The World and Everything in It: March 23, 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: Good morning!

Can a plea agreement mandate medication—and then try to block the right to appeal?

BLATT: Only the most paramount government interest overcomes the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.

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

Also today: the Monday Moneybeat. Oil, war, and economic pain: who’s bearing the brunt? Economist David Bahnsen’s standing by.

Later, the World History Book: the crime saga that changed Hollywood—The Godfather.

AUDIO: Leave the gun, take the cannoli. 

How the gritty American story of family, violence, and loyalty almost never made it to the big screen.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, March 23rd. 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: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Strait of Hormuz » President Trump has given Iran until tonight to reopen the Strait of Hormuz — or else, he says, the U.S. will "obliterate" Iranian power plants.

Trump issued the ultimatum Saturday, saying strikes would begin with Iran's biggest power plant first.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent tells NBC’s Meet the Press … that despite the threat, the president hasn’t given up on deescalating the war.

BESSENT: They are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes you have to escalate to deescalate.

The Iranian regime responded with threats of its own — warning that if the U.S. hits its energy facilities, Iran would completely seal the strait … and could attack energy infrastructure across the region.

Meantime, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte says a coalition of 22 countries is preparing to help secure the Strait of Hormuz.

RUTTE: I'm absolutely convinced, uh, that we will get this done together. Uh, actually it is already being planned. I'm absolutely convinced, uh, that we will get this done together. Uh, actually it is already being planned.

Trump has been particularly critical of NATO allies for not stepping in to help safeguard commercial oil tankers against Iranian attacks.

One-fifth of the world's oil normally moves through the strait, but Iranian forces have largely shut it down in retaliation for U.S. and Israeli airstrikes.

Iranian missiles » Iranian missiles over the weekend struck two communities in southern Israel. The strikes left buildings shattered and dozens injured … in dual attacks not far from Israel’s main nuclear research center.

And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says world leaders need to understand that the Iranian regime, while weakened … remains a threat to the world.

NETANYAHU:  They fired an intercontinental ballistic missile on Diego Garcia. That's 4,000 kilometers. I've been warning all the time. They have now the capacity to reach deep into Europe. They already have fired an European country, uh, Cyprus. They are putting everyone in their sights.

But the UK says the missile fired at the joint US and British military base on the Diego Garcia island … actually fell short. The base is located in the Indian Ocean, almost 2,500 miles from Iran.

ICE agents helping in airports » At airports across the United States, travelers are still waiting in grueling hourslong security lines. One traveler in Atlanta said he’d heard the news and wasn’t surprised.

TRAVELER:  I've been in line now for about an hour and 45 minutes. Probably got an hour more to go. I'm on my way to Las Vegas. So, uh, I think I'm pretty well getting close to the end zone over here.

The long waits are due to TSA security staffing shortages … amid the ongoing shutdown of the Dept. of Homeland Security. For DHS it is the second shutdown in a matter of months. Many employees said they’d had enough and quit … and many others are calling out sick much more often.

The Trump administration is now deploying Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to airports to assist short-handed TSA workers. Border czar Tom Homan:

HOMAN:  We can relieve TSA and augment TSA where we are trained in security and be able to do that. And that hopefully will move the lines quicker.

TSA agents, and many other DHS workers, are being asked to work without pay for now. They will receive back pay when Congress eventually funds the department … but there’s no telling when that will happen.

Hawaii flood » One of those DHS agencies is FEMA … which is now deploying resources in Hawaii … amid historic flooding there.

The state is suffering its worst flooding in more than 20 years. Heavy rains fell on soil already saturated by downpours from a storm a week ago. Matthew Foster with the National Weather Service:

FOSTER:  The good news is, is the water eventually just goes out to the, the ocean and um, it is a quick, um, time between, 'cause we're just small islands, right? So it quickly goes downstream out to the ocean and, and recedes pretty quickly here. So the type of flooding we get in Hawaii is more of your flash flooding.

But the damage is done. Gov. Josh Green said the cost of the storm damage could top $1 billion dollars.

Robert Mueller obit » Robert Mueller has died. He was a Vietnam veteran who served as director of the FBI following 9/11. But many remember him best as special counsel in the so-called Russia probe … investigating alleged ties between Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign team and Russia. His final report did not establish any criminal conspiracy.

President Trump repeatedly criticized Mueller, calling his investigation a politically-motivated witch hunt.

The president reacted to Mueller’s death on social media. He said—quoting here—“I’m glad he’s dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people!”.

Mueller’s family said he had been diagnosed with Parkison’s disease four years ago. He was 81 years old.

I'm Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: Should there be a safety valve for unjust sentences? That’s ahead on Legal Docket.  Plus, the making of The Godfather.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 23rd day of March, 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. We begin with one unanimous opinion from Friday, and it’s a 9-0 decision in favor of a street preacher from Mississippi.

The court ruled that being convicted under a law once does not mean you lose the right to challenge that law in the future.

REICHARD: Here’s the background: Gabriel Olivier had been fined under a city rule requiring protesters and demonstrators to stay in a designated area near a local amphitheater. But Olivier said that space was too remote to reach people effectively, so he went back to the sidewalk in front of the venue—and got himself arrested. The city said a prior Supreme Court precedent barred him from challenging that ordinance at all.

EICHER: But the high court said Olivier is not trying to undo his old conviction. He is trying to stop future enforcement of the ordinance, so he can return to the amphitheater and preach without fear of another prosecution.

And during arguments in December, Justice Samuel Alito spelled out the practical problem in plain English:

ALITO: And doesn’t it seem a stretch of the underlying reasoning, to say, no you can’t ever do that, you’re forever barred from engaging in what you think is protected First Amendment activity because you were previously convicted.

REICHARD: So now Olivier may go forward with a federal lawsuit aimed at the one thing he seeks: the right to return to the amphitheater to preach without the threat of another prosecution.

EICHER: Okay, on to argument in Hunter v United States.

Munson Hunter pleaded guilty in federal court to aiding and abetting wire fraud. As part of that plea deal, he gave up his right to appeal before he even knew the sentence he would receive.

Later, after sentencing, Hunter objected to one of the conditions of his supervised release: that he take mental health medications as prescribed by a doctor.

REICHARD: Hunter says that violates his constitutional right to refuse unwanted medical treatment.

The trial judge said Hunter could appeal. But the Fifth Circuit later said the waiver in his plea deal had already given that right away.

EICHER: So the question for the justices is simple: When a defendant signs away his right to appeal, does that also block him from challenging a sentence condition he says is unconstitutional?

Hunter’s lawyer Lisa Blatt framed the case around principles of contract law:

BLATT: All contracts are subject to defenses. So appeal waivers are also subject to defenses and can be excused in more circumstances than the two recognized below.

Her point is that, yes, plea agreements are contracts—but contracts have limits, defenses, and exceptions.

Blatt said the Fifth Circuit’s rule is so rigid it would leave defendants stuck even with plainly unlawful sentence conditions:

BLATT: No appeal for sentences above the statutory maximum based on race, religion, national origin, tribal status, or pure vindictiveness. No appeal for pregnancy bans, castration, or compelled church attendance either. These scenarios are all real cases.

Then she tied it back to her client’s situation:

BLATT: Only the most paramount government interest overcomes the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.

REICHARD: She reiterated that her client was ordered to comply with medical treatment even though he had no demonstrated mental health condition tied to his crime.

Justice Clarence Thomas questioned her on a key premise:

THOMAS: Ms. Blatt, if you can waive constitutional rights or statutory rights, why can't you waive these contractual rights that are statutory here?

BLATT: You absolutely can waive…the right to appeal and there's an appeal agreement, but the issue here is, absent this plea agreement, which is a contract, the defendant could just walk away.

Blatt’s answer: yes, defendants can waive appeal rights—but not in a way that wipes out every contract defense when the government wants strict enforcement.

She put this bluntly:

BLATT: That's absurd when everyone from Elon Musk to billionaires to corporations to…mom-and-pops can assert contract defenses. The government doesn't even tell you why this contract, unlike any other contract in the entire universe, can't have a defense.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett acknowledged the appeal of the contract analogy for plea deals. But she also noted that the lower courts have not been consistent in treating them as ordinary contracts.

EICHER: On the other side, though, the government argues that a deal is a deal.

Zoe Jacoby represented the United States. She argued waiving appeal just means the trial court is the final decisionmaker.

Then she added a colorful hypothetical:

JACOBY: To be clear: an appeal waiver is not an agreement to receive an unlawful sentence. You couldn't agree to receive “trial by 12 orangutans.” That would be an unlawful bargain.

REICHARD: Justice Neil Gorsuch wasn’t buying that: what if the district court itself behaves unlawfully? 

That segued into a sharp comment from Justice Sonia Sotomayor:

SOTOMAYOR: That's exactly what you're saying, which is, if the judge uses impermissible race factors, impermissible sex factors, religious factors, that can be waived….that’s saying, you're entering a contract that says, if your judge is biased, if he doesn't follow the Constitution,....if he makes plain error judgments that are clear and undisputed, there's no remedy for you.

EICHER: Lawyer Blatt reinforced that idea with another hypothetical dealing with judges:

BLATT: If there was a law that was passed that said all judges must take antidepressants recommended by their physician, I think you would find it stupidly unconstitutional and offensive.

The practical question is whether appeal waivers are nearly absolute—or whether courts must leave room to correct sentence conditions that cross a constitutional line.

REICHARD: Alright, on to our last case:

ROBERTS: We will hear argument today in case 24-1238, Montgomery v Caribe Transport.

This one arises from a terrible accident. Shawn Montgomery wasn parked in a tractor-trailer on the side of the highway when another tractor-trailer slammed into his vehicle. He suffered many injuries, including the loss of a leg.

Montgomery sued the driver, the trucking company, and also the freight broker who had arranged the shipment—C.H. Robinson.

EICHER: Robinson is a freight broker who doesn’t own trucks or employ drivers. It matches shippers with motor carriers.

Montgomery says the broker was negligent in choosing an unsafe carrier.

But the broker says Congress already shielded companies like his from that kind of lawsuit. He cited a federal deregulation law with the unwieldy name Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act.

REICHARD: In plain English, Congress told states: stay out of the trucking business when it comes to prices, routes, and services. But Congress also said states may still protect public safety. So the question is whether this lawsuit is really about highway safety—or whether it is an end run around federal deregulation.

EICHER: Montgomery’s lawyer is former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who argued for state law to prevail. He put it this way: if this lawsuit cannot go forward, then a broker may help put a dangerous truck on the road and still avoid responsibility.

CLEMENT: While Congress favored economic deregulation, the last thing it wanted was safety deregulation. …Thus, the question in this case boils down to whether the negligent hiring claim here is with respect to motor vehicles. Of course, it is. The whole point of the tort is to keep dangerous motor vehicles off of the road.

But the federal government is on the side of the broker. It says the safety exception should be read more narrowly. Here’s Assistant to the Solicitor General Sopan Joshi:

JOSHI: Put it this way. Suppose there were a rule that applied with respect to coffee, cream, and sugar and then an exception that applied only with respect to coffee. You would naturally think that the exception does not apply with respect to cream and sugar, even though that phrase in isolation might cause you to adopt the opposite view. I think that’s kind of what’s going on here, and that’s why I think the respondent’s (the companies) reading of the statute is the better one.

REICHARD: In other words, the government says this lawsuit is one step too far removed from the truck itself.

But Clement for the injured man had a counter to that:

CLEMENT: But the thing is if you have one of these McDonalds torts where the problem is the piping-hot coffee spilled in your lap, I would say that's a tort with respect to coffee. And for the same reasons, this is a tort with respect to motor vehicles.

The broker’s own lawyer pushed that point even harder: brokers arrange shipments, he says. They do not drive trucks:

BOUTROUS: Congress assigned freight brokers a defined role to arrange for transportation of property by connecting shippers with motor carriers. ….Brokers lack sufficient connection to motor vehicles. Brokers don't own, operate, or control motor vehicles. …

EICHER: Therefore, a broker’s connection to the motor vehicles is just too far removed to fall within the safety exception.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh had a practical concern:

KAVANAUGH: If tort liability extends to them, how are they going to assess and evaluate the safety of drivers in a particular trucking company? How are they going to figure out do they have an alcohol/drug issue? How are they going to figure out English proficiency which of course is a critical issue at the current moment...in the real world of how brokers operate, it's very difficult.

…later…CLEMENT: So I think it's going to be pretty easy for them to protect themselves by hiring quality carriers.

Justice Alito brought a moment of levity in search of a clean legal theory, with Clement happy to join in:

ALITO: I came to the argument hoping you were going to give us some brilliant way of reconciling these two provisions other than just live with it, but I guess there's no -- there is no such theory.

CLEMENT: If there is, it has escaped me.

REICHARD: At bottom, the justices have to decide how far federal deregulation goes: does it protect brokers from negligent-hiring suits, or does state safety law still reach them when bad choices put dangerous trucks on the road?

We’ll know who prevails sometime before the end of June. 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: Good morning, Nick, good to be with you

EICHER: David, early in this war you made the point that sanctions work best on countries that respond to normal market pressures — and Iran largely doesn’t. We do. Our allies do. So is there a risk the economic pain here is landing faster on our side than on theirs?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, I think that there’s a combination of things there. And I think you’re already seeing the fact that the way the country is interpreting the efforts, you always get a certain degree of spin and so forth, when these types of things happen.

But in this case, I think most of what the administration has said is true, that there has been a pretty significant amount of military dominance, and yet the reason that I think the country seems mostly concerned or skeptical or unsupportive is related to the economic pain you’re referring to, that when all’s said and done, there’s a lot of data points that we can point to to talk about success and prevailing and optimism for some of the military objectives, but the Strait of Hormuz is closed and oil is $98 and that’s really the bottom line, as far as how our country interprets it, and what our appetite for economic pain may be is.

Now, I do believe that the complexity that you talked about a moment ago in sharing comments I made a few weeks ago, I do think it’s true that Iran is tough when market signals are tough to work, when people don’t respond to normal economic incentives, and a lot of it has to do with their Islamic regime not valuing self-preservation. But there’s a limit to some of that too, if one of the Israeli and U.S. objectives is to try to get an internal uprising within the country.

The theocratic regime of Iran may not value self-preservation, but there certainly are millions of people in Tehran who do, and yet it’s hard to see a path right now to that internal overcoming of the regime. And so Iran feels that they can outlast us in the Strait of Hormuz, and then you get just a lot of military and tactical things that go into what they’re trying to do and what we’re trying to do to combat it that I don’t really know how it plays out.

What I do know is that if someone had said oil would get up into the high 90s and stay there now for two weeks, as opposed to that first week that it was up, down and it went above 100 but came back to 80, now we’ve really—it was actually as volatile as a week as it was in equities. It wasn’t very volatile in oil prices. It just stayed up there in between 95 and $100. We’re at a point here where this is starting to risk becoming economically very profound for the United States.

EICHER: There are reports that Iran is letting at least some ships through the Strait — maybe selectively, maybe not fully confirmed in every case. But if that is even partly true, does it suggest the leverage here is not total closure so much as selective control: deciding who gets access and who bears the cost? And isn’t it extraordinary that it’s Iran calling the shots?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, well, it would be extraordinary. And I’m not sure that it’s untrue, but I’m not totally sure how true it is either, because there’s disputes about what ships have gotten through and the Japan issue, I think, is not necessarily totally confirmed, so I’ve read different reports on it, but certainly that’s the intent is for Iran to message that they will allow things for China, Russia. That also changes things too in terms of leverage and what the United States is able to count on in terms of cooperation with other counterparties.

And so if that is the case, then we have to expect that to get a successful outcome in the Strait of Hormuz, the United States is going to have to put significant more resources there into Hormuz.

EICHER: The U.S. is also backing off efforts—namely economic sanctions—to impede some Iranian oil already at sea, essentially because more supply is better with oil this high. What does that tell you? Is that an admission that market reality is forcing a change in strategy?

BAHNSEN: Well, there’s no sanctions on Iran right now, and so what we’re referring to is the sanctions that were presumed to be in effect for Iran exporting oil to other countries, and the United States is now saying all bets are off, but that’s a self-interest objective with Iran. They’re obviously not going to respond to sanctions right now when they’re in the middle of a war with us, but you’re talking about the other countries receiving.

At this point, the United States is saying, the more oil out there, the better. We’re not going to impede global oil supply with oil between 95 and 100, so some of the different rules being suspended and policy objectives changing for a day or a week or a month is to be expected when the entire objective is to maximize supply so as to try to bring prices down. The issue is that nothing is really working to bring prices down right now.

EICHER: Let me pivot to something you wrote about in Dividend Cafe. Financial media keep raising the specter of “contagion” in private credit — the idea that bad loans outside the banking system could spill into something bigger. In plain English, why do you think that comparison is overstated, especially when people start invoking 2008?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, you know Nick, in Dividend Cafe on Friday, I wanted to talk about the concern that many in the financial media put out there as really a prevailing narrative, that we might risk this sort of contagion issue of various non-bank lenders, which has become an over-trillion-dollar business since the financial crisis.

I think it’s a very healthy thing in the economy, investors doing a lot of private lending, as opposed to all of that risk being embedded in our commercial banking system, and whether or not, if some of these loans start to go bad, it will spread throughout the financial system. And I think that right now, there’s not even really a lot of proof that a big amount of loans are going bad. You always have a certain degree of defaults there. There have been a couple of defaults that have been in the news lately, but very, very, very low percentage.

But even if that were to increase, when people start talking about any comparison in 2008, which has come up all the time since 2008 because it’s a very sensationalistic way to frame any story, but 2008 was a particularly unique moment in that first of all, the loans going bad were connected to an asset class that everybody had, which was housing, and the loans going bad were held in the banking system that everybody needed for not only the safe preservation of their own deposits, but whatever next loan is needed to keep the economy going, small business loans, more mortgage loans, that though, if those banks were impaired, then there’d be no lending, and then there’d be no economic activity, et cetera.

So that was a pretty textbook definition of what we refer to as contagion effect. In this case, I believe that a couple loans may go bad and maybe more loans go bad, but it’s very isolated, into the non-bank lenders, the investors, insurance companies, pensions, but they’re diversified. It’s a small portion of a portfolio, and these are risk-bearing investors, as opposed to a banking system with depositors that is not supposed to incur losses, and I think that it is being portrayed in a way that is very distortive of truth.

Now we don’t know exactly where things will go. I’m referring to where things are now and what the indications are going forward. If the facts change, then my perspective would change. But I generally encourage people to resist narratives that are trying to bring back memories of certain events that are not really analogous.

EICHER: All right. David Bahnsen is founder, managing partner and chief investment officer at The Bahnsen Group. He writes at Dividend Cafe each week and frequently at WORLD Opinions. David, I hope you have a great week.

BAHNSEN: Well, thanks so much, Nick.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. Coming next: The WORLD History Book.

More than 50 years after its release on March 24, 1972, Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather remains one of the most influential films ever made. It’s a movie that reshaped Hollywood and redefined the gangster genre.

WORLD’s Max Belz now on the film’s place in American culture.

MUSIC: [Singing C'è la luna mezzo mare]

MAX BELZ: The Godfather opened to success at the box office, but it also was a critical favorite earning three Academy Awards including Best Picture of 1972. Pauline Kael, the legendary critic for The New Yorker said “If ever there was a great example of how the best popular movies come out of a merger of commerce and art, “The Godfather” is it.”

BONASERA: I believe in America. Americans made my fortune and I raised my daughter in the American fashion. I gave her freedom, but I taught her never to dishonor her family.

The Godfather is a story about succession. Francis Ford Coppola said that it’s a movie about a man who must give his kingdom to one of his three sons: the oldest--quick-tempered Sonny, the middle son Fredo, who is weak and double-minded, or the youngest, Michael. Michael is cool-headed, but also is the most adjusted to America and the least likely to embrace the life of a crime boss. He served in the military during World War II. He’s a patriot. He doesn’t need the dirty business of organized crime to make his way in the world. But the lot falls to him.

MICHAEL: That’s my family Kay, not me.

It’s a movie that almost didn’t get made because of pressure on the inside and outside. Paramount executive Bob Evans and Coppola clashed over casting and budget because the movie’s 1940s setting made its sets and costumes more expensive. Paramount also faced opposition from mobster Joseph Colombo who thought the movie might give Italians a bad name. Coppola, here, in a 1972 commentary.

COPPOLA: So I was in very, very deep trouble and I’m not even sure how I survived to be honest.

Through sheer determination, the movie did come together with a budget of roughly $6 million. Its cast shone with the following stars: Diane Keaton, Al Pacino, James Caan, and Robert Duvall. Cinematographer Gordon Willis shot The Godfather with warmth and richness, a mark the photographer left on other movies of the 1970s like Annie Hall and All the President’s Men.

COPPOLA: I learned a lot from Gordon. Gordon’s concept of structure was very disciplined and I learned that from him. I’ll always be grateful.

And what to say of Nino Rota’s lush score? The melodies are as unforgettable as the movie’s images. His compositions bind the epic together.

MUSIC: [Love theme from The Godfather, by Nino Rota]

The Godfather’s premise is similar to Shakespeare’s King Lear, and is based on a pop novel by Mario Puzo who co-wrote the screenplay with Coppola. It also introduced great lines into our speech like: like “taking it to the mattresses” … “sleep with the fishes,””… “making someone an offer he can’t refuse,”…

CLIP: Leave the gun, take the cannoli.

Even though gangster movies had been around awhile, this was a detailed window into Italian-American life, some of which seems cliche now, like when Clemenza is making spaghetti sauce.

CLIP: Come over here, kid. Learn something. You may have to cook for 20 guys some day. You see, you start out with a little bit of oil. Then you fry some garlic. Then you throw in some tomatoes, tomato paste, you fry it; ya make sure it doesn't stick. You get it to a boil; you shove in all your sausage and your meatballs; heh?

Francis Ford Coppola had made a name for himself as the co-writer of Patton, for which he won an Academy Award in 1970. He also was close friends with Stephen Spielberg and George Lucas, the so-called movie brats.

This generation of younger directors brought change to the movies in the 1960s. The old producers were stepping away and the popularity of television made the movie business more fragile. By 1972, the shine of the golden age of Hollywood had worn off, and the stories of New Hollywood, as it was called, took on grittier subject matter. Violence became more realistic and an aimlessness marked American movies, something learned from the French movies of the 50s and 60s.

But The Godfather had a tie to old Hollywood because Marlon Brando gave an iconic performance as the don of the family. This shift in the movie business is reflected in one of the movie’s most powerful themes but also was appropriate at the time it came out. What was the America that we knew in 1972? And how was it about to change? How do you embrace a new way while also standing fast in time-tested tradition? Interestingly, this was a main theme in 1971’s Fiddler on the Roof too.

CLIP: You spend time with your family? Sure I do. Good, because a man who doesn’t spend time with his family can never be a real man.

The old don has a code and a love for family. But the new generation embodied in Michael is slicked back, corporate, colder, and more violent. He is unforgiving and loveless. But it’s the changing world that is a timeless theme. The Leopard, from 1963, inspired this theme in The Godfather. It’s a movie about a patriarch in 1860s Sicily watching a middle class revolution replace his old aristocratic world.

Don Corleone echoes some of the old world traditions.

CLIP: I spent my life trying not to be careless. The women and the children can be careless but not men.

The legacy of The Godfather expanded the form of movies. It was a sprawling story with many characters but also deep character development. It has the feel of a novel with generations and marriages and deaths and side characters and subplots. Perhaps that’s why it’s still a part of our culture 54 years later.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Max Belz.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: a showdown over military AI. Should the Pentagon control it or should the company that built it? And the story of a teenage friendship built around a lie—there is a clinical name for it. 

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 records the words of Jesus: He said therefore, “‘What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his garden, and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches.’ And again he said, ‘To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? It is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, until it was all leavened.’” —Luke 13:18-21

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.