The World and Everything in It — February 1, 2021

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

The Supreme Court considers who can or who should own multiple media outlets.

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket. 

Also today the Monday Moneybeat, financial analyst David Bahnsen has a perspective on the ongoing controversy over retail investing and stock shorts.

Plus the WORLD History Book. Today, the 90th birthday of baseball great Ernie Banks.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, February 1st. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: It’s time for news. Here’s Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: GOP senators propose relief bill compromise » Ten Republican senators are asking President Biden to sit down at the bargaining table to hammer out a compromise relief bill. 

They’re proposing a bill one-third the size of what Biden is seeking. They’re urging him to negotiate rather than try to ram through his $1.9 trillion package solely on Democratic votes.

Louisiana’s Bill Cassidy is one of those 10 senators. 

CASSIDY: If you say you want bipartisanship and you want unity, and you want Republicans to join, and then you have a budget reconciliation which is chock full of handouts and payoffs to Democratic constituency groups. 

Many Democrats want to pass Biden’s relief package through a process known as budget reconciliation. That would allow the bill to advance with a simple 51-vote majority. And Republicans would not be able to block it unless at least one Democrat defects. 

Biden’s economic adviser Jared Bernstein told Fox News…

BERNSTEIN: Look, the American people really couldn’t care less about budget process, whether it’s regular order bipartisanship, whether it’s filibuster, reconciliation. They need relief and they need it now. 

Sen. Cassidy said the GOP plan would cost about $600 billion, taking a much more targeted approach. 

But he said they agree with the White House that Congress must fund the ongoing vaccination effort. 

CASSIDY: So we have $160 billion. We match his figure when it comes to vaccination.

But the Republican group would rein in spending in other areas.  

The GOP plan would send another round of stimulus checks to some Americans. But it would not match Biden’s plan to send $1,400 checks to most Americans.

New COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations drop in Calif. » California on Sunday reported another 481 COVID-19 related deaths, a day after the statewide death toll topped 40,000.

But there is some good news to report. The number of coronavirus patients filling California hospital beds has dropped below 15,000. That’s still very high, but a drop of more than 25 percent over the past two weeks.

That mirrors a national trend. After the United States hit a peak of more than 250,000 new cases per day in mid January, it’s down to a little over 150,000 daily cases now. 

But infectious disease specialist, Dr. Thomas Frieden warns…

FRIEDEN: This virus is still way out of control in the U.S. Get your vaccine the moment it’s your turn. But it’s going to be many months before it’s safe to go out. And that’s why it’s so important to double down on those protection protocols. Mask up and avoid indoor air with people who are not in your household. 

COVID-19 deaths are not yet tracking with the falling case numbers. 

A 7-day moving average showed deaths peaked at more than 3,400 per day in the United States last month. That’s down only slightly to 3,200 deaths per day now.  

Russian police arrest thousands of protesters » Police in Russia have arrested upwards of 5,000 people… 

AUDIO: [Sound of protest]

…as protesters continue to fill city streets demanding the release of jailed opposition leader Alexei Navalny. 

Tens of thousands gathered Sunday across Russia—many chanting slogans against President Vladimir Putin.

Navalny’s team called another protest in Moscow for tomorrow, when he is set to face a court hearing that could send him to prison for years.

U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken had this to say about the Kremlin’s crackdown on Navalny and his backers. 

BLINKEN: It remains striking to me how concerned, and maybe even scared, the Russian government seems to be of one man, Mr. Nalvany.  

The 44-year-old anti-corruption investigator is Putin’s best-known critic. 

Authorities arrested him last month at a Moscow airport as he returned from Germany where he was treated for a nerve agent poisoning.

Myanmar military says it is taking control of the country » The military of Myanmar is seizing control of the country.

Phone and internet connections were cut in the capital of Naypyidaw on Monday. And some reports suggest senior politicians including the nation’s top leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, had been detained.

A presenter on military-owned state television announced the takeover last night, and cited a section of the military-drafted constitution that allows it to take control in times of national emergency. 

The report claimed the takeover was in part due to the government’s failure to address alleged voter fraud in the last election and the fact the government did not postpone the election amid the pandemic. 

The White House issued a statement, saying “The United States opposes any attempt to alter the outcome of recent elections or impede Myanmar’s democratic transition, and will take action against those responsible if these steps are not reversed.”

Winter storm slams Northeastern U.S. » A winter storm is blanketing much of the Northeastern United States with up to a foot-and-a-half of snow. 

Bob Oravec with the National Weather Service predicted on Sunday…

ORAVEC: Washington DC probably 6 to 8 inches; similar amounts near Philadelphia. New York City anticipating 6 to 12 inches; snow going all the way up into Upstate New York and also across most of eastern and northern New England. 

Forecasters say parts of the region could see blizzard-like conditions, with a foot to 18 inches of snow.

This is the same system that covered parts of the Midwest with the most snow in years. Chicago got almost 7 inches by Sunday morning. That forced airlines to cancel hundreds of flights.

I’m Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: monopolies in media.

Plus, the birthday of a baseball legend.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Monday, February 1st, already!? 2021 and we’re back for a new week of The World and Everything in It. Good morning! I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. 

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court handed down one opinion last week. It contained a single sentence: “The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.”

DIG—and in legal circles the acronym “DIG” means, essentially, that the court regrets accepting the case in the first place, that oral argument was improvidently granted, and so now it’s dismissed without a ruling.

The dispute involved two dental supply companies that had been fighting over who decides what in an arbitration agreement the parties had signed.

The whole dispute was very difficult to follow, and Justice Stephen Breyer said as much:

BREYER: All right. I had a hard time because of the words “arbitration,” “arbitrability.” It’s sort of like, it’s hard to keep all this in my mind, okay?

REICHARD: Apparently, he wasn’t the only one. 

The court rarely explains why it DIGS a case. But I can tell you what’s typical: 

One, the case presented at oral argument didn’t line up with the question the justices agreed to decide. 

Two,  the case developed in a way that made it a poor vehicle to resolve the question presented. You know, bad facts, bad law?

Or three,  the justices couldn’t reach a consensus and thought DIGing it was better than a messy opinion that would end up not helping anybody.

EICHER: Given the time, effort, and expense of getting that far as the Supreme Court agreeing to hear your case, a DIG has got to be a discouragement. They now have the choice of accepting things as they are—or reconfiguring the case and trying again.

Alright. We have a single oral argument to tell you about today, a consolidated case.

On one side, the Federal Communications Commission. FCC is the agency that regulates communication by radio, tv, wire, satellite, and cable in the United States. 

A group of media companies joined the FCC in the lawsuit.

On the other side, the Prometheus Radio Project. That’s a self-described social-justice group that fights corporate media concentration.

REICHARD: The dispute is over a change to FCC rules. In 2017, the agency made it easier to “cross-own” media in the same local market. For example, someone might “cross-own”  a newspaper and a radio station, or a television station and also a radio station.

The old rules banned that. The old rules aimed to make different points of view available in local markets, in a time when relatively few media outlets existed.

Every four years, the FCC has to review its rules about who owns broadcast outlets. Federal law passed in 1996 says so, and it says the FCC “shall” repeal or modify any broadcast ownership rule that’s not “necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.”

EICHER: But the Prometheus Radio Project argues what matters here are administrative rules, not that statute. In its view: It’s in the public interest to consider diversity of ownership—meaning owners who are women or racial minorities. Prometheus argues that the FCC didn’t take into enough consideration how these changes would affect these groups.

Lawyer for the FCC is Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked him about both the law and administrative rules.

KAVANAUGH: Under the statute and the public interest standard, does the FCC have to consider the effect of relaxing the rules on women and minority ownership?

STEWART: No, we don’t believe so. The fact that it is a public interest consideration that could be taken into account in making other sorts of decisions doesn’t mean that we have to consider it in making every single regulatory decision we make, including relaxation of the cross-ownership rules.

REICHARD: Stewart pointed out the FCC actually did consider the effect on women and racial minorities; it found no harm. But it didn’t have to consider it. 

Listen to this exchange with Justice Clarence Thomas about how times have changed about another kind of diversity, viewpoint diversity.

THOMAS: Mr. Stewart, you indicate that the landscape in the area of viewpoint diversity has changed over the years. Could you talk a bit about that? I’m interested particularly in the effect mentioned in your briefs and some of the others as a result of some of the new Internet-based Platforms.

STEWART: I think the idea is that when the rules were first adopted, in many local communities, there might be three broadcast stations and one local newspaper and — basically, four independent voices within the community providing local news coverage and other forms of coverage. And if two of those outlets were owned by the same entity, that would be a substantial diminution in potential viewpoint diversity. Now when you have a plethora of Internet-based platforms, cable stations that can also provide local news coverage, the reduction in viewpoints within the broadcast sphere specifically is not going to be nearly so significant in light of the profusion of different viewpoints that will be available to the consumer.

Stewart’s pro-FCC argument seemed to be winning the day, except for Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Stewart,  I’m a bit confused. We have a legion of cases that say you don’t have to rule in favor of one point of view or another, but when you’re rejecting something, you should give it adequate consideration. Isn’t that what we’re judging?

STEWART: I — I — I think there are two things I would say about that.

Well, Stewart replied, the FCC considers female and minority ownership a worthy goal. Still, that’s not a basis to restrict cross-ownership. 

Also arguing in support of the FCC’s relaxed rules was lawyer for the National Association of Broadcasters, Helgi Walker. Some discussion ensued around real-world consequences should the court decide one way or the other. 

Walker said worries about concentrated media ownership are exaggerated.

WALKER: …another real-world point is that, for instance, Amazon gets to own The Washington Post today. Nobody thinks that’s the end of democracy. It’s surely not the end of democracy if a local broadcaster can buy a local newspaper and keep it alive.

Competition is what keeps local media alive, she argued. Why limit it? Social justice concerns are important, but not paramount.

Arguing against the FCC’s relaxed rules was Ruthann Deutsch, for the Prometheus Radio Project. She’d cited very little research to say that the new rules hurt women and minorities. 

Justice Stephen Breyer called her on that, coming across like a cranky uncle:

BREYER: Now why in heaven’s name did you not, or groups that support you, given the tremendous number of people who I’m happy are interested in this — why aren’t there some studies or something? There are 10,000 law professors and economics professors who look for studies to do. Why isn’t there something?

DEUTSCH: Well, there is something on this issue which they ignored, even as they cited one —

BREYER: Okay, what?

DEUTSCH: The Free Press study.

BREYER: Free Press.

DEUTSCH: Why did they ignore it or?

BREYER: Okay, that’s — the free. Is there anything other than that?

Deutsch mentioned another one, but none of the justices seemed convinced by it. Still, 22 states support her take on things, saying local news has taken a real beating and we shouldn’t add media consolidation to the mix.

And here’s where who is in the White House makes a difference. The Democrats will soon control the FCC. 2021 is the next quadrennial rule review by the agency. 

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the FCC here, it’s likely that a newly emboldened social justice contingent will bring more lawsuits to tilt the law and regulations their way.

The Wall Street Journal noted that Google’s share of local ad revenue in 2019 was around $17 billion. That’s equal to all local ad income of every television station in the country combined. The appeals court did not consider that data, which might have informed a decision about competition and the need to relax ownership rules. The Journal editorial cited overreach by that lower court being driven by a desired outcome.

Basically, putting one set of grievances ahead of all others to the detriment of the whole.

Things will likely change. But for now, based on how the argument went, it sounds like the FCC will win the opportunity to decide on its rules for ownership.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: The Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen joins us now. David, good morning.

DAVID BAHNSEN, GUEST: Good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.

EICHER: You, too. Well, what a weird story everybody’s talking about—very big deal in my world, maybe not so much in yours—the GameStop-Reddit Wall Street Bets gang.

Running up the stock price of GameStop to stick it to the hedge fund guys who shorted the stock, we heard the big narrative that this is a grassroots revolution. That the hedge funds have been treating the market like a casino. So now, back at you.

Have a listen to this take—Justin Speak, a California pastor on MSNBC.

SPEAK: But I also — I’d be lying to say if there wasn’t some pleasure of the fact — I’m a pastor and Jesus tells a story about this rich fool who has an overabundant harvest. It’s more than he can store. And rather than give the excess to those in need, he chooses to build bigger and bigger barns to store it for himself. And God says to him in the end, “This very night, your life will be demanded of you and who will get what you prepared for yourself?” And so since 2008, it feels like Wall Street has had an overabundant harvest, financed by public money, and rather than share the billions with the less fortunate, they’ve built bigger and bigger barns for themselves. And so, yeah, 100 percent there was a part of me that thought, well, it will be fun to be part of this moment. To see this moment where at some level overnight these investors are losing their investing lives. It’s being demanded from them.

I can’t remember the last time a parable of Jesus got a mention on MSNBC but there it is.

BAHNSEN: Well, a parable of Jesus wasn’t even mentioned by the time it was done being stripped of context and of true meaning. 

But, look, it’s funny you said you don’t know if in my world this is what we’re talking about. Well, of course, this is all we’re talking about. And it’s been kind of obnoxious over the week. And I’ve done a lot of discussion and coverage on it in the press and in my own writing and podcasting over the last few days. 

But I think that WORLD listeners in particular really would benefit from a better theological foundation in the way they approach it because that gentleman right there was at least honest enough — unfortunately he gets all the facts wrong, all the economics wrong, doesn’t understand really what’s happening, to who it’s happening, why it’s happening. 

But at least he’s self-conscious about what he’s hopeful will happen, which is some form of theft and some form of wealth redistribution centered more around what he wants to be the case rather than what maybe other hedge funders or Wall Streeters wanted. So, it’s just sort of replacing what he perceives to be one violation of the 8th Commandment with another violation of the 8th Commandment. So, I don’t think that Christians ought to be very impressed with that type of thinking. 

But that’s all even assuming that some of the facts were right and, actually, none of them really were. What you have with this GameStop thing, Nick, is admittedly a very crazy story. It’s certainly quite bizarre and I do think there must be some lull in the news cycle that it’s become this big of a story. And I assure you it will very, very quickly fade. But what you have is one side of a trade that was excessive, that was risky, that was taking for granted that certain things would not happen, and those were a couple hedge funds that were very short the stock. And then you had another side that came and decided to put the squeeze on. And we’ve had short squeezes in the stock market for a hundred years. 

This is a huge one and it’s noteworthy because it’s a bunch of small investors getting back at a couple big investors. But ultimately there will be significant capital lost and it will not end up being the hedge funds that ended up covering their short. It will be all those investors that came in and piled in the stock to help hurt the shorts, kind of led by guys like that guy on MSNBC, like chatroom dialogue, all these types of things. And the stock is going to recalibrate around some normal price discovery. Right now price discovery is out the window. And at the point at which it recalibrates, there will be somebody holding the bag and it is my view that the people that are going to get crushed will deserve to be crushed. They believe they have a chance at free money right now, and they’re trying to get their piece of free money. 

But, see, free money doesn’t exist. Christians are supposed to know that. You would think a pastor quoting from the parable would understand that the whole point of investment is actual investment in growth, in productivity, in something real, in something tangible. And the notion that one has some chance at free monies, when it ends poorly, unfortunately, I think that there will be a lot of sympathy for that small investor, but in reality that small investor will have learned a lesson and they will not do it again.

EICHER: There’s an underlying frustration, though, that they seem to be tapping into with this thing. You heard the statement that Wall Street elites have been profiting off of bailouts since 2008.

BAHNSEN: So what does that mean? What bailouts have they been profiting off of?

EICHER: Well, he wasn’t specific, but going back to the 2008 financial crisis, the Troubled Asset Relief Program—TARP. That bailout…

BAHNSEN: But my point is I think Christians have a responsibility to be specific. So, I believe that bailouts of all shapes, sizes, and destination are wrong. And yet in that particular case, you have a “bailout” that had capital that came from the government over to other people, that was then paid back, and it was done for the purpose of supposedly stabilizing the financial system. And there were a whole lot of people that benefited from it and it’s very difficult to define at what point in time it was helping who, but the fact of the matter is the equity investors all got wiped out of those institutions, and the people who ended up not losing money were the depositors of those banks and the bond holders of those banks. 

Now, I still disagree with it, but the reality is that gentleman saying that benefited from that bailout. His financial system, his economy, his grocery store, his main street didn’t crumble and so there was a whole lot of actors who benefited from these actions that I have actually written a whole book criticizing. But my point would be that this notion that there’s this kind of Marxian narrative that we ought to adopt where there’s a proletariat — there’s a good guy and a bad guy and there’s an oppressor out there. And in this case, the oppressor supposedly is a short seller of a video game stock? It’s just incoherent. But he was honest enough to go on to admit he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about. He doesn’t have any ability connect all the dots. What he is is covetous. He wants a piece of what someone else has. 

Well, the climax of the 10 Commandments, the kind of final conclusion that God left us with on Mount Sinai was thou shalt not covet. So a theology of money that is rooted in covetousness is as old as sin itself. And this has got to stop from well-meaning, thoughtful Christians.

EICHER: Do you think anything went wrong here systemically? 

What about the brokerage Robinhood shutting down trades and prompting the ire of members of Congress that that ought not to be. Was there any bad behavior here that regulators or government should have gotten involved in?

BAHNSEN: Absolutely not. And they’ll look into it, but the fact of the matter is, whether Robinhood wants to admit it or not, they shut it down because they were way out of their skis on their—what’s called—net capital requirements. Brokerage firms have a responsibility to keep a certain amount of capital relative to the amount their transacting in. They’re making a market. And even if they had gotten rid of margin buying, where people are buying stock with borrowed money and then for their risk of not paying it back if the stock collapses and there’s a whole liability there, even just in the cash market of people paying for the stock they’re buying, there’s a thing called settlement that takes three days. So somebody paying cash to buy a stock on Tuesday, the cash doesn’t settle until Friday. And in between the brokerage firm has to have a certain amount of capital requirements and there’s no question Robinhood didn’t. They can deny it or say they’re looking into it. I think what he actually said is, “We were being proactive so that didn’t happen.” But then they had to raise a billion dollars of capital from their investors on Thursday night going into trading Friday morning. So they were not — the whole idea they were trying to hurt the little guy for the sake of trying to help their hedge funds is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Their brand is the little guy. They’re out of business apart from the little guy. They did irreparable damage to their business model by doing it. They did it because they didn’t have a choice. Hedge funds don’t trade with Robinhood. Little guys trade with Robinhood. So they were not hurting the little guy to help hedge funds. They did it because they clearly were in over their skis with some more admittedly complicated aspects of the way brokerage markets work. And so, again, for Congresspeople to jump into this thing to play it as some sort of populist narrative, that seems to be a sign of the times.

EICHER: Alright. David Bahnsen, financial analyst and advisor, setting us straight a bit here. David, thanks so much.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick. Always good to be with you.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Next up on The World and Everything in It: the WORLD History Book.

This week, conspirators face the hangman, and the world loses a heavyweight of children’s literature—but welcomes a baseball legend. Here’s WORLD senior correspondent Katie Gaultney.

KATIE GAULTNEY, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: We’ll start this week’s installment off with a bang! In the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, provincial English Catholics attempted to assassinate King James I and blow up the House of Lords. They were reacting to increasing discrimination against Catholics by the throne of England. But the king’s forces discovered the plot, and four of the conspirators died for their treason on January 31, 1606—including notorious explosives expert Guy Fawkes.  

CLIP: “Stop right there!” 

The plot might have succeeded if not for a letter warning a family member not to go to Parliament on the day of the planned attack. Simon Dodd is a yeoman warder at the Tower of London. He explains how that warning led to the plotters’ discovery. 

DODD: The letter fell into the king’s hands, and a search was ordered of Parliament. Fawkes was found with a fuse, a small lamp, and a box of matches. 

After standing trial, Thomas Wintour, Ambrose Rookwood, Robert Keyes, and Guy Fawkes faced hanging, drawing, and quartering. Fawkes, though, either slipped or jumped from the hangman’s scaffold, dying moments before what would have been his official execution. 

The English celebrate “Bonfire Night” annually on November 5th—the night Fawkes’ plot was discovered. Traditionally, the night holds fireworks and effigies of Guy Fawkes. 

AUDIO: [BONFIRE NIGHT CELEBRATION]

Interesting to note: the term “guy”—as used to refer to any male person—originated with Fawkes. Children would make likenesses of him and display them in the streets to raise money for fireworks. After that, any strangely dressed man may be called a “guy,” and over time, that term came to mean just, well, “guy.” 

Moving now to gentler topics—like the creator of a beloved childhood icon. Here’s Stephen Fry as Winnie the Pooh, with narration by actress Judy Dench. 

AUDIOBOOK: And all the time, Pooh had been trying to get the honey jar off his head. The more he shook it, the more tightly it stuck!/ Ow! Ow! Help!… 

Author A. A. Milne, creator of Winnie the Pooh, died on January 31st, 1956, at the age of 74. Here’s Milne reading from his classic book. 

MILNE: One fine winter’s day when Piglet was brushing away the snow in front of his house, he happened to look up, and there was Winnie-the-Pooh… 

Prominent writers surrounded him. When he was just 7 years old, H.G. Wells was one of his grammar school teachers. As an adult, Milne—an excellent cricket player—was on teams with Peter Pan author J. M. Barrie, Sherlock Holmes creator Arthur Conan Doyle, and P. G. Wodehouse.

In addition to his accomplishments on the cricket field, Milne served in the British army in World War I. Then, pen in hand, he became a magazine editor, playwright, novelist, and a screenwriter in the infancy of film. The magic of the Hundred Acre Wood came to him later, through the stuffed animal friends of his own son—Christopher Robin Milne. Here’s the heartwarming ending to Milne’s House at Pooh Corner, read by Peter Dennis:

THE HOUSE AT POOH CORNER: “Come on!” “Where?” said Pooh. “Anywhere.” said Christopher Robin. So, they went off together. But wherever they go, and whatever happens to them on the way, in that enchanted place on the top of the forest, a little boy and his bear will always be playing.”

And from a beloved bear to a beloved cub: Mr. Cub. 

BANKS: Hey, hey, holy mackerel, no doubt about it, the Cubs are on their way, hey hey! 

That’s Ernie Banks, legendary American baseball player and coach, who was born January 31st, 1931. Banks was a 14-time All Star with over 500 home runs in his playing career. 

ANNOUNCER: That’s a fly ball… That’s it! That’s it! He did it! Ernie Banks got number 500! (cheering)

Two-time National League MVP, the Cubs’ first Gold Glove winner, and first ballot election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame. The favorite son of Chicago maintained his humility, despite plenty of accolades. He shared in a 2014 documentary: 

BANKS: You talk about somebody hitting a home run, that’s what you’re supposed to do. You don’t make a big deal out of it, that’s what you’re supposed to do. So just doing what you’re supposed to do is my life. 

In 1967, he also became the first black owner of a Ford dealership. President Barack Obama awarded Banks the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2013. 

OBAMA: That’s Mr. Cub. A man that came up through the Negro Leagues making $7 a day, and became the first black player to suit up for the Cubs, and one of the greatest hitters of all time. And in the process he became known as much for his 512 home runs as for his cheer, and his optimism, and his eternal faith that someday the Cubs would go all the way. (laughter)

Banks died eight days before what would have been his 84th birthday in 2015. The year after Banks died, the Cubs won their first World Series since 1908. 

SONG: “Go Cubs Go”

That’s this week’s History Book. I’m Katie Gaultney.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: Illegal immigration. President Biden wants to create a path to citizenship for an estimated 11 million people in the country illegally. We’ll talk about the pros and the cons.

And, Emily Whitten’s Classic Book of the Month: a pick that celebrates Black History Month.

That and more tomorrow. 

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

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

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

Now may the Lord of peace Himself give you peace at all times in every way. 

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.