The World and Everything in It: June 15, 2026

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: We are at the midway point through June.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And halfway through WORLD’s June Giving Drive.

More than 1,400 listeners have responded already. Some of them have been supporting WORLD for years.

REICHARD: And nearly one in every eight gifts we’ve received so far has come from someone making a first-time gift to WORLD.

That’s encouraging because it’s evidence that new listeners are discovering WORLD and becoming part of this work.

EICHER: Right, and helping to make it possible for that next listener to discover it, too.

So if you’ve not given yet, please support WORLD’s June Giving Drive today at WNG.org/donate.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

Today on Legal Docket, three opinions from the Supreme Court last week. One of them says: the government does not get special rules to gain an advantage in a prosecution.

FOX: They have to follow the Constitution. They don’t get to create loopholes to rig the system in their favor.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Also today, the world’s first trillionaire. And the political attack against him and the free market that made him. Economist David Bahnsen standing by for the Monday Moneybeat.

And the WORLD History Book: the enduring legacy of an iconic American song.

MARCUS: It gives it this feeling of starting over every time you hear it.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, June 15th. 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 for the news now, with Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR:  Iran war latest » The United States and Iran have reached a deal to end the monthslong war.

President Trump Sunday, on his 80th birthday, reacted on social media, stating “Congratulations to all!”

Full details of the agreement were not immediately available. But Vice President JD Vance said last night:

VANCE:  This is the immediate opening of the Straits of Hormuz and of course, the lifting of the naval blockade that we've had on Iran along with it.

As much as a quarter of the world’s oil supply normally passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s effective shutdown of the strait has pushed energy prices higher globally.

Hours before Sunday’s announcement, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth told CBS' Face the Nation that the agreement would guarantee at least one thing:

HEGSETH: Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. Never. Full stop. And this deal — it's performance-based. No money released to Iran until they perform.

Under the framework, Iran reportedly would agree never to build a nuclear weapon, with sixty days of talks to follow on its nuclear program.

Critics say the framework echoes the 2015 nuclear deal struck under the Obama administration. But U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC's This Week this deal differs in a number of ways. Crucially, he says, Iran is far weaker now than in 2015, and the consequences for Tehran violating the deal would be dire.

WALTZ: This president has always put diplomacy first, but unlike his predecessors, it has to be backed with credible military force. That is what we've seen over the years — the only thing that regimes like Iran will ultimately respect.

Iran’s deputy foreign minister confirmed the agreement on state television but said Iran would not start implementing it until it’s signed on Friday.

FISA » On Capitol Hill, some lawmakers are still working to reauthorize a spy program that expired last week. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act lets the government collect the calls and emails of foreign targets overseas — without a warrant.

The catch: the program also sometimes sweeps up Americans — their messages captured when they're in contact with a foreign target.

GOP Congressman Chip Roy was one of nineteen Republicans to vote no. On re-authorizing 702.

ROY: We believe we ought to be working together to figure out how to ensure that we can get the data that we want to collect on bad guys overseas, but protect the American people with the reforms necessary, including warrant protections whenever you're targeting American people.

But the lapse doesn't mean the surveillance has stopped. A federal intelligence court approved the current collection orders back in March, and those stay in force through next spring.

Many lawmakers want a new warrant requirement before agents can search that data for Americans' information.

Plane crash » Twelve people were killed in western Missouri Sunday when a small plane taking off for a skydiving excursion crashed into a field.

Skies were clear. Investigators don't yet know what caused it.

Bates County Sheriff Chad Anderson says there's little to go on so far.

ANDERSON: The plane took off and then it went down. We're not sure exactly anything beyond that. The investigation is going to be handled by the NTSB and the FAA.

The plane had just taken off from Butler Memorial Airport — about sixty-five miles south of Kansas City — when the plane made a sharp left turn, struggled to climb, and went down nose-first. It burst into flames.

FIFA security » World Cup soccer is now underway across eleven American cities. And the official in charge of securing it says the country's threat level has never been higher.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Fox News Sunday the games — overlapping with the nation's 250th birthday celebrations — are stretching local police thin.

MULLIN: We have 78 games against 11 cities in 38 days, which is essentially 78 Super Bowls. On top of that, you have Freedom 250 with all the activity that's going on. Tremendous amount of local partnership that has to take place, and not all have the resources.

Mullin says weaponized drones are his single biggest worry. The Federal Aviation Administration has declared every stadium a no-drone zone and Washington is pouring more than six-hundred-million dollars into protecting the host cities.

The tournament runs through July 19th, ending with the final at MetLife Stadium outside New York.

Box office » At the weekend box office, Steven Spielberg's latest offering invaded theaters as Disclosure Day debuts in the top spot.

CLIP (Disclosure Day trailer): This 79 terror campaign of lies has to end. What are you going to do? Full disclosure to the whole world.

The alien sci-fi flick hauled in $44 million domestically and $93 million globally.

That was followed by a trio of horror flicks, as well as Masters of the Universe and Star Wars: Mandalorian and Grogu, both of which continue their disappointing box office returns.

I'm Kent Covington. 

Straight ahead: We’ll unpack several Supreme Court decisions on Legal Docket. Plus the world’s first trillionaire. David Bahnsen discusses the political attacks against Elon Musk and the free market that made him.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 15th day of June, 2026. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. It’s time for Legal Docket.

The Supreme Court still has some of the term’s biggest decisions waiting in the wings—with a total of 20 remaining. But last week the justices continued working through the docket, issuing three opinions on criminal procedure, bankruptcy, and securities law. We’ll take them one at a time, and begin with a case about where the government may prosecute a crime.

That case is Abouammo v US. A unanimous opinion that’s a win for criminal defendants.

REICHARD: Here’s a refresher on the facts. In 2013, Ahmad Abouammo lived in Seattle and worked for Twitter handling accounts in the Middle East. Federal prosecutors say he accepted luxury gifts from associates of the Saudi royal family in exchange for private user information. Those associates in turn used that to target people critical of the royal family.

EICHER: While FBI agents interviewed him in his house in Seattle, Aboaummo fabricated a fake consulting invoice on his computer and then emailed it to them.

The Department of Justice indicted him for several things, including obstruction. But they did that in San Francisco where it had an office, and not in Seattle.

Abouammo argued the Constitution guarantees him a trial in Seattle, where he created the fake invoice.

REICHARD: During oral argument, the government tried to frame digital action as a form of travel. Prosecutors argued Aboaummo’s fake invoice aimed to influence the investigation in San Francisco, so venue could attach there.

Government lawyer Andrew Yang gave it his best shot:

YANG: He knew the agents were conducting an investigation there and that is where they're from. It's no different than pointing a gun and shooting. He shot the e-mail and he hit Northern California.

But he was the one shot down:

ROBERTS: It just seems very bizarre to me.

Roberts seeming unconvinced that an email aimed at California was enough to put the case there.

I spoke to Michael Fox with the Cato Institute who filed a friend of the court brief in support of Abouammo.

FOX: I think the court just simply said that venue is what it was always understood to be, which is the place where the crime occurs, right? If you read the Constitution in Article III, it makes very clear that the proper venue is the jurisdiction where the crime was committed and the Sixth Amendment underscores that command, where it says, you know, the accused have a right to a public impartial jury trial in the state or district where the crime was committed….They have to follow the Constitution. They don't get to create loopholes to rig the system in their favor.

EICHER: Abouammo has already served time on other convictions. But if the government wants another shot at the obstruction charge, it will have to bring it in the right place.

The next case involves a different kind of procedural rule—this one from bankruptcy court. It, too, was unanimous at the Supreme Court.

REICHARD: Thomas Keathley filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy; that’s a process where debtors work out a plan to repay what they owe over time.

Around the same time of the bankruptcy filing, he was hurt in an accident and sued the construction company responsible. But Keathley didn’t list that personal injury lawsuit on his bankruptcy forms.

EICHER: So when the construction company found out, it asked the court to toss his personal injury claim under a legal doctrine called “judicial estoppel.”

REICHARD: To explain that, I called Professor Bob Lawless, who teaches bankruptcy law at the University of Illinois:

LAWLESS: It's a fancy word, but it just basically means you can't say something or do something, cause somebody to react in reliance on that, and then do something else.

By omitting mention of his personal injury lawsuit, the construction company argued Keathley said one thing there (I’m entitled to compensation) and another thing in bankruptcy (I’m broke). The pending claim in the personal injury case was an asset, the company argued, and he should not be permitted to take two different positions in court. “Judicial estoppel” would put an estop to that.

EICHER: But all nine justices said “no” to applying that doctrine to these facts. Here’s Chief Justice Roberts during oral argument:

ROBERTS: In terms of the courts' integrity, it does seem a little much that the one person who's getting off is the one who -- whose truck hit the other guy, right?

REICHARD: In practical terms, Professor Lawless told me it’s not uncommon for a debtor to make a mistake among the many forms required to file for bankruptcy:

LAWLESS: The question that gets asked is…what assets do you have? And a lot of people might not think about the lawsuit as an asset, right? You know, “somebody hit me last month and I'm gonna sue them.” Well, technically that's an asset in the eyes of the law, but in everyday parlance we don't think of it that way. So I think very often this is inadvertence.

EICHER: He says bankruptcy is a lot more common than you might think:

LAWLESS: So statistically the estimate is about one in eleven Americans file bankruptcy at some point in…their lifetime….It's more widespread than people imagine.

REICHARD: Despite what many think, Lawless refutes the idea that people use bankruptcy to rip off creditors.

LAWLESS: Most people are in bankruptcy through no fault of their own, right? Medical problems, whether that's the medical debt or the job loss that comes from medical problems, divorce, those are the reasons that people often end up in bankruptcy court. And bankruptcy is not a free ride. The law is designed that if you have income or you have assets, you will pay as much as you can to your creditors. Most people who file bankruptcy have very, very few assets and very little income…. A lot of people think of it as walking away. It's not at all….It's really something people turn to as a last resort.

Lawless says this decision means bankruptcy courts will focus more on the totality of the circumstances to figure out whether an omission (like Keathley’s) was an innocent error or the actual intent to mislead.

EICHER: Alright, well, in just a moment we'll talk with David Bahnsen about markets, investing, and the SpaceX IPO.

Making this final case especially timely.

FS Credit Opportunities Corporation v. Saba Capital Master Fund—we’ll call it FSCO and Saba. Here, the Supreme Court considered a basic question of market regulation:

Who gets to enforce the rules?

REICHARD: Saba is an activist investment firm. It buys large stakes in investment funds and pushes for changes it believes will strengthen the company and increase shareholder value.

In this case, Saba challenged voting restrictions adopted by several investment funds. Saba argued those restrictions violated federal law.

But before the Court could decide whether Saba was right, it had to answer a more basic question:

Did Congress authorize private investors like Saba to bring this kind of lawsuit?

EICHER: Put another way: when an investment fund allegedly breaks the rules, can shareholders take it to court themselves—or is that job reserved for the government?
FSCO’s lawyer Shay Dvoretzky had the winning argument when he made this simple point:

DVORETZKY: The Court should leave private rights of action to Congress…

In other words, if Congress wanted private lawsuits, it would have said so. And that’s how the case came down. During oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch hinted at the majority’s thinking:

GORSUCH: The people are supposed to write the laws that govern them, not judges.

REICHARD: In a 6–3 decision, the Court agreed.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that Congress—not the courts—decides who may enforce federal law. Because Congress never authorized this kind of shareholder lawsuit, Saba could not bring it.

That doesn’t mean the law is unenforceable. The Securities and Exchange Commission still can.

But if lawmakers want private investors to have that power too, they’ll have to say so, specifically.

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: It’s time now to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bahnsen. David heads up the wealth management firm the Bahnsen Group, and he is here now. Good morning to you.

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

EICHER: Well, David, Elon Musk became the world’s first trillionaire this week, and the reaction from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party was immediate and certain.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren pointed to inequality. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argued for wealth taxes. New York mayor Zohran Mamdani said it’s a reason to tax the rich even more heavily. And then Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner, newly minted, said, “Let’s make sure that the first trillionaire is also the last.”

So let’s begin there: What happens if politicians like this get their wish? What kind of economy do we get if public policy is aimed at making sure Elon Musk is the last trillionaire this economy ever creates?

BAHNSEN: One of the things, Nick, that I have done when I teach high school students economics, who might feel that there is something excessive about the type of money that an Elon Musk or a Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos is worth, is ask them to tell me what is a way we can make them less rich without making everybody else less rich. And I have never gotten an answer to that question.

Now, one could say someone has a trillion dollars. It’s a perverse amount of money. We’re just going to take $900 billion and give it away to everybody else, and then that person’s still going to have $100 billion. What in the world could be wrong with that?

And I have to explain that in taking away that money, taking away the business environment, the freedom, the property rights, the rule of law, the incentives, all of these things that exist for radical creativity and radical productivity, you most certainly do make a lot of people less rich. You don’t get that there’s this invisible consequence, the companies that don’t get started as a result of that.

This isn’t hypothetical. We have plenty of societies that have not created the robust innovation that we have because they have tried to do this very thing. Confiscation of wealth disincentivizes creating new businesses.

The tweets, the posts, the press conferences that went out lambasting Elon Musk’s wealth did not mention the hundreds upon hundreds of people that were line workers, that were assembly workers, that were engineers, that were blue-collar, that were administrative, that are now millionaires as a result of their being connected to SpaceX.

When people talk about Steve Jobs and Tim Cook and the Apple people, when people talk about the retirees whose pension funds and retirement accounts have been connected to this radical wealth creation, that was all a byproduct of production of new goods and services.

There is no money to be made with companies unless they’re meeting human needs. And then to suggest that there is a better way to administer the way that wealth is created than price discovery, than private property, than mutual cooperation, than the basic tenets of a market economy, of a free-enterprise society, to suggest there’s a better way to do it is to argue against history.

To say that Cambodia is a wealthier society or a more equitable society—I’m sorry, excuse me very much—that the Soviet Union was a more equitable society.

The notion that they’re talking about is not a concern with the numbers associated with Elon Musk. It is with the concept of freedom. It is with the concept of prosperity and wealth creation.

And I want to point out, you can say Elon Musk had a trillion-dollar net worth on Friday as the IPO was going higher, and on paper, if he had died that very second and we were going through and creating a balance sheet, it’s entirely possible that’d be true. But it’s true to the extent that there are businesses that can’t be sold that have a value that we’re ascribing to them.

If Elon Musk were to go sell all his shares in SpaceX, it would be worth about 90 percent less than it is. Same for Tesla. Same for the Boring Company. He has a lot of illiquid net worth. That’s true—the vast majority.

EICHER: David, let’s stay with the critics for a moment. The politicians are saying what they’re saying because it sounds plausible to a lot of people. A trillion dollars, a billion dollars—almost no one can relate to that. Almost no one knows anyone like that, so it’s easy to “other” someone like Elon Musk. How do you answer the “should” question? Why should we see the creation of extraordinary wealth as a sign of economic success rather than economic failure?

BAHNSEN: Well, first, even if people want to just say, “David, if Elon Musk had a trillion dollars of cash in his checking account,” and we get through all of the other issues I’m bringing up, the only thing I have to say to that is: Compared to what?

It’s outrageous compared to what? Compared to Vladimir Putin’s economy? Compared to some society in which the government can decide what is too much and what isn’t?

What we want is a society where there are new Elon Musks creating new companies. And to say that he has too much wealth is envious, but to say he has too much power is outrageous.

Elon Musk does not have too much power. He can’t legislate his way to new things. The people that have the power are the politicians. The people that have the power are third-world countries where the military is in charge.

What we need to have is a vigorous defense of our American system that has separation of powers, that doesn’t allow a concentration of power just because one has a lot of wealth.

I agree that the Zuckerbergs, Musks, and Bezoses have a lot of money, but I do not agree that they have a disproportionate amount of power unless we do the very thing these people are talking about, which is wed the state and the market together.

Let’s have a separate private-enterprise economy that is not in bed with the forces of Washington, D.C., where people like Bernie Sanders can say, “I want the government to take 50 percent of the new technology companies,” or whatnot.

This whole entire subject gives us a chance, as Christians, to vigorously defend the principles of creation, of productivity, to oppose an economy of covetousness and theft and confiscation and redistribution.

But it also gives us a chance to understand how wealth is created. And I’m sorry, but these examples people use—these are all people that did not start off wealthy. They did not start off born into an aristocracy. They’re folks that created and invented new things, and a lot of people are better off for it.

SpaceX may be way down in a couple years. The IPO value might be perversely too high. But my point is market forces get to adjudicate those things, not Bernie Sanders.

EICHER: David, let’s turn from the political reaction to the investor reaction. SpaceX jumps 20 percent on its first day of trading and a lot of people immediately start thinking they’ve found free money. What happened is pretty much what you expected would happen when you wrote your Dividend Cafe column the day before the IPO. So what is it that people commonly misunderstand about IPOs and this idea that wealth can be created without risk?

BAHNSEN: Well, first of all, Nick, there were 555 million shares of SpaceX sold in the IPO. There were 517 million shares that traded on Friday.

Now, that doesn’t mean that every single person who got shares already sold them. It means that some people sold shares to people who sold them to people who sold them. So there was a high velocity and turnover.

I’m sure there are people who bought shares Friday morning that still own them as this is coming out Monday morning.

But my point being that we just had a ton of people that were flipping out, that were trying to get free money out of a one-day trading activity.

And yet, at the end of the day, the reality of IPOs is that about half of them go down in a short period of time, and the vast majority over one, two, three years have a much lower return than the overall market.

There’s not free money in IPOs.

Now, SpaceX did something very, very unique. First of all, it was by far the largest amount of money ever raised in an IPO, combined with being by far the lowest percentage of the company being made available to the public—roughly about 3.8 percent.

So you have a very expensive company with a very small amount of shares, and obviously a whole lot of people who want shares. So you created a supply-demand imbalance, and that stuff gets netted out in the wash eventually. It could take a few days.

It was obviously priced pretty correctly. Twenty percent in one day wasn’t that big of a bump.

But you are talking about a company now worth over $2 trillion that loses a ton of money and is going to need to spend every penny they just raised.

Seventy-five billion dollars is more money than they could have raised privately, so that’s why they went into public markets. But they’re going to spend $75 billion on the capital expenditures that they need to try to go launch this wildly ambitious vision of a company they have.

My Dividend Café, and what I think is far more important for a Moneybeat, is about the mentality of investors.

Anybody who believes there is such a thing as free money, first of all, I would argue, believes something that isn’t true. And second of all, they believe something that is wrong.

Aspiring to find free money—you can want good returns from your investments—but they’re a byproduct of risk-taking. There’s a symmetry between risk and reward. There’s productive activity. There’s patience. There’s a time value to money.

Just thinking, “I want to walk in a casino and have it all show up on black and walk out,” that’s not investing.

There are people who put a lot of money into SpaceX many years ago that have ridden this thing out. People forget this company has been around for 20 years.

And there may be 20 more years of ups and downs along the way. But if people wanted a big return in 20 minutes, I think that there’s some stuff to maybe internally check there.

EICHER: All right. David Bahnsen—founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. He writes at DividendCafe.com and at WORLD Opinions. David, hope you have a great week.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much Nick.

NICK EICHER, HOST: 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.

Up next: The WORLD History Book.

Today, how Bob Dylan’s most famous song endured for more than 60 years.

When Columbia Records released “Like a Rolling Stone” on July 20th, 1965, Bob Dylan was already a pop star. In just three years, he’d gone from aping folksingers and bluesmen to writing and singing some of rock and roll’s most galvanizing songs.

EICHER: But until the record “Like a Rolling Stone,” it took other singers to turn those songs into hits.

WORLD’s Arsenio Orteza considers why Dylan’s most famous recording still resonates six decades on.

ARSENIO ORTEZA: Rolling Stone magazine ranked Bob Dylan’s “Like a Rolling Stone” the “greatest song of all time” not once but twice. But it wasn’t immediately esteemed everywhere. The British critic Bob Dawbarn called it “substandard Dylan” and expressed relief that Columbia wasn’t planning to release it as a single in England. He wrote “[t]he paucity of ‘Like a Rolling Stone’ is emphasised by the flip side….”

MUSIC: [ “Gates of Eden” by Bob Dylan]

Dawbarn said “Gates of Eden” was better because it’s “just Dylan with guitar and harmonica.” He added that “without the extraneous backing noises, one can concentrate on what the man is saying.” But people really liked those “extraneous backing noises.” Dave Marsh wrote “The pistol shot that opens ‘Like a Rolling Stone’ is really a drum but it could hardly be more appropriate if it were the real thing.”

MUSIC: [“Like a Rolling Stone (original version)” by Bob Dylan]

Greil Marcus, who wrote an entire book about “Like a Rolling Stone,” goes further. He says it’s not in the song’s famous lyrics but in its sound that the “action” is really taking place.

MARCUS: What the sound was about was this sense that it was an event. And an event takes place as you listen or as you watch. And this sense of event that the song carries, it gives it this feeling of starting over every time you hear it and as if you have no idea what will happen or how it will affect you or how you’re going to respond.

Pop culture responded to the six-minute song in several ways. Previously, singles had to come in at three-and-a-half minutes or less. When “Like a Rolling Stone” proved popular, radio programmers realized they’d have to make exceptions. If not for “Like a Rolling Stone,” the Beatles’ biggest hit, for instance, might have remained a deep cut.

MUSIC: [“Hey Jude” by the Beatles]

Speaking of the Beatles, the most popular song the year before “Like a Rolling Stone” was “I Want to Hold Your Hand.” The gap between the simplicity of John Lennon and Paul McCartney’s lyrics and the complexity of Dylan’s is vast. The difference between “Like a Rolling Stone” and what had been Dylan’s best-known composition is pretty vast too.

MUSIC: [“Blowin’ in the Wind” by Peter, Paul and Mary]

The lyrics of “Like a Rolling Stone” have been called surreal. The poet Allen Ginsberg detected the influence of the avant-garde art movement Dada. Dylan himself said that he whittled the lyrics down from what he called a “long piece of vomit about 20 pages long.” One thing’s certain: the lyrics gave rock and rollers permission to incorporate thoughts, imagery, and feelings beyond the pop-lyrics norm. Dave Marsh called them “continually stunning.”

The song certainly stunned Dylan’s fans. They’d hailed Dylan as the messiah of the acoustic-folk-protest movement and praised him for speaking unambiguous truth to political power. But now, he’d dared to “go electric” and to dive into the collective unconscious. And instead of attacking social injustice, he was giving voice to his generation’s sense of cultural and spiritual displacement. His first public performance of the song at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival remains a landmark in expectation-defying confrontation.

MUSIC: [“Like a Rolling Stone” by Bob Dylan (Newport, 1965)]

Perhaps it’s a sign of Dylan’s own affection for “Like a Rolling Stone” that, unlike most of his other songs, he hasn’t subjected it to extreme rearrangements onstage. In fact, it took more than 50 years and almost 2000 performances before he significantly experimented with it at all.

MUSIC: [ “Like a Rolling Stone” by Bob Dylan (2018)]

But what does the song mean? One way to approach the question is to ask to whom Dylan is singing: a privileged female socialite—the “Miss Lonely” in verse two? Someone different in each verse? Himself? Or maybe the song’s meaning lies in its refrain’s perennially relevant—and uncomfortable—questions. “How does it feel to be / to be on your own / with no direction home?” is something God could’ve asked Adam and Eve at the end of Genesis 3. That the answers to those questions are different for everyone may be what makes the song seem continuously fresh.

MUSIC: [“Like a Rolling Stone” by Bob Dylan and the Band]

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Arsenio Orteza.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Tomorrow: Bleak predictions for Social Security has some young workers making alternate plans. We’ll have a report. 

And, tradesmen speak up for the lives threatened by abortion. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Mary Reichard.

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

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 says, “Come, bless the LORD, all you servants of the LORD, who stand by night in the house of the LORD! Lift up your hands to the holy place and bless the LORD! May the LORD bless you from Zion, he who made heaven and earth!” —Psalm 134

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.