dov Charney will air on Wednesday. He speaks about the possible future of his new company and if he'll be recruiting laid-off American Apparel workers.
Click the blue player above to hear the interview.
*Note: The audio posted is extended from the originally aired conversation. This interview was also edited for clarity.