The World and Everything in It: January 30, 2023
On the Legal Docket, a Supreme Court case that is impacted by the definition of a word; on the Monday Moneybeat, listener questions about balancing the federal budget and being an indebted nation; and on History Book, important dates from the past. Plus: the Monday morning news.
MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!
What words mean is once again before the U.S. Supreme Court. This time, the word to describe the power to make legal decisions.
NICK EICHER, HOST: Also, the Monday Moneybeat. Today, listener questions on balanced budgets.
Plus the WORLD History Book. Twenty years ago this week, the Space Shuttle Columbia breaks up on reentry.
REICHARD: It’s Monday, January 30th. 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: Time now for the news with Kent Covington.
KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Memphis police have disbanded “Scorpion” unit » Memphis police have disbanded the unit involved in the beating of 29-year-old Tyre Nichols.
Authorities released footage on Friday of the January 7th incident following a traffic stop.
AUDIO: [Bodycam footage]
Nichols died in the hospital from his injuries. The five officers involved in the incident have been fired and charged with murder.
The so-called “Scorpion unit” was formed to crack down on crime hotspots.
GOP Congressman Jim Jordan reacted on Sunday:
JORDAN: These individuals, these five individuals did not have any respect for life and again I don't think these five guys represent the vast vast majority of law enforcement but I don't know if there's anything you can do to stop the kind of evil we saw in that video.
Memphis and cities across the country braced for unrest over the weekend after video footage of Nichols’ arrest was released. Protests took place throughout the nation and remained mostly peaceful.
Biden, McCarthy to discuss debt limit in talks this week » House Speaker Kevin McCarthy will meet with President Biden at the White House this week. He said he looks forward to finding a “reasonable and responsible way that we can lift the debt ceiling” …
MCCARTHY: To put us on a path to balance at the same time not put any any of our debt in jeopardy at the same time
Republicans want spending cuts before raising the debt limit. However, McCarthy said cuts to programs like Social Security and Medicare are off the table.
President Biden insists Republicans should approve raising the debt ceiling without conditions. And he told supporters last week …
BIDEN: I will not let anyone use the full faith and credit of the United States as a bargaining chip.
But Republican Senator Mike Lee says continuing to massively overspend is not an option.
LEE: Within just a few years we're gonna see our annual interest on debt skyrocket from around 400 billion a year to well over a trillion a year and we don't have that kind of money to cover that and everything else too
Republicans and Democrats have until sometime between early June and August to work out a solution to avoid defaulting on the nation’s debts. McCarthy has vowed that will not happen.
Ukraine » Ukrainian forces say they have driven back a Russian assault in the eastern Donetsk region after the Russian mercenary group Wagner said it took control of a village in the area.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is urging the West to fast track delivery of planes, missiles, and tanks.
He said Vladimir Putin wants to turn this into prolonged war of attrition, hoping to wear down Ukrainian forces.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul says Abrams tanks from the U.S. will not arrive quickly, but other equipment, like Germany’s Leopard 2 tanks, can.
MCCAUL: The leopards can be put in tomorrow and today actually the Abram tanks need more logistics supply training so I wouldn't the key was to commit Abrams tanks to unleash the leopards.
Altogether, Western allies are expected to send hundreds of tanks to Ukraine.
China war prospects » Congressman McCaul also weighed in on a report that the United States could be at war with China by 2025.
NBC News reported that four-star Air Force General Mike Minihan made the prediction in a memo to his officers. McCaul said Sunday:
MCCAUL: Well, I hope he’s wrong as well. I think he’s right, though, unfortunately.
The congressman said he believes President Biden’s rushed withdrawal from Afghanistan projected weakness. And in his view, that increased the odds that China will invade Taiwan before Biden leaves office.
General Minihan reportedly expressed in his memo that Chinese leader Xi Jinping might try to strike Taiwan while the U.S. is focused on the 2024 election.
Biden has said the U.S. military would intervene if that happens.
Israel » Secretary of State Tony Blinken arrives in Israel today, just days after violence flared up again in the region. WORLD’s Josh Schumacher has more.
JOSH SCHUMACHER, REPORTER: Netanyahu over the weekend announced a series of punitive steps against the Palestinians. That follows an attack on Friday when a Palestinian gunman opened fire outside of a synagogue in East Jerusalem killing seven people.
More Israeli troops will now patrol the Gaza Strip, and Israel will cancel social security benefits for the families of attackers.
And after many Palestinians openly celebrated the attack, Netanyahu announced plans to beef up Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
The Biden administration opposes Israeli settlements in those areas. And the topic is likely to be high on the agenda as Blinken arrives for talks with Israeli and Palestinian officials.
For WORLD, I’m Josh Schumacher.
Gas prices » Gas prices in the U.S. continued to inch upward over the past week. Regular unleaded is selling for an average of $3.51 per gallon. That’s up 11 cents from this time last week. And it’s 40 cents higher than one month ago.
I’m Kent Covington. Straight ahead on the Legal Docket: the importance of words and their meanings.
Plus, the WORLD Radio History Book.
This is The World and Everything in It.
MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Monday January 30th. Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning. I’m Mary Reichard.
NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. It’s time for Legal Docket.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined a Q&A keynote at the Notre Dame Law Review Federal Courts Symposium last week. The topic: the Administrative Procedure Act, a statute that governs federal agencies.
Students had questions. And not just about current jurisprudence in administrative law.
REICHARD: Right, Justice Kavanaugh also fielded questions on other topics. One student asked how his Catholic education shapes his legal perspective. He said his Latin instructor taught him to be prepared. His English teacher’s assignment of To Kill a Mockingbird helped him understand the importance of standing in someone else’s shoes. And his music teacher taught him this:
KAVANAUGH: Be not afraid. And that’s really important to be a judge. Be not afraid. Be not afraid to do the right thing. Be not afraid to adhere to your principles. Know that you’re going to get criticized.
Harder than it sounds, but of critical importance.
Now onto cases at the Supreme Court. And for that, my Legal Docket Podcast co-host Jenny Rough is here. Hi, Jenny.
JENNY ROUGH, REPORTER: Hi, Mary.
The court handed down its first decision of the term last week. The case concerned a U.S. Navy veteran who applied for disability benefits 30 years after an honorable discharge.
He’s eligible for benefits from the date he filed the claim. But he wanted the benefits to apply retroactively under a legal doctrine known as equitable tolling.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the 9 to 0 opinion and said equitable tolling did not apply here. She said there’s good reason to conclude Congress didn’t intend it to. The statute that governs here sets forth an exhaustive set of exceptions to the default rule—16 to be exact—and among them, you’re not going to find equitable tolling.
REICHARD: The court issued a DIG in the case I covered last week, In re Grand Jury. DIG is a legal acronym, DIG. It stands for dismissed as improvidently granted.
The case centered on the scope of attorney-client privilege.
Usually, a DIG happens because the court discovers a reason that makes the case unsuitable for deciding the question presented. But here, the court didn’t give a reason. So we’re left to speculate. Legal experts who have weighed in on this say the court may have decided: Let’s not try to fix something that isn’t clearly broken.
ROUGH: So far this term: one decision and one DIG!
Let’s turn now to the oral arguments the court continues to hear. I’ll cover two today. First: an immigration case.
And this one adds a thoroughly modern twist: the illegal immigrant in this case is a man who claims to be a woman: Leon Santos-Zacaria. He says he identifies as a transgender female, and that status is part of the case.
Transgenderism is frowned upon in Guatemala. And Santos-Zacaria testified to mistreatment, including assault and sought escape to the U.S., entering illegally twice, then both times deported.
Santos-Zacaria entered the country once again in 2018 and applied for what’s known as withholding of removal. A noncitizen can qualify for that if the applicant’s life or freedom would be threatened upon return to his or her country of origin.
An immigration judge denied the application and so did the Board of Immigration Appeals. Now appealed to the Supreme Court, the main legal question in the case winnows down to a technical point: Did Santos-Zacaria need to exhaust other remedies with the immigration board before appealing to the federal courts?
Justice Brett Kavanaugh immediately made reference to the text of the relevant law:
KAVANAUGH: This statute, at least on its face, speaks to the court, the court's power to review. This says "may review only if," not "if," "only if." This seems to speak to a court’s authority because it says a court may review “only if.” Does this language speak to a court’s authority?
Paul Hughes represented Santos-Zacaria and said that the statute’s language doesn’t strip a federal court of jurisdiction. Rather—
HUGHES: It directs actions courts take during review I don't think, though, that necessarily means it is a limitation on the power of the court.
Yaira Dubin argued on behalf of the federal government. She returned to the language of the provision to argue it most certainly does impose a jurisdictional limit on a federal court’s power to hear the case.
DUBIN: —providing that a court may review a final order of removal only if the alien exhausted all administrative remedies available as of right. That language speaks clearly to a court's authority, not simply to what a litigant must do. Congress need not use the word "jurisdiction," and there's no special rule for exhaustion requirements. Critically, this Court has never held that a restriction like this one is not jurisdictional.
She also pointed out that the Court has held that other language in the statute has been treated that way, including a provision that served as the basis for the wording in the one at issue. So this provision should be treated the same way. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressed her on that assumption.
SOTOMAYOR: But it didn't codify the exact language.
DUBIN: It codified almost exactly the same—
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Yeah, you keep using the word "almost" in your brief also. But it didn't. That's the point.
There’s a circuit split here, heightening the uncertainty. But one thing is certain: Our government is overburdened with a high volume of immigration cases. A friend of the court brief filed by former immigration judges outlined the numbers. As of June 2022, the Executive Office for Immigration Review had 1.8 million cases pending in immigration courts. Five times the number from a decade ago. The Board of Immigration Appeals’ caseload has doubled in recent years. This case will affect how the government handles a broken system.
The second case involves a Turkish bank that laundered billions of dollars in violation of U.S. laws. The federal government went after the bank in a criminal prosecution, but the bank says it’s immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The Act provides immunity for civil actions against foreign sovereigns, but it’s unclear whether immunity extends to criminal prosecutions.
If not, a separate federal law gives district courts jurisdiction over all offenses against the U.S. But even so, the bank says that law granting jurisdiction comes from the Judiciary Act of 1789—and that law was originally intended to exclude jurisdiction over foreign governments.
That’s right. Another battle over a familiar term.
BARRETT: I mean, as we just said in the last case, the word "jurisdiction" is of many, many meanings.
That’s Justice Amy Coney Barrett at oral argument.
Lisa Blatt argued on behalf of the Turkish bank and said it is—and always had been—outlandish to think federal courts can convict sovereign countries, including the entities the government controls.
BLATT: The U.S. does not dispute that criminal trials against sovereigns were unthinkable in 1789, would violate international law today, are unprecedented anywhere, and would risk retaliation. But all the same is true for sovereign instrumentalities, which by definition are sovereign.
Justice Kavanaugh pointed out the broader context of diplomatic relations at play here, as indicated in the news.
KAVANAUGH: The news reports suggest this was discussed with President Erdogan, that Turkey's foreign minister is coming to the United States this week. I mean, I don't know about all of that. But I do know that we don't know about all of that.
BLATT: Yeah. But I know that you shouldn't let 12 Manhattan jurors figure this out, which is what you're doing. You're letting them go to a jury and put a foreign sovereign on trial.
Blatt said to allow that is offensive to international law and insulting to the sovereign.
But when Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin argued on behalf of the federal government, he said the immunity granted to foreign states doesn’t extend to conduct by a business that happens to be majority-owned by a foreign government. Otherwise, government-owned corporations could conceal all sorts of serious crimes.
FEIGIN: Petitioner is asking for an extraordinary and unprecedented rule under which any foreign government-owned corporation could become a clearinghouse for any federal crime, including interfering in our elections, stealing our nuclear secrets…
Justice Barrett asked about the consequences of allowing the criminal prosecution to go forward. Here she is in an exchange with Feigin about that, edited for time and clarity.
BARRETT: Could you explain why—I mean, given that the government has the authority to prosecute the individuals, like, you know, the executives at the bank, what does the government get out of going after the bank as opposed to all the individuals who work in the bank?
FEIGIN: What we want to do is to deter other government-owned corporations from these kinds of actions, deter, frankly, other governments from trying to use corporations to do these kinds of things.
BARRETT: What about the retaliatory consequences that could result in the other way? The United States is not concerned about those, about foreign countries initiating criminal actions against U.S.-owned corporations?
FEIGIN: It's not like we undertook this lightly. But, you know, we acknowledge that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. We've considered that, and we're prepared to deal with it.
The stakes are high here, and the court has a lot to wrestle with.
That’s this week’s Legal Docket. I’m Jenny Rough.
MARY REICHARD, HOST: Next up on The World and Everything in It: the Monday Moneybeat.
NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s time to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen.
He’s head of the wealth management firm The Bahnsen Group and he’s here now.
David, good morning!
DAVID BAHNSEN, GUEST: Well, good morning, Nick, good to be with you.
EICHER: Before we get to listener questions this week, David, I’d like a quick comment on GDP for the last quarter of 2022, that report came in last week. The government reported Gross Domestic Product in quarter four at 2.9 percent. Some say that represents cooling. Some say it’s good growth. David, what do you say about the report on economic growth?
BAHNSEN: Yeah, it's funny you said that because there was a tweet that had gone up where someone took the pop-up from two different newspapers and one of them said, "Economic growth continues with 2.9% GDP" and the other one said, "Slowing economy at 2.9%." So I guess people get to interpret it how they want. It was a negative print in the first quarter and second quarter, for reasons we talked about at that time. And then it picked up in the third and fourth quarter, and it still ended up only averaging a 1% annualized growth for the year. But an annualized growth of 2.9% in the fourth quarter wasn't slowing. It was just the continued more muted growth. If they had gotten 2.9 every quarter all year, it would have been a really fine year, compared to where we've been. So all eyes are on 2023's economy and GDP output and not on '22. But the fact that 2022 proved not to be recessionary is not a surprise to me. But that '23 has a lot of questions is the subject of much debate. And it's not a debate I'm able to resolve. I believe there are a number of very compelling reasons to think we're heading into a recession. Some of them are really hard to argue with and there are others that argue against the kind of severe type recession coming and they're hard to argue with. So there's a lot of ambiguity in the economic air.
EICHER: One more economic data point in the December numbers we received last week: Consumer spending. The Commerce Department figure was a two-tenths percent decline month-on-month, December versus November.
You’ve said many times, the American consumer is a big spender and in December, an especially big spender. But it fell.
BAHNSEN: Yeah, but the entire drop was because gas prices were lower in December than they were in November. That's it. If you take that out, there wasn't a real drop and when you look to retail sales, and things like that people are buying at the mall and e-commerce as opposed to grocery store and gasoline type shopping. The idea of the consumer is still wanting to go out and spend money, there's nothing in the data suggesting that's slowing down. So as I always say, that isn't the primary thing I look to anyways. Look, consumption was up all four quarters last year. So the whole famous line that the consumer is 70% of the economy, I don't think it's true because the consumer can't consume what people haven't been producing. But apart from that, a little economic obsession of mine, the fact of the matter is the consumer behaved very optimistically and robustly all year. But the impact of inflation was a factor because if dollars are higher than their spending, and then dollars go lower than they're spending, that reflects in the consumer number as well.
EICHER: Let’s turn to listener questions now: First up, Courtney Zumalt, a listener from Central Texas.
ZUMALT: In the Monday, January 25th conversation about the debt ceiling debate, you mentioned that instead of showboating about the debt ceiling, Congress should focus on balancing the federal budget. I've often wondered about this. It seems logical that governments ought to balance their budgets—like households and businesses do—to remain functional and solvent. But many argue against balancing the federal budget. Some go so far as to state that it is a fallacy that the federal budget should be balanced like a household budget. So I'm curious, how would you respond to claims that the idea of balancing the federal budget is a fallacy?
BAHNSEN: Well, I guess I can't respond because I don't know why it would be a fallacy. I've never heard that argument before. It's possible what she's referring to is those who claim it's dangerous to require a balanced budget if we then run into a war, or we run into a national emergency, we run into a global pandemic, for example. And so that is a common argument that the federal government may need emergency borrowing powers that do go into a deficit situation. And, again, to use a household analogy, if someone is running their household on a balanced budget, and then all of a sudden there's a death in the family and they have a medical cost or travel cost in an emergency, everybody would say it's okay to pull out the credit card in that emergency. I very much believe those of us who believe in a balanced budget amendment believe in authorizing in that amendment, very tight and defined criteria for an exception for where deficit spending can be appropriate. But the idea that it's just holistically or categorically a fallacy because the government and a household are a different thing, unfortunately, I think the burden of proof is on someone claiming it's a fallacy. I would be totally unaware of an argument as to why a church, a company, a household, a person, any entity should have to live under the laws of mathematics and the government should not.
EICHER: Well, our discussion last week around debt ceiling, David—no surprise—generated significant interest on questions of balancing the federal budget. But this next question makes me wonder whether there’s a movement afoot. Seth Shirk, Lancaster, Pennsylvania:
SHIRK: It's mind boggling to me how we can be the richest nation on earth and be so far in debt and we have oodles of advisors and people who know money. How is it that we are so far in debt? To me it just speaks of an incredible irresponsibility and, yeah, I really wish we had somebody that knew money and practiced money. I personally work with some people on budgeting, personal finance, and it's just a simple fact you don't spend more than you make. So, I can't figure out how the U.S. government can't figure this out. So I'm saying Bahnsen 2024.
EICHER: There you go, David, Pennsylvania is a bellwether state. Just saying …
BAHNSEN: Well, that's very nice. I want to answer the thing that he's questioning, which is how the government spends so much money and why we don't have more people in government that can do the math and realize we shouldn't spend more than we make. And this is going to upset a lot of people, but I don't think there's very many things I feel more strongly about than this. This is not the government's fault. This is the people's fault. The people demand that spending. There is absolutely overwhelming recurrence of the people wanting the things that government is spending money on, and throwing a fit when certain things get taken away. Now part of this is a vicious cycle where the people get used to a benefit, and then it just from a human nature standpoint becomes very difficult to take it away. But my point is that we see this time and time again when different people are all screaming, we have to cut spending, we have to cut spending, eliminate the debt or reduce the debt, and then you get into the room to talk about what you're going to cut. And it's absolutely overwhelmingly unpopular to cut anything specific. So, I think it's something like 90% of people that want to see government spend less money, and it's 7% of people that have an idea of what they can be cutting. And so that's the real problem is that I believe, over time, an inadequate level of self-government has led to the need for a much bigger government. As for his very kind suggestion that I consider running I will quote a famous line that if nominated, I will not run and if elected, I will not serve.
EICHER: We never mention this, your role as a trustee for the National Review Institute. I grew up on the late William F. Buckley and NR—my favorite magazine in college until the upstart WORLD Magazine published its first issue and then WORLD became my favorite magazine, as it is today.
BAHNSEN: Yes, well, and unfortunately for me, Buckley actually did end up running for mayor in New York. And, of course, didn't win. But no, I feel very, very strongly called to the things that I'm doing. And unlike some people's ambiguous denials, mine is as explicit and permanent as one's will be. And someone would have to know me the way my wife knows me to know that I am never running for office.
EICHER: Glad to hear that. The country’s loss is WORLD’s gain, David!
Maybe you have a question, now that a Bahnsen candidacy is out of the question, but I’d encourage you to send your question to email@example.com. I can summarize or you can send an audio file as we heard from Courtney and Seth today. Same address: firstname.lastname@example.org.
David Bahnsen is founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. You can visit his nonpartisan, nonpolitical website is Bahnsen.com.
BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.
NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, January 30th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.
MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Next up: the WORLD History Book. Today, the anniversaries of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster as well as a training accident in the U.S. military. But first, we revisit Super Bowl 22. Here’s Paul Butler.
PAUL BUTLER, REPORTER: We begin today with January 31st, 1988. The 11-4 Washington Redskins and 10-4-1 Denver Broncos face off for the National Football League Championship game.
PRE-GAME SOUND: We are live from San Diego, California on a spectacular day for football…
Super Bowl XXII (22) comes after a strike-shortened season. The Broncos are the 3-point favorites under the leadership of coach Dan Reeves and seasoned quarterback John Elway. The Broncos had been to the Super Bowl the previous year…and lost.
PRE-GAME SOUND: Frank the Denver Broncos making their second consecutive Super Bowl appearance…
During the 1980’s the Washington Redskins had been to the Super Bowl twice under coach Joe Gibbs—but this time around, the team quarterback is the unproven Doug Williams. He began the season as a backup and lost both games he started before the playoffs, but that doesn’t stop the pre-game buzz before the championship game—as Williams is about to make history. He’s the first African American quarterback to start in the Super Bowl.
GAME SOUND: Second and six at the 22-yard line and Williams gives it to Smith and there’s nothing there…
By the end of the first quarter, the score is 10-0—in the Bronco’s favor. Doug Williams injures his back leg and has to leave the field. But he returns in the second quarter and the Redskins find their groove.
GAME SOUND: And Williams going deep…80 yards, touch down! Hello sports fans!
By halftime, the score is 35 to 10, in Washington’s favor —setting a Super Bowl record for number of points scored in a single quarter. At the final whistle, the score is 42 to 10.
Williams is named MVP—becoming the first player in Super Bowl history to pass for four touchdowns in a single quarter. Williams spoke with ABC’s Keith Jackson after the game:
JACKSON: May I say to you sir, I think you have handled your personal week of history nobly.
WILLIAMS: Well, you know the thing I had to say to myself, first of all, I didn't come here with the Washington Redskins as a black quarterback. I came here as the quarterback of the Washington Redskin and to play a football game to win it. Now, whatever happened after that, you know, I can't control anyway. So the most important thing to me was to go out and perform up to my abilities and try to win the football game.
Next, February 3rd, 1998. A United States military pilot is on a training mission near Trento, Italy. He’s flying his reconnaissance plane 540 miles per hour—less than 400 feet from the ground through a mountain valley.
The pilot doesn’t see the cable car gondola crossing the ravine at Cavalese. The plane’s wing clips the cable and the 20 passengers fall 360 feet to the ground below. The pilot makes an emergency landing at a U.S. air base in nearby Aviano.
Standing in front of the smashed car, a first responder speaks with the press:
ZAFFERI: This cable…fell down and crashed…as you can see. And about in hospital there are 20 people. REPORTER: Nobody survived. ZAFFERI: I think not.
Cavalese was the site of the world's worst cable car disaster 22 years earlier—when 42 people were killed. But this accident causes wide-spread anger—as local residents had sought to stop low flying planes in the area for years. The pilot and his navigator were tried for involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide—but a jury acquitted them.
Later it came to light that the pilot and navigator destroyed evidence. The US military court-martialed both for obstruction of justice and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.
President Bill Clinton apologized and promised reparations. Each family eventually received $65,000 in 1999. Later, the Italian Parliament approved a much larger sum—more than a million dollars per victim. The US government was obliged to cover 75 percent of those payments due to NATO treaties.
AUDIO: [SOUND FROM INSIDE ORBITER]
And finally, February 1st, 2003. After more than 15 days in space, the Space Shuttle Columbia and its crew begin reentry—but as they fly over north Texas, it’s clear something isn’t right.
NEWSCAST AUDIO: At the time, it looked like a normal reentry…but then we began to see this…
Audio from WFAA TV.
During launch on January 16th a piece of insulating foam broke off from the external tank—striking the orbiter’s left wing—damaging thermal protection tiles.
When Columbia re-enters the Earth’s atmosphere two weeks later the heat shield fails, causing the orbiter to break apart.
U.S. President George W. Bush addresses the nation that evening from the cabinet room:
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: …The same creator who named the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to earth, yet we can pray that all are safely home. May God bless the grieving families and may God continue to bless America.
NASA grounds the shuttle program for 2 years after the accident. During that time investigators locate and analyze more than 85,000 pieces of debris. When shuttle missions begin again, they always include a trip to the International Space Station so that astronauts can inspect the vehicle for launch damage before returning home. The shuttle program flew its final mission in 2011.
That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Paul Butler.
NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: six and a half million Americans live with Alzheimer's. The FDA has approved a couple new medications with big promises, but do the drugs measure up?
And, artificial intelligence in the classroom.
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.
The Bible tells us that Jesus said: “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. And he marveled because of their unbelief. (Mark 6:4-6 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.