The World and Everything in It - April 21, 2022

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

France will elect its next president this weekend. What are the critical issues as citizens head for the polls?

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Also Russia’s new offensive in eastern Ukraine. Why and how is it being carried out?

Plus a memorial to the people whose lives were taken by terrorists at the Boston Marathon nine years ago.

And commentator Cal Thomas on tech companies’ lack of standards when it comes to freedom of speech.

REICHARD: It’s Thursday, April 21st. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

BROWN: And I’m Myrna Brown. Good morning!

REICHARD: Here’s Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Biden administration holds Ukraine talks, levies new sanctions on Moscow » President Biden huddled with military leaders at the White House on Wednesday to talk over efforts to support Ukraine.

BIDEN: Weapons and ammunition are flowing in daily, and we’re seeing just how vital our alliances and partnerships are around the world.

Biden said U.S. allies are also stepping up and NATO has never been more united.

Earlier in the day, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin hosted Poland’s defense chief for meetings at the Pentagon and he praised Poland’s efforts to back Ukraine.

AUSTIN: You have performed the absolutely essential role of facilitating the delivery of security assistance from the United States and other NATO allies and partners around the globe.

Russia continues its new offensive in eastern Ukraine and remains on the verge of fully capturing the port city of Mariupol.

Also on Wednesday, the U.S. Treasury Dept. announced more sanctions. The new measures hit a Russian commercial bank, the country’s virtual-currency mining industry, and another Russian oligarch.

Russia test-fires new intercontinental ballistic missile » Meantime, the Russian military says it has successfully test fired a new intercontinental ballistic missile. WORLD’s Kristen Flavin has more.

KRISTEN FLAVIN, REPORTER: Vladimir Putin hailed the Sarmat launch, claiming the new missile has no foreign equivalents and that it’s capable of penetrating any missile defense.

He said it would make the West “think twice” about any military aggression toward Russia.

The test launch comes after a series of nuclear threats by Putin in recent months.

But Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said—his words—“Such testing is routine,” adding, “We did not deem the test to be a threat to the United States or its allies.”

He also said Russia did give the United States advance notice about the launch—in line with a nuclear arms control treaty between Moscow and Washington.

Russia's Defense Ministry said the Sarmat missile launched from northern Russia and its practice warheads successfully struck mock targets on the far eastern Kamchatka Peninsula.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Kristen Flavin.

Governors form border ‘strike force’ » The governors of more than half the states in the country are forming a new border security “strike force.”

The alliance will allow states to share intelligence on threats to their states that may emerge from the porous southern border.

Twenty-six states will exchange information about state-level crimes that are linked to border security. Arizona Governor Doug Ducey said governors are stepping up …

DUCEY: Working with law enforcement, our fusion centers, and intelligence that we have at the state level to go after these drug cartels to stop this dangerous poison of fentanyl from streaming over our border. The number one leading cause of death for youths in southern Arizona is fentanyl.

Ducey is leading the effort, alongside fellow GOP governor, Greg Abbott of Texas.

Republicans continue to sound alarms about the Biden administration's plan to end Title 42 next month. That’s a pandemic measure that allows the government to limit who is allowed into the country.

DUCEY: DHS’ own numbers say that would be 18,000 people a day additional streaming over the border. That’s 6.5 million in a year.

Last month, the Border Patrol arrested 210,000 migrants at the southern border. That was the highest monthly total in two decades.

Arizona fire forces residents to flee » An Arizona wildfire doubled in size Wednesday, a day after heavy winds kicked up a towering wall of flames near a northern Arizona tourist and college town.

Flames ripped through two-dozen structures and sent residents of more than 700 homes scrambling to flee.

Coconino County Board of Supervisors Chair Jeronimo Vasquez told reporters…

VASQUEZ: On behalf of Coconino County, we have declared a local emergency.

The blaze raced through an area of scattered homes, dry grass and Ponderosa pine trees on the outskirts of Flagstaff Tuesday. Wind gusts of up to 50 miles per hour helped fuel the fire.

But it was moving northeast away from the more heavily populated areas of Flagstaff and toward Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument.

Investigators have not yet determined how it started.

Court halts South Carolina plan for firing squad execution » South Carolina’s highest court on Wednesday issued a temporary stay, halting what was set to be the state’s first-ever firing squad execution. WORLD’s Anna Johansen Brown has more.

ANNA JOHANSEN BROWN, REPORTER: The order by the state Supreme Court stops—at least temporarily—the planned execution of Richard Bernard Moore one week from tomorrow.

Moore received a death sentence for the 1999 killing of a convenience store clerk in Spartanburg.

Attorneys for the 57-year-old had sought a stay as they legally challenge the constitutionality of South Carolina’s execution methods, which also include the electric chair.

Moore’s lawyers also wanted time to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether Moore’s sentence was proportionate to his crime.

The state of Utah has carried out three firing squad executions since 1976. It is the only state over the past four decades to do so.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Anna Johansen Brown.

I’m Kent Covington. Straight ahead: presidential elections in France.

Plus, free speech hypocrisy.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Thursday, the 21st of April, 2022.

You’re listening to The World and Everything in It and we are happy you’ve joined us today. Good morning, I’m Mary Reichard.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown. First up: France.

AUDIO: [DEBATE]

Last night, presidential candidates Marine Le Pen and incumbent Emmanuel Macron went head to head in a televised debate. It’s the only time the two candidates will meet before voters go to the polls on Sunday to make their final choice.

REICHARD: What are the issues driving that decision? WORLD European Correspondent Jenny Lind Schmitt reports.

JENNY LIND SCHMITT, CORRESPONDENT: France has had five years of its youngest-ever president, Emmanuel Macron. On Sunday, voters will decide if they want five more.

Elected as a centrist pro-European candidate, Macron quickly got embroiled in domestic controversy over the yellow-vest protests and then Covid lockdowns. At the beginning of this year, it seemed possible pandemic-weary voters might want to replace him.

One thing changed that. War on the European continent.

VANDENBERG: At first I wasn't sure who I would vote for because the programs, they looked really similar.

Lucas Vandenberg is a 27 year-old software engineer in Belfort, France. He doesn’t affiliate with any particular political party. So he read the programs of each one represented in the first election round and found good ideas in each.

VANDENBERG: But then when the war started, Emmanuel Macron took his role as a French leader and as a sort of a negotiator, maybe between Ukraine and Russia. And for me, that was one of the deciding factors for voting for Emmanuel Macron. So that's who I voted for in the first run.

Vandenberg isn’t alone. Many French who don’t like Macron’s domestic policies still preferred him over the alternatives as a global leader in an international crisis.

The first round of voting on April 10th left the same two candidates heading into the second round as in 2017, Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen. Back then, Macron was a relative unknown who inspired hope that the political game could be played differently.

Before the 2017 election, I talked with voter Jean-Paul Brabant about his support for Macron and his new party, La Republique En Marche. At the time, Brabant liked the idea of leaving traditional party lines to build a team across the political spectrum. Five years later, I wanted to find out if Brabant has been satisfied with the result. For the most part, he is.

BRABANT: Moi, je trouve que c'est une bonne expérience pour moi parce qu'il a pu faire travailler des gens intelligents de différents partis. Il a fait un gouvernement qui était plus centré, centre gauche, centre droit, mais plus au centre, en prenant des gens de partout et en écoutant. Pour moi, c'est le premier qui a écouté tant de personnes.

TRANSLATION: I think it’s been a good experience, because he was able to get intelligent people from different parties to work together. He built a government that was more centrist by choosing all kinds of people and listening to them. In my view, he is the first who actually listened to people.

Brabant says Macron also has had the courage to say hard things. One recurring issue has been retirement age. France currently has one of the lowest in Europe—62. As part of reforms designed to help the economy, Macron wants to raise the retirement age to 65. That effort is hugely unpopular. Last week he expressed willingness to soften that push, settling for 64 by 2030.

His opponent, Le Pen, of the right-leaning Rassemblement National party, calls that a maneuver to draw votes from the left.

In 2017, Le Pen also had the popular momentum for change. But she carried baggage from a party founded by her father and widely regarded as anti-immigrant and racist. In the five years since, Le Pen has carefully worked to change her public image. To some degree, that seems to have worked.

VANDENBERG: For my generation, we don't really know Jean-Marie Le Pen anyway, so we couldn't vote when he was around competing in the elections. For us, it's really just Marine Le Pen. She is her own candidate. She has her own party. She's different. Or maybe she's not different, but for us it's new anyway.

But Lucas Vandenberg disagrees with Le Pen’s harsh stance on immigration.

VANDENBERG: For my part, I'm really not happy with the immigration ideas that revolve around this party. So I can't really vote for her.

Critics are also quick to point out Le Pen’s past admiration for Vladimir Putin. As a candidate in 2017, she went to Moscow at Putin’s invitation, and she has praised him as a leader. Last week, she held a press conference to outline her views on foreign policy. She complained that the international community needs to take France seriously as a great power, and she said her relationship with the Russian president has been misunderstood.

LE PEN: As soon as the Russia-Ukraine war is over and we have a peace treaty, I will propose a strategic rapprochement between NATO and Russia.

At the same time, Le Pen said that if she becomes president, she will pull France out of NATO’s integrated military command. She would also end joint military programs between France and Germany, citing “irreconcilable strategic differences” between the two EU nations. In 2017, Le Pen campaigned on a Brexit-style exit from the European Union. She’s since abandoned that tack, but says she would push for a looser version of the EU with less bureaucracy from Brussels.

For most French, those views are too risky in a time of war. But with 23 percent of the first round vote, it’s clear Le Pen’s populist message has resonated and found momentum in France. This time around she has the advantage of being able to point to five tumultuous years of Macron’s presidency. But that might not be enough to make her France’s first woman presidente. The most recent polls have Macron leading 56 percent to Le Pen’s 44 percent.

But the other big factor in this election is France’s high abstention rate. Twenty-six percent of voters sat the first round out. Whether or not they turn out to vote on Sunday will determine the winner.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Jenny Lind Schmitt.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: Russia refocuses its invasion on eastern Ukraine.

This week, Moscow’s forces launched their long-feared offensive in Ukraine’s Donbas region. That is a largely Russian-speaking part of the country where Ukraine’s military has been battling Russian-backed separatists for years.

It’s a battle that could mark a major turning point in the war, in one direction or the other.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Here to help us understand what’s happening in eastern Ukraine is Col. Steve Bucci. He is a retired Army Special Forces officer, who led deployments in Africa, South Asia, and the Persian Gulf. He is also a former top Pentagon official. Colonel, good morning! 

STEVE BUCCI, GUEST: Good morning. Thank you for having me on the show.

REICHARD: Glad to have you. Well, very little of his war has gone the way that Vladimir Putin envisioned. Why has this invasion gone so poorly for Russia?

BUCCI: Well, primarily because the Ukrainians turned out to be much harder fighters, and much more ready for this assault than everybody else realized. I mean, including us, but definitely Vladimir Putin. And then the other aspects are because the Russian military, as it turns out, is not quite the 10 foot tall giants everybody thought they were. And they are showing all of the negative signs of a third world conscript army.

REICHARD: The United States and NATO allies continue to send in weapons and equipment. What are Western powers sending and what should they send to Ukraine to help them win this particular battle in the east?

BUCCI: They continue to send some of the weapons that have been highly effective—the Javelin anti-tank missiles, the Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, their British equivalents, which have different names, but have been very, very effective. And small arms, things like that. But what they really need now is the heavier weapons systems. They need tanks, they need aircraft, both rotary wing helicopters and fixed wing. And all of this stuff that they're looking for is not brand new, top line, American equipment. They want the Soviet era type weapon system, the MiG aircraft, T-72 tanks, the so-called S-300 anti-aircraft missile system, which can shoot down planes at higher altitudes, things that the Ukrainians already know how to use because they have them as well. They just need more of them now to counteract the heavy forces that Russia is concentrating in the eastern part of the country to try and wrest control of that area from Ukrainian forces.

REICHARD: How hands-on has the Pentagon been in terms of providing intelligence and direction to Ukraine’s military?

BUCCI: Very hands-on with regard to the intelligence. At least that's the indicators we're getting. They are sharing incredible insights as far as the Russians capabilities, locations, as much as they can divine their intent. We're sharing all of that intelligence-wise. That's pretty easy to do technologically and because it's essentially under the radar. The advising that they're doing is much more low-key, much more stand-off, most of it going on outside of Ukraine proper. If we have folks inside Ukraine doing it, they're probably from the CIA ground branch, not from the Pentagon. I personally would love to see us start using some of my old colleagues from the Army Special Forces inside Ukraine. They can do that very low key, very low footprint and have a lot of very positive effect. But the Pentagon, I love reading in the paper says the Pentagon can't get this equipment there. Or the Pentagon decided it's not the right thing to do. The Pentagon doesn't do that stuff on its own. The Pentagon does what the White House tells the Pentagon to do. And generally speaking, if the White House says we want this done now, the Pentagon is superb at figuring out how to do it. So, I think there's some dissembling going on here now with the administration trying to make it look like the Pentagon's bureaucracy is the problem. And the Pentagon is actually pretty good at cutting the Gordian knot, if you will, with the same amount of subtlety as Alexander the Great used, which was just cutting it with a big sword. So they can get things done but they've got to have permission from the White House to do it. And that seems to be lagging right now.

REICHARD: Interesting. Colonel, what has surprised you about this war so far?

BUCCI: The real surprise I think for everybody is how essentially incompetent the the Russian military seems to be. Their logistical support is almost non-existent. We knew their leadership style, the way they transmit orders, which is very centralized, very much top down, the high leaders, including generals, have to be right there in the front to get things done. And that makes them very vulnerable so that the Ukrainians have killed a whole bunch of them. We were joking that the new central commander for the whole operation, we really should describe his title as “Next” because if the Ukrainians can get a shot at him, he's going to be gone. And then just the discipline of the Russian soldiers has been abysmal. They're not doing their jobs properly. They're committing atrocities against civilians, some of which are probably intentional from their leadership as a terror kind of tactic, but some of it is just an indicator of really ill-disciplined troops. And you can't fight a modern war with barbarians anymore. You have to have disciplined, trained, and organized troops. And the Russian army does not bring that to the table to the degree that they should. And that's allowed the Ukrainians to really put a lot of damage on the Russian military.

REICHARD: Retired Colonel Steve Bucci, now a visiting fellow with the Heritage Foundation. Colonel, we thank you for your time.

BUCCI: Thanks so much. It's my pleasure. Thank you for having me. And thanks for keeping this important subject at the forefront.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: A man in Wisconsin went to the dentist for routine dental work and left with more than just a filling.

But Tom Jozsi wound up in the hospital after his dentist told him he “inhaled” a drill bit.

Joszi told tv station WISN:

JOSZI: I don’t know. I was at the dentist getting a tooth filled, and the next thing I knew, I was told I swallowed this tool. So, I didn’t even really feel it going down. All I did was, really, felt a cough.

Doctors say he likely inhaled just before he coughed, and that sent the drill bit deep into his lungs.

It was so deep that doctors were concerned they may have to remove part of a lung to get at it.

Good news, though. A creative pulmonologist used a device designed to detect cancer to remove the drill bit.

JOSZI: I was never so happy in my life when I opened my eyes, and I saw him with a smile under that mask shaking a little plastic container that had the tool in it.

Joszi said the bit now sits on a mantle at his house as a souvenir.

It’s The World and Everything in It.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Today is Thursday, April 21st. Thank you for listening to WORLD Radio.

Good morning. I’m Myrna Brown.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. This past Monday, nearly 25,000 runners participated in the Boston Marathon.

AUDIO: [Starting gun, bells]

The weather was ideal: sunny skies, mild temperatures.

AUDIO: [Cheering spectators]

And lots of people on the sidelines in support.

It was a similar scene nine years ago. But about five hours into that race it came to a sudden end—as two bombs went off near the finish line.

BROWN: Before this year’s marathon WORLD reporter Jenny Rough visited the Boston Marathon Marker Memorial—honoring those killed. And she talked with the artist who designed it.

JENNY ROUGH, REPORTER: Pablo Eduardo will never forget April 15, 2013.

EDUARDO: I remember watching the news. I remember being scared. I remember the whole city became paralyzed and the manhunt started.

It was Marathon Monday in Boston. At 2:49 p.m., a bomb exploded in a crowded spectator viewing area near the final stretch on Boylston Street. Thirteen seconds later, a second bomb exploded. Three spectators were killed. Seventeen people lost limbs. Others lost hearing or were left with other life-altering injuries. Two police officers also died from wounds related to the attacks.

In the aftermath, the community grieved. A few years later, after some of the shock and disbelief had settled, the City of Boston decided to commemorate the victims. Sculptor Pablo Eduardo got a call.

EDUARDO: We were invited to participate in a competition. That’s a lot of times how we get our work.

He knew right away he wanted to submit an idea. Born in Bolivia, Eduardo came to the States when he was 12. He earned a degree in fine arts at Tufts University and has since done a lot of work for Boston College. The city is close to his heart.

Eduardo works with bronze.

EDUARDO: Bronze is just a perfect metal. It’s very noble.

Bronze is technically a mix of metals that is easy to weld, mold, pour, and hammer. It doesn’t corrode.

AUDIO: [Dogs barking]

Today, Eduardo lives just north of Boston in Gloucester on a beautiful property with gardens, a pond, dogs, chickens and two design studios. A clean studio where the process begins, ideas take shape. And a dirty studio where the sculpting work takes place.

AUDIO: [Die grinder]

Eduardo’s work tends to focus on sculptures of faith-based and historical figures. They mark a triumph or something great. Not the case this time.

The marker couldn’t be anything too happy. Or too sad. He sketched, and sketched, and sketched some more. Nothing seemed right. Then one day, while doing laundry, he had an epiphany.

The bombings had changed Boston. And he wanted the markers to reflect that reality.

EDUARDO: It was to bump out the street. We took out four parking spaces per site. Because they are twin memorials.

So he proposed altering the path of the sidewalk by curving it out into the street. He also wanted to incorporate light into the design. Maybe a figure holding a beacon.

Eduardo’s idea was chosen among a handful of artists who submitted proposals. The final design differed from his initial concept: The altered sidewalks remained but he eliminated the figure. The burning question was how to incorporate light?

The victim’s families met with Eduardo to give their suggestions. They gathered numerous times, often in a parish house at a Boston church. He says there were a lot of tears at those meetings. Eduardo recalls the families struggled with how to make sense of what happened and why. And how could Eduardo capture such struggle and circumstance in a thoughtful, appropriate way?

EDUARDO: The families were clearly - and probably still are - very hurt with the whole ordeal.

The families debated: Should the memorial markers focus on running in some way? Many runners were injured, but none were killed. Should it include the phrase Boston Strong? Some wanted the motto; others did not. All the families had to be on board with the same design. To complicate matters, the arts committee had strong opinions too. When the conversation got strained, a religious leader from the community stepped in to help.

EDUARDO: There was a priest, Father Unni, from Back Bay, who was a mediator in a spiritual way between the families and the city and us. Because sometimes it got pretty tense. He was fantastic because he guided the whole process into a spiritual thing. I mean, sometimes he got to the point where he had to say, “Let’s everybody pray!”

Eduardo says Unni prayed specifically that God would enlighten them with a design. And Eduardo believes God answered that prayer. The final design included four lamps in each spot. Hand casted glass spires with a lace of bronze around each one. Here, WBZ-TV-Boston describes them:

NEWS REPORTER: These twisting structures will rise from each site, bronze on the outside for strength, glass on the inside for fragility.

Three granite stones represent the spectators killed: 29-year-old Krystle Campbell, 23-year-old Lingzi Lu, and 8-year-old Martin Richard. Each stone came from a place special to the victims. The stones are separated, one in one site, two in the other. Yet fit together like a puzzle.

EDUARDO: There are three stones that are supposed to be twisted together because the event kind of bonded them forever.

The families put capsules inside the stones with personal effects. Out of respect, Eduardo didn’t look inside the boxes to see what items the families selected.

A brick foundation serves as the groundwork and includes two bronze stones that hold the badges of the officers who died: Sean Collier and Dennis Simmonds.

In the end, a community of artists contributed. Including a glass artist, architects, masons, and one of Eduardo’s assistants who works with lettering.

Finally, Eduardo wanted the markers to show that violence had occurred, yet do so in a non-violent way. He decided to use a strong material: black granite. The black is incorporated into the brick foundation in the shape of a diamond.

EDUARDO: It’s a gentle design, above all because I think that’s what the families needed and the community needed. It’s very gentle. It’s small, it’s humble. There is a strength in the humbleness.

Two nights before this past Monday’s race, the city buzzed with preparation. The newly painted finish line glowed, barriers lined the route. Race committee workers and volunteers dotted the sidewalk, easy to spot in their bright blue and yellow jackets. Runners and their families took photos in front of the large clock counting down the hours to the start. And among the commotion, the glass and bronze spires illuminated the memorial markers on Boylston Street, lights shining in the darkness.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Jenny Rough in Boston, Massachusetts. 

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Today is Thursday, April 21st. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Myrna Brown.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Time now for commentator Cal Thomas.

CAL THOMAS, COMMENTATOR: Americans who subscribe to “traditional values” have had to put up with a lot from the left in the name of the First Amendment. Here’s just a short list, starting with vulgarities on TV. Self-described First Amendment defenders said things like, “If you don't like it, change the channel.” Then it was sexual scenes in movies. They said, “If you don't like it, don't go.” How about the ready availability of pornography on the internet? They said, “Use blockers if you don't want to view it.” From books that offend parental values in public schools, to flag burning during protests. Any opposition to those things prompted cries of “censorship.”

Now comes Elon Musk and suddenly everything has changed. Musk wants to buy Twitter and add to the diversity of opinions that can be expressed on the popular platform. At first the Twitter board welcomed him to the company. But board members quickly changed their minds and have now inserted a “poison pill” they hope will keep him from taking over.

Musk's attempt to purchase Twitter has revealed a double standard when it comes to free speech. Why do liberals only approve speech they agree with? Doesn't the word “free” imply without cost? It does, but it means more than that. It's also about not imposing the “cost” of telling people what they can and cannot say. People mostly agree on limits involving libel, slander, and crying “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. But what’s happening now is different. We’re talking about political speech that doesn't agree with the secular-progressive worldview. Liberals want to control, or even ban it in some cases.

Twitter (and Facebook) have “standards” that, if violated, can get users suspended or banned. They define “hate speech,” but it’s often arbitrary. And the companies in too many cases seem to bow to the wishes of leftist organizations.

During the turbulent years leading up to the founding of our nation some people spoke out against the Revolution. Even so, George Washington said, “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

In an Aug. 8, 1950, message to Congress regarding the internal security of the United States, President Harry Truman wrote: “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” The same could be said of non-government entities like social media.

The response to speech you don’t like is more speech, not less. That's what freedom of speech ultimately means. And it's what Elon Musk appears to want to promote on Twitter should he get the chance.

I’m Cal Thomas.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Tomorrow: John Stonestreet joins us once again for Culture Friday.

And, the new animated film The Bad Guys. Our reviewer says it’s about doing good.

That and more tomorrow.

I’m Mary Reichard.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio.

WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

Proverbs teaches us: Folly is a joy to him who lacks sense, but a man of understanding walks straight ahead. Without counsel plans fail, but with many advisers they succeed. (Proverbs 15:21-22 ESV)

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.