The World and Everything in It: March 4, 2024

PREROLL: The World and Everything in It is made possible by listeners like us. Hi. My name is Lydia Malec, and I’m a missionary kid in Epa, Peru, but I'm getting ready to move back to the United States to start college. Hi mom. I bet you didn’t expect to hear me on a preroll. I hope you enjoy today's program.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning! Social media companies sue over state laws regulating what they do on their platforms and what they don’t allow.

PAUL CLEMENT:  Content moderation to me is just editorial discretion.

JUSTICE ALITO: Is it anything more than a euphemism for censorship?

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket. Also, today the Monday Moneybeat, are we done with inflation and what is it, really?

And the WORLD History Book: ten years ago this week an aviation mystery.

AUDIO: Debris on an island in the Indian Ocean is from the Boeing 777 that vanished with 239 people on board.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, March 4th. 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, HOST: Trump presidential primaries » Donald Trump is in pole position on the eve of Super Tuesday when almost 900 delegates will be up for grabs.

Over the weekend, Trump campaigned in North Carolina, one of the 16 states or territories that will vote tomorrow.

TRUMP: Over the past few weeks, we’ve been on a rocket to the Republican nomination. It’s been a rocket. (cheers)

Trump on Saturday won caucuses in Idaho and Missouri bringing his total delegate count to 244. That’s ten times the total of his last remaining GOP rival, Nikki Haley.

Haley Primaries » But Haley maintains that even with the odds stacked against her, she intends to stick it out to give voters an alternative to Trump and President Biden.

HALEY: We want everybody to feel like they had the opportunity to vote for someone and not just against someone.

And Haley told NBC that despite signing a pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee, she no longer feels bound by that pledge. The Republican National Committee required candidates to sign it in order to participate in primary debates.

But she said the RNC now is not the same RNC as it was then.

Border/immigration » The top issue in this year’s election, according to some recent polls, is immigration and border security. Trump and Haley are both well aware of that.

TRUMP: On day-one of my administration, I will terminate every open border policy of the Biden administration. 

HALEY: Instead of catch and release, we need to go to catch and deport. That is what will stop what’s happening on the border. 

Democrats know it too. Sen. Chris Murphy told ABC’s This Week:

MURPHY: Democrats need to go on the offense on this question of controlling the border.

Democrats charge that Donald Trump sabotaged a bipartisan Senate border bill, because he wanted to preserve the border crisis as a political issue.

But many Republicans, like Congressman Mike Turner, say:

TURNER: The law that came out of the Senate would not have fixed this. In fact, it would have allowed thousands of people to come across the border illegally.

Republicans say the president could address the problem immediately by reinstalling Trump-era policies that he rescinded and by enforcing existing laws.

Supreme Court Trump ballot case » The Supreme Court could decide as soon as today whether states can kick Donald Trump off their presidential ballots. Multiple states have sought to do just that, citing the Constitution’s insurrection clause in connection with the Capitol riot.

During oral arguments last month, even some of the court’s liberal justices appeared doubtful that states have the authority to do that.

Justice Elena Kagan said of the accusations against Trump:

KAGAN: It sounds awfully national to me. So whatever means there are to enforce it would suggest that they have to be federal national means.

Several state court rulings that would bar Trump from the ballots are on hold, pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.

SOUND: [Wind]

Blizzard » Very cold and sometimes violent winds have been battering the Sierra Nevada region for days amid a powerful blizzard in California and Nevada.

A wind gust of 190 miles per hour was recorded at a Tahoe ski resort. And winds were still gusting last night at around 45 miles per hour. And then there’s the snow.

Justin Collins with the National Weather Service:

COLLINS: We’ve been getting reports of up to about 40 inches around lake level - around Tahoe. So it’s quite the impressive storm.

The blizzard has shut down many roads and knocked out power to thousands.

And the forecast calls for even more snow and strong winds into tomorrow and possibly beyond.

Gaza cease-fire talks » Israel has reportedly agreed to the framework for a cease-fire agreement, but Hamas, as of last night, had not.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Ben Cardin:

CARDIN: It gives us an opportunity not only for the release of hostages but to get humanitarian assistance to the innocent people that have been caught in this war.

Vice President Kamala Harris said on Sunday:

HARRIS: Hamas claims it wants a cease-fire. Well, there is a deal on the table. Hamas needs to agree to that deal. Let’s reunite the hostages with their families, and let’s provide immediate relief to the people of Gaza.

Mediators with the governments of the United States, Egypt, and Qatar have been working to broker a deal to pause the fighting before the start of the Muslim Ramadan observance about a week from now.

I’m Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: Social media and free speech. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 4th day of March, 2024. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today! Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. It’s time for Legal Docket.

Our commitment to you is to give you something on everything the Supreme Court does. We cover all 60-to-80 cases it takes up. They all matter or the court wouldn’t take them. But, let’s be honest. Some are pretty dry and a little dull.

But some are like today: relevant to just about everyone and as close to you as your pocket or purse. Social media and free speech is at the center of our case today.

Last week, four straight hours of arguments about state laws that regulate how social-media companies moderate content. I listened to every minute so you don’t have to!

EICHER: Speaking of time savings, let’s dive in. I’ll give some context for these disputes that began back in 2021.

A lot of people were angry when Twitter banned President Trump from its platform after the January 6th riots. This was the pre-Elon Musk, pre-X days. Trump had nearly 90 million followers there. That’s one piece.

Another comes before that, the October before the election in 2020. Social-media platforms blocked a New York Post article that revealed the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop. The platforms said it had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation, believing a Biden campaign operation to squash the story. It worked.

Before that, the government pressured platforms to silence dissent over the COVID-19 narrative from the Centers for Disease Control. Just a few examples.

REICHARD: In response, Florida and Texas passed laws to regulate how big social media platforms moderate content. No more deplatforming a political candidate. They must explain why content is removed; they must disclose content policy, and give users a way to lodge a complaint. Florida imposed hefty fines.

EICHER: Listen to what Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said when he signed the law in May 2021:

RON DESANTIS: Some of our biggest media conglomerates, who claim to be avatars of the First Amendment and free exchange of ideas, they've really become cheerleaders for censorship. If something doesn't fit the overriding narrative, then in their view….It's best that you edit it out of existence, rather than actually tell people the truth…. I don't think that that's what the American people want, certainly people here in Florida want and with that we’ll make it official. (clapping)

REICHARD: Soon after, Texas passed a similar law and within days, two leading Internet trade associations sued…one of them being NetChoice. The members of these trade associations operate websites like Google, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, and X.

They argued that as companies, they have a right to free speech that these laws violate.

EICHER: But the lower courts disagreed on whether the laws are unconstitutional. One circuit said yes, the other circuit said no.

Florida’s case was up first. Solicitor General of Florida Henry Whitaker argued social-media platforms are nothing like traditional publishers:

HENRY WHITAKER: Internet platforms today control the way millions of Americans communicate with each other and with the world. The platforms achieved that success by marketing themselves as neutral forums for free speech. Now that they host the communications of billions of users, they sing a very different tune. They now say that they are in fact editors of their users' speech, rather like a newspaper. They contend that they possess a broad First Amendment right to censor anything they host on their sites, even when doing so contradicts their own representations to consumers. But the design of the First Amendment is to prevent the suppression of speech, not to enable it. That is why the telephone company and the delivery service have no First Amendment right to use their services as a choke point to silence those they disfavor...

REICHARD: But in that argument, Justice Brett Kavanaugh heard a missing piece:

JUTICE KAVANAUGH: In your opening remarks, you said the design of the First Amendment is to prevent "suppression of speech." And you left out what I understand to be three key words in the First Amendment or to describe the First Amendment, "by the government." Do you agree "by the government" is what the First Amendment is targeting?

WHITAKER: I do agree with that, Your Honor, but I don't agree that there is no First Amendment interest in allowing the people's representatives to promote the free exchange of ideas.

That became one of several threads of legal consideration: the boundaries of the First Amendment.

On the other side for the internet companies, former Solicitor General Paul Clement. He had a simple argument: the laws are flat out unconstitutional. His clients can’t be forced to host content they find objectionable. Besides, who wants to be inundated with a bunch of unwanted online content?

PAUL CLEMENT: Indeed, given the vast amount of material on the Internet in general and on these websites in particular, exercising editorial discretion is absolutely necessary to make the websites useful for users and advertisers.

EICHER: But there’s the rub: what’s “editorial discretion?” Here’s an exchange between Justice Clarence Thomas and Clement:

JUSTICE THOMAS: Can you give me one example of a case in which we have said the First Amendment protects the right to censor?

CLEMENT: So I don't know that the Court used that particular locution, Justice Thomas…

Locution particulars aside, applying First Amendment rights to the dynamic tech industry proved dicey.

JUSTICE THOMAS: We're using broad terms like "content moderation," throughout the briefs, you have "shadow banning," "deprioritizing," and all sorts of things. And I guess, with these facial challenges, I always have a problem that we're not talking about anything specific.

Lots of phrases there. Justice Samuel Alito followed up on the first one Justice Thomas mentioned: “content moderation.”

JUSTICE ALITO: Could you define that for me?

CLEMENT: So, you know, look, content moderation to me is just editorial discretion. It's a way to take all of the content that is potentially posted on the site, exercise editorial discretion in order to make it less offensive to users and advertisers.

ALITO: Is it anything more than a euphemism for censorship?

REICHARD: Whitaker for Florida took that notion and injected doubt into Clement’s explanation, referencing a case decided last year:

WHITAKER: In Twitter v. Taamneh, the platforms told you that they didn't even know that ISIS was on their platform and doing things, and it is a strange kind of editor that does not even know the material that it is editing.

In another line of questioning, Justice Thomas brought up conflict with other laws. Specifically, the law known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Tech companies rely on it to shield them from liability for what users say on their platforms.

It reads: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information provider.”

Again, Justice Thomas and Clement:

JUSTICE THOMAS: I've been fortunate or unfortunate to have been here for most of the development of the Internet. (Laughter.) And the argument under Section 230 has been that you're merely a conduit…that was the case back in the '90s and perhaps the early 2000s. Now you're saying that you are engaged in editorial discretion and expressive conduct. Doesn't that seem to undermine your Section 230 arguments?

CLEMENT: With respect, Justice Thomas, I mean, obviously, you were here for all of it. I wasn't here for all of it. But my understanding is…

EICHER: Clement answered that in passing Section 230 Congress encouraged editorial discretion to keep bad stuff off the internet, and still not treat platforms as publishers with the usual liability. He basically waved it off as a distraction from the question of whether platforms that moderate content are protected by the First Amendment. 

Justice Thomas then threw Clement a curve ball: Is an algorithm speech?

CLEMENT: I don't think so, Your Honor. These algorithms don't spring from the ether. They are essentially computer programs designed by humans to try to do some of this editorial function and it's --

JUSTICE THOMAS: Well, but what do you do with a deep-learning algorithm which teaches itself and has very little human intervention?

CLEMENT: You still had to have somebody who kind of created the universe that that algorithm is going to look at.

JUSTICE THOMAS: So who’s speaking then? The algorithm or the person?

Ferreting out definitions and who is speaking is one thing.

But Justice Alito wanted to know exactly which platforms the Florida law covers:

JUSTICE ALITO: So does Gmail have a First Amendment right to delete, let's say, Tucker Carlson's or Rachel Maddow's Gmail accounts if they don't agree with her -- his or her viewpoints?

CLEMENT: They -- they might be able to do that, Your Honor.

REICHARD: The Texas argument came last, with Clement again advocating for the tech companies. Texas law is different from Florida’s in that it excludes websites like Gmail from its definition of “social media platforms.”

Clement argued, no matter.

CLEMENT: The other thing it excludes, of course, is websites that are primarily focused on news, sports, and entertainment. In the First Amendment business, we call that content-based discrimination, and that's just one of the many reasons that this statute is, dare I say it, facially unconstitutional.

EICHER: “Facially unconstitutional,” meaning a law that is always unconstitutional, no matter the circumstances. For example, a law that bans all public speeches critical of the government. The First Amendment doesn’t permit that, ever. Unconstitutional on its face.

REICHARD: But Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson argued an example from history where government intervention in communication was upheld.

Western Union refused to carry telegraph messages dealing with unions and strikes. Eventually, the government required telegraph operators to impartially transmit such speech.

AARON NIELSON: Yet, under the platforms' theory, Western Union was just making editorial choices not to transmit pro-union views. Today, millions of Americans don't visit friends or family or even go to work …in person. Everybody is online. The modern public square. Yet, if platforms that passively host the speech of billions of people are themselves the speakers and can discriminate, there will be no public square to speak of…And as more than 40 states warned the Court, the implications are gravely serious.

EICHER: Serious, in that Congress could be rendered powerless to address the social media crisis devastating children.

REICHARD: I counted 81 friends of the court briefs filed in this case. One that caught my eye came from Becket, a firm that defends religious liberty. Filed in support of neither party, it asked the court not to lump religious speech in with other kinds of speech as here, which is about commercial activity. Sincere religious speech is its own thing.

I couldn’t help but wonder: If the court strikes down the laws of Florida and Texas, then what’s to stop social media platforms from doing again what they did to President Trump, to COVID dissenters, or legitimate reporting?

We will be hearing much more on this. On March 18, the court hears a case involving the Biden administration’s pressure on social media platforms to censor conservatives.

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 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: Good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.

EICHER: All right, David, we’ve been watching inflation closely for a few years now. It’s important not only to the individual consumer paying the higher prices, but also to our central bank that uses interest rates to try to manage inflation. So the Federal Reserve is looking for the magic number 2. Two percent inflation is the hoped-for sign that the Fed will start cutting interest rates.

All that as preface to the news that the Fed’s preferred gauge of inflation came in with a two-handle on it 2-point-4 percent year-on-year.

Personal Consumption Expenditures kind of a companion to the Consumer Price Index, the PCE versus the CPI. We got a new PCE report last week. So aren’t we in the end zone, as far as the inflation narrative is concerned?

BAHNSEN: Yes. And only thing I would say is: I've been saying this for some time, because I believe the CPI is actually at a two handle if the shelter component was not so distortive. So yes, I think the PCE, let's call it two and a half percent, blending the core and the headline, shows that they're, if they're not at the end zone, they're at the one yard line.

I also believe it's absolutely inevitable that the CPI is going there, too. And the reason being that 34% of the CPI, shelter, is still showing over 6% inflation. That’s not accurate. I think things like food, a lot of people are still seeing the price inflation and food prices when they go to a fast-food restaurant or certain grocery items. And yet, food as a percentage of what a typical household spends total money on has not really increased a lot, even though food prices have.

And that's the challenge, Nick, of some of these methodologies: to try to keep up with what percentage of a typical household’s spending goes to different things like apparel and insurance and utilities and housing and food. I don't think they can do that perfectly. But I also think they have to try. So that's what these indexes are for.

EICHER: You’ve heard these stories of so-called shrinkflation. There are a lot of these in the news, and we can see it with our own two eyes in the stores: fewer ounces of product in the packages kind of as a way to cloak higher prices. Not 12 ounces, but 11. Does any of that stuff matter when analyzing the bigger picture, the macroeconomic questions?

BAHNSEN: Not even a little bit!

It is one of the strangest conversations that I've studied over the years. Remember what you're trying to do: you're trying to measure the total aggregate price level, across an economy. It's already something that simply cannot be done. Prices are changing constantly. They're different in Wisconsin than they are in Idaho than they are in New York City. You have a quality of goods that changes—so how do you measure for TV; used to be this and now a TV is that, but the other TV has a different high-def quality—and so there is a very difficult process here.

Shrinkflation is dealing with the fact that you could have certain package sizes that change. But this all gets blended together over time. It all gets aggregated. And so I've read a lot of shrinkflation theories that it is conspiratorial, it's a way to hide the overall level as if a consumer doesn't know when they're buying a smaller bag of chips or something like that.

And as if there isn't another product in which there is some unmeasured increase in the value, maybe not in the size, but in the quality of the product.

So it's a very complicated issue that can't be perfectly solved for. But I have never found a shrinkflation article that made me a conspiracy theorist about this stuff.

EICHER: All right defining terms, David. Sometimes I think it’s good to define the big terms we think we understand, but that we certainly use all the time. So we talk about inflation as higher prices, but how do we square that with what the late, great Milton Friedman said about inflation, that it’s always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon?

BAHNSEN: Well, Milton gave the best definition of inflation in history when he said, in his even more famous statement, that inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. So in referring to it as a monetary phenomenon, he's referring to the too-much-money part.

Now, the money supply has declined rapidly over the last year. We do not have a lot of periods of time in our country when money supply goes negative. That has happened and yet price increases have grown.

So was Milton wrong? No, but the way people interpreted Milton is wrong. The mere increase of money supply, Nick, is never inflationary. It is the increase of money supply above the level of new goods and services. You cannot have the same level of money supply and an economy that is growing without getting deflation. And so what really is the right Milton Friedman approach is a money supply that grows in concert with the economy. When money supply grows more than the economy, that's inflationary. And when the money supply grows less than the economy, that's deflationary.

Which is why Milton said inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. And I have always added too few goods and services. (He did not say “and services.”) But because we are such a service-oriented economy, we recognize that the total supply is where we believe wealth is measured and created is in the production of goods and services.

So this, to me, is the entire point of economics. And it captures the most important monetary lesson as well, that when the government creates more money than the economy is growing, you do get inflation—and that was Milton’s statement, and Milton has never been proven wrong.

So is it easy to create a money supply that grows perfectly with the level of economy? It is not. And do governments through government spending and borrowing and other interventions do things on purpose to mess up this process? They certainly do. Milton famously said that in the 1970s, when they were really quite determined to do a lot of really bad things.

But I think that's a good overview for how to think about inflation. It is not the mere increase of money supply, nor did Milton say that. It is monetary to the extent that what we're talking about is the money supply exceeding the growth of the economy.

EICHER: Ok, David Bahnsen is founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group.

David’s latest book is Full Time: Work and the Meaning of Life, and you can find out more about it by visiting fulltimebook.com.

David, I hope you have a great week and we’ll talk to you next time.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, March 4th. 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. Ten years ago, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappears.

On this day 235 years ago the U.S. Constitution takes effect.

EICHER: But first, the death of theologian Thomas Aquinas. Here’s WORLD Radio executive producer Paul Butler.

PAUL BUTLER: Thomas Aquinas died 750 years ago this week on March 7th, 1274. He was only 48 years old. In his short life, he wrote dozens of religious books and commentaries. He preached hundreds of sermons. He was a dynamic teacher, persuasive lecturer, and effective debater—not just in theology, but philosophy as well.

BARRON: Thomas Aquinas’s contribution to the church and to Western culture in general has been so massive, it's difficult even to get a grip on him.

Robert Barron is bishop of the Winona-Rochester Minnesota Diocese. Audio here from his brand new documentary: “Journeying with Thomas Aquinas.”

BARRON: He was philosopher, scientist, biblical commentator, theologian, mystic. And above all, a saint…deeply in love with Jesus Christ. And the whole purpose of all his writing was to place us on the road to Christ.

Thomas Aquinas was a prolific writer. His most famous work is his systematic theology: the Summa Theologiae. Audio here from a Librivox recording, read by Jim Ruddy.

JIM RUDDY: We purpose in this book to treat whatever belongs to the Christian religion in such a way as may tend to the instruction of beginners…We shall try, by God's help, to set forth whatever is included in this sacred science as briefly and clearly as the matter itself may allow.

Thomas Aquinas views theology as a science, believing that reason, Christian tradition, and the careful, faithful study of the scriptures leads to truth. The existence of God and his attributes are knowable, observable, and certain. Aquinas’s five arguments for God are still used by Christian apologists today.

In 1274, Pope Gregory X convenes the Second Council of Lyon in hopes of reuniting the eastern and western Christian churches. He summons the great thinker and Biblical scholar to attend.

On his way to the council, Aquinas strikes his head on the branch of a fallen tree. He never fully recovers. He dies a few days later.

Thomas Aquinas’s mysticism and spiritual visions make many modern Christians uncomfortable. But according to Evangelical theologian and history professor Carl Trueman, Aquinas’s high view of the scriptures, his love of Christ, and his tenacious search for God’s truth in the natural world make for worthwhile reading.

TRUMAN: He's a daunting figure to think of, he perhaps has a bad press in Protestantism, but he's very well worthwhile reading as a faithful representative of Augustine theology of grace. And as somebody who wrestled with great clarity with the doctrine of God and the revelation of God in Scripture.

Next, 235 years ago today, the 1st U.S. Congress meets and declares the constitution in effect. The founding government includes 9 senators and 13 representatives in Congress and George Washington is President, but no Supreme Court justices until later in 1789. It’s a small start, but the document that organizes the government marks a big change in how the United States governs itself.

Hillsdale College professor Larry Arn:

LARRY ARN: And so, in America, it is different, because unlike Athens, unlike England, unlike even Sparta, all the sovereignty is ours. We may not be governed except by our consent. And we don't give it no governing. All government is illegitimate except with that.

Rather than an aristocratic collection of families making the decisions, majorities with the ability to vote would elect representatives to govern on their behalf.

 ARN: And Madison says that it's never happened before. It's so unique…But those people the sovereign are entirely excluded from the operation of the government. Do you see now how the first check on the government is that we must consent. But the second check on the government is that we who have the power to consent, do not run the government. And that second check is a check on us.

And finally today,

NEWSCLIP: Breaking news tonight a Malaysia Airlines flight with 239 people on board including four Americans has gone missing.

10 years ago, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappears, prompting the most expensive search effort in history, and one of the most enduring aviation mysteries.

NEWSCLIP: Saturday March 8, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 takes off from Kuala Lumpur for what was supposed to be a six hour flight to Beijing.

Shortly after takeoff, the plane’s transponder goes silent and the plane disappears from radar.

NEWSCLIP: 17 minutes pass before anyone asks about the now missing plane at 1:38am.

Eventually, air traffic controllers in Vietnam ask their counterparts in Kuala Lumpur about Flight 370, but they and other towers around the region confirm they haven’t heard anything.

NEWSCLIP: Meanwhile, we now know the plane made its mysterious turn flying over the Malaysian peninsula, changing altitude disappearing at times from radar only to reappear…

It later turns out the plane stayed in the air several more hours, and a satellite picks up a signal at 8:11am, nearly seven hours after the plane went missing.

Rescue teams spend months looking for evidence of a crash hoping to find the plane’s black box and clues to why it disappeared. Finally, in July 2015, part of a plane wing washes up on the French island of Reunion near Madagascar.

NEWSCLIP: Today Malaysia confirmed what we all suspected, debris on an island in the Indian Ocean is from the Boeing triple seven that vanished nearly 18 months ago with 239 people on board.

In the decade since Flight 370 went missing, experts and amateurs have offered many theories about what happened. A murderous pilot, a cover-up by the Malaysian government, even alien abduction. A multinational investigation spent tens of millions of dollars over four years trying to learn the truth.

On this 10th anniversary of the disappearance, family members want to reopen the investigation.n Audio here from Sky News, Australia.

FAMILY: We need to raise this again to try and get the search started so that we can get those answers. We need that finality for us. You know, it's too hard.

That’s it for this week’s History Book. I’m Paul Butler.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, with voters in 15 states going to the polls. We’ll talk about what it means. And, Classic Book of the Month for March: Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s book, Life Together. 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 women) found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, ‘Why do you seek the living among the dead?’” —Luke 24: 2-5

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.